R-2246

1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director

April 21, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John 1?4,
From: John Henness
;IZIC
F I ?Wu
NCDENR
Subject: Comments on FONSI for Concord/Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension, NC49 to SR
1555, Federal Aid Number STP-OOOS(46), State Project # 8.2661601, TIP #R-2246
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S.
including wetlands. Based on the information provided in the FONSI, we are unable to determine the total
amount of impact resultant from the project. The information may be available in the original EA; however,
no copy of the original EA can be found in our files. Furthermore, the FONSI does not provide any
quantification or itemization of the total impact after the discussed avoidance and minimization processes,
irrespective of the original EA. We believe there are several unresolved issues associated with this project
that require more information prior to an issuance of a FONSI. We are not necessarily indicating our
opposition to the project, rather that more information be provided so that we may feel comfortable in
determining "No Significant Impact". The DWQ offers the following comments based on review of the
aforementioned document:
A) Total anticipated impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams were not presented in the FONSI.
Numerous realignment activities and interchange modifications were undertaken to reduce impacts
to natural resources. However, no post alignment listing of impacts is presented. From the
correspondence presented as an attachment in the FONSI, apparently over 4 acres of wetlands
were originally proposed. A table of impacts that references their location on th? provided
mapping for the entire project is all that is needed. The NCDO'I is respectfully reminded that they
will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to
the maximum extent practical prior to approval of the 401 Water Quality Certification. Should the
actual impacts to jurisdictional wetlands actually exceed 1.0 acres, mitigation may be required in
accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)}.
B) In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. Based on the
information presented in the FONSI, it is not possible to determine the amounts and nature of
impacts to streams. We would like to request an itemized listing of impacts and corresponding
map references be developed and presented for review prior to the issuance of a FONSI. In the
event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
/ b
Melba McGee Memo
04/23/99
Page 2
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
C) There is no discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If possible, it is best to
present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. The
NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical; however, it should be noted that
appropriate mitigation plans will be required pursuant to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
D) Referring to the comments presented by the Corps of Engineers, they had expressed concern for
the northern alternative for the US 29interchange. The FONSI maintains the northern alternative
and presents a series of avoidance and minimization activities for the alternative. Furthermore, a
perfunctory discussion about why the other alternatives were omitted is presented. We believe that
a more detailed explanation as to why the other alternatives were eliminated is warranted. Again,
we are not necessarily opposed to the northern alternative. Rather, we feel a more detailed
discussion is appropriate. Finally, if the Corps of Engineers deems the northern alternative (in its
present form) is acceptable, we would probably defer to their judgement.
E) Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
F) Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
G) The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management.
H) Based on the information presented in the EA and the FONSI, a individual permit will be
submitted to the Corps of Engineers; therefore, a 401 General Certification will not be available
for this project. A 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality
to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit
authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written
concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on
appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent
practical and inclusion of appropriate mitigation where necessary.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Mike Parker, NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
C.\iicdot\TIP R-2246\ R-2246 Comments.doc

Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
Date: `'I-;? -99
Env Sciences Branch (WO Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW)
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401, construction)
O Cyndi Bell (Dun
O Eric Fleek (dredging)
O
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES)
0 Bradley Bennett (Stormwater)
0 Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th)
PROJECT:
DENR # 9 9 - a 607
DWQ # 10 x-130
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston -Salem
Planning Branch (Archdale 61h)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Annette Lucas (management planning)
O Jeff Coutu (water supply)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
O
O
Gloria Putnam, Local Government Assistance Unit, Planning Branch, 6th Floor, Archdale
T -
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE: -,?? - 9 7
© NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED
Name:
Date:
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
4
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mis:\circmemo - mac version
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and jntergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date Received: Date Response Due (fum deadline):
9- CC_? cryv"? t a
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? Air ? Soil & Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Water ? Coastal Management
? Mooresville ? Groundwater Wildlife ? Water Resources
LOH
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Environmental Health

? Washington ? Recreational Consultant *Orest Resources ? Solid Waste Mgmt
? Wilmington ? Land Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Winston-Salem *arks & Recreation ? Other
?*Itttmlality
? Groundwater
? Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
? No objection to project as proposed.
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Other (specify or attach comments)
KETU" TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
. ,
Concord-Kannapolis
Westside Bypass Extension
NC 49 to SR 1555 (Grand Canyon Road) Southeast of I-85
Cabarrus County
State Project No. 8.2661601
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(46)
T.I.P. No. R-2246
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
r
% zlnln V / v. D to William D. Gilmore, P. E., anager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Z
D Ate is L. Graf, P. E.
,POA. Division Administrator, FHWA
Concord-Kannapolis
Westside Bypass Extension
NC 49 to SR 1555 (Grand Canyon Road) Southeast of I-85
Cabarrus County
State Project No. 8.2661601
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(46)
T.I.P. No. R-2246
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Document Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, By:
William B. Kinlaw
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM, Unit Head
Project Planning Engineer
Jf 4Q
SC f,
e
6944
Rich B. Davis, P. E., CBM, Manager '6c i; ``i?C! ` •• ??:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis F fWr
"?a?lliill+?•"1
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Impacts to surface waters in the area may occur via runoff from project
construction. Precautions will be taken to minimize potential impacts to off-site
water quality resources. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines shall be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project to prevent increased sedimentation to
off-project surface waters.
2. The N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted by the contractor prior to
construction regarding any relocation of existing markers along the project.
Any open burning associated with this project will be in compliance with 15A
NCAC 2D.0520.
4. If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction of this project,
plans for the water line relocation(s) will be submitted to the Division of
Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Plan Review Branch, prior
to construction.
Right of way acquisition will avoid any hazardous waste sites identified because
of environmental liabilities for proper cleanup and remediation if contamination
exists. If acquisition of a particular property cannot be avoided, a preliminary site
assessment shall be performed by NCDOT's Geotechnical Unit on each site to
determine the existence and the extent of any contamination.
6. The disposal of trees removed as a result of this project is totally at the discretion
of the contractor and will be done in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances,
regulations, etc.
NCDOT's Natural Systems' staff will coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) to delineate the remaining jurisdictional wetlands and
surface waters in the Spring of 1999.
8. NCDOT's Natural Systems' staff will delineate the boundary of the Basic Oak-
Hickory Forest (a Priority Natural Area - North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program) near the US 29 interchange in the Spring of 1999 to determine the full
extent of the project's impact on this natural community.
9. NCDOT's Natural Systems' staff will consult with Division of Water Quality on
the wetland mitigation plan after the completion of the jurisdictional wetlands and
surface waters delineation (see Commitment #7).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. TYPE OF ACTION .......................................................................................... 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ I
III. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 2
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ........................................................... 3
A. Circulation Of The Environmental Assessment ................................... 3
B. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment .................... 4
1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington ............................ 4
2. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services-Asheville .............................. 6
.
3. DENR, Division of Parks and Recreation .................................
6
4. DENR, NC Wildlife Resources Commission ........................... 7
5. DENR, Division of Air Quality ................................................ 7
6. DENR, Division of Water Quality ............................................ 7
7. DENR, Forest Resources .......................................................... 9
C. Pre-Hearing Open House ...................................................................... 9
D. Public Hearing ...................................................................................... 10
E. Permits .................................................................................................. 11
V. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 11
A. Natural Resources Technical Report ..................................................... 11
B. NC 49 Intersection ................................................................................ 12
C. MotorSports Park .................................................................................. 12
D. US 29 Interchange ................................................................................. 12
E. Sheffield Manor Traffic Noise Abatement ........................................... 13
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................. 14
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 4 - NC 49 Intersection
Figure 5 - US 29 Interchange
Figure 6 - Sheffield Manor Subdivision
Figure 7 - Wetland Delineation (US 29 Interchange)
APPENDIX
A - Public Hearing
B - Agency Comments
Concord-Kannapolis
Westside Bypass Extension
NC 49 to I-85
Cabarrus County
State Project No. 8.2661601
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(46)
T.I.P. No. R-2246
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any significant impacts
on the human environment or natural environment. This FONSI is based on the
Environmental Assessment (EA) which was approved on September 30, 1996. It has
been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. It provides
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and
content of the EA.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to construct an extension of the Kannapolis Westside Bypass from
NC 49 to Grand Canyon Road (SR 1555), southeast of the I-85 interchange on Crisco
Road (SR 1430) (See Figures I and 2). The proposed project consists of constructing a
multi-lane facility composed of a four-lane, median divided section on 61 meters (m)
[200 feet (ft)] of right of way between NC 49 and Poplar Tent Road (SR 1394) and a
five-lane curb and gutter section on 24 m (80 ft) of right of way between Poplar Tent
Road and Grand Canyon Road (SR 1555), southeast of the I-85 interchange on Crisco
Road (SR 1430).
The project is included in the 2000-2006 Draft Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in the fiscal year 2001 and
construction is scheduled to start in fiscal year 2003. The total cost included in the TIP is
$36,260,000. The total cost includes $1,135,000 in prior years cost; $9,275,000 for right
of way acquisition; $4,650,000 for construction; and $21,200,000 for post year
construction.
III. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The purpose of this project is to implement a segment of the Kanlacon (Concord-
Kannapolis-Landis-China Grove) Thoroughfare Plan (Figure 3) by providing an
important link in the outer loop thoroughfare system.
This facility, which provides a connection to I-85 and improved access to the
western segments of Cabarrus County, will remove traffic from existing congested
facilities (US 29 and US 29A), major traffic arterials linking Concord, Kannapolis,
Landis, and China Grove. The existing facilities are encumbered by signals, numerous
street and driveway connections, substantial roadside interference due to abutting
development, speed zone restrictions, and turning traffic. These conditions result in
limited capacity, slow travel speeds, time delays, congestion, and an unacceptable level of
service. The proposed facility will improve all these existing conditions.
No significant impacts to plants and animal life are expected. Impacts to wetlands
will be minimal. No federally protected threatened or endangered species will be
impacted. No sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places will be involved. No
prime farmland impacts are expected. The proposed improvements will not cause
significant negative impacts to air quality.
It is predicted 98 residences and 5 businesses will be impacted by traffic noise
from the proposed project in the design year 2020. The following table shows the
predicted maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours:
Description
1. NC 49 to Roberta Rd.
2. Roberta Rd. to Weddington Rd.
3. Weddington Rd. to Poplar Tent Rd.
Maximum Predicted
Leq Noise Levels
dBA
15m 30m 60m
Contour
Distances
(Maximum)
72 dBA 67 dBA
70 66 61 23m 41m
71 67 62 27m 46m
72 68 62 29m 48m
4. Poplar Tent Rd. to Grand Canyon Rd. 71 67 62 27m 45m
Notes: 1. 15 m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
This information was included in Table N5 of Appendix C (Traffic Noise
Analysis Tables) of the Environmental Assessment. It is shown here to assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent
to the roadway within local jurisdiction. It should be noted that in accordance with
NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State governments are no longer
responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development for which
building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the
Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed
highway project will be the approval date of the Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No
Significant Impact, Record of Decision, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes
later. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing
bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the
proposed facility.
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation Of The Environmental Assessment
The EA was approved by FHWA on September 30, 1996 and subsequently
circulated to the federal, state, and local agencies listed below. An asterisk (*) denotes
those agencies responding with written comments. Substantive comments are discussed
in the following section and copies of the correspondence are included in the appendix of
this document. The EA was also made available to the public for review and comments.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-Asheville
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency-Atlanta
* U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service-Asheville
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service-Raleigh
U. S. Soil Conservation Service-Raleigh
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
* N. C. Division of Parks & Recreation
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N. C. Division of Water Quality
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Cabarrus County Commissioners
* Cabarrus County Manager
Mayor of Concord
Mayor of Kannapolis
3
B. Comments Received On The Environmental Assessment
1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
Comment 1: "From a review of the Panels 115 and 80 of the November
1994 Cabarrus County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), indications are that there are two
approximate study streams, (Wolf Meadow Branch and an unnamed
tributary to Coddle Creek), and Afton Run, a detailed study stream, which
may be crossed by the proposed improvements. Although impacts to
approximate study streams are referred to in the flood hazard evaluation
on page 37 of the Environmental Assessment (EA), it is stated that no
detailed study streams are involved."
Response 1: Afton Run in the area of the proposed I-85 interchange
(T.I.P. Project U-2009A) is outside the study limits of this project (see
section H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION). The limits of
the U-2009A project were shifted to Grand Canyon Road (SR 1555) and a
detailed evaluation of the Afton Run stream impacts associated with the
U-2009A Categorical Exclusion is included in the ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION, approved on December 3, 1998. This
addendum addressed stream impacts not fully assessed in the Categorical
Exclusion for the proposed I-85 interchange addition at Crisco Road
(SR 1430).
Comment 2: "The proposed interchange with I-85 impacting Afton Run
and adjacent wetlands (1.38 acres) is below the headwaters point on this
stream and will require an individual Department of the Army (DA)
permit."
Response 2: See Response 1.
Comment 3: "The proposed endangered species surveys for the Carolina
heelsplitter and Schweinitz's sunflower should be completed prior to
submitting a DA permit application with the survey results included with
the application."
Response 3: See section V. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, subsection A. Natural Resources
Technical Report.
4
Comment 4: "We do not concur with the selection of the north
alternative for the interchange at US Highway 29. According to the EA
this alternative would impact a 1.4-acre depressional swamp forest. This
wetland type is rare in the state and is of particular value for scientific and
educational study, regional ecological diversity, and as amphibian
breeding habitat. We believe that the south alternative interchange
location is the least environmentally damaging practical alternative. We
also see no evidence in the EA that the cost of mitigating for this
depressional swamp wetland was considered in the alternative selection
process."
Response 4: The North Alternative at US 29 was selected as the
recommended alternative due to its lower cost than the Middle and South
Alternatives, fewer relocatees, and avoidance of approximately 0.60
hectares (1.4 acres) of wetland involvement. The avoidance of wetlands
was based on the original natural resources technical report included in the
Environmental Assessment (approved on 9/30/96). In a later field
investigation performed by NCDOT's Natural Systems' staff, this wetland
area was located further north than originally stated. The proposed partial
cloverleaf interchange was redesigned to be a single-point diamond
interchange, reducing the required right of way needed (see Figure 5). In
addition to the reduced right of way, this allowed the interchange
intersection with US 29 to be shifted approximately 150 feet further
southwest to abut the Christy property where the original interchange right
of way had been located. Based on the most recent site visit by NCDOT
Natural Systems' staff (1/3/99), no wetlands were identified on the Christy
property south of the proposed interchange. The wetland area located on
the Concord side of the proposed US 29 interchange was identified as the
depressional swamp forest (designated as site #10 in the EA). Three
wetlands were delineated in this 1.4-acre depressional swamp forest
(McLaughlin Road Basic Forest, a Natural Heritage Priority Area). As a
result of the downsizing and alignment shift of the US 29 interchange
(minimization and avoidance), the impact on the identified McLaughlin
Road Basic Forest has been reduced and no wetland involvement is
associated with this interchange (see Figure 7).
Comment 5: "We are concerned over an apparent breakdown in
coordination efforts on this project. There seems to have been no
intermediate review between the scoping letter and the final environmental
document allowing us to comment on the selection of alternatives or to
conduct a field review of the intended wetland impact areas. We do not
support signing a FONSI for this project until the issue of alternative
selection is resolved."
Response 5: See Response 4.
5
2. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
Comment 6: "...if we are asked to review a Section 404 wetlands permit
application for this project, we will likely recommend to the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers that on-site compensatory mitigation, if options exist,
be considered."
Response 6: None
3. DENR. Division of Parks and Recreation
Comment 7: "...we will need to see the results of the survey for the
Endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) before we
can approve a FONSI for this project."
Response 7: Surveys for the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii) were conducted during a site visit on October 27-28, 1998 by
NCDOT biologists. Seethe conclusions in section V. REVISIONS AND
ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
Comment 8: "...we have concerns about the possible impacts of this
project on the McLaughlin Road Basic Forest, a Natural Heritage Priority
Area. From the document (p. 17), it appears that the road widening
associated with this project will have an impact on at least the edge of this
site. Once again, we request that the alignments be adjusted to avoid this
area. We would also like this site to be considered as a possible mitigation
site for the wetland losses associated with this project."
Response 8: See Response 4.
Comment 9: "The document also reports the discovery of a population
of Carolina birdfoot-trefoil (lotus helleri), a candidate for state listing and
a federal Species of Concern (formally a C2 candidate species). Since this
population will be entirely obliterated by the road project (p. 28), we
request that the NC Plant Conservation Program be contacted about the
possibilities for salvage."
Response 9: The NC Plant Conservation Program (Department of
Agriculture) was contacted and indicted that more sites of the Carolina
birdfoot-trefoil (lotus helleri) have been found in recent years and they
have no interest in this site.
4. DENR, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment 10: "...we remain concerned over possible effects of the project
on protected species. We recommend that NCDOT complete protected
species surveys prior to the distribution of environmental documents to
avoid future delays."
Response 10: Surveys for protected species were conducted during a site
visit on October 27-28, 1998 by NCDOT biologists. See the conclusions
in section V. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT.
Comment 11: "We request that NCDOT design the project to avoid
wetlands to maximum extent practicable."
Response 11: NCDOT has redesigned the proposed partial cloverleaf
interchange at US 29 to a single-point diamond interchange. This type
interchange reduces the needed right of way and reduces the wetland
impact in that area (see Response 4). Other wetland impact areas along
the project are associated with stream crossings. The proposed project in
most of these areas follow existing roads, resulting in perpendicular
crossings. A perpendicular crossing impacts a stream less than other
angular crossings. The project will be coordinated with the resource
agencies and designed to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable.
5. DENR, Division of Air Quality
Comment 12: "Any burning of land clearing debris must be in accordance
with 15 NCAC 20.1900."
Response 12: All burning of land clearing debris will be in accordance
with 15 NCAC 20.1900.
6. DENR, Division of Water Ouality
Comment 13: "The project length is 10.5 Ian. (Section C.1.). The project
length as described in the Cross-Section is 9.75 km (Section C.3.). This
discrepancy should be resolved in the FONSI."
Response 13: T.I.P. Project U-2009 was extended to Grand Canyon Road
(SR 1555) on Crisco Road southeast of the proposed I-85 interchange.
Therefore, the project length should be reduced from 10.5 km to 9.75 km.
(See also section IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS, subsection
E. Permits of this document.)
Comment 14: "DWQ recommends that the new location segments should
have full control of access (no driveway connections). This should
maintain a high LOS from this project. Should DOT continue to propose
partial control of access, the FONSI should discuss secondary impacts to
water quality and wetlands."
Response 14: The new location segment between Roberta Church Road
and Weddington Road will have full control of access (no driveway
connections) on the eastern side (Concord side) while the western side will
be partial control of access between the US 29 interchange and
Weddington Road. Partial control of access generally allows one
driveway per property. Additional driveway connections requests will be
submitted to the Division office for consideration. Mr. Trent Propst, who
owns 330 acres of industrial land between US 29 and Weddington Road,
requested access to the proposed bypass. The Weddington Road Coalition
of Neighborhoods supported Mr. Propst's request because they want to
maintain the residential nature of Weddington Road. Truck traffic is
currently banned along Weddington Road and they requested the ban be
continued due to the residential setting and for the safety of the school that
is located off Weddington Road. They felt the denial of access along the
bypass from Weddington Road to US 29 would force traffic from the
properties to use either Weddington Road or Concord Farms Road to
access US 29. Full control of access will be in place for the high-density
residential districts south of Weddington Road. Zoning districts within the
project area are largely consistent with the Western Area Plan. Identified
ponds, streams, and wetlands between US 29 and Weddington Road are
primarily located within the US 29 interchange's full control of access
limits. The local municipality is responsible for controlling any new
development through the implementation of land use controls, zoning
ordinances, and subdivision regulations.
Comment 15: "Figure 19 shows that Wetland No. 10 is in the vicinity of
US 29. DOT proposes a diamond interchange on US 29. DOT should
avoid this wetland as much as possible. A % clover design should be
considered."
Response 15: See Response 4.
Comment 16: "DWQ should be consulted on the wetland mitigation
plan."
Response 16: DWQ will be consulted by NCDOT on the wetland
mitigation plan.
Comment 17: "The DEM has been renamed. The Water Quality Section
and the Groundwater Section were combined into the DWQ. The Air
Quality Section now is DAQ."
Response 17: None.
7. DENR. Forest Resources
Comment 18: "The Summary of Environmental Commitments does not
mention that the ROW Contractor will attempt to salvage all wood
products within the right-of-way."
Response 18: The disposal of trees removed as a result of this project is
totally at the discretion of the contractor and will be done in accordance
with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, etc.
Comment 19: "This project will impact a total of 38.5 acres of urban type
woodland."
Response 19: None.
Comment 20: "The Section on Construction Impacts does not mention
any provision for timber salvage."
Response 20: See Response 18.
C. Pre-Hearing Open House
An informal Pre-Hearing Open House was held in the Central Cabarrus High
School on July 15, 1997. The pre-hearing was necessary to reintroduce area property
owners to the project and inform them of any changes made since the citizen's workshop
(January 11, 1994). Approximately 100 people attended the informal pre-hearing,
including representatives from the NCDOT and officials from the City of Concord,
Cabarrus County, and the MPO.
Most property owners in attendance inquired as to how the proposed roadway
improvements would affect them and their property. Questions were answered
concerning the recommended location and design of the US 29 interchange (see section
V. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT). In
addition, numerous questions concerning the current project schedule, property access,
and where median crossovers would be constructed were received and answered.
Overall, there was little opposition to the proposed improvements while the majority of
the attendees from the surrounding community supported the project.
D. Public Hearing
A formal Public Hearing was held in the Central Cabarrus High School on
July 29, 1997. Approximately 175 people attended the hearing, including representatives
from the NCDOT and officials from the City of Concord, Cabarrus County, and the
MPO.
Generally, public comments concerned relocations and property access.
Businesses near NC 49 requested the NCDOT to re-examine the design of the NC 49
intersection (see section V. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT, subsection B. NC 49 Intersection, and Figure 4). Cabarrus County
requested a shift in the road alignment on Stough Road to avoid two proposed
Motorsports Park warehouses (see section V. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, subsection C. Motorsports Park).
Roberta Farms Subdivision, along Roberta Church Road, requested the proposed
road be shifted to the north to save the berms between Roberta Church Road and the
subdivision, to reduce the noise and air pollution, and children's safety at the school bus
stop at the entrance to their subdivision. They also requested a median crossover at the
subdivision entrance. NCDOT studied shifting the road further north, but this action
resulted in estimated higher costs and more relocatees due to the expanded right of way
needed. No additional benefits for the immediate area would result from such a move.
Therefore, the original design will remain. A median crossover was shown on the public
hearing map and will be constructed.
Philip Morris representatives and Mr. Steve Christy (Christy's Nursery) requested
a reduction in the impacts to their properties in the US 29 interchange area. The results of
the subsequent coordination is summarized in section Y. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, subsection D. US 29 Interchange, and
Figure 5.
A noise wall for Sheffield Manor was requested and is discussed in section
V. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,
subsection E. Sheffield Manor Traffic Noise Abatement, and Figure 6.
10
The project was endorsed by the Chief of Police (City of Concord), Jim Ramseur
(Concord City Council), Kenneth Geathers (Chairman, Cabarrus/South Rowan MPO),
and Alex Rankin, III (Chair of Cabarrus/Kannapolis Chamber of Commerce and member
of the Transportation Committee).
E. Permits
Since the Environmental Assessment (EA) report was approved, the northern
termini has been moved further south to Grand Canyon Road (SR 1555). Due to this shift
in termini, wetlands #6 and #12 (see EA) in the I-85 interchange area, and their associated
stream and ditch crossings are now addressed in the U-2009A project construction
consultation and the ADDENDUM TO CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (See Response 1
in section IV. COORDINATIONAND COMMENTS, subsection B. Comments Received
On The Environmental Assessment.)
V. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The following revisions have been made to the EA as approved by FHWA on
September 30, 1996.
A. Natural Resources Technical Report
The Natural Resources Technical Report prepared by Michael J. Baranski, Ph.D.,
February 3, 1995 and included in the Environmental Assessment for this project gave
Biological Conclusions of "Unresolved" for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) and the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Appropriate surveys
were conducted during a site visit on October 27-28, 1998 by NCDOT biologists to
resolve the issue and are as follows:
Schweinitz's sunflower
All areas that could potentially provide habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower were
walked and visually surveyed. Two know population (NCNB? Element Occurrence
numbers 003 and 022) of this species were visited just prior to the site visit to see if the
species were readily visible, and easily identified during this time of year. Only one
Helianthus sunflower species (H. microcephalus) was found during these surveys.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that Schweinitz's sunflower is not present
in the project area. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this
species.
11
Carolina heelsplitter
All perennial streams within the project area were visually assessed for potential
mussel habitat. These streams exhibit characteristics of streams in urbanized settings, and
are highly degraded by sedimentation, stream bank erosion, and likely, other sources of
pollution. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula gluminea) was the only bivalve species
observed in any of the streams. No mussel species (Unionids) were found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the Carolina heelsplitter is not present
in the project area. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this
species.
B. NC 49 Intersection (see Figure 4)
The intersection with NC 49 has been revised to eliminate free flow right turns
from NC 49 onto the bypass. This change was due to property development in the
vicinity of the intersection requiring access to the proposed project. The recommended
"T" type intersection will allow this access.
C. MotorSports Park
Two MotorSports Park buildings were approved for construction by the county
based on preliminary project mapping. Due to the proposed typical section and its
standard ditches and the need to stay completely off the Frank Liske Park land, it was
impossible to use the existing two lanes as originally planned. Thus, the road was shifted
away from the park which resulted in the right of way taking the race car storage
buildings. A revised alignment between the entrance to Frank Liske Park and the two
buildings was developed and approved. This alignment provided a shift of approximately
60 feet away from the buildings.
D. US 29 Interchange (see Figure 5)
Philip Morris, Steve Christy (Christy's Nursery), and the NCDOT met to discuss
the impacts the proposed US 29 interchange has on their individual properties. Philip
Morris offered the following concerns:
• The location of the partial cloverleaf interchange was only 500 feet from the
main employee and visitor entrance to the plant and it was not feasible for
Philip Morris to move the entrance.
• The interchange is inconsistent with the overall design of the project. (The
only interchange proposed along the project.)
12
The partial cloverleaf interchange will result in a minimum taking of 50 acres
of Philip Morris property.
Expansion of the tobacco warehouse building must occur along Roberta
Church Road. The location of the proposed partial cloverleaf interchange
makes it impossible for Philip Morris to expand its leaf tobacco warehouses.
The bypass takes existing berms along Roberta Church Road used to shelter
public view of tobacco warehouses.
Mr. Steve Christy wants to ensure that he will continue to have full movement
access to his business from US 29 and that his business will still have enough property
remaining after right of way acquisition to maintain an established and growing business.
The NCDOT considered four alternatives at US 29. The four alternatives were
1) a partial cloverleaf interchange with widening along Roberta Church Road to the north
[shown at the public hearing], 2) a partial cloverleaf interchange with widening along
Roberta Church Road to the south, 3) a single point diamond interchange, and 4) an
at-grade intersection. These alternatives were discussed with representatives of Philip
Morris and Steve Christy. The recommended design at US 29 will be a single point
diamond interchange, shifted approximately, 150 feet southwest of the original location
that was presented at the public hearing. The new right of way limits will result in a
minor amount of additional right of way being taken from Mr. Christy's property than
what was shown at the public hearing. A median crossover will also be provided on
US 29 to allow access to Mr. Christy's property from both directions on US 29. The
other residential impacts along Roberta Church Road that were shown at the public
hearing will remain the same.
E. Sheffield Manor Traffic Noise Abatement (see Figure 6)
The proposed right of way access control has been changed on the northeast side
of the project between Weddington Road (SR 1431) and the US 29 interchange to full
control of access. This change in right of way access was due to all previously proposed
street entrances to the project from the northeast side of the bypass have been eliminated.
Subsequently, a revised preliminary noise abatement analysis has been completed for the
abutting Sheffield Manor and Popular Green subdivisions. Based on preliminary data, a
noise barrier is likely to be installed for the 32 residential receptors impacted by the
proposed project. The average exterior noise level increase for the impacted receptors
will be approximately 19 dBA. As a result of this noise abatement analysis, a noise
barrier 4.2 meters (14 feet) high and 1129 meters (3703 feet) long will provide the
appropriate noise abatement to effectively eliminate all traffic noise impacts in this area.
The average noise reduction provided by the noise barrier is expected to be approximately
8.5 dBA. The cost of a concrete wall for this noise abatement is estimated to be
$521,300, or $12,715 per receptor. The final decision of abatement measures will be
made only upon completion of the final design of the project and the public involvement
process.
13
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the proposed project, documented in the Environmental
Assessment, and on comments received from federal, state, and local agencies and the
public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact upon the
human or natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement or further
environmental analysis will not be required.
WBK/plr
14
FIGURES
dVW NOIIV00l
90aZ - H
A1Nn00 SnHHV8d0
58-10160 ON
NOISN31X3 SSddA8 3aIS1S3M
SIIOddNNV)I- aHOONOO
HJNVHH
'Id,LN,,1WNOIIIAN'I (INV )NINNd'IEI
SAVMH:)IH.•IO NOISIAM
NOI,Ld.L21OcISNVHI
rl0 ,LN?1W,L2It'd a(( dNI'IOHVD HDION
nv!n
f
w I
.u
vid 9 I
log

Iasi 8 lmasuD
?
/sna /
v ,
,
?
6? y_
9 \
y
1 6
c,
d unoyl I [ •IIIA 4
+010
. n \ iw
silodeuue ^

AINnoo snHHvevO

103POHd N1038
1
e ?
Z/l el!w 0
?A ? '9 1?. t i L
f• ' ? .'' .s ? •'''• 9 ? ,1T • .... ? ? soar) _ ?'
VN -
t '
?T -?
1
yy V
1 ?
103f OHd UN3
VNIIOHVO H1HON

-
r e
?V? III IIJIN?
k '
4 r _
- '? If
1 4 wr' / i
Ik
A4!f14i" "- i IM'
74,
J t
- •1
I
O
00
Aff
?y+ f r j5 I ? /.?Aa ?
r,r i: 1 T k !? r
i
A'
4tV
I 0o'
X11 ? .
. ?y .f
21
.: r •,i••. 1 ""`?'il'Cw ........... .tn ?yw.r?,:.°.n.., ',...... •` y. " ....... r ,.
y fie' ,+ A`. 1/F a+,? ? ' : ; i,G- .`- ` ?•? ?2' ? ? i
y.n .... f .I lF.??
^ *!
?? ? ? ? r` (+l ! '?? I O r ? ?;- ?, rya
W
Sk,
? r
yl
Alp
PAP
?? rat^?• .. '? ?,:- ? ? r
?.?- -.... y .,
14
lei
k Ai.
'2 4 < Y, ,1
JAI
I? pvt M -,y.

I
`TT i 1
At
D<
f ? ?l
• r
?. 5
¦
ql-

W.f
?I,?rcu I.I?r: ? y
r

¦

ti
* may, ? ?? '. ,
/ t t t?
r?
- I

Q
r !! ` y
ii I w I?
Rid ? / _ ; •••t ? ? 1? .: ?.M ? .. ; ? i
i, ? ? ? •. 4 ? to t,. ? #/~.
a L'
i, rib • • 'Ii \ H? ?b •') ?? 1 ? ?+? r .r ": r 4?'i r ) ' „r. ? y?j ,?
&GO
t ?. ? ?r ••'A?v ?' ? AIL'* ? ? MOOS •- .?? r ? i
..,.e+4L? •l'? 1 _11}1,1` \ ' -.:! ` 0 `..? r.
Afl
i xC? ri i , tr r
rr A' Ar
,.
_ i awn •', ? ?" \ ` + 1i`?;•.•;??'.''?' * / D "?' >!i i wM +0
tF? d oNds ?r 1\; ?,,
ell
;'ffi/ - R i? 1. '^'1• _-\ , ?•?' , ? \` ?? .•'l •+? .. -?, ? --; - - r?? ,
I ? +?'?ii?r ,? 111 ? • ,}? M
I al K: x
_ +4 ? ? I I _ I Vt
_Ad
^iI
?? "IA1M. . I {
01
fta any .r
t f s
m
_ell
%
.
r 71 10
41
r?I r.
e , ' 1 1
,f .1t
low
itn-
... '9k:_ 'y.?.,?ey,,?.,;,r,?,+?i??,/F "?''??iPrA ? 1 1 1 •l?:t
?f
• • VIC
o
X
w
W
N
r
3 n i
as . res
icc,. •? • ova • gin3 % '
Ws.
adm , .
"I'll zo;` t
L2/S1 /, •?•tf r,. l
1'.
N

0
x U) W
J Z 7
.?
> O w F
d :-
w Z
'
as
o
z
a zU)0
z zd? U]?

Z E
U Ili Z
Z
J• w ED
Z

:ara UtD

4
1-
"G

t ,

NC 49
Westside
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
orf? TRANSPORTATION
I DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCII
CONCORD-KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
NC 49 TO 1-85
CABARRUS COUNTY
R-2246
NC 49 Intersection Figure 4
11
? yiY r"Y!? °. ?. ilk' ..??' ?. .ak ;_'? P ., a , h '.,x,.. , •,ata?.pmv!*?!«
r •f
r.?4' `??
G a ,?
,
,
J f
Y .x
i
i
us 29
• EXISTINI
"C'F-"1 ? r+w.,? Ate.. ::- ?? ???... Y'Y9'Y'YYM?kYY
A EXISTING RI

/M z
/41r
M, J

7
` 0 "
?. s?
I?i?YIY??'11?M?MY!¦ ?.
J
1 a
i

x \ Sp?0
023
?C
t' X37 0
/
0 ?
I 1
W it
A ? ? 1
N11 •
bi U
01 , 919
L.U
. N Fe rr' ell .
a N <9 ??
mz3
k ??p
9^'0C '?. 9L9
.
I ^ • \ '90-9
B?9x / 1 3 ? ?^'
/ 1 I a)
/ / s \ j b I
LEL
Li , J \1 ?j l l •9r9 ,l
'? 1 x 1
\ 1
It
(rqr9
a a
?? 'rl Y
3 vt Lr x
9
fibI
LF'9
N eQT,
r1 s -WZ tc ?
SL9 jQ2 \
•
x 9&9 yg9
819
LU z \
w
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Public Hearing

H.F. VICK, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION BLDG.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B:-1*UNT )P-
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
1'.0. WX25201. RAITICI I. N.C. 27011-5201 GARLAND B. GARRE17 JR.
June 26, 1997 SECRE I'ARY
TO: Secretary Garland Garrett, Jr.
FROM: C. B. Goode, Jr., P.E.
Manager
Citizens Participation Unit
RE: Notice of a Prehearing Open House and a Public Hearing on
the Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension from NC
49 to 1-85
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
R-2246: Under this project, it is proposed to construct a new roadway, part of
which will be on new location, between NC 49 at Stough Road to 1-85 at
Crisco Road.
CBGjr:cdh
cc: Mr. Carroll Edwards, Board of Transportation Member
Mr. Larry R. Goode, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. J. D. Goins, P.E.
Mr. B. G. Jenkins, Jr., P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. L. K. Bargbr, P.E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr., P.E.
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.

Mr. W. R. Brown, P.E. C
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P.E.
Mr. C. H. Casey, P.E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers
Ms. Rosy Goode
Mr. Ron Poole
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. B. G. Payne, Right of Way Agent
FHWA
(9
NOTICE OF A PREHEARING OPEN HOUSE AND A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE CONCORD-KANNAPOLIS WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
FROM NC 49 TO I-85
Project 8.2661601 R-2246 Cabarrus County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above public
hearing on July 29, 1997 at 7:00 PM in the Central Cabarrus High School,
505 Highway 49 South, Concord.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed alternate locations, right of
way requirements and procedures, relocation advisory assistance, and the Federal-
State relationship. The hearing will be open to those present for statements, questions,
comments, and/or submittal of material pertaining to the proposed i project. Additional
materials may be submitted for a period of 15 days from the date of the hearing to:
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. at P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
A prehearing open house will be held on July 15, 1997 between the hours of
4 PM and 7 PM in the Central Cabarrus High School. Department of Transportation
representatives will be present to answer questions and receive comments regarding
this project. Interested individuals may attend this informal open house at their
convenience during the above hours. There will be no formal session held at this open
house. An opportunity to register to speak at the public hearing will also be provided.
Under this project, it is proposed to construct a new roadway, part of which will
be on new location, between NC 49 at Slough Road to 1-85 at Crisco Road. Additional
right of way and the relocation of homes will be required because of the widening.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E. at
P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone].
A copy of the Environmental Assessment and a map setting forth the proposed
location and design are;available for public review at the Concord Planning
Department, 36 I?nion Street; gotncord and at the Community Development
Departments 765 South Main Street, Kannapolis.
NCOOT will-proyide ;auziliai ':aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the-meeting to comply;with the American Disabilities Act. To receive
special services, please;coont4ct UY.I?,: Goode at the above address or phone number or
fax [phone] to provide'ad?OGate notice prior to the date of the hearing so that
arrangements Can be made.:=?
CONCORD-KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS
EXTENSION
From NC 49 to I-85
Project No.. 8.266'1601
TIP No. R-2246
Cabarrus County
Prehearing Open House
Central Cabarrus High School
July 15, 1997
PURPOSE OF PREHEARING OPEN HOUSE
Welcome to today's prehearing open house for Project R-2246, the proposed Concord-
Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension from NC 49 to 1-85. The purpose of this open
house is to acquaint you with the details of the project and to provide you with the
opportunity to ask questions about the project prior to the upcoming formal public
hearing. Department of Transportation representatives are here to answer questions
and take your comments regarding this project. There is also a comment sheet
attached to this handout on which you may submit written comments. Comments
presented at this function will be reviewed and considered the same as the spoken and
written comments received at the formal public hearing.
PROJECT NEED
This project will implement a portion of the Cabarrus-South Rowan Metropolitan
Planning Organization Thoroughfare Plan by providing an important link in the outer
loop thoroughfare system. The proposed facility will provide a connection to 1-85 and
improve access to the western areas of Cabarrus County. The project will remove
traffic from the existing congested US 29 and US 29A which are major arterials linking
Concord, Kannapolis, Landis, and China Grove. It will also function as a suburban type
facility serving through traffic currently using US 29 as well as local traffic generated by
nearby development. These existing facilities are encumbered with traffic signals,
numerous driveway and street connections, substantial roadside interference because
of abutting development, speed zone restrictions, and turning traffic resulting in limited
capacity, slow travel speeds, time delays, congestion, and poor level of service. This
project will tie into Project U-2009 which is the Kannapolis Westside Bypass from 1-85
to Tuckaseegee Road in Kannapolis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is proposed to widen of existing roads, Stough Road, Roberta Church Road, and
Crisco Road, with the project corridor to a multi-lane facility. Crisco Road, from Poplar
Tent Road to the end of the project will be a 5 lane curb and gutter facility with
widening to the south. The rest of the project will be a 4 lane median divided facility. .
The section of the project between US 29 and Weddington Road will be on new
location. The widening of Stough Road across from Frank LiskePark will be entirely on
the south side away from the park. An interchange with US 29 will also be included in
the project. Widening on Roberta Church Road, east of the recommended US 29
interchange, will generally be to the north.
A minimum of 200 ft. of right of way will be required for the 4 lane median divided
section between NC 49 and Poplar Tent Road. A 100 ft. right of way width will be
required for the 5 lane curb and gutter section along Crisco Road between Poplar Tent
Road and 1-85. These right of way widths may vary to contain construction in some
areas.
Partial control of access is recommended for the proposed project, except for the US 29
interchange, which will have total access control. For partial control, each abutting
property will have access to the road, however, the number, location, and geometrics of
the access points may be governed by driveway regulations.
The total cost of the project is estimated to $34,725,000 which includes $25,500,000 for
construction and $9,225,000 for right of way. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to
begin in May, 2000 with construction scheduled to begin in 2002. All schedules are
tentative and subject to availability of funds.
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After the route is selected and the final design is completed, the proposed right of way
limits will be staked on the ground. Affected owners of property will be contacted by a
Right of Way Agent and a meeting will be arranged. The agent will explain the plans
and the property owner will be advised as to how the project will affect him. The agent
will inform you of your rights as a property owner. Professionals who are familiar with
real estate values will evaluate or appraise your property. The evaluations or
appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then a written offer will
be made to you by the Right of Way Agent. The current market value of the property at
its highest and best use when it is appraised will be offered as compensation. The
Department of Transportation must:
1. Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are a relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as a part
of the project, additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is
available. In addition to being contacted by a Right of Way Agent, you will also be
contacted by a Relocation Agent. This agent can provide you with assistance on
locations of comparable housing and/or commercial establishments, moving
procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses may be paid for you. Additional
monetary compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage
increases, increased value of comparable homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program
is available to assist business owners. Your Relocation Agent can explain this
assistance in greater detail.
THE PUBLIC HEARING
A formal public hearing will be held for this project on July 29, 1997 at this facility. The
hearing is held to solicit and gather public comments regarding this project. It is not
held to be a public debate between citizens and Department of Transportation
personnel or a debate among citizens with opposing views. It is held in a formal setting
and will be recorded so that a record is made. You may register to speak at this
hearing at today's prehearing open house or just prior to the public hearing. Those
who do not register will also be given the opportunity to speak. In addition, the
opportunity for written comments will be provided. These comments will be received for
a minimum of 15 days after the hearing and will be reviewed and addressed as though
they were spoken at the hearing.
COMMENT SHEET
Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension from NC 49 to I-85
Prehearing Open House
R-2246 Project 8.2661601 Cabarrus County
July 15, 1997
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COM ENTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E., Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
1 61- - 1.10
CONCORD-KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS
EXTENSION
A
From NC 49 to I-85
Combined Public Hearing
Central Cabarrus High School
July 22, 1997
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
This project will implement a portion of the Cabarrus-South Rowan Metropolitan
Thoroughfare Plan by providing an important link in the outer thoroughfare
system. The proposed facility will provide a connection to I-85 and improve access
to the western segments of Cabarrus County. It will function as a suburban type
facility serving both through and local traffic relieving other local facilities in the
area.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Department of Transportation's procedure for
including the public as a part of the project's planning process. The Department of
Transportation is soliciting your views on the location and design of the Concord -
Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension.
The Department of Transportation's views of the above are set forth in the
Environmental Assessment. Copies of this report have been and are available at
the Concord Planning Department and the Kannapolis Community Development
Department.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here you are urged to participate by making your
comments and/or questions a part of the Official Public Hearing Transcript. This
may be done by having them recorded here tonight, writing them on the comment
sheet and leaving it with a Department of Transportation representative here
tonight or by submitting them in writing during the 15 days following the public
hearing to:
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E.
Public Hearing Officer
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important,
however, that THE OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED
REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN.
Accordingly, debates, as such, are out of place at public hearings. Also, the public
hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the
alignment and design by a majority vote of those present.
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
All spoken and written comments received through the public involvement process
will be thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered before any final decisions are
made.
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This is a proposed Federal-aid Highway Project and will be constructed under the
Federal-aid Highway Program. Funding for this project will be 80% from Federal
funds and 20% from State funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for
the selection, scheduling, location, design, and construction of the project. The
Board is responsible for 100% of the maintenance of the roadway after it is built.
The Federal Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of
the previously mentioned activities to ensure that the project is designed and
constructed to Federal-aid standards.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: 6.5 miles
Typical Section: Crisco Road from Poplar Tent Road to the end of the project:
2-12 ft. lanes in each direction with a 12 ft. two way turn lane in
the center.
Remainder of project:
2-12 ft. lanes in each direction separated by a 46 ft. grass
median.
Right of Way: A minimum of 200 ft. will be required for the 4 lane section.
A minimum of 100 ft. will be required for the 5 lane section.
Additional amounts will be necessary for the interchange at
US 29 and at other locations to contain construction.
Relocations: 65 residences
3 businesses
Estimated Costs: Construction: $25,500,000
Right of Way: $ 9,225,000
$25,725,000
Schedule: From NC 49 to Roberta Road:
Right of Way Acquisition - January, 2004
Let to Contract - After 2004
From Roberta Road to Weddington Road:
Right of Way Acquisition - June, 2002
Let to Contract - After 2004
From Weddington Road to I-85
Right of Way Acquisition - June, 2000
Let to Contract - June, 2002
All schedules are based on the availability of funds.

¢
T
o O
s
V)
Z
0
U
w
J
Q
U
0
n v' -
0
w
0
L
0
L
3
c
O
c
s
O^I N
;t
co

r

i
r ? ?rv
M / \ M
3
u T
6

0

LLJ
C/7
cr-
W

Q
E

C13 E
cc:
c
a
E
U
o

W o
V N

Q
LL
0
r
t1J
U
a
LL

0
0
LL-

4
CO
W

Q
J

L1')
c
H
U W
Up
O
fD < n

0
Z
0
O °
U
W

N ?/?
V J
1

N Q

° J
W

N >
a D

m N +

Q
m o
a
_ c

W

n
m ? _= o

N >
0

N U-

C6
It
N
° w

' ?
>
Z
v
O a
J

0 W
M p
O
N
J
W

1
O
c
p
rma a a ppn;al ew"11* kr a mtp tXT me A", x? and txehc encheawnt oppornrkm are estaolaned at an &AwW oe k?el kv each PMKI bawd on m carok¦Ity,
aW may Nry in accarlsnce atn kderal and state k9M repuaements.) 0 - rdiotrs rypiol public par IMPO on opowturalms (apes dep(ndM upon SpeC1IC Proved)
L Dewelop Local Arm 71 uyhifat+e Plan
Study Initiation
- Conduct initial field trip
- Meet with local policy boards and technical staff
•- Conduct goals and objectives survey
• - Establish local steering committee (upon local request)
Data Colkcdon
- Collect socio-economic data (land use, population,
traffic volumes and employment data)
- Collect transportation network data
- Research environmental and cultural concerns
• - Receive input from various local area sources (needs,
problems, concerns, etc)
• - local area develops future year sooo-economic
forecasts
Data Analysis
- Model existing transportation network
- Generate design year vansportation information
- Conduct deficiency analysis
Discuss Findings with Local Area Policy Boards, Techniol
Staff, and Public
• - Discuss deficiencies with local area
• - Discuss possible alternative solutions
Plan Development
- Develop alternative plans
- Review project impacts
- Conduct cost-benefit analyses
- Discuss alternatives with kcal area staff and policy boards
- Conduct public information workshop(s)
- Discuss and resolve public comments with local staff
- Select recommended plan in cooperation with kxal
staff and policy boards .
Plan Adoption
• - Local government conducts public hearing(s)
•- Present plan for adoption by kcal goverrrnent and the
North Carolina Board of Tnaruportation .
Plan Implementation
- local government enforces land use contrails
D - Present project requests through TIP process
III. Develop 71raBSpofrtaRlon IBnplro+reaBerart
pnwrmu (77p1
• - Local governments select priorities to include in TIP
• - Board of Transportation holds annual public meetings
statewide to update the previous years TIP
- Traniscribe comments and material received at public
meetings. and submit to Transportation Board
- Transportation Board members work with NCDOT
staff to update TIP
9 - Release draft Transportation Improvement Program
to the press, public and governments for review.
- Finalize TIP following comments
- Board of Transportation adopts state TIP
• - Metropolitan Planning Organizations receive public
comment and approve local TIP
- Secretary of Transportation approves local TIPS
UL D nniiiW p & vh nnmrW DoCrI:lnaftr
Notify Public and Government Agencies of Project Study
0 - Hold citizen information workshops
- Evaluate comments received at workshops
0 - Form citizens advisory group to get local citizens
involved (upon local request)
Select corridors to be studied
- Identify feasible comdors and evaluate costs and
environmental impacts
• - Hold infomtation workshop on selected corridors
- NCDOT staff uses recommendations from local citizens,
governments and state agencies to prepare a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental
Assessment (EA)
Pre fate Draft Environmental Document
• - Make draft EIS or EA, which addresses the impacts of
each corridor, available to pudic and send to review
agencies and local officials for comment
9- Hold public hearing on location of corridor (10-day
comment period follows public hearing)
- NCDOT holds post hearing meeting and a corridor is
recommended using technical data and information
received in conjunction with the public hearing
- Notify public of selected corridor
Prepare Final Environmental Document
- Begin preliminary design of highway in selected
corridor (1)
- If final EIS/Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
required, send to State Clearinghouse (N.C. Dept
of Administration) and federal agencies for 30-day
comment period
- Send notification of Final EIS to Review Agencies and
Federal Register
Publish record of decision on preliminary design using
comments from public, review agencies and the FHWA
- Hold public hearing on project design (10-day public
cortrnent period follows public hearing) (1)
- Hold post hearing meeting where any changes in
design are made if necessary.
(1) T1tae WM ale CxnbrW YAM a imb A== br trow YrAW prcyem
® puedbal G/ Goren pardcWdon U* 1919) 250.1092
? Caiia&w Dapwumn of Trarnportsum Eo. Box 25201 RW gh, N.C. 27611
211196
COMMENT SHEET
Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension from NC 49 to I-85
Combined Public Hearing
R-2246 Project 8.2661601 Cabarrus County
July 29, 1997
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COM ENTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E., Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] _

Appendix B
Agency Comments
February 10, 1997
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Seotion
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1995, requesting our comments
on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for Concord-Kannapolis, Westside Bypass
Extension, NC 49 to 1-85, Cabarrus County, State project 8.2661501, F.A. Project
STP-OOOS(45), T.I.P. Project R-2246" (Regulatory Branch Action I. D. No. 199702169).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. There are no
Corps projects which would be impacted by the proposed improvements. Enclosed are
our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
BCF (wlencl and cy of inc. corres.):
CESAW-CO-R/Wright
CESAW-CO-RA/Lund
Page 1 of 2
February 10, 1997
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON;
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Concord-Kennapolis, Westsido Bypass
Extension, NC 49 to 1-85, Cabarrus County, State Project 8.2661601, F.A. Project
STP-000S(46), T.I.P. Project R-2246" (Regulatory Branch Action 1. D. No. 199702189)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC Bobby L Willis Special Studies and Flood Plain
Serviaos Section, at (9101261-4728
The proposed project is located partially within the jurisdictional limits of the city of
Concord and Cabarrus County, both of which participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program. From a review of the Panels 115 and 80 of the November 1994
Cabarrus County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM), indications are that there are two approximate study streams, (Wolf Meadow
Branch and an unnamed tributary to Coddle Creek), and Afton Run, a detailed study
stream, which may be crossed by the proposed improvements. Although impacts to
approximate study streams are referred to in the flood hazard evaluation on page 37 of
the Environmental Assessment (EA), it is stated that no detailed study streams are
Involved. Afton Run is located just south of the proposed terminus of the project at
1-85. We refer you to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for
'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments In Regulatory Floodways," copies of
which have been provided to your office previously. In addition, we suggest
coordination with the county and city of Concord for compliance with their flood plain
ordlnances and any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS- POC • Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Field Office,
Re ul o Branch at 704 271.4857
The proposed interchange with 1-85 Impacting Afton Run and adjacent wetlands (1.38
acres) is below the headwaters point on this stream and will require an individual
Department of the Army (DA) permit. Because the utility of the project is dependent on this
work, all impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands for the length of the project must be
included in the permit application. Wetland impacts and mitigation requirements will be
evaluated on a cumulative basis for the project as a whole.
The proposed endangered species surveys for the Carolina healsplitter and
Schwein&s sunflower should be completed prior to submitting a DA permit application with
the survey results included with the application.
It is recommended that a plan to mitigate for unavoidable wetland impacts also
accompany the permit application.
Page 2 of 2
February 10, 1997
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Concord-Kannspolis, Westside Bypass
Extension, NC 49 to 1-85, Cabarrus County, State Project 8.2661601, F.A. Project
STP-0008(45), T.I.P. Project R-2246" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199702189)
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: Continued
We do not concur with the selection of the north alternative for the interchange at
US Highway 29. According to the EA this altemative would impact a 1.4-acre depressional
swamp forest. This wetland type is rare in the state and Is of particular value for scientific
and educational study, regional ecological diversity, and as amphibian breeding habitat.
We believe that the south alternative interchange location is the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative. We also see no evidence in the EA that the cost of
mitigating for this depressional swamp wetlarid was considered in the alternative selection
process.
We are concemed over an apparent breakdown in coordination efforts on this project.
There seems to have been no intermediate review between the scoping letter and the final
environmental document allowing us to comment on the selection of alternatives or to
oonduct a field review of the intended wetland impact areas. We do not support signing a
FONSI for this project until the issue of alternative selection is resolved.
Any questions concerning Department of the Army permits should be directed to
Mr. Lund.
121118/98 FRI 12:57 M 704 258 5330 FWS ASHEVILLE
p United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WII.DLIFB SERVICE
' Asheville Field Office
t6o UNCOIL street
Ashevllle, North Carolina 28801
August 23, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
16002
FILE
Subject: Revised state environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact (FONSP for
the proposed Westside Bypass from 1-85 to Tuckaseegee Road, Kannapolis, Cabarrus
County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2009
In your letter of July 30, 1996, you informed us of the FONSI determination for the subject
project. The following comments are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the revised environmental assessment, this project will involve the construction of
a highway, partially on a new location, from I-85 to SR 1616 (Tuckaseegee Road) in Kannapolis
for a distance of 6.8 miles. The section of Crisco Road between 1-85 and NC 73 will be widened
from a two-lane facility to a five-lane facility; the remaining section from NC 73 to the
intersection of SR 1622 (Trinity Church Road) and SR 1624 (Boy Scout Camp Road) will be on
a new location. There will essentially be no control of access along the proposed highway. The
project will result in 2.1 acres of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters.
Specifically, Afton Run and an unnamed tributary will be impacted due to culvert or pipe
construction, and two palustrine forestcd wetland systems will be impacted. The purpose of this
project is to provide a north-south arterial route serving western Cab&= County and to function
as part of a circumferential route west of Kannapolis.
The Service has no major objections to the preferred alternative (Alternative A) because it uses
more existing roads. However, the preferred alternative. will result in the greatest wetland
impacts (estimated 2.1 acres). The Service appreciates the fact that the North Carolina
121118/98 FRI 12:57 FAX [phone] FWS ASHEVILLE

Department of Tniasportation will attempt to further minimize impacts to the two identified
wetland areas in the final design stage. Please note that if we are asked to review a Section 404
wetlands permit application for this project, we will likely recommend to the U.S, Army Corps
of Engineers that on-site compensatory mitigation, if options
exist, be considered. Additionally,
we appreciate the fact that surveys for federally listed species were conducted and that the
negative results were included in the assessment. The Service concurs with your determination
that the project as proposed should have "no effect" on federally endangered or threatened
species. In view of this, we believe the requirements under Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled.
However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if, (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect endangered or threatened species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the action. Finally, as pointed out in the assessment, the
Carolina darter (Etheostoma col&), a state special concern species, is Imown to occur in Afton
Run, downstreitn of the project area. The Service appreciates the fact that "best management
practices will be used and strict enforcement of erosion control will be employed" with regard to
the construction of this particular stream crossing over Afton Run. 'l die Service encourages
sedimentation and erosion control measures for high-quality waters in order to mini_ xW=
potential impacts to this rare fish species.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and concur with the FONSI
determination. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact 1,U. Janice
Nicholls of our staff at 704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence concerning this
project, please reference our Log Number 4.2-96-124.
Sincerely,
62?
I Allen RaWaff
Acting Field Supervisor
rA003
cc:
Ms, Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 320 S. Carden Street,
Marion, NC 29752
?M2Qn
01-13-97
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT ^c AY)MINTSTRATION
116 WEST ff1NES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAgOLTSIA 27603-8003
MATL70 TC:
E I V E
T
TMTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIc-W CIMMFNTS JAN 1 5 1997
i#
Cp `" Program Development Branch •
N-C- n=PT. OF TRANSPORTATICN "QS* CHRYS BAGGETT
WHTT W7RR DIRECTOR
vaMIGPAM nrV- IRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TPANSPORT&TIOM BLDG-/INTER-9FC
v
_ ? i
QP?^JFCT D?SCRIPTTON:
ENV. ASSESS. - P000OSED PEALIGNMFNT OF THE WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSIONt "
•
N!' 414 TO T-9171 CABARRUS COUNTY
TIP ft?-?.^45
SAT ,1^ 07c4,220133Q PRO;QAM TIT>_F - FNV- ASSESS•
THE ARnVE PP7,IFCT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THr NORTH CAROLINA
T4TGRGr7VFRNM7MTAL RFVT=W PROCESS. AS A RESULT OE THE RSVIFW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITT7D: ( ) NO CnMMI=NTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) Cr7MM1=NTS ATTACHED
S41ULD Y01) HAV7 ANY OIJ=STI?NSIF
PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]•
EI
O
C-C- PF*:Tn%I 7
JAN 17 " 1997i
ENVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
JAN f 5 996
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, LT MAI
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary pEHN R
Richard E, Rogers, Jr., Acting Director

MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0338 EA - Extension of Westside Bypass, Concord-Kannapolis,
Cabarrus County
DATE: January 10, 1997
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
environmental assessment for the proposed project.
We ask that the Department of Transportation continue to work with our agencies
to thoroughly answer their concerns in the final document and that every effort
be made to avoid and minimize environmental impacts during the final design and
construction stages. Concurrence with the FONSI will be conditional upon our
division's comments being satisfactorily addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
ATTACHMENTS RECEIVED
,JAN 13 1997
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, W 4 FAX [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
rf C An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
N A*
919-715-4148 50°,6 recycled/ 100% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
December 11, 1996
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall (-I
SUBJECT: EA -- Extension of Westside Bypass, Concord-Kannapolis
REFERENCE: 97-0338
The analysis of the potential impacts of this project on biotic resources appears to be quite
thorough, although we will need to see the results of the survey for the Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) before we can approve a FONSI for this
project.
As mentioned in our comments on the scoping phase for this project (Hall, 2/2/94), we have
concerns about the possible impacts of this project on the McLaughlin Road Basic Forest, a
Natural Heritage Priority Area. From the document (p. 17), it appears that the road widening
associated with this project will have an impact on at least the edge of this site. Once again,
we request that the alignments be adjusted to avoid this area. We would also like this site to
be considered as a possible mitigation site for the wetland losses associated with this project.
The document also reports the discovery of a population of Carolina birdfoot-trefoil (Lotus
hellen), a candidate for state listing and a federal Species of Concern (formerly a C2 candidate
species). Since this population will be entirely obliterated by the road project (p. 28), we
request that the NC Plant Conservation Program be contacted about the possibilities for
salvage.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 276 1 1-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE
T P I .Ci1u-52'x-9 _.' ? LcL I. _ -
_ K2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission m
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919M3-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO; Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 13, 1996
SU133EC1': North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension, NC 4()
to 1-85, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2246, SCI I Project No.
97-0338.
staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
LA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C... 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended-, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to construct a roadway, part on new location, from NC 49 to I-85, west
and south of the city of Concord. The project consists of constructing a four-lane divided
highway from N('49 to SR 1394, and a five-lane curb and gutter roadway from SR 1394 to 1-85.
The project length is approximately 6.5 miles. Estimated wetland impacts from the
recommended improvements total approximately 4.54 acres,
We generally feel that the EA adequately describes the wildlife and fishery resources in the
project area. However, we remain concerned over possible effects of the project on protected
species. We recommend that NCDOT complete protected species surveys prior to the
distribution of environmental documents to avoid future project delays. This information must
he included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to allow its to complete our review
of this project.
NCWRC, HCF' , FHLLS LHKE 1 tL :'_i1 :I c-Di
Memorandum
2
December 13, 1996
At this time, we concur with the EA for this project. We request that NCDOT design the
pr(Ijeci to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. We will likely recommend that
wetland impacts be covered under an individual `404' permit.
'T'hank YOU for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

i' State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
044nment of Environment. Health, and Natural Resources y ??n
PE7- umber. Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS > /,;;I ,
After review of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) "of approvals Indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse Of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the Same Normal Process
. _
L
?C
C
L
C
't.
L
C
t
t
l
i
1
...e.r...........?. -
(statutory time
1NERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS limit)
Per" to gonstrra t operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days afore begin construction or sward of 30 days
tadlHies, sewer system extensions. i sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post application
l
190 days)
eysteeu nM discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usua
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andwor Application 190 days befon begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities appli wastewater 11 on ?ne usu llacdyiora Additionally. obtain ale jet NPDES to geply
construct (NIA)
discharging into state surface waters. two. 30 days after @- 'pt of plans or issue of NPDES
parrnit-whichever is later.
30 aye
days
Water use Permit Pia application Ischnmcaf conference usually necessary (NIA)
7 days
Well Construction Permit
I Compile applintion must be sceivsd and permit. issued
prior to the rnstylation or a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian propeny 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of M days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct i operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
190 days)
facilities armor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21MMO ) NIA
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
W days
asbestos material must be in Compliance with 15A
NCAC 2DAM which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
(90 days)
19 0.
Complex Source Permit required under 16A NCAC 2D.NW.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1573 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion a sed+mentatwo
20 dais
control plan will be required H one or more acres to be disturbed. Pin filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslfy Sect.) at least 30 30 d
)
days before beginning activity A fee of S30 for the first acre end .00 for each additional sere or n must actor an the lam ays
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: 130 days)
On-sits inspection usual. Surely bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
90 da
s)
mined greater than one acre must be pernnfed. The appropriate bond y
1
rant be received before the permit can be Issued.
North Carolina Wring permit ?s lion by N.C. Division Forest Resources H permit 1 ay
(NIA)

Special Ground C*v@Wa Burning Permit .22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Rsaourees required "H more I ay
IN/A)
7 countless in ttttttstal N.C. with organic sofa than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. kdowttons
''
should be requested at least ton days before actual bum is planned.
90.120 days
?i
J ON Rafilth Fsomi" WA (NIA)
If permit required. application W days before begin a fraction.
Applicant mint fire N.C. qualified engineer to: psps+sa plans. 30 days
J Dam amely Pemit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EIINIR 8WOv.
190 ays)
ad plena. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is mass-
my to verily Hazard Ctaasif"son. A minimum fee of 111200A0 must Be-
eompany the appliwion. An addltiorW pmcs$sing fee based on a
peteent Or the total Project cost will be required upon CorrtpleirOn.
w me
ypnnnwo v.. •?••?
klarmai Pro ess
Time ,
D
D
D
0
D

'
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
(statutory
File surety bond of $5,000 with EMNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or pas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EMNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EMNR at Nast 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
I Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
Slate Lakes Construction Perrmii Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Mrduoe 15.20 days
descriptions 4 drawings of structure i proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian progeny-
W days
401 Waler puality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or rear the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27667, Raleigh. H.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 20.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested If "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2M.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as! necessary, being carton to cite Comment authority).
.ce w+1, jSNC C a0, 1
"k acC
rck
? b
t
(
I
5C70
.
.
e
?P-"r:n5 Qe
vr s ,
C&AcL t
(?- A,1 kirn,l,S of-
Q/-- A10 0 k7eCt kJ7
V.'t4/V? l? ??5 vti /? (tip y ?: C Tt?Y Cl r4-C? .? aS ??j 1 0? l r j l/ Z ?'

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Reptonal Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
69 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovis Building
Asheville, NC 25801 Fayetteville. NC 26301
(704) 25141208 [phone]
LCJ Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
(704) 8831699
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
(919) 94646481
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 7332314
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
NC DEM 1d0 ENVSCI FaX:c)19 9`1 ,9
State of North Carolina
Department :of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of: Water Quality
AmesB. Hunt,J'r,, Govemor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 30,1996
Der 711 '9F, I ' " F. 01`01
T4
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Do
From: Bric-Galamb
Subject: EA for Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass
Cabarrus County
State Project DOT No, 8,2661601, TIP # R-2246
IMM # 97-0338, DWQ # 11434
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance'-of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact
of waters of the state including, wetlands. The document states that 4.5 acres of wetlands and waters
will be impacted!by this project. DWQ offers the following comments on the EA:
A) The project length is 10.5 Ian. (Section C,1.), The project length as described in the Cross-
Section is-9.75 )an (Section C.3.) This discrepancy should be resolved in the FONSI.
B) DWQ reeornmends that the new location segments should have full control of access (no
driveway connections). This should maintain a high LOS. from this project. Should DOT
continue to propose partial control of access, the FONSI should discuss secondary impacts to
water quality and wetlands,
C) Figure 19 shows that Wetland No. 10 is in the vicinity of US 29. DOT proposes a diamond
interchange on US 29. DOT should avoid this wetland as much as possible. A 1h clover design
should'be considered.
D) DWQ should lie consulted on the wetland mitigation plan.
E) The DEM has been renamed. The Water Quality Section and the Groundwater Section were
combined Into the DWQ. The Air Quality Section now is DAQ.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DWQ would not preclude the derual of a 401
Certification upon application'if wetland and water impacts have.not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401. Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DWQ's
Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
Kannabp
cc: Asheville COE
Bill Kinlaw, DOT
P.O. BOX 29535, Raileigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Eep+s16ppoAunly ANFrtnative Action Employer 5MO nlCyC Wi10% P031 Consumer paper
Clayton, N.C.
November 25, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Leg. Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester C7 W
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Concord - Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension from NC 49 to 1-85
in Cabarrus County
PROJECT: #97-0338 and TIP # R-2246
DUE DATE: 12-10-96
We have reviewed the above subject document of September 30, 1996 and have the following
comments:
1. The Summary of Environmental Commitments does not mention that the ROW
Contractor will attempt to salvage all wood products within the right-of-way.
2. This project will impact a total of 38.5 acres of urban type woodland.
3. The Section on Construction Impacts also does not mention any provisions for timber
salvage.
4. We have no further comments.
6
f
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
Howard Williams - D12
File
CHAIRMAN: CLAYTON LOFLIN
VICE CHAIRMAN: ROBERT RANDALL
SECRETARY: JOYCE BOITER
TREASURER: GEORGE HIGGINS
CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
POST OFFICE BOX 35008 MIDTOWN PLAZA
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 1300 BAXTER STREET
704/372-2418 FAX [phone]
Concord City Manager
Kannapolis City Manager
,,Cabarrus County Manager
NC Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
This office has received the attached information about a proposal which could affect
your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension of
time for review, contact Cynthia Winfield immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and
return to this office by 12/9/96
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 97-0338
Commenter's Name Michael L. Byrd Title Transportation Planner
Representing Cabarrus County
(Jurisdiction)
Address Cabarrus County Planning Department
Post Office Box 707 Concord, North Carolina 28025
Phone [phone]
Date December 6, 1996
SEE ATTACHMENT
CABARRUS COUNTY concord harrisburg kannapolis mount pleasant GASTON COUNTY belmont bessemer city cherryville cramerton dallas
gastonia high shoals lowell mcadenville mount holly ranlo spencer mountain stanley IREDELL COUNTY harmony mooresville statesville
troutman LINCOLN COUNTY lincolnton MECKLENBURG COUNTY charlotte cornelius davidson huntersville matthews mint hill pineville
ROWAN COUNTY china grove cleveland faith granite quarry landis rockwell salisbury spencer STANLY COUNTY albemarie badin locust
new london norwood oakboro richfieid stanfield UNION COUNTY indian trail lake park marshville monroe stallings waxhaw wingate
i,
,,
L1
CANHUS COUNTY1
NO NIN IA8OIINA
December 6,1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Our staff has reviewed the environmental assessment of State Project Number
8.2662601 (Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension). The only comment
our office has is regarding the alignment along Stough Road (SR 1309). A
substantial amount of industrial development has occurred, and will continue,
along Stough Road.
Our office has, and will continue to, required additional setbacks for any
development that has frontage along Stough Road. This is done by the
Thoroughfare Overlay Zone (TOZ) of our Zoning Ordinance. The work that has
been done at our level, as expected, results in our preferring an alignment along
Stough Road following the existing centerline. This will allow NCDOT to have
reduced right-of-way costs, and strengthen our setback requirements that are
being used for this purpose.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Sincerely,

Michael L. Byrd
Cabarrus County
Transportation Planner
s

a err.. ,r' _•?.lln.? -.. fl 4. ?;r," Inspoc icr.
sl^ ; C u rr', ;n? e!3; ..Jj 73 81 2?
i' . C 0 'l(?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources r4i •
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Governor p FE N F1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 30, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass
Cabarrus County
State Project DOT No. 8.2661601, TIP # R-2246
EHNR # 97-0338, DWQ # 11434
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact
of waters of the state including wetlands. The document states that 4.5 acres of wetlands and waters
will be impacted by this project. DWQ offers the following comments on the EA:
A) The project length is 10.5 km. (Section C.1.). The project length as described in the Cross-
Section is 9.75 km (Section C.3.) This discrepancy should be resolved in the FONSI.
B) DWQ recommends that the new location segments should have full control of access (no
driveway connections). This should maintain a high LOS. from this project. Should DOT
continue to propose partial control of access, the FONSI should discuss secondary impacts to
water quality and wetlands.
C) Figure 19 shows that Wetland No. 10 is in the vicinity of US 29. DOT proposes a diamond
interchange on US 29. DOT should avoid this wetland as much as possible. A'/z clover design
should be considered.
D) DWQ should be consulted on the wetland mitigation plan.
E) The DEM has been renamed. The Water Quality Section and the Groundwater Section were
combined into the DWQ. The Air Quality Section now is DAQ.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DWQ would not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DWQ's
Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
Kannabp
cc: Asheville COE FAXED
Bill Kinlaw, DOT UEC 3
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509/ recycled/10 % post consumer paper
Environmental Bedew Tracking Sheet
DWO - Water Ouality Section
MEMORANDUM
u2za(0
TO: Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands
? John Dorney
,Eric Galamb (DoT)
? Greg Price (airports, coE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/oxw/xQw)
?
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
RECEIVED
Technical Support Branch ENVIRON
?v1ENTALS
? Coleen Sullins, P&E • II Lj
? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
Operations Branch
? Dianne Wilburn, Facility Assessment
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
Planning Branch ? Asheville ? Mooresville ? Washington
? ? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE:
0 &Vt ?
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
anv_ by the date indicated. 1.. Ir t A n /_
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
ml0circmemo.doc
w
Concord-Kannapolis
Westside Bypass Extension
NC 49 to I-85
Cabarrus County
State Project No. 8.2661601
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(46)
T.I.P. No. R-2246
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
D to H. Franklin Vick, P. E., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
1
Date F U/' *C, L. Gi af, P.
?DAdministrator, FHWA
Concord-Kannapolis
Westside Bypass Extension
NC 49 to I-85
Cabarrus County
State Project No. 8.2661601
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(46)
T.I.P. No. R-2246
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
William B. Kinlaw
Project Planning Engineer
Y4?- pine)
Linwood Stone, PM
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
2? •?
f SEAL
R. avis, P. E., Assistant Manager 6944 =
Planning and Environmental Branch ?.?
Summary of Environmental Commitments
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
A. Surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter and the Schweinitz's sunflower will be
conducted in summer-fall of 1996 and these findings will be included in the
FONSI.
B. NCDOT will include an erosion and sediment control plan, provisions for waste
materials and storage, storm water management measures, and appropriate road
maintenance measures to prevent the degradation of streams in the project area.
C. Best Management Practices will be employed consistently on the project.
D. All instream activities will be scheduled during low flow periods.
E. An Individual Permit will likely be required for the Afton Run crossing site. If an
Individual Permit is required for the Afton Run crossing, all sites will be
accumulated for mitigation purposes. Final discretionary authority rests with the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Based on preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended and
none is proposed for this project.
a
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
In Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
Description of Action - The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
Division of Highways, proposes to construct a highway, part on new location, west and
south of the City of Concord (see Figure 1). The proposed new road will connect NC 49
at Stough Road (SR 1309) with I-85 at Crisco Road (SR 1430). The proposed project
consists of constructing a four-lane, median divided facility on a minimun of 61 meters (m)
[200 feet (ft)] of right of way between NC 49 and Poplar Tent Road (SR 1394). Between
Poplar Tent Road and I-85, the proposed project consists of constructing a 5-lane curb
and gutter section on 24 m (80 ft) of right of way. The project is included in the
NCDOT's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 1997-2003. Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2000 and construction is scheduled to start
in fiscal year 2002. The total estimated cost of the project is $34,790,000. The total cost
included in the TIP is $35,450,000.
Summary of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have an overall positive
impact on travel demands within the Concord and Kannapolis areas. This facility will
improve traffic safety by removing traffic from already congested existing US 29 and
US 29A, and from major arterials linking Concord, Kannapolis, Landis and China Grove.
The proposed improvements are in conformance with the Western Area Plan, a small area
plan addressing the Westside Bypass Extension area, jointly adopted by the Cabarrus
County Board of Commissioners and the City of Concord Board of Alderman in 1992.
No properties surveyed within the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE) are
considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and no archaeological
resources were found within the APE.
The proposed project will have some negative impacts. These impacts include the
displacement of forty-nine (49) residences and no businesses. The Division of Highways
offers relocation assistance to help minimize the effects of these displacements.
Construction of the project will also result in a total of 103 receptors impacted by traffic
noise. The predicted noise increase is expected to range from 9 dBA to 29 dBA. No
noise abatement measures are recommended (see Section IV.C.9. Traffic Noise).
Construction will result in some delay and inconvenience to motorists, but this will be
short-term in nature. The potential increase in urbanization resulting from construction of
the proposed project can be managed through the implementation of land use controls and
zoning regulations.
Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, generally widening of existing
roads, no alternative corridors were studied. A short section of the project will be on new
location. The recommended asymmetrical widening (Sect. III.A.) best uses the existing
right of way, the existing roadways, and generally minimizes impacts to the project area.
Three alternative locations for the proposed US 29 interchange and two alignments along
the front of Frank Liske Park were studied.
The "Do Nothing" alternative was also considered, but rejected. The already
congested major arterials in the area will not be capable of carrying the projected future
traffic volumes.
Coordination - Several Federal, State, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. In addition to agency responses, local
residents offered verbal and written comments at a citizens informational workshop and
provided additional written comments after the workshop.
Actions Required by Other Agencies - Based on information currently available, it will be
necessary to apply to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the following
nationwide permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States": 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14) and 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26). It appears that an Individual
Permit may be necessary for one (1) potential wetland site, lying below headwaters and
larger than 0.1 ha (0.33 acre). [See Section IV. 5. Jurisdictional Wetlands for details.]
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity in
surface waters where a federal permit is required.
Additional Information - Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment
can be obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................... 1
A. General Description
B. Purpose of Project ........................................................................... 1
C. Summary of Proposed Improvements .............................................. 1
1. Project Length ..................................................................... 1
2. Project Termini .................................................................... 1
3. Cross Section ....................................................................... 2
4. Right of Way Width ............................................................. 2
5. Access Control .................................................................... 2
6. Bridges ................................................................................ 2
7. Drainage Structures ............................................................. 2
8. Design Speed ....................................................................... 3
9. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ......................... 3
10. Parking ................................................................................ 3
11. Sidewalks ............................................................................ 3
12. Utilities ................................................................................ 3
13. Bicycle Provisions ................................................................ 3
14. Railroads ............................................................................. 4
15. Cost Estimate ...................................................................... 4
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................. 4
A. Existing Roadway Inventory ............................................................ 4
1. Cross Section ....................................................................... 4
2. Right of Way ....................................................................... 4
3. Access Control .................................................................... 4
4. Drainage Structures ............................................................. 4
5. Speed Zones ........................................................................ 5
6. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ............................... 5
7. Sidewalks ............................................................................ 5
8. Utilities ................................................................................ 5
9. Railroads ............................................................................. 5
10. Bicycle Accommodations ..................................................... 5
11. Greenways ........................................................................... 5
12. Geodetic Markers ................................................................ 5
- 13. School Buses ....................................................................... 6
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan .............................. 6
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity (Level of Service) ............................. 6
1. Signalized Intersections ........................................................ 7
2. Unsignalized Intersections .................................................... 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
D. Accident History ............................................................................. 7
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED ............................................................................... 8
A. Recommended Improvements .......................................................... 8
B. Other Improvements Considered ..................................................... 9
C. Public Transportation Alternative .................................................... 9
D. "Do-Nothing„ Alternative ................................................................ 9
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................. 9
A. Social Effects .................................................................................. 9
1. Land Use ............................................................................. 9
a. Status of Planning .................................................... 9
b. Existing Land Use and Zoning .................................. 10
C. Future Land Use ....................................................... 10
e. Project Consistency With Plans ................................ 11
2. Neighborhood Characteristics .............................................. 11
3. Relocatees ........................................................................... 12
4. Public Facilities .................................................................... 12
5. Cultural Resources ............................................................... 13
a. Architectural Resources ............................................ 13
b. Archaeological Resources ......................................... 13
B. Economic Effects ............................................................................ 14
C. Environmental Effects ..................................................................... 14
1. Biological Resources ............................................................ 14
a. Study Area ............................................................... 15
b. Plant Communities and Land Types .......................... 15
C. Animal Communities ................................................ 21
d. Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts ........................ 25
2. Threatened and Endangered Species .................................... 26
a. Federally Protected Species ...................................... 26
b. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species .............. 28 "
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
3. Water Resources .................................................................. 29
a. Waters Impacted ...................................................... 30
b. Anticipated Water Resource Impacts ........................ 32
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................................................ 34
5. Physiography and Soils ........................................................ 36
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation ..................................................... 37
7. Stream Modification ............................................................ 37
8. Farmland .............................................................................. 38
9. Traffic Noise ........................................................................ 38
10. Air Quality ........................................................................... 44
11. Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks ......... 47
12. Construction Impacts ........................................................... 47
13. Permits ................................................................................ 49
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...................................................... 50
A. Government Response ..................................................................... 50
B. Public Response .............................................................................. 50
TABLES
Table 1 - Community and Land Types Impacts
Table 2 - Federally Protected Species in Cabarrus County
Table 3 - Federal Candidate and State Listed Species for Cabarrus County
Table 4 - Water Resources Potential Impacts and Encroachments
Table 5 - Apparent or Potential Jurisdictional Wetland Sites
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Location Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic of Project
Figure 3 - Proposed Typical Sections
Figure 4 - Estimated Truck Percentages & PHF
Figure 5A - 1998 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 5B - 1998 AM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure 5C - 1998 PM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure 6A - 2020 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 6B - 2020 AM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure 6C - 2020 PM Peak Hour Traffic
Figure 7 - Kannapolis-Concord Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 8 - Level of Service (2020)
Figure 9 - Accident Rate Summary (Stough Road)
Figure 10 - Accident Type Summary (Stough Road)
Figure 1 l - Accident Rate Summary (Roberta Church Road)
Figure 12 - Accident Type Summary (Roberta Church Road)
Figure 13 - Accident Rate Summary (Crisco Road)
Figure 14 - Accident Type Summary (Crisco Road)
Figure 15 - Intersection Improvements (NC 49)
Figure 16 - Intersection Improvements (Roberta Road)
Figure 17 - Intersection Improvements (Weddington Road)
Figure 18 - Intersection Improvements (Poplar Tent Road)
Figure 19 - Quad Sheets (Potential Water Resource Impact Sites)
Figure 20 - Floodplain Map (Wolf Meadow Branch)
Figure 21 - Floodplain Map (Unnamed tributary-Coddle Creek)
Figure 22 - Floodplain Map (Unnamed tributary-Coddle Creek)
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Division of Highways Relocation Programs
Appendix B - Relocation Reports
Appendix C - Traffic Noise Analysis Tables
Appendix D - Air Quality Analysis Tables
Appendix E - Citizens Informational Workshop
Appendix F - Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Concord-Kannapolis
Westside Bypass Extension
NC 49 to I-85
Cabarrus County
State Project No. 8.2661601
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(46)
T.I.P. No. R-2246
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of
Highways, proposes to construct an extension of the Kannapolis Westside Bypass from
NC 49 to the I-85 interchange. (See Figures l and 2). The proposed project consists of
constructing a multi-lane facility composed of a four-lane, median divided section within a
minimum of 61 meters (m) [200 feet (ft)] of right of way between NC 49 and Poplar Tent
Road (SR 1394) and a five-lane curb and gutter section within 30 m (100 ft) of right of
way between Poplar Tent Road and the I-85 interchange. The project is included in the
1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in the fiscal year 2000 and construction is scheduled to start in fiscal
year 2002. The total cost included in the TIP is $35,450,000. This estimate includes
$500,000 in prior years cost; $9,100,000 for right of way acquisition; $6,750,000 for
construction; and $19,100,000 for post year construction.
B. Puroose of Proiect
The purpose of this project is to implement a segment of the Kanlacon (Concord-
Kannapolis-Landis-China Grove) Thoroughfare Plan by providing an important link in the
outer loop thoroughfare system. The proposed facility will provide a connection to I-85
and improve access to the western segments of Cabarrus County. The project will remove
traffic from existing congested facilities (US 29 and US 29A), major traffic arterials
linking Concord, Kannapolis, Landis, and China Grove. It will also function as a suburban
type facility serving through traffic currently using US 29 as well as local traffic generated
by nearby development. These existing facilities are encumbered by signals, numerous
street and driveway connections, substantial roadside interference due to abutting
development, speed zone restrictions, and turning traffic resulting in limited capacity, slow
travel speeds, time delays, congestion, and an unacceptable level of service.
C. Summary of Proposed Improvements
Project Length
The project is approximately 10.5 kilometers (km) [6.5 miles (mi)] long.
2. Project Termini
The project's eastern terminus is at NC 49 and the project's western
terminus is at the I-85 interchange (U-2009, Kannapolis Westside Bypass).
Cross Section
A four-lane, 14 m (46 ft) median divided section is recommended between
NC 49 and Poplar Tent Road, a distance of approximately 9.38 km (5.83 mi). A
five-lane, 19.5m (64 ft) curb and gutter section is recommended between Poplar
Tent Road and the I-85 interchange, a distance of approximately 0.37 km
(0.23 mi). See Figure 3 for a sketch of the recommended typical sections.
4. Right of Way Width
A minimum of 61 m (200 ft) right of way width will be required for the
4-lane median divided section between NC 49 and Poplar Tent Road. A 30 m
(100 ft) right of way width will be required for the 5-lane curb and gutter section
along Crisco Road (SR 1430) between Poplar Tent Road and 1-85. These right of
way widths may vary to contain the proposed construction limits.
Access Control
Partial control of access is recommended for the proposed project, except
for the US 29 interchange, which will have full control of access. For partial
control, each abutting property will be permitted access to the road; however, the
location, number, and geometrics of the access points may be governed by
driveway or approach regulations.
6. Bridges
Bridge #245 over Wolf Meadow Branch is proposed to be replaced by a
triple barrel 2.7 m by 2.1 m (9 ft by 7 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC)
with a minimum roadway elevation of 173 m (567 ft NGVD) to allow the roadway
to remain in service during the 50-year design storm. This will require raising the
roadway grade at this crossing approximately 2.7 m (9 ft) above the existing bridge
deck elevation. It is anticipated that the culvert can be constructed with minimal
channel widening at the inlet and outlet ends. The proposed culvert will not have a
significantly adverse impact on the existing floodplain, and the 100-year flood level
will not be raised more than 0.3 m (1 ft) above the existing 100-year level.
7. Drainage Structures
Two new structures will be required on new location over unnamed
tributaries. The first of these is located approximately 366 m (1200 ft) north of
Roberta Road. Based on a preliminary hydraulics analysis, the recommended
drainage structure at this crossing is a double barrel 2.1 m by 1.5 m (7 ft by 5 ft)
RCBC. The other stream is located approximately 610 m (2000 ft) north of
US 29. The recommended structure at this site, based on a preliminary hydraulics
analysis, is a double barrel 3.0 m by 2.1 m (10 ft by 7 ft) RCBC. It is anticipated
that no significant channel improvements will be required to accommodate the
proposed structures. The proposed drainage structures will not create a
significantly adverse impact on the existing floodplain nor raise the 100-year flood
level over 0.3 m (1 ft) above the existing 100-year level.
The remaining crossing is located on Crisco Road (SR 1430) at an
unnamed tributary located approximately 915 m (3000 ft) north of Weddington
Road. Based on a preliminary hydraulics analysis, the existing pipe is inadequate
for the proposed roadway; therefore, it is recommended that the pipe be replaced
by a 2.4 m by 1.8 m (8 ft by 6 ft) RCBC. No significant channel improvement will
be necessary to accommodate the proposed culvert. The proposed culvert will not
have a significantly adverse impact on the existing floodplain and will improve
conveyance, thereby reducing the existing 100-year flood level below its existing
level at this stream crossing.
8. Design Speed
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 should not be interpreted as the recommended or
posted speed. The proposed design speed between NC 49 and Poplar Tent Road
will be 100 km/hr (60 mph) and the anticipated posted speed will be 90 km/hr
(55 mph). Between Poplar Tent Road and I-85, the proposed design speed will be
80 km/hr (50 mph) and the anticipated posted speed will be 70 km/hr (45 mph).
9. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All of the major intersections along the proposed project warrant
signalization. These include: Poplar Tent Road, Weddington Road, Roberta Road
(SR 1304), and NC 49 (see Figures 15-18). The resulting levels of service (LOS)
for these intersections are shown in Figure 8. A partial cloverleaf interchange is
proposed at US 29. Loops are proposed in the northwest and southeast quadrants.
All other intersections will be at grade with stop sign control on the cross streets.
10. Parking
Parking is not to be provided for or permitted along the project.
11. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the
proposed project.
12. Utilities
Utility conflicts along this project are considered to be high in severity.
Northstate Telephone, Duke Power Electric lines, and cable TV are located above
ground along the proposed alignment. Water, phone, sanitary sewer, storm water,
Fiber Optic Cable, and Piedmont Natural Gas lines exist underground along the
project. Utility companies will be contacted prior to construction.
13. Bicvcle Provisions
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation has commented that
"there does not appear to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this
project. This section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request,
nor is it a designated bicycle route. At present we have no indication that there is
an unusual number of bicyclists on this highway."
14. Railroads
No railroad work will be required on the proposed project.
15. Cost Estimate
The proposed project is expected to cost as follows:
Alt. I (middle) Alt. 2 (north)4 Alt. 3 (south)
Construction* $25.850,000 $25,500,000 $25,100,000
Right of Way** 10,051,000 9,225,000 9,620,000
Total Cost $35,901,000 $34,790,000 $34,720,000
* Includes engineering and contingencies
* * Includes utilities costs
# Recommended
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway Inventory
Cross Section
The existing roadways for Crisco Road (SR 1430), Roberta Church Road
(SR 1310), and Stough Road (SR 1309) are 2-lane, 6-meter (20-foot) sections
with shoulder widths generally 1.2-1.8 meters (m) [4-6 feet (ft)] wide. US 29 is a
4-lane, 3:6-meter (12-foot) median divided section with 1.8-meter (6-foot) wide
shoulders. NC 49 is a 2-lane, 7.5-meter (24-foot) section with 3.0-meter (10-foot)
wide shoulders.
2. Right of Way
Existing right of way width is 18.3 m (60 ft) for Crisco Road, Roberta
Church Road, and Stough Road. US 29 and NC 49 have existing right of way
widths of 36.6 m (120 ft) and 30.5 m (100 ft), respectively. Widths are generally
symmetric about the center of the existing roadways.
Access Control
There is no control of access along any of the existing roads.
4. Drainage Structures
Bridge #245 over Wolf Meadow Branch, built in 1962, is located on
Stough Road approximately 2.6 km (1.6 mi) north of NC 49. It has a length of
9.5 m (31 ft) and a roadway width of 5.8 m (19.3 ft). The sufficiency rating is
77.1 of a possible 100.
One culvert is located on Crisco Road approximately 915 m (300 ft) north
of Weddington Road. The existing structure is an 1800 millimeter (mm) [72 inch
(in)] corrugated metal pipe.
5. Speed Zones
The posted speed limit along Crisco Road is 72.5 kilometers/hour (km/hr)
[45 miles per hour (mph)]. The posted speed limit along Roberta Church Road,
from US 29 to approximately 1.6 kilometers (km) [I mile (mi)] southeast of
US 29, is 88.5 km/h (55 mph) with the remainder of the road signed at 56.3 km/h
(35 mph). Stough Road has a posted speed limit of 88.5 km/h (55 mph). US 29
and NC 49 are signed at 88.5 km/h (55 mph) where the proposed project crosses
these two roadways.
6. Intersectin¢ Roads and Tvoe of Control
All intersecting roads with Crisco Road, Roberta Church Road, and Stough
Road are at grade and stop sign controlled. The intersecting roads, Poplar Tent
Road (SR 1394), Weddington Road (SR 1431), US 29, Roberta Road (SR 1304),
and NC 49, provide the through movements. The proposed interchange of I-85
and Crisco Road (T.I.P. Project U-2009) will be located at the northern end of the
proposed project.
7. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are located along the project.
8. Utilities
All identified roads in the immediate project area contain 2 or more
utilities. Some of the above ground utilities identified along the existing roads
include Northstate Telephone, Duke Power Electric lines, and cable TV.
Underground utilities identified along the existing roads include water, phone,
sanitary sewer, storm water, Fiber Optic Cable, and Piedmont Natural Gas lines.
9. Railroads
A spur of the Southern Railway, located east of NC 49, services the Philip
Morris complex located between US 29 and Roberta Road. The existing tracks
pass through the Frank Liske Park on the north side of Stough Road. The subject
project is not involved with the railroad.
10. Bicycle Accommodations
There are no designated bicycle routes in the immediate project area.
11. Greenwavs
Cabarrus County has no master plan for greenways, thus no greenway
involvement with the project.
12. Geodetic Markers
No geodetic survey markers have been identified as being impacted by this
project. Subsequently, if any are identified, the N.C. Geodetic Survey will be
contacted prior to construction.
6
13. School Buses
Twenty-five (25) school buses make two trips per day for a total of 50 trips
per day along the studied sections. It is anticipated that no road closures for
extended periods of time will be necessary. If necessary, the City of Concord will
coordinate bus stop locations with the appropriate agencies and parents of the
children who will be affected by the project.
B. Functional Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
Crisco Road, Roberta Church Road, and Stough Road are classified as local routes
in the Statewide Classification System and are not part of the Federal-Aid System.
The mutually adopted (February 8, 1988) Concord-Kannapolis Thoroughfare Plan
designates Crisco Road, Poplar Tent Road, US 29, Roberta Church Road, Roberta Road,
Stough Road, and NC 49 as major thoroughfares. This route will serve several functions
in the area transportation network. It will become an important part of a north-south
arterial route serving western Cabarrus and Rowan Counties by linking NC 49, US 29,
1-85, NC 73, NC 136, and yet to be determined intersections in Rowan County. The
arterial will also function as part of a circumferential route west of Kannapolis and
Concord.
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity (Level of Service
The estimated 1998/2020 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) volumes for the
project are shown in Figures 5A thru 6C. The percentages of truck-tractor semi-trailers
and dual tired vehicles for the project area are shown in Figure 4.
The traffic carrying ability of a roadway is described by levels of service which
range from A through F. Level of service A, the highest level of service, is characterized
by very low delay in which most vehicles do not stop at all. Typically, drivers are
unrestricted and turns are freely made. In level of service B, traffic operation is stable but
more vehicles are stopping and causing higher levels of delay. Level of service C is
characterized by stable operation with drivers occasionally having to wait through more
than one red indication. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted in these circumstances. At
level of service D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Delay to
approaching vehicles may be substantial during short periods of the peak hour. Level of
service E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay and represents the theoretical
capacity of the facility. Level of service F represents over saturated or jammed conditions
which are considered unacceptable to most drivers.
All intersections were analyzed (both existing and proposed) by the Traffic
Engineering Branch using Transyt 7-F, a traffic signal operations modeling tool. Figure 8
shows the anticipated level of service with the design year 2020 traffic for each signalized
intersection with the proposed geometrics. The proposed intersection geometrics
recommended as a part of this project are shown in Figures 15 through 18. The results for
the "worst case" intersections are summarized below.
Congestion at signalized intersections can be expressed as a restriction or
interference to normal free traffic flow. Four intersections will be signalized as part of this
project: NC 49, Stough Road, Roberta Church Road, Weddington Road, and Poplar Tent
Road. Based on the recommended cross section, Roberta Church Road and Weddington
Road will operate at LOS C or better and Poplar Tent Road will operate at LOS D or
better in the year 2020. NC 49 will operate at LOS C or better in the year 2020 using the
ADT volumes. However, using AM Peak volumes, NC 49 will operate at LOS D or
better until approximately the year 2017. Using PM Peak volumes, NC 49 will operate at
LOS D or better until approximately the year 2012.
A partial cloverleaf interchange will be constructed at the intersection of the
proposed project and US 29. Signalized ramps will be used at their intersections with the
proposed bypass. Both signalized intersections are projected to operate at a level of
service B in the year 2020 (See Figure 2 for configuration of interchange on aerial).
Signalized Intersections
No existing signalized intersections are present along the proposed project.
Signalized ramps are proposed at the US 29 interchange.
2. Unsi$nalized Intersections
Several unsignalized intersections exist along the project. These include
the Crisco Road/Poplar Tent Road intersection, the Crisco Road/Weddington
Road intersection, the Roberta Church Road/US 29 intersection, the Roberta
Church Road/Roberta Road, the Stough Road/Roberta Road intersection, and the
Stough Road/NC 49 intersection.
D. Accident History
An accident study of the subject sections of Stough Road, Roberta Church Road,
and Crisco Road was conducted by the Traffic Engineering Branch for the time period
March 1, 1993 through February 29, 1996. During this time, a total of 6 accidents with
no fatalities were reported on Stough Road; a total of 24 reported accidents with no
fatalities were reported on Roberta Church Road; and a total of 19 accidents with no
fatalities were reported on Crisco Road. The following is a listing of the accidents by type
(see Figures 10, 12, and 14):
Number of % of Total
Type Accidents Accidents
SloiTh Road
Angle collision 2 33.3
Vehicle ran off roadway 2 33.3
Left/Right turn collision 1 16.7
Rear-end collision 1 16.7
Roberta Church Road
Vehicle ran off roadway 13 54.2
Angle collision 5 20.8
Left/Right turn collision 2 8.3
Rear-end collision 2 8.3
Sideswipe collision 2 8.3
Crisco Road
Angle collision 6 31.6
Vehicle ran off roadway 4 21.0
Rear-end collision 4 21.0
Left/Right turn collision 3 15.8
Head on collision 1 5.3
Sideswipe collision 1 5.3
The resulting total accident rate for the studied sections are 61.7 accidents per 100
million vehicle kilometers (acc/100 mvk) for Stough Road, 254.5 acc/100 mvk for
Roberta Church Road, and 227.8 acc/100 mvk for Crisco Road. The statewide three-year
average for similar routes for the years 1992 through 1994 was 212.7 acc/100 mvk (see
Figures 9, 11, and 13). The accident rate for"the majority of the subject project's existing
roads is higher than the statewide average for similar routes. This rate will likely continue
to increase unless provisions are made to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The
proposed improvements will reduce the potential for the types of accidents occurring
along Stough Road, Roberta Church Road, and Crisco Road. The proposed project will
improve the overall safety and convenience of motorists.
III. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Recommended Improvements
The recommended alternative consists of asymmetric widening of the existing
roads (Stough Road, Roberta Church Road, and Crisco Road) within the proposed
corridor to a multi-lane facility. Crisco Road, from Poplar Tent Road to the end of the
project will be a 5-lane curb and gutter facility with widening to the south, while the
remainder of the project will be a 4-lane, median divided facility (see Figure 3 for a sketch
of the recommended cross sections). Part of the proposed project, the section between
US 29 and Weddington Road, will be on new location. The widening of Stough Road,
across from Frank Liske Park will be entirely on the south (opposite) side of the park. An
interchange at US 29 (north alternative location) will be constructed as part of this
project. Widening on Roberta Church Road, east of the recommended US 29 interchange,
will generally be to the north.
B. Other Improvements Considered
Due to the nature of the project; the widening of existing roadways, no alternative
corridors were considered. Proposed widening to the north or south, using the existing 2-
lane facilities to the extent possible, best suits this type of project improvement. In the
vicinity of Frank Liske Park from Stough Road to Roberta Road, a north and a south
alternative was analyzed along the proposed corridor. Each alignment alternative
considered the same cross section. The north alternative was rejected due to its 4(f) and
6(f) involvement with the public parklands. Three (3) alternative locations (middle, north,
and south) were studied for the interchange at US 29. The middle alternative's cost was
$1+ million more than the north or south alternative locations and the relocatees included
10 residences and 1 business. The south alternative costs approximately $70,000 less than
the recommended north alternative, but has 2 business relocatees while the recommended
north alternative has no business relocatee. The north and south alternative locations are
estimated to have 9 and 8 residential relocatees, respectively.
C. Public Transportation Alternative
The major constituent of traffic using this proposed facility will be through trips.
The development in the project area is primarily rural and of low density. This scenario
does not lend itself to encouraging public transportation use. Therefore, public
transportation is not a viable alternative to the proposed improvements.
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Without implementing the proposed improvements, the capacity and safety of
vehicles using the existing roads will decrease. The increase in residential development,
both existing and proposed, and the potential for commercial development (for example, a
planned commercial area between Poplar Tent Road and Weddington Road south of
Crisco Road) will only increase commuting traffic and the need for higher capacity
facilities.
IV. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
Land Use
a. Status of Planning
The proposed project is located in the jurisdiction of Cabarrus
County and the City of Concord. Both governments enforce zoning
ordinances and subdivision regulations. Cabarrus County adopted its Land
Development Guide in 1988. This general policy document is
supplemented with a series of small area plans which provide more detailed
policy guidance on future land use and development patterns. The Western
Area Plan is a small area plan addressing the Westside Bypass Extension
area. It was developed jointly and adopted by the Cabarrus County Board
of Commissioners and the City of Concord Board of Alderman in 1992.
10
b. Existing Land Use and Zoning
The general vicinity of the project is rural in character, although
recent development in the area indicates a trend toward suburbanization of
western Cabarrus County. Many of the area's new residents are
commuters working in or around Charlotte.
The land near I-85 at the northern end of the project supports a mix
of agricultural uses and large lot manufactured home subdivision
development. South of Poplar Tent Road, agricultural uses dominate the
land along Crisco Road south to Weddington Road. However, residential
development has occurred south of Poplar Tent Road, just east of the
project area. Farmland and woodlands also dominate the landscape south
of Weddington Road to Roberta Church Road's intersection with US 29.
A garden center, Christy's Nursery, is also located at this intersection.
A large Philip Morris manufacturing plant is located south of US 29
and just east of the Roberta Church Road/US 29 intersection. The
company has indicated that it plans to expand its warehousing facilities at
the site.
Agricultural uses are also common in the area south of US 29,
although residential development is more dense in this area. New
construction of subdivisions is underway near the Roberta Hill community.
The Frank Liske Park is accessed from Stough Road. The 180 acre
park, operated by Cabarrus County, contains a variety of active
recreational facilities, including softball and soccer fields, tennis courts,
picnic areas, a lake, and an amphitheater.
At the southern terminus of the project some industrial uses exist,
including a junkyard and Brooks Products, which manufactures concrete
blocks. A branch of Southern Bank is currently under construction at the
intersection of NC 49 and Roberta Church Road.
Future Land Use
The west central portion of Cabarrus County is the fastest growing
section of the county. The Weddington Road corridor is experiencing
substantial residential development. Little industrial, office and
institutional, or multi-family development has occurred in that area. In the
Western Area Plan, the County and the City of Concord indicate that while
the rate of residential growth in the area is desirable, limited commercial
and industrial uses should also occur to provide needed services as well as
employment opportunities to the residents. The Plan indicates that
commercial and industrial growth will be restricted to the areas around the
Westside Bypass Extension's future interchanges and along US 29, where
typical commercial strip development will be permitted.
Zoning districts within the project area are largely consistent with
the Western Area Plan. Light industrial districts are located in the Poplar
Tent Road, Crisco Road, and US 29/Roberta Church Road area. High
density residential districts are in place north of Weddington Road.
Medium density residential districts encompass much of the Stough Road
and Roberta Church Road areas, as well as land south of Weddington
Road.
The McGill Avenue Baptist Church has plans to relocate a new
church which will be built on approximately 14 acres in the northwest
quadrant of Crisco Road and Poplar Tent Road. A multi-use development
is proposed on the west side of Crisco Road between Poplar Tent Road
and Weddington Road.
d. Project Consistency With Local Plans
The proposed Westside Bypass Extension is included in the
Cabarrus County and the City of Concord's local plans. Although some
details of the project have produced limited controversy, it is clear the
project enjoys broad based support throughout the county. The project
will provide a much needed north-south route on the western side of the
County and will ease commuter movement to and from Mecklenburg
County.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Cabarrus County. Cabarrus County is in
the south central section of the state and is bounded by Stanly, Union,
Mecklenburg, Iredell, and Rowan Counties.
According to the 1990 U. S. Census Data, Cabarrus County has a total
population of 98,935. The county has a population density of 705.85 persons per
square kilometer (271.48 persons per square mile). The racial composition of the
county consists of a white population of 85,286 (86%) and a non-white population
of 13,649 (14%).
Development along the project consists of a mixture of light commercial,
rural residential, and farmland. Commercial properties include Brook's Products
Inc., Shelter's Inc., and a junk yard located along Stough Road. Philip Morris is
bounded by US 29 and Roberta Church Road. Christy's Nursery is located at the
12
intersection of US 29 and Roberta Church Road. One public park, Frank Liske
Park, is located on Stough Road. Numerous subdivisions are located along the
proposed project.
3. Relocatees
The recommended improvement will require the relocation of
approximately 49 residences and 2 businesses (see Relocation Report in Appendix
B). This proposed action will not adversely impact social cohesion, nor have a
long term impact on facilities and services. It is anticipated that adequate
replacement properties will be available for the relocatees.
Of the 49 residential displacements by the project, 31 are owners and 18
are tenants. There was only one residential minority identified. Based on the
information available in the relocation reports, this project is not believed to
disproportionately impact any minority population in Cabarrus County. The
majority (41 percent) of the residential displacees are estimated to have annual
incomes ranging from $25,000 to $35,000. Twenty-seven percent are estimated to
have annual incomes ranging from $15,000 to $25,000. At the low end of the
income scale, 12% are estimated to have annual incomes below $15,000 and, at
the upper end of the scale, 20% are estimated to have annual incomes of $35,000
to $50,000. The majority of the displaced dwellings fall in two value ranges:
$20,000 to $40,000 and $40,000 to $70,000. Three dwelling owners fall below
these ranges, while two are above the ranges. The tenants are divided between
$150-$250(4), $250-$400(6), and $400-$600(8). These impacts are relatively
consistent with the demography of the project area.
It is the policy of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to
construction of state and federally assisted projects. The NCDOT has the
following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
(l) Relocation Assistance,
(2) Relocation Moving Payments, and
(3) Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or rent supplement.
See Appendix A for further discussion of the NCDOT Relocation
Programs.
4. Public Facilities
Frank Liske Park consists of 180 acres and is located on the east side of
Stough Road between NC 49 and Roberta Road. The entrance to the park is from
Stough Road. All designated areas of activity in the park are located east of the
13
Philip Morris Rail Spur which parallels Stough Road. Based on the recommended
alternative's alignment (Sect. III.A.), Section 4(f) does not apply.
5. Cultural Resources
a. Historic Architectural Resources
A Phase II (Abridged) survey was conducted by NCDOT
Architectural Historians to determine the Area of Potential Effect (APE),
and to identify and evaluate all significant resources within the APE
according to the National Register of Historic Places criteria. Cabarrus
County survey files were consulted in the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) in Raleigh, as was the National Register and State Study
List. Background research of the architecture and history of the project
area, as well as existing roads and residential development in the area,
determined the boundary of the APE. An intensive survey was then
conducted by car and foot on May 18, 1994 which covered all of the APE
to identify those properties that appeared potentially eligible for the
National Register.
Twelve properties were surveyed within the APE: Nine residences,
two residences converted to commercial use, and one commercial building,
all dating to the years between c. 1920 and c. 1940. None of the properties
are considered eligible for the National Register.
This investigation was done in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, in
conjunction with the guidelines issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. In a memorandum dated November 14, 1994 (Appendix F),
the SHPO concurred with the NCDOT's survey report.
b. Archaeological Resources
An investigation by the NCDOT's staff archaeologist was to
determine whether any archaeological resources could potentially qualify
for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and, if identified,
whether they would be affected by the proposed project.
No archaeological resources were found within the proposed APE
for either of the three alternatives. The project area was found to be
greatly disturbed by natural and cultural processes (erosion and deflation;
residential and commercial development; and water, gas, and sewer lines).
Although all available areas, both within and immediately adjacent to the
14
APE, were subjected to a systematic cultural resources survey, no
archaeological resources were recorded during the investigation.
Accordingly, NCDOT does not recommend any further investigations.
The SHPO concurred with the NCDOT's findings in a
memorandum dated September 15, 1994 (Appendix F). "For purposes of
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that no archaeological resources eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places are within the project's area of potential effect
and, therefore, none will be affected by the proposed undertaking."
B. Economic Effects
The proposed project will aid in the economic development of the area by
improving accessibility to residential developments, schools, and commercial areas. It will
also have a positive impact by completing a vital link in the thoroughfare plan from NC 49
to the Landis/China Grove area north of Kannapolis in Rowan County. This will reduce
transportation costs by decreasing travel times to areas in Concord, Kannapolis, Landis,
and China Grove.
Based on the North Carolina Preliminary Labor Force Estimates during the month
of September 1994, Cabarrus County had a total of 57,860 persons in the labor force.
Out of this total, 55,800 persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemployment
total of 2,060, or 3.6 percent.
The economic environment in the project vicinity is changing from rural farm to
residential, commercial, and manufacturing. The proposed project will provide additional
road mileage to enhance new development in the area. Job opportunities will increase as
new development takes place. The proposed project will provide the construction and
trade industry within the area increased accessibility by improving the ability of workers
to reach places of employment and reducing transportation cost for industries located
along the facility. New development attracted to the area will help improve the local
economy. The safety of local travel for residents and commuters between and in the
vicinity of Concord and Kannapolis will be improved.
C. Environmental Effects
Biological Resources
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of the Central
Piedmont Ecoregion. A few unusual or especially significant elements were
located during the field investigation, as noted below. Only common names are
used in the discussion below after the scientific name is first introduced.
15
a. Study Area
The project area is defined as the land including the right of way
and the areas immediately adjacent to the right of way. The project
vicinity is defined as a larger area, more or less about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on
all sides of the project area. Project region is the area more or less the size
of a standard 7.5 minute quadrangle sheet.
The project region is located in Cabarrus County, in south-central
North Carolina, between Kannapolis and Concord on the north and
Charlotte on the south (Figure 1). This is a rapidly developing region
strongly influenced by the growth in the Charlotte area.
The project region is currently only semi-rural in character because
much of it is being developed into residential subdivisions and commercial
and industrial enterprises. Agricultural interests are declining while the
other interests are expanding. There are only small isolated forested tracts
in the project vicinity, most of the land having been formerly cleared for
agricultural purposes.
The project area was investigated during the period from January
5-17, 1995. Field methodology involved reconnaissance survey and
evaluation of the biota, natural communities and physical resources present
in the area. The entire area that included the proposed project right of
way, interchange and adjacent areas was walked and inspected, and
probable impacts due to construction were assessed.
b. Plant Communities and Land Types
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the
general vegetation in and near the project right of way. Most of the natural
vegetation of the project area would be classified as Basic Oak--Hickory
Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). However, most of the land surface in
the project vicinity is no longer covered in the natural vegetation. For
purposes of discussion and quantification, twenty communities and land
types are recognized in the right of way. These are divided into four
groups: Natural Communities, Agricultural Communities, Developed Land
Types, and Miscellaneous Types. These communities and land types are
described below, and acreage estimates for each classification are given in
Table 1. Most of the land impacted under right of way is developed [32.9
ha (81.3 acres)], followed by agricultural land [23.7 ha (58.4 acres)],
natural communities [20.0 ha (49.7 acres)], and miscellaneous types [2.4 ha
(5.7 acres)].
16
Vegetated fencerows and borders-various mixes of trees, saplings,
shrubs, vines, and herbs-though important as habitat, were not separately
determined; they are included in the listed communities and land types.
Driveways and most lateral roads, except for some state roads, are likewise
included within the communities and land types within which they are
located. Stream acreage is not separately determined as a type in the area
estimates given in Table 1. Pines are notably scarce in the project area,
only a few Virginia pine (Pinus vir iniana), shortleaf pine (P. echinata),
and loblolly pine (P. taeda) (probably naturalized) were observed
sporadically in a variety of communities. White oak ( uercus alba) was
extremely rare in the project area.
Table 1. Community and Land Types Impacts.
Existing alignment/
new location' Total'
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest 0.9(2.3)/5.5(13.6) 6.4(15.9)
Dry Oak--Hickory 0.7(1.8)/0.3(0.7) 1.0(2.5)
Upland Depression Swamp F. -/0.6(1.4) 0.6(1.4)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 1.2(3.0)/1.7(4.2) 2.9(7.2)
Early woody succ. comm. 1.2(3.0)/0.4(1.0) 1.7(4.1)
Early succ. old field 2.6(6.4)/l.5(3.7) 4.1(10.1)
Upland thicket 0.9(2.3)/1.6(4.1) 2.5(6.3)
Alluvial thicket 0.4(1.1)/- 0.4(1.1)
Non-forested wet comm. 0.4(0.9)/0.1(0.2) 0.4(1.1)
Cropland 2.5(6.2)/3.1(7.6) 5.6(13.8)
Pastureland 7.3(17.9)/3.0(7.4) 10.3(25.4)
Hayland 3.7(9.1)/4. l (10.2) 7.8(19.2)
Maintained fields 2.2(5.5)/- 2.2(5.5)
Lawn 6.6(16.2)/0.4(1.0) 7.0(17.2)
Residential landscape 1.4(3.3)/0.6(1.6) 2.0(4.9)
Built-up area 5.1(12.6)/4.0(9.8) 9.1(22.4)
Maintained roadside 4.8(12.0)/0.8(1.9) 5.6(13.9)
Paved highway 5.2(12.9)/l.8(4.6) 7.0(17.4)
Pond -/0.2(0.4) 0.2(0.4)
Ruderal area 0.6(1.4)/1.6(4.0) 2.2(5.3)
TOTAL 47.7(117.8)/31.2(77.2) 79.0(195.0)
'All figures are rounded to nearest tenth and in hectares (acres).
17
Natural Communities
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest. This is one of the rarer community
types in North Carolina and does not have many good examples protected.
It is the predominant natural community in the project area and was likely
the predominant community type in the vicinity before lands were cleared
for agricultural purposes. Most of this forest type in the project area is
mature. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program reports a Priority
Natural Area containing this community type along the project alignment
just south of US 29. It appears that road widening in this area will impact
the edge of this natural area.
Most of the Basic Oak--Hickory exists as mature stands. The
community forms on the dominant circumneutral and basic soils of the
area. Canopy dominance is shared among many species including shagbark
hickory (Carva ovata), post oak ( uercus stellata), white ash (Fraxinus
americana), hackberry (Celtls occidentalis var. geor ig ana), and red cedar
(Juniperus vir ing iana). Red elm Ulmus rubra), winged elm (LI. alata),
Carolina shagbark hickory (Carva carolinae-septentrionalis), sugar maple
(Acer saccharum), willow oak ( uercus p hellos) and scarlet oak (Q
.coccinea) are frequently present and may be common in some sites.
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), black walnut (Ju lg ans niM), swamp white
oak ( uercus bicolor), Shumard's oak (Q. shumardii), and water oak Q.
Wgra) was rare to infrequent. The subcanopy frequently included abundant
red cedar, hackberry, and sugar maple; and flowering dogwood (Corpus
florida) are sometimes present. In places the understory is sparse and
open. The common shrubs and vines present are coralberry
(SymphoricaMos orbiculatus), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera ja ponce), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). Privet (Li s?ru trum sinense), blackberry (Rubus sp.), buckeye
(Aesculus s, lvy atica), and crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata) are
uncommon. Carolina coralbeads (Cocculus carolinus) is a rare occurrence.
Herbs noted in this community included ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), sedges (Carex spp.), wild onion (Allium vineale), Indian
sea-oats (Uniola latifolia), witchgrass (Dichanthelium spp.), aster (Aster
sp. ), avens (Geum sp. ), bedstraw (Galium sp. ), elephant foot
(Elephantopus sp.), and mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastium sp.).
Drk Oak--Hickory Forest. Most of this forest type in the project
area is mature. There is not always a clear line of distinction between it
and the Basic Oak--Hickory Forest. Common trees are black oak ( uercus
velutina), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), southern red oak (Q. falcata), post
oak, hackberry, shortleaf pine, shagbark hickory, mockernut hickory
18
(Carva tomentosa), and pignut hickory (C. ovalis). Small cedars and
dogwood (Cornus florida) were often present. Japanese honeysuckle are
sometimes present.
t?plarnd Depre.vsiorr Swamp Forest. This forest is usually found
within a matrix of Basic Oak--Hickory Forest which grades into swamp
forest in either sharp or broad ecotones. Saturated soils, wet depressions
and ponded areas characterize the community. Many of the species are
those found in the Basic Oak--Hickory Forest, but there are notable
differences. There is severe windthrow of trees in the largest unit of this
type in the proposed interchange area. The canopy is typically dominated
by overcup oak ( uercus lyrata), ash (Fraxinus sp.), red maple (Acer
rubrum), post oak, and willow oak. Shumard's oak and persimmon
(Diospyros vir ing Tana) are infrequent. There is little or no cedar. The
understory varies from open to very thick. Thick areas usually include
blackberry, common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans). Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is a common shrub.
Grapes (Vitis sp.) is sometimes present. Various herbs that are locally
dominant include sedge (Carex tribuloides) and broomsedge (Andropogon
sp. ).
Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Most of this forest type in the project
area is young to mid-age. Common canopy species variously included
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liq_uidambar styraciflua),
water oak, boxelder (Acer ne ndo), black walnut, river birch (Betula
niM), red elm, winged elm, American elm (U. americana), hackberry, ash
(Fraxinus sp.), willow oak, and persimmon. Tuliptree (Liriodendron
tulipifera) and cottonwood (Populus deltoides) are important in one site.
Shumard's oak, swamp white oak, overcup oak, shagbark hickory, and
honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) are sometimes present. Hackberry is
the dominant in one site. Cedars may be present. Ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana) is an important understory tree in a few locations. Common
shrubs and vines include privet, multiflora rose, blackberry, crossvine,
common greenbrier, poison ivy, and Japanese honeysuckle. There are
occasional grapes and flowering dogwoods. Sugar maple and overcup oak
saplings are sometimes present. Various herbs are present, depending on
the specific location. Some of the frequently occurring herbs are speedwell
(Veronica sp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), bottlebrush grass(Hystrix
ap tula), Indian sea-oats, sedges, Japanese grass (Microste ig um vimineum),
wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), avens, asters, ground ivy (Glecoma
hederacea), fumewort (Corydalis sp.), and chickweed (Stellaria media).
Early Woody Successional Commimily. Significant coverage of
woody vegetation distinguishes this community from the Early
Successional Old Field, but forb, grass and shrub coverage may still be
19
important. Red cedar is typically common to dominant. Occasional young
hardwood trees are present, the species present depending on the site. In
most cases, it was obvious that the succession was proceeding toward
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest.
One site that had Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) present is very
distinct. It is an open cedar stand over shallow soil, with thickets of
coralberry . Abundant species are gama grass (Tripsacum dact, loy ides),
rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium sp.), lovegrass (Era rrostis sp.), broomsedge,
and purple-top grass (Tridens flavus). Other species present are sericea
(Lespedeza cuneata), prickly-pear cactus (OOpuntia compress a), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), blackberry, witchgrass, chickasaw plum (Prunus
angustifolia), and hardwood saplings.
Early Successional Old Field This community is typically
dominated by broomsedge, goldenrod, and asters, but lovegrass, gama
grass, and fescue (Festuca sp.) are sometimes most important. Other herbs
variously present included joint-head arthraxon (Arthraxon hiapidus),
Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), purple-top grass, foxtail grass (Setaria
sp.), wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), sericea, round-head bushclover
(Lespedeza capitata), rabbit tobacco, dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), tick-trefoil (Desmodium spp.), dogbane (Anocynum sp.),
sunflower (Helianthus laetiflorus), and sericea. Occasional invading
shrubs, vines, and trees that are present included multiflora rose, Japanese
honeysuckle, coralberry, winged elm, ash, cedar, blackberry, and pines.
Ilnland Thicket. This community type includes a variety of
subtypes composed of different combinations of hardwood saplings, trees,
shrubs, vines, and herbs. The usual dominants are multiflora rose, Japanese
honeysuckle, poison ivy, smooth sumac (Rhus lg abra), blackberry, and
grape. Several sapling thickets of hackberry, ash, and honey locust are
present.
Alluvial Thicket. This type is typically composed of ash, red maple,
and black willow (Salix niRra), with blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle,
Japanese grass, goldenrod, aster, dog fennel, and tick-trefoil present.
Non-forested Wet Community. A variety of subtypes found in
meadows, ditches, and depressions are included here. Some are very thick
and dense with shrubs, such as silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), alder
(Alnus serrulata) and swamp rose (Rosa alp ustris), or small willows, but
some are open and semi-marshy. Only occasional trees, such as ash, are
found in these sites. Herbs usually present include rush (Juncus coriaceus)
and fescue, but others such as Japanese grass are also sometimes present.
20
Agricultural Communities
Cropland Most fields have been plowed or bogged recently.
Pastureland. These are grasslands dominated by broomsedge and
with such species as sericea, asters, and dog fennel commonly included.
Occasional multiflora rose and cedars may occur.
Ha an Most fields appeared to be fescue-based. Prickly-pear
cactus is noted in a flatrock area in one field.
Developed Land Types
Maintained Fields. This type is similar to maintained roadside or
hayland, but is not maintained for either of those purposes.
Lawn. This category is defined as being generally open area around
residential or commercial/industrial structures, with insignificant amounts
of woody vegetation present.
Residential Landscape. This category generally includes yards that
are primarily wooded or not open, with lawn aspects not being
well-developed.
Built-rip Area. This category is defined to include structures and
highly developed or built-upon areas. Any associated lawns and residential
landscapes, if present, are also included in this category when structures are
present. In one case, a large junkyard in the right of way is included in this
category.
Maintained Roadside. This is a community maintained in a low
state of succession by regular mowing. The community is
grass-dominated, with occasional forbs occurring. Common grasses
included fescue, (oxtail grass, broomsedge and bluestem (Andropogon
spp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Johnson grass, lovegrass, and
witchgrass. Asters, sericea, rabbit tobacco, fennel (Eupatorium
hyssopifolium), goldenrod, sunflower (Helianthus laetiflorus), evening
primrose (Oenothera sp.), plantain (Plantauo sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.), and
clovers (Trifolium spp.). were common forbs. By assuming a 3.0 m (10 ft)
roadside on each side of the existing alignment throughout its length and
including some other small areas, an area of 4.7 m (11.7 acres) of
maintained roadside was calculated for the right of way.
21
Paved Hrghw,ay. This category includes all the pavement under the
existing alignment, as well as most major state road crossings. A 6.7 m
(22 ft) wide pavement section was assumed throughout the existing
alignment, this gives a 5.2 ha (12.9 acre) calculated area under pavement.
Miscellaneous Types
Pored Two ponds are present, one impounded and one excavated.
There is no significant wetland or aquatic vegetation associated with either
site.
Ruderal Area. These are areas recently disturbed by grading for
new construction, excavation, filling, clearing, or depositing of rubble and
similar waste materials. The vegetation is usually some combination of
herbs, shrubs, vines, or saplings. Typical plants are broomsedge,
witchgrass, foxtail, purple-top grass, tick-trefoil, dog fennel, horseweed
(Ere eg ron canadensis), Queen Anne's lace, asters, goldenrod, rabbit
tobacco, blackberry, sericea, Japanese honeysuckle, hackberry, and thistle
(Cirsium sp.). A sunflower (Helianthus laetiflorus) is present in one
location.
C. Animal Communities
Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora
of an area without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical
fauna is sought through habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and
observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and other indirect evidence.
Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating the expected
fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the
evidence available and the human population density and development, are
given below. Those taxa actually observed in the field or for which direct
evidence was seen are noted with an asterisk (*) in the text.
A wide diversity of habitat types exists in the project area, but
except for a few types, most of the habitat types are fragmented and habitat
units are small. There are few large contiguous forested tracts and over
75% of the project vicinity is in open communities and land types. The
most abundant habitat types are open agricultural and developed areas with
the associated successional, ecotonal and border areas. The most
important natural community types are small oak--hickory forests and
22
successional old fields. Ecotonal edges are abundant. Linear habitats of
often thick vegetation are well-developed along ditches, streams, fence
lines, property boundaries, and roadsides.
The large mix of habitat types and ecotonal areas is beneficial for
many species, but the fragmented distribution and size of the habitats is
detrimental for others. Good species diversity is expected for some
taxonomic groups, but the extensive human development of the area
excludes many species that are not tolerant of human intrusion or which
require large expanses of natural communities. The landscape types and
diversity in the area are judged to be generally good for birds of open
areas, but poor for those requiring interiors of large unbroken tracts of
forest. Avian fauna were found to be notably abundant. Because few
ponds and no lakes or large marshy areas are noted in the project vicinity,
the distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent such areas
are not expected in the project area.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five
general groups, four mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth
being somewhat ubiquitous. These are more Wen areas, consisting mostly
of early successional old fields, croplands, pasturelands, haylands, lawns,
residential landscapes, and maintained roadside areas; intermediate habitats,
consisting of early woody successional communities, thickets, fencelines,
borders, ruderal areas, and most ecotones; forest; and aquatic or very wet
habitats.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad (Bufo
americanus), Fowler's toad (B. woodhousei), upland chorus frog
(Pseudacris triseriata), and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer). The abundant
non-forested wetlands and wet spots in the project area appear to be good
habitat for northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). The two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata), the eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens), and the slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) are expected
in the moister forest habitats. Treefrogs (Hy_la sp.) should be
common,-particularly in the alluvial and swamp forests. Ambystomid
salamanders (Ambystoma spp.) are expected because of the presence of
apparently suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here
probably include the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), black racer (Coluber constrictor), rough green snake (OpheodrYs
aestivus), earth snake (Vir ig nica sp.), and copperhead (Ag_kistrodon
contortrix). The eastern hognosed snake might be expected in some of the
more open areas having friable soils. In intermediate habitats, likely
occurrences include eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), eastern
23
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis
trian ug lum). Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), brown
snake (Storeria dekavi), redbelly snake (S. occipitomaculata), ringneck
snake (Diadophis punctatus), and worm snake (Carphophis amoenus).
Eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus) might be expected in the open
wet areas.
The avifauna of open areas include *American kestrel (Falco
snarverius), *turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), *mourning dove (Zenaidea
macroura), *killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), field sparrow (S izella
up silla), common grackle ( uiscalus ui? scula), *brown-headed cowbird
(Molothrus ater), *robin (Turdus migratorius), starling (Sturnus vulgaris),
*eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), *loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), and
eastern bluebird (Sialig sialis). There is good diversity and abundance of
birds frequenting open areas. Birds in intermediate areas include *brown
thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), *mockingbird (Mimus pol lyg ottos), goldfinch
(Carduelis tristis), indigo bunting (Passerine cyanea), common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), kingbird (Tyrannus t ry annus), *white-throated
sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), and bobwhite (Colinus virginianus).
Forest species include various wood warblers (Parulidae), wood thrush
(Hylocichla mustelina), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), summer tanager
(PiranQa rubra), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), and blue-gray
gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea). Species ranging through many habitats
include *red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), screech owl (Otus asio),
*common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), *cardinal (Cardinalis), *Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), *rufous-sided towhee (Pi ilo
ervthrophthalmus), *red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), *hairy woodpecker (Picoides
villosus), and Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis). Other birds
observed that are not particularly characteristic of any given habitat include
*purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus) and *cedar waxwing (Bombycilla
cedrorum). Green-backed heron (Butorides striatus) and belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon) probably utilize some of the larger streams and the
two farm ponds. One flock of *Canada geese was observed in the project
area.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern
shrew (Sorex longirostris), least shrew (Crvptotis parva), long-tailed
weasel (Mustela frenata), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and
hispid cotton rat (SiSmodon his idus). Those ranging into forests as well
as open and intermediate habitats are southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina
24
carolinensis), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoar enteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leuco_pus), and eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus). Several species usually shunning open areas, but in
the intermediate and forested areas, include opossum (Didelphis
vir ing iana), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), pine vole (Microtus
pinetorum), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli), and southern flying
squirrel (Glaucomvs volans). Several kinds of bats, such as little brown
myotis (Myotis lucifugus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), and
red bat (Lasiurus borealis), might be expected foraging over the streams
and broken forests. Exclusively forest species include *raccoons (Procyon
lotor), *gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and evening bat (Nvcticeius
humeralis). Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and mink (Mustela vison) should
be present along the ditches and in riparian areas around the streams.
Scant evidence of *white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a typically
mid-successional species, was observed in the area.
Aquatic Life
No fish were observed during the study. Fish that should be
expected in the larger streams are creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
bluegill (Le omis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), warmouth
(L. ulg osus), and other sunfishes (Centrarchidae) (Fish 1968). Some
segments might support yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) and creek
chubsucker (Erimyzo oblongus). Smaller fish that might occur in the
smallest streams would likely be rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides)
and creek chub. Some of the small streams should also be appropriate
habitat for darters (Percidae) and sculpins (Cottidae).
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the streams and adjacent
habitat could support two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata),
three-lined salamander (E. guttolineata), northern dusky salamander
(Desmo nag thus fuscus), possibly marbled salamander (Ambystoma
o acum) and spotted salamander (A. maculatum), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), green frog (Rana clamitans), and pickerel frog (Rana
alb ustris). The two small ponds are likely habitat for bullfrogs (Rana
catesbeiana) and northern cricket frog (Acris cripitans).
Good turtle habitat is not present. Turtles which might possibly be
in the area are snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentaria) and painted turtle
(Chrysemys pitta). Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and queen
snake (Regina septemvittata) are the most likely water snakes of the area.
Evidence of *crayfish (Cambaridae) was noted in some areas.
25
d. Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Terrestrial Vystenis
Projected direct impacts due to project construction are given in
Table 1. Calculations are best approximations given the design
specifications available and the precision possible in this study. Area
measurements were calculated on aerial photographs onto which
prospective right of ways and interchange areas were drawn. The existing
paved roadway was included in area estimates. With the exception of the
maintained roadside (completely destroyed during construction, but
eventually recreated), only the edges of most other communities will be
affected, thus reducing the total area of habitats and land types in the
project area.
The most significant impacts will be the reduction of Basic
Oak--Hickory Forest and losses of Upland Depression Swamp Forest and
Piedmont Alluvial Forest. The actual impacts to biotic communities would
be less than those indicated in Table 1 if some of the right of way is not
used in construction.
The data in Table 1 suggest only the direct impacts on land and
community types due to construction. The amount of direct loss of habitat
for animal species will depend on the construction design. There will be a
net loss of habitat for small animal species, predators, and scavengers that
use open areas. There will be a reduction in the available habitat for
animals that require forest and intermediate habitats. Other indirect effects
on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not change
significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills will likely
increase because animals will have more roadway to cross. The riparian
zone and strip forest of creeks are probably important corridors for animal
movement. The existing roadway already disrupts natural corridor
movement, so stream crossings should not introduce a significantly new
factor except during the construction phases of the project.
Construction damage can result to forest land outside the right of
way and construction limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and
root exposure and injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage
of damaging substances, and skinning of trees by machinery. With the
exercise of proper care, such damage can be avoided.
The most important impact will occur in the new location portions
of the project as a result of fragmentation of habitat for the larger species
and for those smaller species that require large tracts of unbroken forested
26
land (such as many neotropical migrant birds). Road on new location will
introduce another obstacle and barrier zone for many species and shrink the
suitable habitat for others.
Aquatic .Systems
Impacts on fishes will be minimal if construction is done carefully to
reduce sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish
movement are introduced. Any culverts that may be installed to channel
streams can cause behavioral inhibition of movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature
and irradiance and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources.
These effects will negatively alter the stream characteristics for some
aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have negative effects on sessile
benthic organisms. At least seven larger streams and many smaller streams
will be impacted in this way.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction
activity and runoff pollution after construction are widely recognized as
factors that can seriously reduce water quality. Aquatic organisms are
generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
2. Threatened and Endangered Species
a. Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed
Threatened (PT), and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal
protection under Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of August 23, 1996, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service reports two species with one of these classifications for Cabarrus
County (Table 2).
27
Table 2. Federally Protected Species in Cabarrus County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. ST. CAT.
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata' E C2
Schweinitz's Helianthus E E
sunflower schweinitzii
Note 1: No specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (or in the state) Candidate 2, shows some evidence
of vulnerability, but there are not enough data to support listing as
endangered or threatened at this time.
The Carolina heelsplitter is a molluscan bivalve in the Unionidae.
Bivalves, in general, require unpolluted habitats and are usually most
abundant in larger streams (deeper waters and good current). Stable sand
and/or gravel substrates are usually best suited for them. Most would not
be found in waters with pH below 7.0. Except for the pH (which should be
neutral or slightly alkaline because of the mafic geology), the streams of the
project area appear to be too small and with substrate unsuitable to support
significant bivalve populations. Virtually nothing is known about the
biology and ecology of this species, and it appears that specimens in North
Carolina have been taken only from the Catawba River drainage and from
the Pee Dee River system in Union County (Scientific Council 1990).
Surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter will be conducted in summer-fall of
1996 and these findings will be included in the final environmental
document. Biological Conclusion: Unresolved.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a tall perennial composite with a restricted
regional distribution centered in the south-central Piedmont of North
Carolina. Extant populations have been documented within the last ten
years for Cabarrus County and the surrounding counties of Mecklenburg,
Union, Stanly, and Rowan. It favors open woods and roadsides,
apparently because it was once a component of formerly open prairie-like
communities on basic soils that were common in this region. The Natural
Heritage Program does not report any known occurrences within the
project area. No populations were discovered after carefully searching for
this plant during the field work in January, however, suitable habitat for the
sunflower does exist in the area. Surveys for the Schweinitz's sunflower
will be conducted in summer-fall of 1996 and these findings will be
included in the final environmental document. Biological Conclusion:
Unresolved.
28
b. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Candidate 1 (C 1) and Candidate 2 (C2) taxa are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions until formally proposed or listed as E or T. C 1 species are
supported by sufficient information to warrant listing as E or T, but they
are not yet listed because of the large number of backlogged C 1 taxa. C2
species show some evidence of vulnerability, but there are not enough data
to support listing proposals at this time.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered, Threatened, and
Special Concern (SC) species in the state. Plants are legally protected
under the Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 and animals are
legally protected under the N.C. Endangered Species Act of 1987.
There are three taxa listed as federal candidate species for Cabarrus
County (Table 3). They are mentioned here for information purposes in
the event they become federally listed in the future. The state listing is also
given. Two additional taxa are listed by the state, but not federally
(Table 3). Two of the five taxa are present in the project area, but the
possibility of occurrence of the others cannot be excluded.
The Natural Heritage Program database includes records of the
Carolina darter from Afton Creek and other tributaries of Coddle Creek.
This species is state-listed.
The Pee Dee crayfish ostracod is a federally listed species known
only from the Pee Dee River Basin. It is an external symbiont of certain
crayfish. Adams (1992) reports that it is documented for Coddle Creek,
but the habitat and biology are mostly unknown; it is suggested that there
may be water quality limitations.
One of the federal candidate and state listed species was noted in
the project area. A population numbering about 50 dead stems of Heller's
trefoil was found in the open roadside along the east side of SR 1310 about
0.5 km (0.3 mi) north of the intersection with SR 1304. This population
would likely be completely destroyed by road construction. This is a
species similar in origin, distribution, and requirements to the sunflower
described above.
Nestronia is a colonial shrub of upland forests, believed to be
parasitic on pines. Suitable habitat for the species does not exist in the
project area. No specimens have been recorded in Cabarrus County within
the last 20 years.
29
Prairie dock is reported to occur in the project vicinity by the
Natural Heritage Program. This species occurs over mafic rock in open or
semi-open sites. Suitable habitat for the species occurs in the project area,
but no plants were found.
Several individuals of swamp white oak ( uercus bicolor) were
found in the project area associated with the Upland Depression Swamp
Forest community. This taxon is on the North Carolina Plant Watch
List, listed in category W 1 (rare, but relatively secure).
Table 3. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species for Cabarrus County
COMMON SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATE SUITABLE
NAME CATEGORY CATEGORY HABITAT
Carolina Etheostoma collis SE Yes.
darter Species
present
Pee Dee Dactylocythere C2 Unknown
crayfish peedeensis
ostracod
Heller's Lotus purshianus C2 C Yes.
trefoil Species
present
Nestronia Nestronia C2 SR No
umbellula'
Prairie dock Silphium C Yes
terebinthinaceum
Note 1: No specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
C = Candidate, very rare and likely to merit listing as E or T if trends
continue
SC = Special Concern, requires monitoring
SR = Very rare in N.C., generally with 1-20 populations.
3. Water Resources
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR)
Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated
30
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Waters Impacted
The project region lies in the Rocky River sub-basin (03-07-11 to
14) of the lower Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage area of the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin. The Rocky River sub-basin drains 2330 square
kilometers (1448 square miles). The project area (located in sub-basin
03-07-11) is generally aligned northeast and parallel to Coddle Creek
which flows southeasterly into the Rocky River. Coddle Creek joins the
Rocky River about 2.6 km (1.6 mi) southeast of the project area. The
Rocky River flows eastward and eventually joins the Yadkin River to form
the Pee Dee River.
All drainage from the project area is through tributaries of Coddle
Creek flowing in a southwesterly direction. Afton Run is the northernmost
tributary in the project area near I-85. Wolf Meadow Branch crosses the
project area in the vicinity of the Roberta Mill community about halfway
between US 29 and NC 49. Several other unnamed tributaries cross the
project area at various places. The tributaries include small perennial and
intermittent streams. Coddle Creek will be the primary recipient of runoff
from the roadway and construction activity.
Stream Characteristics
Fish (1968) describes the section of Coddle Creek in the project
region as a typical medium-size Piedmont stream in his "Robin-Warmouth"
ecological classification. This type of stream has moderately abundant
pools, minimum flows of 0-50 cfs, warm summer temperature, varying
turbidity, bottoms of sand, muck and silt, and faunal types including robin,
other centrarchids, and creek chubs. The 19.3 km (12 mi) section from the
mouth of the creek to the NC 73 bridge in Cabarrus County is reported to
have an average width of 9.8 m (32 ft). Fish reports that the deeper pools
in this section harbor redbreast sunfish and bluegill. Afton Run and Wolf
Meadow Branch are said to be too small to be of fishing significance.
The streams in the project area are entrenched and mostly not
associated with wetlands. Locations of larger perennial streams are
mapped in Figure 19. At the time of site study, there was good flow and
water was clear. The larger perennial streams are briefly described as
follows:
31
#1 (Wolf Meadow Branch): meandering stream 3 m (10 ft) in
width in 6.1 m (20 ft) channel, steep banks, water depth
averaging 30-46 cm (12-18 in), rocky substrate with many
sediment bars, rip-rapped and probably channelized where it
crosses road under bridge.
#2: channel and stream 3 m (10 ft) in width, straight banks 1.2
m (4 ft) in height, water depth 15-20 cm (6-8 in), rocky and
pebbly substrate with some flatrock. New location.
#3: stream width 1.5-1.8 m (5-6 ft), water depth 10 cm (4 in),
banks 0.9-1.2 m (3-4 ft) in height, rocky but many silt beds,
trashed, crossing road through pipe culvert.
#4: perennial stream in pasture, crossing road through pipe
culvert.
#5: perennial stream in pasture, crossing road through pipe
culvert.
#6: (Afton Run): stream width 3-3.7 m (10-12 ft), water depth
10 cm (4 in), banks 1.2 m (4 ft) in height, flat bottom with
abundant sediment, crosses under road through large box
culverts. Includes small tributary to Afton Run in right of
way.
#7: stream width 1.8 m (6 ft), water depth 10 cm (4 in), banks
0.3-0.6 m (1-2 ft) in height, rocky but heavily silted. New
location.
There are many small perennial and intermittent streams and ditches in the
project area, at least eight of which will be crossed by the right of way.
Best Usage Classification
Coddle Creek and all of its tributaries in the project vicinity are
classified as Class "C" streams (NCDEHNR 1993). The northern sections
of Coddle Creek outside the project region are Class "WS-II" waters. The
nearest "WS-II" waters are about 4.3 km (2.7 mi) north of the project
vicinity at Mill Creek.
Class "C" streams are "freshwaters protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and
wildlife" (NCDEHNR 1994). This is the lowest freshwater classification;
all freshwaters receive this classification at a minimum. All tributaries carry
the same classification as the streams to which they are tributary.
32
Water Quality
Concord, Kannapolis and Mooresville are the major urban areas in
the Rocky River sub-basin. There are nine dischargers in the sub-basin that
are permitted flow greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD. Three of the
dischargers are in sub-basin 03-07-11 (includes the project area) with a
total permitted flow of 32.2 MGD. There are no dischargers located on
Coddle Creek.
There are no chemical and/or biological classifications [from
stations for chemical or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings]
available for the section of Coddle Creek or its tributaries in the project
vicinity (NCDEHNR 1988, 1 989,1990,1991,1992). There is one
monitoring station on Coddle Creek about 8 km (5 mi) north of the project
area near the Iredell County line; the bioclassification for this site is
"Good-Fair." The first station downstream of the project area is located on
the Rocky River east of the junction with Coddle Creek, about 8 km (5 mi)
distant; the bioclassification for this station is also "Good-Fair." Within the
Rocky River sub-basin, there is greater stress in the upper part near the
Mooresville WWTP and steady recovery downstream from Davidson to
Norwood, the recovery apparently due to changes in regional geology
(DEM 1989). The upper part, which would include the project area, is also
reported to be more susceptible to land-disturbing activities.
There are no overall ratings available for the sections of the
sub-basin in the project vicinity. The overall rating for use support of the
Rocky River (a mostly Class "C" stream) is generally "S" (Fully
Supporting) with the 1990 biological rating being "Good."
b. Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
There is no water quality data indicating whether or not streams in
the project area are supporting their designated uses. The designated uses
are in the lowest classification. Construction impacts could degrade these
waters, with sediment loads and other pollutants affecting water quality
from a biological and chemical standpoint. Because of the generally acute
sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs deriving from
construction, appropriate measures will be taken to avoid spillage and
control runoff. These measures will include an erosion and sediment
control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water
management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best
Management Practices will be employed consistently.
33
Table 4. Water Resources Potential Impacts and Encroachments'
Location
Large perennial stream crossings X on map
[each <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac)]
Wolf Meadow Branch #l
Unnamed stream #2
Unnamed stream #3
Unnamed stream #4
Unnamed stream #5
Afton Run #6
Unnamed stream #7
Small perennial and intermittent
stream and ditch crossings x on map (8 locations)
Wetlands [each >0. I ha (>O.33 ac)] W on map
0. 14 ha (0.34 ac) #8
0.41 ha (1.02 ac) #9
0.60 ha (1.40 ac) #10
0.16 ha (0.40 ac) #11
0.56 ha (1.38 ac) #12 (below headwaters)
1.87 ha (4.54 ac) total
Small wet spots w on map (14 mapped
locations and
[each <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac)] others unmapped)
Ponds2 p on map
0.27 ha (0.67 ac) #13 (impounded)
0.09 ha (0.23 ac) #l4 (excavated)
Note 1: Refer to Figure 19 for site locations.
Note 2: Includes entire pond though only part is under right of way.
Table 4 summarizes potential surface water resource impacts.
There will be seven crossings of large perennial streams and at least eight
crossings of small perennial and intermittent streams and ditches. Three of
the stream crossings involve new location crossings. The right of way is
34
closely adjacent and parallel to stream #7 for approximately 122 m (400 fl).
Pollution discharges are possible with construction of culverts and bridges
and from roadbed runoff.
There will be direct impacts to approximately 1.9 ha (4.5 acres) of
jurisdictional wetlands that lie within the right of way (See Table 4). Each
wetland site is larger than 0.13 ha (0.33 acre). There are numerous small
wet spots, each less than 0.1 ha (0.1 acre) in size). Two farm ponds
totaling 0.36 ha (0.9 acre) will be drained, though only a portion of each
pond is within the proposed right of way. There could be potential indirect
impacts to downstream offsite wetlands. (Wetlands are discussed in detail
in Section IV.C.4.)
There are some small areas of historical floodplain wetlands present
in the project right of way, but most of these wetlands have been drained
such that the modified hydrology no longer meets wetland determination
criteria. The vegetation is also changing under this modified hydrology.
Facultative and upland species are becoming established.
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of any of
the streams that are presently crossed by existing roads, certainly not much
more than they already have been modified through past construction of
highway. Crossings on new location also should not modify stream flows.
Streams can be crossed effectively with appropriately designed and placed
bridges and culverts. Careful design should avoid the necessity of any
stream relocation. Erosion control measures will be necessary to protect
all streams, and all instream activities should be scheduled during low flow
periods.
There will be unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover
that protects streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures,
and changes in species composition will modify affected stream reaches.
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified
ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-1
(water supplies in natural watersheds), or WS-11 (water supplies in
predominantly undeveloped watersheds). The project does not lie within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of such resources.
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Highway construction affects wetlands by direct taking and by alteration of
characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are important
because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species;
maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and
35
removal; sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and
groundwater hydrology; recreation, their uniqueness in their own right, and their
aesthetic value in some cases. Highway construction in wetlands has major
impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes
and regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over
the discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands.
Determination of jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b)
based on best judgement of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Jurisdictional waters in the project right of way include palustrine wetlands
and surface waters in streams and ponds. Construction will be limited to the
project right of way. Some jurisdictional wetlands are likely present downstream
of several of the Coddle Creek tributary crossings and potentially will receive
inputs from road construction.
Surface water in streams under the right of way should total no more than
0.13 ha (0.3 acre). There is approximately 0.36 ha (0.9 acre) of surface water in
ponds that will be drained. Approximately 1.87 ha (4.54 acres) of palustrine
wetlands comprised of forests and thickets lie within the project right of way (See
Table 4). Alluvial and depressional forested wetlands would be classified as type
PFO1 (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous), and alluvial thickets would
be classified as type PSS6 (Deciduous Scrub-Shrub). These palustrine wetlands
are described in Table 5.
Table 5. Apparent or Potential Jurisdictional Wetland Sites
#8: Piedmont Alluvial Forest [0.14 ha (0.34 acre)]. Young forest, part of a
larger system. Above headwaters. Fair quality.
#9: Piedmont Alluvial Forest [0.41 ha (1.02 acres)]. Mid-age forest, part of a
larger system. Good quality. Above headwaters. On new location.
#10: Upland Depression Swamp community [0.60 ha (1.40 acre)]. Mature
forest, but with lots of blowdowns. Ponded water in most places at time of
site visit. Surrounded by large tract of Basic Oak--Hickory Forest. Good
quality. Isolated wetland. On new location.
#11: Alluvial Thicket community [0.16 ha (0.40 acre). Inclusion near stream.
Poor quality. Isolated wetland.
36
#12: Piedmont Alluvial Forest [0.56 ha (1.38 acres)]. Mature forest, part of a
larger system. Poor to fair quality. Below headwaters. Soils not
uniformly hydric throughout.
Many small wet spots less than 0.1 ha (0.1 acre) are located sporadically
throughout the project area. Collectively, they would probably total no more than
0.6 ha (1.4 acres) at maximum. These small wetlands occur in upper drainages, in
depressions, against slopes, and along streams. Many of the wet spots that might
reasonably be classified as wetland would be considered PEM1 (Palustrine,
Emergent, Persistent), but others are forested and shrub types, PFO1 and PSS6,
respectively. A number of these wet spots will be impacted directly by
construction. It will be impossible to avoid these in project design and
construction. (see Section IV.C.3.b. for further discussion)
There are some wet ditches parallel to existing roadway and culvert wet
areas that appear to be a direct result of modern road construction. Even though
they have appropriate hydrological conditions and good representative hydrophytic
vegetation, they have almost exclusively developed as inclusions over non-hydric
soils. For these reasons, they are excluded from meeting the definition of
jurisdictional wetlands.
It is difficult to judge the extent of wetland impacts, except for actual
takings within the project right of way, until the particular design requirements are
known for the terrain in question.
5. Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Cabarrus County is located in the Piedmont
physiographic province in south-central North Carolina in the Central Piedmont
Ecoregion (Omernik 1987). The landscape is generally rolling with extensive
broad and nearly level areas, and there are only gentle to moderately steep slopes
along main drainageways. The broad areas are broken by small knolls of slightly
higher elevation. Floodplains are narrow, with only a few wide bottoms along
Coddle Creek outside the project area. The elevation range throughout the length
of the project vicinity is between about 174-213 m (570-700 ft) above sea level.
The soils of the project vicinity are all in the Mecklenburg-Iredell soil
association. These soils occur on nearly level to strongly sloping land and have
formed in residuum from mafic rocks high in ferromagnesian minerals. They are
well-drained and moderately well-drained soils that have a clayey subsoil.
Wetness, slow permeability, and high shrink-swell potential characterize these
soils. Mecklenburg loams are the most abundant series in the vicinity.
Mecklenburg soils are well-drained, on convex ridges, side slopes, and large
37
knolls. Iredell loams are moderately abundant in the vicinity. Iredell soils are
moderately well-drained, in the broad, nearly level areas and on gently sloping
ridges. Minor series of the association that are present in low abundance in the
vicinity are the Enon sandy loam (narrow slopes), Chewacla sandy loam
(floodplains), and Armenia loam (depressions) soils. Somewhat more Chewacla
units than Armenia units are mapped in the vicinity.
The Armenia soil is the only series in the vicinity that is entirely hydric.
The soil is poorly drained on nearly level areas, on broad flats and in depressions at
the heads of intermittent drainageways; soil saturation and ponding of water
characterize these soils. The Chewacla and Iredell soils have inclusions of hydric
soils and wet spots. The Chewacla soils are frequently flooded, and may have
inclusions of the hydric Wehadkee soil adjoining the upland side slopes in slight,
usually long and narrow depressions. The Iredell soils on nearly level land often
have Armenia inclusions in depressions.
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cabarrus County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Floodplain areas impacted are rural and mostly undeveloped. None of the four
stream crossings were included in the detailed flood study. Approximate 100-year
floodplain limits are shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (see Figures 20, 21,
& 22). From preliminary field review, no buildings were found with floor
elevations below the l 00-year flood level. The proposed roadway will not have
any substantial adverse effect on the existing floodplains or flood levels.
Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate
specification, installation, and maintenance for standard erosion and sedimentation
controls. Every effort will be made to maintain existing drainage patterns and to
improve them where practicable to do so. Ground water resources should be
evaluated in final hydraulics design to ensure that measures are taken to prevent
contamination if any will be affected by the proposed project. Recommendations
of this report are preliminary and could be subject to change, based on information
obtained from a more detailed study during the final hydraulics design phase of this
project.
7. Stream Modification
It is anticipated that only minimum channel improvements will be required
to accommodate the proposed drainage structures.
38
8. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are designated by the U. S. Soil Conservation
Service based on a number of factors, including average crop yield and the level of
resources expended. Land which has already been developed, or is committed to
urban development by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements
of the act. The Cabarrus County and City of Concord Western Area Plan indicates
that all types of urban land uses (residential, commercial, and industrial) are
planned or under construction within the project area. The urbanization of the
area is also accounted for in the two jurisdiction's zoning ordinances. Therefore,
no further consideration of potential farmland impacts is required.
9. Traffic Noise
(Refer to Appendix C for all referenced traffic noise tables.)
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
construction of the Westside Bypass between Concord and Kannapolis in Cabarrus
County on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation includes
an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
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.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
federal/state governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement
measures for new development which building permits are issued within the noise
impact area of a propose highway after the "Date of Public Knowledge". The
"Date of Public Knowledge" of the location of a proposed highway project will be
the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, RODs, or the Design Public Nearing,
whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge
date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs
are utilized along the proposed facility.
39
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many
sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and
highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a 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 decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to
which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels
measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA.
Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several
examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N ] 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:
I ) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note that
individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother some more than
others and some individuals become upset if an unwanted noise persists. The time
patterns of noise also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a noise
is offensive. For example, noises occurring during sleeping hours are usually
considered to be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance
of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources
(background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night when background noise
levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than the
blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
40
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities of
individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be possible
while sleep might be difficult. Work activities requiring high levels of concentration
may be interrupted by loud noises while activities requiring manual effort may not
be interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are
expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their lives.
Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises including
airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation
to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly
over the past few years.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the
planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set
forth in the aforementioned 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.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level
information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a
base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level
along the Westside Bypass route as measured at 15 meters from the roadway
ranged from 55.8 to 58.0 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and measured
exterior Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and Table N3, respectively.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model in order to calculate existing noise levels for
comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise
levels were within 0.8 and 3.8 dBA of the measured noise levels for the two
locations where noise measurements were obtained. Differences in dBA levels can
be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle
speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
41
Procedure For Predicting Future Noise Levels
in general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables
which describe different cars driving at different speeds through a continual
changing highway configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of
the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict
highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the
Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, 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.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the existing
two lanes of Crisco Road, Roberta Church Road, and Stough Road and new
construction linking Crisco Road and Roberta Church Road to a four lane facility
with 14 meter median from the NC 49 to 1-85. Only those existing natural or man-
made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections and
proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis
represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made
in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during
the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed
posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be
no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of
the design year 2018. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to
noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or
predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic approach was to select
receptor locations such as 7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the
center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The
location of these receptors were determined by the changes in projected traffic
volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of
this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid,
noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
42
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in
Table N4. Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors in
close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the
estimated noise level increase for each.
A total of 103 receptors along the project are predicted to be impacted by
future traffic noise under Title 23 CFR Part 772. All of the impacted receptors are
classified as activity category B (98 receptors) or activity category C (5 receptors).
A detailed description of these activity categories is included I Table N2. The
impacted receptors are noted in terms of those expected to experience traffic noise
impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by traffic noise levels
increasing substantially (external or internal). In addition to the information above,
Table N5 describes the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level
contours. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use
control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land
uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for this project
range from +9 to +29 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving
of the loudness of the sound.
Traffrc Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach"
meaning within l dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] experience a substantial noise
level increase (refer to Table N2 for the definition of a substantial increase). A
total of 103 receptors along the project will experience a substantial noise level
increase (refer to Table N6 for a summary of noise level increases). Eighty
receptors will approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria. The same
80 receptors also will experience a substantial noise level increase. Consideration
for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in either
category.
Highway Aligiment. Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal
or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement
purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering
and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment
43
selection is primarily a matter of locating the roadway at a sufficient distance from
noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative
for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures. Traffic management measures
which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time of operations are often effective
noise abatement measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the capacity and
level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
Noi.ve Barriers. Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of
solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway
traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms
or artificial abatement walls. The project will maintain only limited control of
access, meaning most commercial establishments and residences will have direct
access connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the
project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high
enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the
highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction
provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a
barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to
provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the
distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15
meters from the barrier would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An
access opening of 12 meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. F14WA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1,
USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located
along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid
mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these
two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative
were also considered. If the traffic currently using the network of roads in the
project area should double, the future traffic noise levels would only increase
approximately 3 dBA. This small increase in the present noise level would be
barely noticeable to the people living and working in the area.
44
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and
unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be
submitted for this project.
10. Air ualit
(Refer to Appendix D for all referenced air quality tables.)
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of
common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The
impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the
improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide
levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used: local
and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the
receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration
of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that
is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the
background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine
the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the
atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
45
Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the
future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control
devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the improvements on
automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require
several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur
10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets
and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type
of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent
of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because
emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low,
there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The
burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular 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 0.5 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite
average had dropped to 0.0025 grams per liter. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of
leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale,
supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December
31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed
project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC -
A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive
receptor to the project.
46
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic
volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The
traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. The
traffic volume used for the CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any
alternative. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the
completion year of 1998 and the design year of 2018 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A 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 worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #76 at a
distance of 15m from the proposed centerline of the median. The "build" one-hour
CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1998 and
2018 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest
Sensitive Build
Receptor 1998 2018
R-76 2.9 3.5
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 A 1 and A2 for input data
and output.
The project is located in Cabarrus County, which has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part
51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.
47
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional
reports are necessary.
11. Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks
The files of the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Sections of the
Department of Environmental Management (DEM) were consulted to determine
whether any unregulated dump sites or other potentially contaminated properties
exist within the proposed project limits. A field reconnaissance was conducted to
identify any potential Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites. The Incidents List
of the DEMs Groundwater Section was also consulted to identify any reported
groundwater contamination sources. Based on these records and the EPAs
Superfund list, no potential environmental problem sites are expected to affect this
project corridor.
There is one site within the project corridor that may possibly have soil and
water contamination. Harrisburg Auto Salvage, located at 4731 Stough Road, has
many cars in various states of disrepair located on their property. No
Underground Storage Tanks (UST) were found within the project corridor.
However, many of the residential homes and businesses adjacent the project do
operate above ground tanks.
12. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with the
construction of highways. These are generally of short term duration and
measures will be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be removed from the
project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done will
be in accordance with the applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations of the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such
as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be made under constant
surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when
the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents.
48
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in
Article 107-3 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, which is
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N. C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This
program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the Standard Specifications together with the policies
of the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion on work
performed by State Forces.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special
provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer.
Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be
permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation
or pollution.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Prior to construction,
a determination will be made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing
utilities in the project area. A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility
owner will be responsible this will be made at that time. In all cases, the contractor
is required to notify the owner of the utility in advance as to when this work will
occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for any damages to water lines
incurred during the construction process. This procedure will insure that water
lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with a minimum of disruption of
service to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief disruption
during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure the
transportation needs of the public are met both during and after construction.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech interference
for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project can be
expected, particularly from paving operations and from earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short term nature
of construction noise, these impacts are not expected to be significant. The
transmission loss characteristics of nearby structures will moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
49
13. Permits
in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill
materials into any jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by
construction. Nationwide Permits [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14 and 26)] authorize
actions that have no significant environmental effect, such as when dealing with
road crossings of wetlands or waters of small size [<O.1 ha (0.33 acre) and short
bridge crossings [<61 m (<200 ft)] or because of their location above stream
headwaters (<5 cfs) or in isolated wetlands or waters. Individual or General
Permits are required for situations where the criteria for Nationwide Permits are
not met.
Potential wetland #12 does not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit
since it lies below headwaters and is larger than 0.1 ha (0.33 acre). It appears that
an Individual Permit may be necessary for this site. All wetland sites and stream
crossings not already discussed can be authorized with Nationwide Permits. Final
decision on the type of permit rests with the COE.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the
Division of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for
construction activity in surface waters where a federal permit is required.
Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters
and palustrine wetlands. Compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a
Memorandum of Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency
and the COE. Because an Individual Permit will likely be required for the Afton
Run crossing at wetland site #12, all sites will have to be accumulated for
mitigation purposes. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the
COE.
The grade separation at I-85 will be converted to a diamond interchange by
the addition of a ramp in each quadrant (see Categorical Exclusion for TIP project
U-2009). The existing 2 lanes will be widened on the southwest side to five lanes,
away from wetland site #12. Therefore, the encroachment of the project on
identified wetland site #12 is minimized. As part of this project, utmost care will
be taken in designing and placing all structures and roadway in order to minimize
impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of drainage culverts will help
minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion control devices will be installed to prevent
avoidable storm water discharges into streams and wetlands, and soil stabilization
measures will be taken as quickly as possible during and after construction of
50
banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil will be
disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures and borrow locations will not
be placed in wetlands.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Government Response
During this planning study, comments were requested from the following federal,
state, and local agencies. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an
asterisk (*). Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix F.
U . S. Army Corps of Engineers
U . S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U . S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Centralina Council of Governments
Cabarrus County Commissioners
Mayor of Kannapolis
Mayor of Concord
B. Public Response
In addition to written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, and informal Citizens' Informational Workshop was held on
January 11, 1994 at the Wolf Meadow Elementary School to discuss the subject road
improvement project (Appendix E). The NCDOT Public Affairs Division advertised the
meeting in the major local media prior to its being held. Approximately 50 persons
attended the informal gathering in addition to representatives from NCDOT. Due to the
nature of the project improvements, widening of existing roads along with a short
relocation section, no alternative alignments were presented at the workshop. In general,
the attending citizens were interested in the right of way impact on their property and the
timetable for right of way acquisition and the beginning of construction.
WBK/plr
FIGURES
NORTH CAROLINA
END PROJECT
va . ?
-•-- - eft,
h
V
f _.
1 Ali

1
1
r
BEGIN PROJECT
SCALE
0 mile 1 /2 f
I I I ?
4±hb~

CABARRUS COUNTY
- - 10 -orlnopolis """"M
\3 12
ord+ i
dlle a 3 7 Moun P'
9 -1,
' , A RUS/

B
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CONCORD - KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
NC 49TO1-85
CABARRUS COUNTY
R - 2246
LOCATION MAP FIG. 1

''?._ .
40
"IN
a ,
AfF
t ?? I? y • ._ V, ___ x. _.._..- __.. ...........
" ` ,F" +:.T ?, ? ? • / I yr, ? f '? ? ? ? .?., fn
40 WJ
r X ice; A?, ??O?
r,?- - J: w w C r 04
04,
J V
^t+ ??`?. I ; ; i # ? III I ? ? ?,,,,? 5
4APV
w'
Al,
40 IN
41r. 17
i . J AiG
s .
Y '
40
04
E?
I
1
ti
FF,
S+
A. ?
• ll'
•4
r' `.? '' ilk ? r.l 1 ! V
0j-?F
?I r
M 17
-AL
--"-- _
'N'dofor% jj(1pjFjjjjr
_ y
Q
I'
??._.. •`??:._..._.. . __ _,.... ...y._: i emu. ? ? ? ??{??• T
c .R )
P A' ? I
f ~ ?, ? '?+• ,' ? !'? .`. ?;'^ r?? } art !S f`
4LW
n
el.
Off

3
a T
a
V
z
0
U
LU
V
J
Q
U
? O
W
U)
0
CL
0
cc
CL
3
O
N
N

v
(O
a
O
a
-N
N
N
n
3
a
O
a

0

w

cn

LU

z
Q
E

m E
1= c
Q
E
U -
o
w
Liu O
U N
CT's
Q
LL

F-
LU

Q
LL

0
LL

i
co
LLJ

Q
J

L.C)
CO
in
?u

O o
>?
a

N
N °
0
w

N Qa

CO
d
N
r

0
N >
Q
a
a
N
N
N

>

O
M
F
ua
O
>N
z
0

U
W
/
VJ

W
0
J
D
0
2
cn
z
Q M

w

0
0
LL-
(6
q?jl

z
Q
J

a

N
`\ O
I LL
Q
3
u
O
a
C?SP,RU? COiJf`?TY
R-2246
WESTSIDE BYPASS FROM NC 49 TO 1-85
ESTIMATED TRUCK PERCENTAGES & PHF

ROUTE 1998 T
%TTST %DUAL 2020
%TTST %DUAL
PHF
Westside Bypass, 3 4 5 6 ^.95
from NC 49 to 1-85
Westside Bypass, 2 4 2 4 0 95
North of 1-85
SR 1555 1 2 I 2. 0.95
SR 1394 3 5 3 5 0.95
SR 1431 1 3 3 0.95
US 29
i 4 5 7 8 0.95
Oakview Road i 2 1 2 0.95
SR 1457 1 1 2 0.95
Roberta Farms Road 1 2 1 2 0.95
SR 1304 1 3 3 0.95
SR 1580 1 2 1 2 0.95
SR 1552 1 2 1 2 0.95
SR 1536
I 1 2 1 2 0.95
SR 1537 1 2 1 2 0.95
Park Access
i 1 3 1 3 0.95
SR 1538 1 2 1 2 0.95
NC 49 5 3 8 6 0.95
1-85 18 6 18 6 0.95
Figure 4
c0 4' (O
N j
N 0 r
oC U
U
L
RS
U
LO
(U
LL
1---._I = - -1
to ILO
i •p
ro
i? O
3
c
9
Ali Lr)
ur

Or N
? n r
r

U
"
'
m ? N
I I
r v h ,...
'>• _ N r
N j
r
?rl?f?
i;
L.
r_
? c
•? U
In
4 (1' co
W p
tLS
(TJ
aU
mZ
o >
U) W
CU CA
(D
m
( C?
Lu
i
II
I? I - a
i t r r r ro
• Y O
?• M [[
0
'
) I I
l

N m +? + ?? .
r
.- N r

• o
° ,
n -- • au r r? '-
N N

olii?
I

i }
cc a
r- no?
O N

r? cl)
70 ffi e r
T--i i

3 °D
m
O
a:
?. O
C LO
a
O
LO
ro N
CL
O
M
n?
O
in

u?

`- ? u?

h
?
r
l7
M
--; ?
N ? N (O
?
r 1 I

C ?
O
C r ?
U? t-
N 7
C 'n
ro
O Nei

M t, (D
N N N r N n
r,
l GD
LO N r
?+ t0
1-N N
d0 - --° - -
_
" ...?
-
N I n
4
i
n N N .
N
?

Y W
tv)
O
r?
O
O ? r

.n
a

I
?1

1Q . U
1
a N ! r a
Y N
w a O
r .? r
.-- ? C
r.
J V r ?i 1 '• r r ro
J An
Ale
Y r .sir r ?ir
03 r ° ro U)

NI 1N

Y ?
? O lLn
- r
N
? r m ?

1 41
i f- r ? a

W ? a
N ?0
N a r7 ? li (?

'?
O N
0 U)

l?
r Ad)
r U

a cn
? r Q
-111-.
a
°
00
•
N r N Cl)
_ (n a
N
i
co
2
l i
o o
? Z. (o
ro N
nMm
if
-?
N
O
? ro
C1 ?_ •
1 m N

cc N• n i
"

N l7
--
r N
I
f
N N 0)
O
N -. r co
r t
co I M
rn , in
a
E
N ro
N ill. r
1
i CJ. 0
r
v
N .-
Ln
O

'At ? rn m _
N 0)
C?J 0 r N }
CE j V09
co
U) LL I D
m 0)
a n L81
+ In

'I ?` N
S L n (
L U)
Z
to
-r co
to
+ d
1
#

.
t,- 4)
7 C\l
,
N -r fA
'D N
o, C
Cl)

O 1 tD
I
r
, C.)
'
I
i I
y Yll`f

n
I L
? a
> m
? ? - Y 0

:7 r

O,
0
? th
+ 0
N -ZZ to
Q) I o v ao l+ .- Z I c?i lY1 rrI

I I I` ? ? a
ut U
•r f °i tv
IL
r, N .. L Z 9
it) v o, U
04 m .J I. + 1 9 l to l m

N -
O f

.+ .J I I`
• 101

w
90L - 'I 00 N v i+

to N c
01 1 i Y N v L W
I
?
fq QI
v> v M
- 0
?
U to .J L? + L 1 N Ln

C OD

?-
~
m
?
0
o rn in
- c
m cn
O LQ ` '

v i s
C 0 C
cNDill?
n
to
a? CO _ (D 1 a

X
-Y

/D
Y
W .- 0Cl)
N r +
L 0
U)
U)
L 1
N ` T
lYl
(Ij
.
to -
-- ` W
v r
r .
901
j n n
z 0 t7 N S91
- to dl '? W
00
•
-
- --
-p in
`"
a -
a? Ir 95; -? -I i - N
-? Q) U) t? GO 1-; m r 'Al
N - a. m l o
t' ,6
l i
tO
?
a
v
U) LL
a
!!??
m

7 N
0 U)
? I I. ? b U In

4-0 U)
w a I iCY a r a ?'

m
( 10l is

'p W
lU > o
O
tr
m .r Cl 4 J 8 •._
0
oo m
n r

r co to N . 1£Z N
0 ,I
1
j
L-

L f]C OD
O
ZS ?'I I OD
co CO
m U) cn 1 9£ con to
m Z£ _
CL ss1 N 1 0
0

+}

0? a m
v (D n v + Cc' b
> In mn nMto -061 N

C '0 t7 O d' N £ 9- -- to 00 N

0 ?o
0£-? n
1c
69Z -?
N n
U ?

N ?
r
to
n

/ N ar tD +_-
LLl
E
m
n ro,r 0,
N N N •- LSOZ r
a h
N + Sl
({y

1O
N
-1 ! ?? ( L 9 1
N
n r
+ L 1 CNI
M
LL
•
o Sze + ?'? I' N it U

In
N
bb l Z -- i' M m .-
I C7 0 m
r_
N
o to
01 d,
O £ N N C .) 0
Lr
I}
f
iol ?N n? c°io

D
>7
0
(D N
CD
0 ?-
c - =:
-n N
w °
N
rn
?m
A w
10-j o
V1
O
(D
A
iw
D
' s' N !
48
O 00 -
N wcn .-107 ro
w .1 1. x-57 N
:-
j -8 r j
cr 13 2 -? m N co co
32
-? N
w
(D CY)
NlliN
9
A
O N
1rnrn
I
A
V
+
U)
A
D
(n -0 -4
A
>7 = rn j j
to o A 3
cn O
N c 1
A

V
1
N

A
n Q A
?rn
N O
m cr O '1 1
W - ?-
31 U3 a 8

O 6?
W O
m ?
14 W °'
F 9 0
? 0

- -? J -
N 0
1 I. C o
0
w
6? m 1
m <
(D

O1
iw
rn

N
rn
co
I a w
.1 i
CD w
U
V
W(D
ttJ (q
co
a
tD

I?
(n
Cn W N V V ?- 0
M a o ..I 1 1. f- 6

r
w
A
4
0-? A
mw V

m
6 -? A
w

((D 1
n -u

"? cD r.
tl)
0 V N
N
N I
-1
"'
(n
--- - --
- --
6
??
0 10 i m

A
N
v
w
iw
m
0
N Q
J ?
w
0
A 0
d
a
'O -n
CJ
D
0 r
0
m N
N X
(n m
co v x-218
o)

cn
N O
O
OD
-460
m n
-? -? 1
155
(D
V
co t0
1724 -? A
0 m
O 1
co
N N
J N
X31
N co N
(D N
w cn V o -2085 w

N
1 ??
j-227 A

w --
±

^? 31 1 J '1 i t N u,
A
cn 2199 m w N rn
w 245-i ^'°- o

i
col w

-4
tv
t- 17
I
N w w
Q n
.
i- 6 co
- -
(n
I r? ? w

Lfl,<
A
O1 (n 0
7
J rn

CA 1-4
{
127
A w (1i
-
w 0 m o -234 A
`O .l I I_ 107 rn
m
I
m 102 "? -? i r cn
No 334 ... . A V co
184-+ O ?A
m
N
O
W
N u1
a
m
(D
O
(n w
t
.L
w
(p r
A ?
0
2)
Q

g
1-95 M
w rnow - 147 w cn Q
.1 I. f-58 °o 33 O
?- s-- Q
t1t
# '
N - 1 I r ? w ?
N 1 19
--.
w A cn
o
32 CD OD
0

O
Q
rnl
O
O
iN

mnwim l-108
6,33
0
.1 I !. F 169 o j C

- te ?
• N
243
'
?

/
to .
o
`
N
rn
794
, -

c

to
N 2^5 L
-
f

A
0
7o d m - I I
0? - - ?
i
CL 4? 2 J I
ww

2-? I rn

rn1 ll(o

L

cn CL rn o

N ? m 34 J. w
V 33 3 .... rn
O i

CL

l +
A
+
wl °

N
w
(D
Q.
n
W 1
-° ass F
(D ?-+
S CO D
Or
: J.
O
n

¢1
C)7
^

. t
C._

"i
(D
-+
0
N

C) CD
tT C:
`G N
m
,It
T
rn

r` r 4- rc n
RS N I Y U)
U t
t i- '' N(L
I
N C

N I N
l?V. l ? i ?J
N
cV ?
L
C C
Q U_
C L
CO
X -
W
cn
Q Q
U-
c'n
V
U N
N
E
W

N
N N Q)
Q) M N M

N r •

` C'i
M
m
r co

N t

ca
L?
r ?
_ r QY ?
t _ ? Y O
ca
Nr O
N
co
r - M
r h
_. O N
N
Q) N O ? N
i?
O
- N
N W O tD
r r (n N l CJ
C I i t a
.- m ?
--
-! N -.
-._
n

N -• to a) Q
D I N o) N

4J
f
N
7
N
?N
CL 1
N >%
M
i?;
b
ro
oo t0
-0
r o 0
[T M N h O .- -t
O ?
1 N
C? +
1
1 '._ h

M N }
`
+
,. o l I a
Jy
N r t-'
`t , w o n r

a
00 v)h r
Q M 1

CL i
N tN
r ?r
C ?
O N

A U) ?I
C r

u U)
v
r?
C o M 7
N

t-

oM-T
.-.. n
h v LO M t 0

1
r 04
v N

o -
h v i
I`

rn
Q

?

to M .- N
?
) -.? LO 7
O
Ol 0
l i

m

? h
N o
N
?• M
N 1 `t N

`
Z M r N
N of N N

OJ N
y N
N 4)
U
U
C Y
ro
ro
u. a
p o
O?
ro
g

?.. N f7
0 Jn
T
ch
rn N cli
f
F.
-
N
O
O) U
CL U
rnl lo
?, a)
L r ?
h
1 1?
/ 1
} r

M r f
'? i I`
N
?
r- Nhr ro N
N ;
I o) f/1
of
of o
i?
d
'a N
_N cN0
N Q.
dM
?y W
?f
s
0 r
I` } N
o N
0
olio
N !- r
0
i ?-
0
Ir
olio
? o
r -? M
/ o
co
r)
o o to
N m
a- ;5
Y
7 N
O U)
U
LO
a cn
Q

O to ic) v
r h h

r
0 N
? I N h
y
..- f N
1
ro _ _ -
CD -? i l-
n cn h -.
N
O w] ?
O
CC
O _ N h N
N /

I
M E

r co M w L`
ro o
Y
C` N
Ol M .fl
O

r1 iN

(O -'- cD m
,tt 4-
m
c?

N r
0
CL U

N 'y

L
L

.s?
G5
U
U
M
L
C ?--
0 i
C LO 0
a) 00 T
X '-
LU 0 M
n
mza
O
O
7C) 0
C\j
U)
W
i
m

ro
O
^ I i_ s cc fl-
(D
N
U)

CL
N U)

ILn
'?
a
C
n

rn ' I 't

cOtl n
m
'o
to
N? r: -a

i u) ro !?
a) co 0
Lo
I^
N
O
tt?
I
^tln
i

y ca rn n I i_
.- N u. LEE
,rl
o -r n ? .-- LI l

`v')• 161 -.? .i i• vi
49£ I co
M
86I t INMK
O ' LO
n) K

ro
cc O Z I
T 1_ r• rn m
Q) a) r I• •- O Z Z
C
O n ?. On
2 °
? ?- ,,-f -.-- K
C 017 1 -
p U) °
co 01 E --• o al ?? ^
ose ; N
° J
;

? N
U)
o 0
to ca N
U) 11 I •'
m

(D Na)K -ZOb M
r C,
a)
a --

ro ObS o 1? N
090
t
M co
N

CL ?

N
ii w
u)
.-
i r
c NI
O
N
c T
ro ? .J
?
i t
C13 K .^a t
O 9E
-?
^ .-
v

.rm0. L 99E
O K O -:
r
K N m '- 806£ n
U) a ?. j I o c
K

M` S9S-?
r m`
_y
Z 16 £
CJ v w N
o
K 9t, )a M0
I K ml
l t
iat
I °
+- EG£l
co Cl)
K .n
07 m - 08b m

?? i•
UZZ.._..?
Lo L
N 659 i K M "'
N
N
i?
O N
Y N
J U
U
?Q
c Y
L
L ro
LL a.
.L
p o
O IO
?. T
0
a
L U)
ro
ro
O
Lr O
.0 0
O
cc
?I
N
M
r N
CO
9+.s
0 -..
e;
m
a) I °
M
?t
.]G co

SEE O Cl)
0)n
T
i 8t L
^ m Q

' -- In
'
i m
n ?+
m Q? L
U
iM
n
II d)
'- 0 C n N n
cw)
9Z M - t ?
c
LO co co
ro
n U)
r
C)
4
? -tt
?
1
14 9Z
1
I11I
1 ?
1r
mm
? w

N
N
a
N . ?I ?CD

in

7 7
1 S
i
I
er N
Q)
n

m ? m
1 a.
n

O .-

M

o c -? ow
N (D
80 -Y. to
0 0
0
L T
N (n
m
aU
7 N
n O
-- U ?n
M ` ir
a to
Q
N a)
N
? m
? In
NMK ?_Z9t
G m K
LO 0
co
V61 0)
m

1` £ 9 l 0) Lo M 0
Ut'
n!
m
innm N
N E
W m _ ro _
i- 60 W
J ?- - ----
- ? co O
f? Cl)
y U
0
tr
/. U
N
N
0
r (O
?
M
N ?
L

..Q

U
U
4-
4-
0
c ,n o
4 (1) 0o=
X -
W p
(A +-
(J) rna-
?-
(15
U rZ
Q
MzO
N E N
O
N
-!-j CD
W
C
+--i
U
w

n ?
n
n
n n
f7
co
r.-
n vu
I.
o,
n?

.-
r, CV
N 0 Wi N
C)
n N N N
ty ^ •? ?•
8l£-!-
co
'A

^
Z Z l --'
17
StiE -i
O
O
cc
c V
O
.6
c tr
o to
a
Cl

a
0
tr
9-1
l-
a
0
LL

ma
ul O N
r m 0)
n Oll?
`
t79Z-•
SOZ -?
y ? v
m

W
I1.0
a
cJ
!._ 9 n
j- 9 as

.I II W - d r
3 ¢
IN ^ a

^ C
t0
O
i"
O
} - S

i
[ O
co
i r-
Wo 0

co
iN
L OLS
J611 N
Z84 N
0)
Cl) o o W
(D y 0)
N n o
i?
t- Osz
OZZ ao
i bEZ n
rl 1 I' ?
M 0 co
Cl) O N
co
fo
iQ
N tofo
f X669

W c
N co
i
1110 -t

1 Lt, U,

ul
- 9aZ
__-
-
-
N? 6 £ z -? C
-
1

m 80b C
1 N 0,
.0 Q,
1t£? I,d OC04 -0
cWV! is
10
0
N

J? In n N

C t"
ro ^
^
?
I
UU .
-

Ca N 01 c o 0)
O 61 -i -t
CC
U)
co
(z
?llin?
w Ul LO C39
,? oon n
L t7 0117
o
v 1 j LZt7
S££-? ?i i ?- - ?.
b 1 1 17 -• N Q7 O) ?W
89 j
? C.)
0 < )
? i
0

Q +- 108Z
m v
l
S9£ `D
a C
) t Cl)
1 r--
rl
`
Z 6Lt71 -• I (0
O) N O) (7
O)
41 S? t0 ? ^
n
co
rn !
0)
N co
W .-
i I`
?00
o V)
O
-- cn
-_
i N a OY
W o U
a v
n

m?

io
C
'
W C
d N
Y N
^oro
t-L d
C

u
C.)
N OD o

?
J U
01
-
fn
'
C C4 01-1
'ail`
w
CQ
p q 0-" N o v m N
LL L1. Old ^o^ N
N
W1 1^
Y ?

8 (h
O y
O
0
W .- f- 0 l °'- to

i r cov fl d
-r co p _
Q)
-0 U) t1 U
Z
?
Wl o
tcli

MM
W
Z
? 7 N
co th E LO O UD
1 ?• _ .
WLO Qtn
I
, 0
m
as
> rn
0 N W
0
? a
l
o? U') r

0
2 a)
N
Z 1 -}

91

??
W
a
? co w W
0
V
.- fr'
N ar

Cf) co
W r •-
'
d m 901
U) 00£-?
o
?
I
n
n
N W
n ?
I
cj
ca
n
?t J
i°
?- l l
of
Ch ^
?- 0 t7 t
' 0£z
j- SZZ W)
Iir` n
n
0 N 0) n
W 01 N
M W W

0
i^

N
4-LZ E
i
+-LZ n l

O co
co
t]
?n O
tr
0

o/
p
1
-1
J l zbt. ? ?? ? -
[7F.:
ILL tj
cc y ''•
t
O ti.
N / 11
0 ?
0 ,
0
0 i
w
0
N z
r a
x
w o = w
Z
LA-

a ?
F LL
z
W 7
O
z cn cn
J
H
W
o o
?
z
°
z z
o
z z 0 0 v
1
-
N
s
Y<
-
?
z E
E
w C
ED L
zZ U
Zm
O
x z ?j <
O o

ILI
r
U)
h-

J
Figure 8
Level of Service
with Proposed Intersection Geometrics
2020

LOCATION PEAK DELAY LOS
Westside Bypass at NC 49 AM (1) (1)
Westside Bypass at NC 49 PM (2) (2)
Westside Bypass at NC 49 AM 14.2 sec. B
Westside Bypass at NC 49 PM 12.8 sec. B
Westside Bypass at NC 49 ADT 19.3 sec. C
Westside Bypass at Roberta Church Road AM 23.4 sec. C
Westside Bypass at Roberta Church Road PM 29.7 sec. D
Westside Bypass at Weddington Road AM 20.4 sec. C
Westside Bypass at Weddington Road PM 19.9 sec. C
Westside Bypass at Poplar Tent Road AM 31.6 sec. D
Westside Bypass at Poplar Tent Road PM 31.6 sec. D
With the addition of one lane in both directions of NC 49, a level of service B or better can
be achieved.
NC 49 volumes using 2 through lanes in both directions and ADT volumes for 2020.
(1) An acceptable V/C ratio for SB traffic on NC 49 was unattainable. However, the proposed
project's leg attained a level-of-service C with a delay of 24.7 seconds.
(2) An acceptable V/C ratio for NB traffic on NC 49 was unattainable. However, the proposed
project's leg attained a level-of-service C with a delay of 22.6 seconds.
C3
0
L 3
i
E

E
U ?

Cl) E
-
4)

U 9
LL. 1 C
-
?
r
E

4) O
O
CL
i.
U
V 0

¦¦ V
Q

N
tV
1
cr
7
Z
IL
0

LL
12
lom?
Q
U
Z
J
Q
m
n
m
jil',j lid
!?
0
r
all
T
[A
co
N O
O r
M r
r ?
O r
O N
E o?
O i
O
N ?
? L
t0 ?
II L
r
O ?
?Q
0
v? U
?- z
MQ
r ?
N ?
0 0 0 0 0 0
?n o u? o to
N N r r
O
i.
0
V
>% N
L 3
ISM L
?V L
E
E
Cl) 13
d 0
Q. c
V
f+ N
? a
V c
V ?a
Q Y
CQ
CV
N
1
cc
2
a
V
V
a
L
a
C

tQ
0
W
t0
O?
? N
o N
M
T i
V / G?
® ? O
-? O
E
0
L
N
o?
0
Cl)
T
N
0 o 0 o to o 0 o
M M N N r r
0
>%

i
E t?
?
E m i

n
13
O

TOM L _
-
?

TM
(,) d
-

L }+ r

0 C
.

a

.0

' E
0 0
O
m i
CL
co
d
Q

" V
a
d'
N
N
cc

s ?
•? a
z V
z
? J
/ayr
LL. Ii
O
Z IIIii„!II?
•la
LL.
0
r
Ct)
r
110-
71
Ll
12
c0
O?
O?
N
N
0
??
o?
T
O? M
?o
T ?
O T
M ?y
O p?
01
T
? N
W ?
L
L
s ?
U
M--:%
.? a
aU
-- z
o "
T
M
T ?
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o ?n o ? o ?
M N N r r
O
U
i
E
E
U
Cl)
L
T ? o
i CL
o
PU
ti 1
w
Q
L
Q
CL
N
N
1
L
A
c
d
C
i.
H
J
4s
a
MMO
0
OC
?o
o?
N
-
N
O
L
r z
M
r M
o?
T
N O
-
M
¦ O
L
w
m
o?
L

U
ea
d.i
L
.o
0
oc
0
T
M
T
0
O?/? O/? O O O O O
W 0 d' M N r
A
C
7
O
V
>% 0
L ?
i

E t?

E

?
n O
M 0
W

0 i
>
0
LL
¦?+ to -

0 0
O
C

¦?
= W
a
r
y a
.. Q
Rt
N
N

s
z
LL
O
z
LL
H
ooffl?
V
z
J
a
D
m

O
CV)
r
¦
O
01
C) ^
N Rt
o0)
i. M
M T
N
O r
M
O N
E I
Ot
o M
N ?
I L
>
a?
ns
V II
m r,
o
4
t(
1.
Uz
o "
?a
r ?
O O O O O O
U) O Lf) O tt)
N N r r
OA
0
u
i
E m
E m
v
Cl) '0
IRt Q
Tom
d ?
L
VI
M.
U. 1
0
Q
Q v
L
a
N
N
1
L
•hr
0
c
M
M
r.
0
I`
M
i
H
J
4)
IM
C
Q
o?
N
0
M cv
? o
r
L
(? M
O
O
M
O
0
m
o?
a?
II
'v
OC
O
N
.i
V
0
M
d'
r
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M M N N r r
NC 49

Westside
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CONCORD-KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
NC 49 TO I-85
CABARRUS COUNTY
R-2246
NC 49 Intersection Figure 15

Bypass
NORTH CAROL NA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CONCORD- KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
NC 49 TO I-85
CABARRUS COUNTY
R-2246 7
1
Roberta Road Intersection Figure 16

Weddington Road
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CONCORD- KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
NC 49 TO I-85
CABARRUS COUNTY
R-2246
I Weddington Road Intersection Figure 17 1

Westside Bypass
R?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CONCORD-KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
NC 49 TO 1-85
CABARRUS COUNTY
R-2246
Poplar Tent Road Intersection Figure 18
F===°== U6I d0 WnlVa W311113A MUMS 1VNOIIVN
\7_.
?:? /'•% (?/ 1333 OZ 1dA2131N1 LIf101NOO
109
y? /?? y5 8313W011N l 0 S' f
• ?A
?? 1333 o00L 0009 0005 o0ot OOOf OOOZ 0001 0 0001
/%?
q_z
0I9.?
-
60
i ,
` V OVA /.. ? / 1 :• ?p • ?I( ,mil ?- ? ,; ? l•_. - ? -- .- ?- ?? ?." ) ,? _,
if X
?- .. ,9 ?v - - - 1 C
M'D
1
?•? _ 1L -?
s
__ ,! '?--??V I r ,l _9 / i • _? • ?` s059 ?- 1
A99 CP9
i
•?? 1? ('
v? avnO 33 allOONOO adnto ounesIaaVH \ / ?? ?' ?? ?? fiz
??`. ` L "• ?_
wa a' i ( o? 5tift
it
?` .. , RI S n \\\\' /
avnb ailOONOO avino S110dVNN1Ol LZ we
A
Ffr
M V
04L m
N\V
?? - ? / • ,,. -n - `? ?. ?, ? , - Jam-
09°) _9Z91ydg (? ( ?-'_ ??• .
II
ll ,
009
\ lie °
?j'
y o?\\ fill snj"
-i'a
o jo s? ?I?I ?? o - M _ \ ??
01
rr err;
OS' 099
co, -3 rA
Jr.
-?? 6 ?? •? • • w /
77-11
(1-9 (6 N1
p ? 16f I •', f?
- 1 ? a? ?j• -.?, ,??? o ,?. , •„?•??• ;, 1, t ? e , ??q ,
•? , °1 ? l •, ?I. ? ?? i' 1 ?r???..?, f\\ it/// •/?? /? •et ?'?I \ ? ?+',?? ..?? ,j-l?? -\t/???; 11 \?r-'.
1.: ?• j? ;?_? A'I? ?.. ti - tiIh`,'
//lam 1, ?? ` ? / ? i ?1 ? ?? o ,-?` ? ii ? ?. •. ' ? ?
dl I tf
•\ J
-.77f, xx
71
c` • 1. ?? ?? ?? / , r ?? ???? A/ ?• : r 1
? l

CABARRUS COUNT
r' CITY OF CONCORD RM 169
ZONE
x 0
ZONE
X
80' 37' 30"
35' 22' 30
City of Concord
3'70037
ZONE
x
Cabarrus County
Unincorporated Areas
370036 11
_ ZONE W ZONE
x ZONE g A
" AE
ZONE
-? RM 170 AE °
ZONE
- 573 X m

ZONE
X o
N1 _ RM SIT
171
?- = RM'
572 172 1309

ZONE". -- -
AE --
-" ZONE
(ARAM
_ 569
X
ROAD 568
0
o ZONE = sue, 566.
X
w t304

o
ZONE
7
..CODDLE
X CREEK
A

b ZONE 4

0
0
D?
0
ZONE
srO?c A
h R
O,qO
RM
173
ZONE
AE
h ?QO
ZONE
Figure 20
i
14;
RM 111

32
M 112
ZONE
X
- --
Q
0
W RM
5 83 113
JOINS PANEL 0115
ROAD
AffAMMAT E
I Do -YEAR FLOG P FL.AIN
$ITF-
ONE
X
>ZONE
AE
ZONE,
X s
jj U
PRESTWICK >
CT } 4Y BRIGH'pN
INVERNESS
PLACE NW
GIVERNEY WEDDING
GREENSIDE CT

OR
MILFORD
CT
?F pJV-
1( C??•?
Oq0 w ? i
C
NS
GREEN .

CEDARFIELD F
}
City 0 1

C Concond
CREENSI DE
GREENSIDE C' 3 7 0 0 3 7
TWELFTH DR
FAIRWAY
DRIVE
OJ2 COiO
U 02
J? V
29 ?? 04
ZONE X
w Cit
&
Tq
ctiG?c? 1
RM 114
==-' ZONE /WIND SWEPT ROAD
AE '
Figure 21
Al
3 U V? ??
City of Concord
370037
2
-? ? O? A`MP p A
pR1VE
3 /9 -
- CSR EN1ER PRISE
_ - MONK ANA
J
= IDAHO LA L) BUSINESS
BLVD
RM 105
COLORADO DR
WYOMING DRIVE ZONE
---- GRAND
ANY ?O
6/8
WYOMING p
0 DRIVE g
ZONE GRAND CANYON ROAD
AE
1394 GN?M?000 v
v
03 Cl
-ONE co
X 2
?? HE?jNSt ONE
CS
a
z
n
0
Z
P
ZONE X
m
S
F14_291
?'? ?F Go GO?N? ?
G? uS
G P8 PRR
OR?VE
I Jg??G
REP
V
City of Concord
370037
r/
POPLAR TENT
BAILEYS LAKE
ROAD
M //HONDUR
ROAD

ZONE ?A"oXIMgTE 100-YEAR F'LOODPLAW
X
S 179

P?
QF.
CEL1
DR
ALLEGHANY
ST
Cabarrus County
MEADOV
Unincorporated Areas
370036 Figure 22
FRl
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RELOCATION PROGRAMS
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGR.--V:NIS
It is the police of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will
be available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore. the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance.
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing of other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving
expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to
purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in
cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to
$5.250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-
133-5 through 133- 18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance ad-visory
services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations, and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitan• standards. The
displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displace persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard
to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property,
will be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will be
reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist
owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organization, and farm operations in searching
for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive and
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supple
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advison, services as needed in order to minimize hardships
to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displaces
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attornev's fees, surveys. appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increase interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not
exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment. not to exceed $5.250. to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment. including incidental expenses. on
the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the State
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds 55,250.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable or adequate
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable
period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as
income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of
determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the
Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the State so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appears to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area.
APPENDIX B
RELOCATION REPORTS
RREPORT
Mx E.I.S. M CORRIDOR M DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2661601 COUNTY Cabarrus Alternate 1 N
I.D. NO.: R-2246 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening to the North Side of Existing Stough Road (SR 1309) and Stough
Road Extension North Side
wwwx?
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees
Owners
Tenants Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 15 14 29 0 2 8 12 6 1
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILAIN
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 2 $ 0-160 0 o-toe 2 $0-150 0
ANSWE R ALL QMSTIONS 20-40M 6 150-250 0 20-40M 6 150.260 1
Yes No Explains// OYES" answers. 40-70M 7 250.100 6 40-70M 17 250400 3
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-loom 0 400400 a 70-100M 20 400400 12
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 uP 0 600 uP 0 100 uP 3b 600 uP 0
displacement? TOTAL 15 14 80 16
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Res and b Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3 Businesses will not be disrupted after project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6 Realtors®, MLS, real estate publications and on-
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? ground investigation.
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8 Last resort housing will be administered in
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? accordance with State law.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 11 Section 8 housing Is available.
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available? 12 Comparable housing should be available within the
x 12. Is It felt there will be adequate DSS housing relocation period.
housing available during relocation period?
-7 x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 14 Same as number six.
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source). *ONE MOBILE HOME* =
5' ?'
15. Number months estimated to complete ^. _^•, _
RELOCATION? 18 months

-/? 7-
location Agent Date Approved Date
-----fir-- ?---.
Form 15.4 Revised 02M d vngmal a i t.vpy. atata r{a1VGaUVr? MUMIL
2 Copy Area Rebcation Office
!I RELOCATION REPORT II
ED E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of. Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2661601 COUNTY Cabarrus Alternate 1 S
I.D. NO.: R-2246 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening South Side of Existing Stough Road (SR 1309) and Stough Road
Extension South Side
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 25 14 39 1 3 11 15 10 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 3 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTI ONS 20-40M 10 150-250 0 20.40M 6 150-250 1
Yes No Explain alt "YES" answers. 40-70M 10 250-400 6 40-70M 17 250.400 3
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 1 400.600 8 70-100M 20 400-600 12
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 1 600 UP 0 100 up 35 600 up 0
displacement? TOTAL 25 14 80 16
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Businesses will not be disrupted after project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. Two Businesses: BURLESON MOTORS, 2000 square
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? feet office space, 2 employees and no minorities.
6. Source for available housing (list). ANTIQUE SHOP, 800 square feet office space, two
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? employees, no minorities.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 6. RealtorsO, MILS, real estate publications and on-ground
families? investigation.
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available? 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing with State law.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 11. Section 8 housing is available.
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 12. Comparable housing should be available within the
source). relocation period.
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18 months 14. Same as Number Six.

Relocatio ent Date A roved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT J1
? E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR r-? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2661601 COUNTY Cabarrus Alternate 2 M
I.D. NO.: R-2246 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 29 Interchange Proposed at the Intersection of Roberta Church Road (SR
1310 and US 29 Middle Alternate).
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP
Residential 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 4 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DS8 DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 0 0-20M 2 $ 0-160 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 0 150-250 0 20.40M 6 150.250 1
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M 5 260400 0 40-70M 17 250400 3
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400.600 0 70400M 20 400400 12
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 ur 0 800 ur 0 100 up g5 600 up 0
displacement? TOTAL 51 , 0 80 16
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Businesses will not be disrupted after project
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. One Business: Cristy's Nursery, 900 square feet office
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? space, six employees and two minorities.
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 6, Realtors®, MLS, real estate publications and on-ground
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? investigation.
x g. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 8. Last resort housing will be administered In accordance
x 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? with State law.
X 11 . Is public housing available?
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 11. Section 8 housing Is available.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within 12. Comparable housing should be available within the
financial means? relocation period.
x 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source). 14. Same as number six.
15 . Number months estimated to complete
R&OCATM? 9 months
2,1 z-? 7-/V
'
R I ion Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 RaMied GM d Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPO RT
ED E.I.S. E:] CORRIDOR F_? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2661601 COUNTY Cabarrus Alternate 2N
I.D. NO.: R-2246 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 29 Interchange Proposed North of Roberta Church Road (SR 1310) and
US 29 Intersection.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 5 4 9 0 3 2 4 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 0 0-20M 2 t 0-160 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 3 760-460 4 204" 6 160-260 1
Yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M 2 250400 0 40-70M 17 260400 3
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400400 0 70-100M 20 400$00 12
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 900 UP 0 100 uF 35 $00 uF 0
displacement? TOTAL 5 4 80 16
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond > Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business services will not be disrupted after project
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6. Realtors®, MLS, real estate publications and on-ground
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? investigation.
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? with State law.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 9. May be two or three elderly families.
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11 . Is public housing available? 11. Section 8 housing is available.
x 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? 12. Comparable housing should be available within the
x 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within relocation period.
financial means?
x 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list 14. Same as number six.
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
MOCAlwa? 9 MONTHS "FOUR MOBILE HOMES

R ion Agent Date Approved b Date
Forth 15.4 Revved 02105 d original e i Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT J1
I x l E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2661601 COUNTY Cabarrus Alternate 2S
I.D. NO.: R-2246 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: US 29 Interchange Proposed South of Roberta Church Road (SR 1310) US
29 Intersection
.ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 8 0 8 0 2 2 2 2 0
Businesses 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLM DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 1 $0.150 0 0-20M 2 t 0-160 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 5 150-250 0 20.40M 6 150.250 1
Yee No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40-70M 1 250400 0 40-70M 17 250400 3
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 1 400600 0 70-100M 20 40044 12
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 uF 0 600 uF 0 100 uF 35 600 uF 0
displacement? TOTAL 8 0 80 16
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project?
4 . Will any business be displaced? if so, 4. Two Businesses:
indicate size, type, estimated number of SIMPSON'$ ANTIQUES SHOP. 600 square feet office
employees, minorities, etc. space, two employees, and no minorities.
5 . Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6 . Source for available housing (list). EAGLE ROCK ENTERPRISES , 600 square feet office
7 . Will additional housing programs be needed? space, two employees, and no minorities.
X 8 . Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 8 . Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 6. RealtorsM, MILS, real estate publications and on-
ground investigation.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project? 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accor-
X 11. Is public housing available? dance with State law.
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? 11. Section 8 housing is available.
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means? 12. Comparable housing should be available within the
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list relocation period.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete 14. Same as Number 6.
RELOCATIONS 9 months

Ft4 ocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 R"6ed 02/95 d Original 8 1 Copy. State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
ORT
RELOCATION REP
? E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR [] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2661601 COUNTY Cabarrus Alternate 3
I.D. NO.: R-2246 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Weddington Road (SR 1431) to Interstate 85 Interchange,
Widening will be to the South of Existing Crisco Road SR-1430
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING D88 DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-160 0 0-20M 2 SO-1150 0
ANIIWE R ALL'CUEBTRM 204N 0 150-250 0 2040 6 150-260 1
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250400 0 40-70M 17 260.100 3
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 4004600 0 70-100M 20 4004600 12
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up p Soo UP 0 100 UP 38600 uP 0
displacement? TOTAL 1 0 80 16
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 3. Business will not be disrupted by this project.
6. Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 6. RealtorsO, MLS, real estate publications and on-
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? ground investigation.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accor-
x 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? dance with State law.
x 11 . Is public housing available?
x 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 11. Section 8 housing is available.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within 12. Comparable housing should be available within the
financial means? relocation period.
x 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source). 14. Same as Number 6.
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 6 months f 77

Rel
ton A bent Date A roved b Date
Pam 15.4 Revised`WW d original S 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS TABLES
FIGURE N1-PROJECT LOCATION & NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES
NC 49 to I-85
CABARRUS COUNTY
STATE PROJECT #8.2661601, TIP #R-2246
'
! g C
]39Z f PA f iF(: ::ice vl

1..!

O
\\
1444
END TPOlui+cl '
-. ror. 17.76!
err.
601
'?
MU ,0 176
3
/ .
3
' FA
QNC,ORD 6 Y
•.`

?'
U?t`, •:'`
ro?. 16.942 FA
:6 J3L? TJ d
.4, Qlar Tent
I A"
'G
O 0 1 °
v r A?
J
Q ?? 29
•'
tr
! ,
(r
rr `?'

Wz
?) %

?'?
? err.
6,y 601
:
?
pus %
v:?: ;:R?
-•_, f
!L a Milt:. 0 .: :.;> .

icy
17RP 1 /
o
im r.:: v
Iii
ar?i;'t 04
i„a, 12l0

BEGIN ' ` •7 ;?s.r Lax

?0 1 f s6
A
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Paver lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmh 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmh 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 I THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
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
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
SITE
Westside Bypass
From NC 49 to I-85
Cabarrus County
TIP# R-2246 State Project# 8.2661601
LOCATION
NOISE
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. 335m West of NC 49
2. 490m West of Roberta Road
3. 140m West of Poplar Tent Road
Grassy 58
Grassy 55
Computer Model 56
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
1/4
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOS URES
WESTSIDE BYPASS
From NC 49 to I-85 Cabarrus County
State Project# 8.2661601 TI PNR-2246
NOISE
AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
RECE PTOR INFORMAT ION NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
ID N
..... LAND USE CATE
............. GORY
.... NAME DISTANCE(m
................ )
.. LEVEL
..... ..................
From NC 49 to Roberta Road

1
Business
C
STOUGH RD. 46.0
R
50
WEST BYP. 46.0 R - 65
_ * + 15
5
0
55 L 48 " 55.0 L - - 64 * + 1
2 Residence H
.
- 55
+ 14
3 Residence B " 116.0 L 41
116.0 L
-
0
" 43 L 51 43.0 L - - It 66 * + 15
4 Residence B
.
- 61
* + 15
5 Residence B
70.0
L
46
" 70.0 L
-
B
46.0
L
50
" 46.0 L
- - 65
* + 15
6 Residence - 66 * + 15
7 Business C
•' 43.0
R
51
" 43.0 R
-
C " 73.0 R 46
73.0 R
- - 61
* + 15
8 Business - 57 It + 15
9 Business C 101.0 R 42
•' 101.0 R
-
SO Residence B
46.0
"
R
50
It 46.0 R
- - 65
` + 15
H
46.0
R
50
" 46.0 R
- - 65
* + 15
11 Residence - * 69 * + 15
12 Residence B
•' 30.0
L
54
" 30.0 L
-
*
* + 15
13 Residence B
•' 43.0
L
51
" 43.0 L
66
- -
14 Residence B
•' 76.0
L
45
It 76.0 L
- - 60
It + 15
B
" 30.0
L
54
30.0 L
- - * 69
It + 15
15 Residence - * 67 It + 15
16 Residence B
" 37.0
L
52
" 37.0 L
-
B
'• 37.0
L
52
" 37.0 L
- - * 67
* + 15
17 Residence - * 69 It + 15
18 Residence B
30.0
L
54
It 30.0 L
-
H It 40.0 R 51 It 40.0 R - - It 67 It + 16
19 Residence - * 67 It + 16
20 Residence B
'• 40.0
R
51
" 40.0 R
-
21 Residence B
•' 30.0
R
54
" 30.0 R
- - * 69
* + 15
22 Residence B
•' 43.0
L
51
" 43.0 L
- - * 66
* + 15
B
•' 30.0
L
54
'• 30.0 L
- - It 69
* + 15
23 Residence - It 67 * + 15
24 Residence B
•' 37.0
L
52
" 37.0 L
-
B
40.0
L
51
" 40.0 L
- - * 67
* + 16
25 Residence - 60 * + 15
26 Residence 8
76.0
L
45
" 76.0 L
-
0
•' 34 L 53 " 34.0 L - - * 68 It + 15
27 Residence B
.
- It 68
It + 15
28 Residence H 34.0 L 53 34.0 L -
0
24 L 55 " 24.0 L - - * 71 It + 16
29 Residence H
.
- It 69
* + 15
30 Residence B
•' 30.0
L
54
" 30.0 L
-
0
26 R 55 " 26.0 R - - It 71 It + 16
31 Residence B
.
- * 67
It + 16
32 Residence B
40.0
R
51
" 40.0 R
-
0
40 R 51 " 40.0 R - - * 67 It + 16
33 Residence H
.
- It 67
It + 16
34 Residence B
40.0
R
51
" 40.0 R
-
It
It + 15
0
37 R 52 " 37.0 R 67
- -
35 Residence B
.
of the ex isti ng or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
NOT E: Distances are fro m center -Y--> Noise level from other contrib uting roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels.
exteri or/inter
* _>
ior (58/48).
Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Category E noise levels shown as
TABLE N4 2/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
WESTSIDE BYPASS
From NC 49 to I-85 Caba rrus County
State Project# 8.2661601 TIPNR-2246
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(m)
.................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
............... ..: -L-
....:_... -Y-
... .... MAXIMUM
....... INCREASE
From NC 49 to Roberta Road (Cont•d)
36 Residence B STOUGH RD. 40.0 R 51 WEST BYP. 40.0 R - - " 67 * + 16
37 Residence B " 46.0 L 50 •' 46.0 L - - 65 * + 15
38 Residence B " 40.0 L 51 " 40.0 L - - * 67 * + 16
39 Residence B " 34.0 L 53 " 34.0 L - - " 68 * + 15
40 Residence B " 27.0 L 54 " 27.0 L - - * 70 * + 16
From Roberta Road to Weddington Road
41 Residence B ROBERTA RD. 24.0 L 53 WEST BYP. 58.0 L 64.5 70.9 " 71 It + 18
42 Residence B " 58.0 L 46 " 0.0 L --------- ------- ----R/W----- ------
43 Residence B •' 134.0 L 45 " 21.0 L 73.9 61.2 * 74 " + 29
44 Residence B " 30.0 L 51 " 21.0 R 73.9 70.0 * 75 * + 24
45 Residence B " 24.0 L 53 •' 58.0 R 64.5 70.9 * 71 It + 18
46 Residence B " 46.0 L 48 " 24.0 R 72.8 68.3 It 74 * + 26
47 Residence B It 116.0 L 45 It 37.0 R 69.0 62.4 * 69 * + 24
48 Residence B ROB.CHURCH RD155.0 L 45 " 18.0 L 74.4 60.0 * 74 * + 29
49 Residence B " 34.0 L 50 " 34.0 L - - * 69 * + 19
50 Residence B " 30.0 R 51 It 30.0 R - - It 70 * + 19
51 Residence B " 52.0 R 47 '• 52.0 R - - 65 * + 18
52 Business C " 73.0 R 45 '• 73.0 R - - 62 * + 17
53 Residence B " 27.0 R 52 '• 27.0 R - * 71 * + 19
54 Residence B " 21.0 R 54 It 21.0 R - - * 73 * + 19
55 Residence B " 40.0 R 49 " 40.0 R - - * 68 * + 19
56 Residence B " 61.0 R 45 " 61.0 R - - 63 * + 18
57 Residence B
" 61.0
R
45
" 61.0
R
-
-
63
* + 18
58 Residence B " 43.0 R 48 " 43.0 R - - * 67 * + 19
59 Residence B " 21.0 R 54 It 21.0 R - - * 73 * + 19
60 Residence B •' 21.0 R 54 " 21.0 R - - " 73 * + 19
61 Residence B " 30.0 L 51 •' 30.0 L - - * 70 * + 19
62 Residence B
30.0
L
51
" 30.0
L
-
-
* 70
* + 19
63 Residence B
'• 30.0
L
51
" 30.0
L
-
-
It 70
* + 19
64 Residence B
27.0
L
52
" 27.0
L
-
-
* 71
It + 19
65 Residence B
It 27.0
L
52
" 27.0
L
-
-
* 71
* + 19
66 Residence B
•' 24.0
L
53
It 24.0
L
-
-
* 72
* + 19
B " 27.0 L 52 " 27.0 L - - * 71 * + 19
67 Residence
om center of the ex
f isti ng or proposed roadways. -L -=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
NOT E: Distances
e
i
l are
r
levels are hourly A-weigh ted noise levels. -Y -.> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
no
s
Al wn as ex
h
l teri or/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
Category E noise o
s s
leve
TABLE N4 3/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
WESTSIDE BYPASS
From NC 49 to I-85 Cabarrus County
State Project# 8.2661601 TIPMR-2246
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
...................... .................. ..... .................. ........................ ........
From Roberta Road to Weddington Road (Cont'd)
68 Residence B ROB. CHURCH RD30.0 L 51 WEST BYP. 30.0 L - - * 70 " + 19
69 Residence B " 55.0 L 46 " 55.0 L - - 65 * + 19
70 Residence B " 49.0 L 47 " 49.0 L - - " 66 * + 19
71 Residence B 37.0 L 50 " 37.0 L - - * 68 * + 18
72 Residence B " 37.0 L 50 " 37.0 L - - " 68 " + le
73 Residence B " 18.0 L 55 " 18.0 L - - * 74 * + 19
74 Residence B " 18.0 L 55 " 18.0 L - - * 74 * + 19
75 Residence B " 21.0 L 54 " 21.0 L - - * 73 * + 19

76
Residence
B r.
15.0
L ??
56
15.0
L
-
- *
74
+ le
*
77 Residence B " 27.0 L 52 " 27.0 L - - " 71 * + 19
78 Residence B " 24.0 L 53 " 24.0 L - - * 72 * + 19
79 Residence B " 21.0 L 54 21.0 L - - * 73 * + 19
80 Residence B " 30.0 L 51 30.0 L - - * 70 * + 19
81 Residence B " 30.0 L 51 " 30.0 L - - " 70 * + 19
82 Business C NC 29 21.0 L 54 " 52.0 L --------------- -----R/W------- -------
83 Residence B CON.FARM 311.0 R 45 " 140.0 R 54.5 45.0 54 + 9
84 Business C " 329.0 R 45 " 91.0 R 59.6 45.0 59 + 14
85 Residence B WEDD.RD. 37.0 R 50 " 82.0 R 60.8 62.2 64 + 14
From Weddington Road to Poplar Tent Road ( COnt'd)
86 Residence B WEDD. RD. 27.0 L 53 WEST BYP. 125.0 L 56.5 70.5 * 70 * + 17
87 Residence B 30.0 L 52 " 85.0 L 61.0 70.0 * 70 * + 18
88 Residence B " 61.0 L 46 " 85.0 L 61.0 66.7 * 67 * + 21
89 Residence B CRISCO RD. 55.0 L 47 " 55.0 L - - 65 * + 18
90 Residence B " 37.0 L 51 " 37.0 L - - * 69 * + 16
91 Residence B " 40.0 R 50 " 40.0 R - - " 66 * + 18
From Poplar Tent Road to I-85
92 Residence B CRISCO RD. 46.0 R 49 WEST BYP. 46.0 R - - * 66 " + 17
93 Residence B " 37.0 L 51 " 37.0 L - - * 68 * + 17
94 Residence B " 21.0 L 55 " 21.0 L - - * 73 * + le
95 Residence B " 18.0 L 56 " 18.0 L - - " 74 " + 18
96 Residence B " 15.0 L 57 " 15.0 L - - * 74 * + 17
NOTE: Distances are from center of the ex isting or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A- weigh ted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as ex terior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
TABLE N4 4/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
WESTSIDE BYPASS
From NC 49 to I-85 Cabarrus County
State Project# 8.2661601 TIPMR-2246
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
REC EPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From Poplar Tent Road to I-85 (Cont'd)
97 Residence B CRISCO RD. 37.0 R 51 WEST BYP. 37.0 R - - * 68 " + 17
98 Residence B " 61.0 R 46 " 61.0 R - - 63 " + 17
99 Residence B " 37.0 R 51 " 37.0 R - - " 68 * + 17
100 Residence B " 30.0 R 52 " 30.0 R - - * 70 * + 18
101 Residence B " 24.0 R 54 " 24.0 R - - * 72 " + 18
102 Residence B " 24.0 R 54 " 24.0 R - - * 72 * + 18
103 Residence B " 46.0 R 49 •' 46.0 R - - * 66 * + 17
104 Residence B " 27.0 R 53 " 27.0 R - - * 71 " + 18
105 Residence B " 40.0 R 50 •' 40.0 R - - * 68 " + 18
106 Residence B " 15.0 L 57 " 15.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
107 Residence B " 18.0 L 56 " 18.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
108 Residence B •' 15.0 L 57 " 15.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
109 Residence B •' 55.0 L 47 " 55.0 L - - 64 * + 17
110 Residence B " 73.0 L 44 " 73.0 L - - 62 * + 18
111 Residence B " 18.0 L 56 '• 18.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
112 Residence B " 18.0 L 56 " 18.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
113 Residence B " 21.0 L 55 " 21.0 L --------------------R/W------ --------
114 Residence B " 21.0 L 55 " 21.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
115 Residence B '• 21.0 L 55 " 21.0 L --------------------R/W------ --------
116 Residence B " 64.0 L 46 •' 64.0 L - - 63 * + 17
117 Residence B " 64.0 L 46 " 64.0 L - - 63 * + 17
118 Residence B " 18.0 L 56 " 18.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
119 Residence B " 21.0 L 55 `• 21.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
120 Residence B " 21.0 L 55 " 21.0 L --------------------R/W--------------
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
Description
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Weetside Bypass
From NC 49 to I-85, Caburrus County
State Project# 8.2661601 TIPS R-2246
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
1. NC 49 to Roberta Road 70 66 61 23m 41m 0 35 4 0 0
2. Roberta Road to Waddington Road 71 67 62 27m 46m 0 39 1 0 0
3. Waddington Road to Poplar Tent Road 72 68 62 29m 48m 0 6 0 0 0
4. Poplar Tent Road to I-85 71 67 62 27m 45m 0 18 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 98 5 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Weetside Bypass
From NC 49 to I-85, Caburrus County
State Project# 8.2661601 TIP# R-2246
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Section Noise Level to Both
<=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >= 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

1. NC 49 to Roberta Road 0 0 0 1 39 0 0 39 27
2. Roberta Rd. to Waddington Rd. 0 0 1 2 35 2 3 40 35
3. Waddington Rd. to Poplar Tent 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 6 5
Rd.
4. Poplar Tent Rd. to I-85 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1S 13
TOTALS 0 0 1 3 97 3 3 103 80
(1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Tab le N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
APPENDIX D
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS TABLES
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2246: West Bypass Cabarrus Co. RUN: West Byp. 1998, BUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 09/16/1994 TIME: 14:07:45.67
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB . 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 15.2 -804.7 15.2 804.7 1609. 360. AG 530. 15.7 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 530. 15.7 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R76, 15m LT. CL RES -15.2 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2246: West Bypass Cabarrus Co. RUN: West Byp. 1998, BUILD 45 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
2.9
5
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2246: West Bypass Cabarrus Co. RUN: West Byp. 2018, BUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 09/16/1994 TIME: 14:07:56.88
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S VD a .0 CM/S ZO a 108. CM
U . 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
X1
1. Far Lane Link
2. Near Lane Link
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
15.2 -804.7 15.2 804.7 I 1609. 360. AG 1310. 10.7 .0 13.4
.0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1310. 10.7 .0 13.4
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R76, 15m LT. CL RES -15.2 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2246: West Bypass Cabarrus Co. RUN: West Byp. 2018, BUILD 45 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR )
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
3.5
4
APPENDIX E
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch

Z
0
FI
wr it .
CONCORD - KAN NAPOLI S
WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
NC 49T0I-85
CABAR RU S COUNTY
T. I. P. NUMBER R - 2246
JANUARY 11, 1994
Citizens Informational Worksho
?tSORTy
INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
Concord-Kannapolis
Westside Bypass Extension
From NC 49 to I-85
Cabarrus County
State Project 8.2661601
F. A. Project STP-OOOS(46)
TIP No. R-2246
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
This workshop is being held to discuss proposed plans for the Westside Bypass
Extension in Cabarrus County. The project extends from NC 49 at Stough Road (SR
1309) to I-85 at Crisco Road (SR 1430). Comments and suggestions concerning the
proposed project improvements are appreciated and will be considered during the project
study.
The Division of Highways recognizes that individuals living close to a proposed
project want to be informed of the possible effects of the project on their homes and
businesses. However, exact information is not available at this stage of the planning
process. Additional design work is necessary before the actual right of way limits can be
established. More detailed information will be available at the public hearing to be held at
a later date.
Written comments and requests for additional information should be addressed to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1994-2000 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for constructing a 4 lane facility with a
46-foot median between NC 49 and I-85. It is anticipated 200 feet of right of way will be
required to contain the proposed improvements.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1997 and construction
is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1999. These schedules are subject of the availabilty of
sufficient highway funds.
EXISTING FACILITY
Length: 6.5 miles
Roadway width: var. 16-21 feet
Right of way width: 60 feet
Terrain: rollinp,
Access control: none
Speed limit: 35, 45, & 55 mph zones
Traffic volumes: 1992: 1600 AADT (Crisco Road)
Signals: none
Structures: Afton Run Branch: double 8'x9' RCBC
Wolf Meadow Branch: bridge (,w/timber deck)
TIP COST ESTIMATE
Prior Year $500,000
Right of way $3,260,000
Construction $9,450,000
Total estimated cost $13,210,000
ESTIMATED COST
Right of way $3.500,000
Construction $10,627,000
Total estimated cost $14,127,000
NORTH CAROLINA
+ v
,
-o--"!0-5. CT
WT,
WAL9
0 mile 1/2
BEGIN PROJECT
CABARRUSCOUNTY
w. Sil+ r. r
A R U 5,/
M .
l?
N011'I11 CAI1111,IN,\ I11:1',\ll IAih:N*I tlI
1.HANSPORTA'f ION
DIVISION Oh'lllI RIWAYA
i'I,ANNINO ANTI HNV1110NNIENIAL
.J I111ANC11
CONCORD-KANNAPOLIS
WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSION
NC 49 TO 1.85
CABARRUS COUNTY
R - 2246
LOCATION MAP FIG 1
INFORMATIONAL ?, RKSHOP
Wolf Meadow Elementary School
January 11. 1994
COMMENT SHEET
Proposed new route for the Westside Bypass Extension from NC 49 at Stough
Road (SR 1309) to I-85 at Crisco Road (SR 1430) in Cabarrus County. Transportation
Improvement Project No. R-2246.
NAME: (please print)
ADDRESS:
CITY/TOWN: STATE: ZIP:
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, ETC.
Statements relative to the proposed project may also be mailed to:
.IR. H. FRANKLIN VICK, P. E., MANAGER
PLANNING AND ENVIRON'TMENTAL BRANCH
POST OFFICE BOX 25201
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27611
APPENDIX F
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
WPQ?M N? F ry??y TAKES
United States Department of the Interior PRIDE IN
m
O 9
O
' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
H ,ear Asheville Field Office ¦
. I V
330 Ridgefield Court /'Q.
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 F, E February 10, 1994 f tb 1 41994
??y 01V1S1CN OF
''? H1ONV Ai S
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager `C`QV"RO.
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Scoping for proposed Westside Bypass, Concord-Kannapolis, NC 49
to I-85, Cabarrus County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2246
In your letter of January 5, 1994 (received January 10, 1994), you
requested information regarding potential environmental impacts that
could result from the subject project for your use in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. The following comments
are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the construction of the Westside Bypass near Concord and
Kannapolis. The project includes the widening of SR 1309 (Stough Road)
from NC 49 and US 29. The project will be on new alignment between US 29
and SR 431 (Weddington Road). The bypass will be a limited access 4-lane
roadway with a 46 foot median and a 200 foot right-of-way.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed actions may have on listed or
proposed endangered or threatened species and on stream and wetland
ecosystems within the project impact area. Preference should be given to
alternative alignments, stream-crossing structures, and construction
techniques that avoid or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
The enclosed page identifies federally protected endangered and
threatened species known from Cabarrus County that may occur within the
area of influence of this proposed action. The legal responsibilities of
a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative under
Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration.
The enclosed page also contains a list of candidate species that are
currently under status review by the Service which may occur in the
¦
P
project impact area. Candidate species are not legally protected under
the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to
give you advance notification. The presence or absence of these species
in the project impact area should be addressed in any environmental
document prepared for this project.
The Service's review of the environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional rights-of-way
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
climbing lanes.
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be
filled as a consequence of the proposed road
improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed
project should be mapped in accordance with the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4854), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(5) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(6) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-94-043.
Sincerely,
Robert R. Currie
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Randy C. Wilson, Section Manager, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife and
Permits Section, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-94-043
February 10, 1994
CABARRUS COUNTY
CRUSTACEANS
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod (Dactylothere peedeensis) - candidate
CLAMS
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmi4ona decorata) - Endangered*
PLANTS
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - Endangered
Heller's trefoil (Lotus aurshianus var. helleri) - Candidate
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) - Candidate*
*Indicates no specimen from Cabarrus County in at least 20 years.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARI -
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF AOMINISTRAT
116 WEST JONES STREET O
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA ?03-8003
02-17-94
e1e?
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS DIVISIOM (1F ?t
HIGHWAY'S P?
MAILED TO: FROM: cr WRON?c
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
FRANK VICK DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED REALIGNMENT OF THE WESTSIDE BYPASS EXTENSIONt
NC 49 TO I-85, CABARRUS COUNTY
TIP #R-2246
SAI NO 94E42200495 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.G. REGION F
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Office of Policy Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
John G. Humphrey, Director
MEMORANDUM
A4
Aft?lk
[D EHNR
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0495 Scoping Proposed Concord-Kannapolis Westside
Bypass, NC 49 to I-85, Cabarrus County
DATE: February 7, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our commenting divisions if additional
assistance is needed.
attachments
8 1994
- -JL
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina MA
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, r C) C
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 3, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart,"Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0495; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass, NC49 to
I-85, Cabarrus County, TIP #R-2246
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
February 2, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall Cj
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Extension of Westside Bypass, Kannapolis-
Concord
REFERENCE: 94-0495
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for a
number of rare species occurring within the general vicinity of
the proposed project. Rare plants include Carolina birdfoot-
trefoil (Lotus helleri), a candidate for both federal and state
listing, and prairie dock (Silphium terebinthinaceum), also a
candidate for state listing. One rare animal recorded from Afton
Creek and other tributaries of Coddle Creek is the Carolina
darter (Etheostoma collis), a fish state-listed as Special
Concern.
Many of the rare plants found in this area occur in open habitats
associated with circumneutral to basic soils. Soil of this type
is in fact mapped at several locations along the proposed
alignment, including a site identified by the Natural Heritage
Program as a Priority Natural Area located along SR 1309 just
south of US 29 (the McLaughlin Road Basic Forest). Since this
project is to be built at least partially on new alignments and
will involve widening of existing roads over the remainder, we
recommend that a survey be conducted during the appropriate
seasons by a qualified biologist. In addition to the state-
listed and federal candidate species known to occur in the area,
we recommend that the search also look for other rare species,
particularly those associated with basic soils. One such species
is Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), federally
and state-listed as Endangered.
If populations of rare species are discovered, we recommend that
alignments be chosen that avoid damage to them as much as
possible. We make the same recommendation regarding natural area
found along SR 1309. Where impacts are unavoidable, we further
recommend that the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the NC Plant
Conservation Program be consulted in regard to potential
mitigation.
Melba McGee
February 3, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10501er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
January 27, 1994

TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
Melba McGee
Policy Development
Don H. Robbins n??
Staff Forester tb

K ay?. ,tiv?
DOT EA/Scoping for Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Westside Bypass on
New Location in Cabarrus County
#94-0495
DUE DATE: 2-494
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed project, the
Environmental Assessment should contain the following information concerning the
proposed alternative routes for the possible right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be taken out of forest production
as a result of this project.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series, that would be
involved within the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber that is
to be removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and
burning during construction. If any burning is needed, the contractor should
comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning.
Page 2
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to
prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the
right-of--way and construction limits. Trees outside the construction limits should
be protected from construction activities to avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that
impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over
the root systems of trees.
We would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the least impact to forest
and related resources in that area.
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Howard Williams - D12
File

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural sources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for Concord-Kannapolis, Westside Bypass, NC 49
to I-85, Cabarrus County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-
2246, SCH Project No. 94-0495.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin
Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
improvements, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCWRC stated in previous comments that other possible
alignments exist for this project, however NCDOT rejected the
alignment that followed existing Pitts School Road (SR 1305) due
to the fact it does not conform to the thoroughfare plan. We
recognize that impacts to fish and wildlife have been reduced by
upgrading existing roadways along a portion of this project and
support the NCDOT in this decision. However, we feel that
opportunities exist to further minimize impacts by studying
alternate alignments for the section between US 29 and SR 1431.
To help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, our general information needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
Memo Page 2 February 4, 1994
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories. A listing of designated plant species can
be developed through consultation with:.
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
Memo Page 3 February 4, 1994
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated
with other state, municipal, or private development
projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please contact David Cox, Highway Projects Coordinator,
at [phone].
CC: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
•6666 •r, nruw?un? Reviewing Office: Lys /
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
jINTERGVVERNMENTAf. REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
L7 4/ - i) ?/ S' ., I- I/
After review of this project it has been determined that the EMNR permll(s) arbWw approvals indicated Wray need to be obtained in
order for this project to Comply with North Carolina Law.
it ho id be addressed to the Regional Office Indicated on the reverse of the form.
a scions regarding these perm a s u
All applications, Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits We available from the same
Normal Process
ittagional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPUCATION PROCEDURES or REOUREMENTS $Statutory )two
limit
Permit to Construct a operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 Says
tacilities, cower system eslensions, a sewer constnKlim contracts On-sns i topeetion. Post epplication
systems not discharging into slate surface watts. technical conference usual (W days)
NPDES • t1er1M1 to discharge Into Waco water andlor Application 190 days afore begin aclivily. OriSlle Mlawlion. 111l days
D permit to Operate end construct wastewater facilities
rface waters
l
s
i Pre•applicAtion conference usual Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facally-granted after NPDES Reply
MIA)
.
u
nto sta
e
discharging time. 30 days Neer rec lpt of plans or i{sue of NPDES
permil,whieMwr is Inter.
30 days
D water Use Permit Pre-appl" on technical conference usually necessary MIA)
7 days

D Well Construction Permit Complete application mutt be received and pernil issues
P"01 to the ulstallalron o a well.
(15 days)
Application copy roust be nerved on sash adjacent np~ property 56 days
D Dredge will Fin Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pro-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Deportment of
190 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct A operate Air Pollution Abatement
ISA NCAC 21M
NIA 60 Says
190 days)
.
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be on compliance with 15A NCAC ".MM.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
90 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 1SA
D NCAC 20 M which requires notification and nmorral NIA
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Conlrot Group
-09 M Gays)
Compton Source Permit required under 1SA NCAC MUM.
The tiedrmentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land diaturbing activity An erosion A s idrmentatr0
D control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lard Duality MCI I at toast 30 20 days
days before beginning selrvil A tot of $30 for the first Sett and $2000 for saCn additional re or aM must accompany the lei 30 d•
The Sedimentation Pollution Controt Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the refsrenced Local ordinance: 130 days)
On-site inspection usual Surety bond filed with EMNR. song amount
D Mining Ifs nu vanes with type mine and number of acres of affected Who Any area 3o days
)
90 sa
mined greater than one acts must be perrtnee Theappropnate bond 1
ri
must be received before the permit tali be issued
North Carolina Bunting permit On-sits inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if perm! I day
(NIA)
asnada a do"
Special Ground Clearance aurrung Permit • 22 On•slt• inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "N mere I day
MIA)
D Counties in coastal M.C. forth organic sails than five stns of ground clearing activities we In•o1wd. tespeetipnt
"
Should be requested at least tan days before actual burn IS plenned
90.120 days
at Refining PadeMies
ILIA
(NIA)
If penult required. application 90 days before begin constralfeet dari
30
Applicant must Aire N.C. Qualified engineer 10, prepare Kars.
}--?
L Dam safety Partin impact construction. cattily construction Is according to ENNII ppOv
tiro da"I
ad plans May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a toe permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is metes.
sary to verlfy Mazord Clusitrution. A minimum fee 01 (200.00 rrwln ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percent or the total o t cost will be required upon crrrlplelit'
Continued r. is","
w M
( ncrrna, ""ash I
I Tuna
D
D
D
J.J
?.J
?r
L
L
i
Istatlrtory ?.rre
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS omit)

File surety bond of ss.00o with EMNR running to suds of N.C. 10 days
PerrnM to pYI aspieratory am Or on WWI conditional that any well opened by drill operator shafl,upon
apandonment, be plugged aCCprding to EMNR runts and regulations. INIA)
s Application filed with EMNR at beat 10 days Prior b IaaW of pernit 10 days
on Nermlt
Geophysical Espiors Application by kilter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Laim Constriction Psnmit Application fat based on atruclura site Is charged. Must iaekids
descriptions ? drawings of structure A pool of owner" 15.20 days
(NIA)
of "parlan plow
60 days
401 Water ptWity Oorlificalron WA (130 days)
!!S oars
LAMA Permit for MAJOR daaelopnisnf ON= Na rrxrst aeeanor+y application 050 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 00.00 fee must accompany atpplicalion 0 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or now the project area If any monuments need to be moved w destroyed. please notify.
N.C. geodetic surrey. acs 27"",1161919". N.C 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, subchapter 20.0100.
I Notification of tat proper regional office is requested If "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any escavallon operation.
45 Days
1 Compliance with 16A NCAC 2W 1000 (ContN slorrnwater Rules) M regtrlred. (NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary. being certain to cite comment adhontyl.

v& 0"
w c2 h c?2

?Q-- oN?-`? r
W/ t? r CJr-LUJ l''D ??// jar!/? a?" f ?'-0f L',/'r'J /,-t1'^ /? : GLc-a L?7y SCM?•?L^f.l? ?Iir]?/rti??
.`F1Jn, t? ?:: ?/°'?''? Jar ,.?CI Wrl; :.C 64L f%o,?
7-1
REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
ildin
b
59 Woodfin Place g
u
Suite 714 Wachovis
Fayetteville, NO 26301
Asheville. NO 28601
(704) 2514206 [phone]
0 Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Repionai office
Suite 101
2600 Barreti Drive
919 North Main Street, P.O. b: 660
NO 28115
Mooresville ,
Raleigh, NO 27609
.
(704) 81113.1699 [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NO 27869
(919) 94641461
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NO 26105
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point alvd.
suite 100
Winston-Salem, NO 27105
(919) 896700?
DEPARTMENT. Oh I.NVIR?)N`I!':N'! , 11I:?\!.'Cl-l
AND NATURAL l',ESC _1RCES
DIVISION OF ENVIP\ONMENTAL HEALTH
.Project Naive

W
Inter-Agency Project 1t eJw
Type of Project
The applicant shoue 9AKsed ?N. Plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be aP` ivision of Environmental Health prior to the award
..? q.).
of a contract or the initiation o onstruction (as legrequired Section, ` 13 j N3 24 8C .0300 et. se
For information, contact ttie Public Water Supply This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
ore information the applicant
state and federal drinking Rater monitoring requirements.
) 733-23211.
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, 919
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of i -afeet of p
m, the a adjacent
information redin the
waters to the harvest contl 1
act the Shellfish S niitat onaBr ngc.n at (919)1726-6827.
applicant should
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for the mrose acontorol ucl, measures, mo quith bap-eding plica problem.
For information concerning appropri q uito .
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) -26-8970. litio The applicant should be advised that prior to the rbe necessary e noo der to preve Bathe
structures, an extensive rodent control program may contro migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. Public eHinformation concernin-- ealth Pest M na ement Section at (91 )
contact the local health cepartment or the 733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact tie relocal d under?l ?AdNCACe18A eg9001 eg. seq.)
requirements for septic tank installations (as q
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
facilities required for this project.
isting ex' * water lines will be relocated Burin the constn:cti plans for the
Water Supply
If
relocation must be submitted to the Division o Environmental ,
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh. North Carolina, [phone].
A-1
Reviewer Section/Branch
?
Date
Drt•INK 3195 (Ilc,•,,cd 9/7J)
_JV 0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 4
Q?? E
C ? LF
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 14, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report,
Concord- Kannapolis Westside bypass from NC 49
to 1-85, Cabarrus County, Federal Aid STP-
000S(46), State Project 8.2661601, TIP R-2246,
ER 95-7516
Dear Mr. Graf:
Divisio of Archives and History
Wi inn S. Price, Jr., Director
r_ NOV 17 1994
DIVISIC"y OF Q l
? I-l1GHVt,'??•? ?Q
0NM
Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1994, transmitting the above
referenced report.
We agree that none of the twelve buildings which are fifty years old or older are
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. We also appreciate
the updated information on the Roberta Mill which is located outside the area of
potential effect.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw z
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Strect • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???

North Carolina Department of Cultural Res
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 15, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 49 to 'l-85, Kannapolis Westside Bypass,
Federal-aid STP-OOOS(46), State 8.2661601, R-
2246, Cabarrus County, ER 95-7441
Dear Mr. Graf:
s ?'if P 2 ? E
Ws
22 DIVISION OF
0 HIGHWAYS P?
FNVIRON?
Division of and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by John J. Mintz, North Carolina Department of Transportation staff
archaeologist, concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that no archaeological resources eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places are within the project's area of potential effect and,
therefore, none will be affected by the proposed undertaking.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/
,:c: 1 H. F. Vick
J. Mintz
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
y r?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 31, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook /' (\
Deputy State Histo'tc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Concord- Kannapolis Westside Bypass from NC 49 to
1-85, Cabarrus County, R-2246, 8.2661601, STP-
000S(46), CH 94-E-4220-0495
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Roberta Mill Village. East and west sides of SR 1304, north and south of
the junction with SR 1309.
John R. Weddington House. On dirt road south of SR 1431, 1.5 mile west
of the junction with SR 1414.
Since the historic architectural survey of Cabarrus County was conducted over a
decade ago, additional properties which may be eligible for the National Register
may be located in the area of potential effect. We recommend that an
architectural historian survey and evaluate any properties over fifty years of age in
the area of potential effect which were not recorded during the 1983 survey, as
well as evaluate the National Register eligibility of the previously recorded
properties.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by a North Carolina
Department of Transportation archaeologist to identify the presence and
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the
proposed bypass. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed
prior to the initiation of construction activities.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
H. F. Vick
January 31, 1994, Page 2
The above comments.are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: ate Clearinghouse
N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
,i NORTH CAROLINA
•?:?• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 February 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
i
FROM: Charles H. We v
Assistant State p rintendent
Auxiliary Services
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent
mleft
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
RE: Concord-Kannapolis, Westside Bypass, NC 49 to I-85, Cabarrus
County, State Project No. 8.2661601, Federal-Aid No. STP-OOOS(46),
TIP No. R-2246
Please find attached communication from Dr. Ernest Macon, Assistant
Superintendent for Kannapolis City Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
RECEIVED JAN 1 41994
yd °M
NORTH CAROLINA
•?.?• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent

Dr. Edward B. Tyson, Superintendent
Kannapolis City Schools
Kannapolis 05-08-01
January 11, 1994
Dear Dr. Tyson:
FEB 14 W
RE: Concord-Kannapolis, Westside Bypass, NC 49 to I-85, Cabarrus County,
State Project No. 8.2661601, Federal-Aid No. STP-OOOS(46), TIP No. R-
2246
Please find enclosed information from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and Highway Safety relative to subject proposal. Since we are
assisting with these studies, we are asking that you review the proposal and -let us
have your reactions both pro and con at an early date.
Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
-y
Very sincerely yours,
d-
C??
Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
mrl - of
sl?
Enclosures
A STATE u
1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
November 6, 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
Water Quality Lab
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
RECE QED
MOV 1 ,* 1996
EW1RON1AL S012IJCE3
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Concord-Kannapolis, Westside
Bypass Extension, NC 49 to I-85, Cabarrus County, State Project 8.2661601,
F. A. Project STP-OOOS(46), T.I.P. Project R-2246
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Resources Technical
Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be
processed with a "Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the
Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide
planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as
discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded
to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by January 17, 1997. If no comments are received by
that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of No Significant
Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
HFV/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
`'Vestside Bypass, Concord-Kannapolis
NC 49 to I-85
Cabarrus County
TIP No.: R-2246
F.A. Project No.: STP-OOOS(46)
State Project No.: 8.2661601
Natural Resources Technical Report
R-2246
Michael J. Baranski
Consulting Biologist
Department of Biology
Catawba College
Salisbury, NC 28144
February 3, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .........................
1.1 Project Description.
1.2 Purpose ...................
1.3 Project Area ...........
1.4 Methodology ..........
2.0 Physical Resources .................................................................................................
2.1 Geology ......................................................................................................
2.2 Physiography and Soils ..............................................................................
2.3 Water Resources ........................................................................................
2.3.1 Waters Impacted .........................................................................
2.3.1.1 Stream Characteristics .................................................
2.3.1.2 Best Usage Classification ............................................
2.3.1.3 Water Quality ...............................................................
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts ...........................................
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................................................................................
3.1 Plant Communities and Land Types ..........................................................
3.1.1 Natural Communities .................................................................
3.1.2 Agricultural Communities .........................................................
3.1.3 Developed Land Types ..............................................................
3.1.4 Miscellaneous Types ..................................................................
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna ........................................................................................
3.3 Aquatic Life ...............................................................................................
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts .........................................................
3.4.1 Terrestrial Systems ......................................................................
3.4.2 Aquatic Systems ..........................................................................
4.0 Special Topics ........................................................................................................
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States .................................................
4.1.1 Permits ........................................................................................
4.1.2 Mitigation ....................................................................................
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ........................................................................
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ........................................................
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species ..........................
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
7
7
9
11
11
12
12
14
14
14
15
15
15
17
17
18
18
19
5.0 References .............................................................................................................. 20
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is produced to provide environmental
input on natural systems to assist in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for a federally-funded project.
1.1 Project Description
The purpose of this project is to construct a limited access four-lane facility
connecting NC 49 and I-85 (Fig. 1). The total length of the project is 10.5 km (6.5 mi),
with 2.7 km (1.7 mi) on new location (Fig. 2). An interchange will be constructed at the
intersection of US 29. The larger part of the project that is not on new location follows
two-lane state roads where the existing right-of-way (R/W) is mostly 18.3 in (60 ft) in
width and the existing cross-section is 4.9-6.4 in (16-21 ft) in width. The proposed R/W
will be 61 in (200 ft) in width and will include a 14 m (46 ft) median dividing the four
lanes.
The project begins at NC 49 and proceeds in a northwestward direction to I-85
(Fig. 2). Stough Road (SR 1309) will be widened between NC 49 and Roberta Road (SR
1304). A short section of the proposed alignment will then follow new location before it
intersects and follows Roberta Church Road (SR 1310) to the intersection with US 29.
An interchange is planned at US 29. Between US 29 and Weddington Road (SR 1431),
the project will be on new alignment. From Wcddington Road, the project then follows
Crisco Road (SR 1430), through the intersection with Poplar Tent Road (SR 1394), to the
intersection with 1-85.
The total project area under the R/W and the interchange is calculated to cover
78.9 lia (195 acres). Approximately 47.3 ha (117 acres) involves existing alignment. The
remainder is on new location, including approximately 14.8 ha (36 acres) in the
interchange outside of the proposed alignment R/W.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the natural systems occurring
within the project area and to evaluate probable impacts to these systems.
1.3 Project Area
The project area is defined as the land including the R/W and the areas
immediately adjacent to the R/W. The rp oject vicinity is defined as a larger area, more or
less about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project area. Project region is the area more
or less the size of a standard 7.5 minute quadrangle sheet.
The project region is located in Cabarrus County, in south-central North Carolina,
between Kannapolis and Concord on the north and Charlotte on the south (Fig. 1). This is
a rapidly developing region, mostly under the influence of population growth trends
emanating from Charlotte. The recent population of Cabarrus County is over 100,000
people. Concord (population 27,347+) and Kannapolis (population 29,696+, partly in
Rowan County) are the urban centers of the county. The population of adjacent
Mecklenburg County (including Charlotte) to the south is over 512,000. The project
region is rapidly becoming urbanized as Charlotte spreads to the north.
The project region is currently only semi-rural in character because much of it is
being developed into residential subdivisions and commercial and industrial enterprises.
Agricultural interests are declining while the other interests are expanding. There are
only small isolated forested tracts in the project vicinity, most of the land having been
formerly cleared for agricultural purposes.
1.4 Methodology
Project planning information and aerial photographs were provided by the
NCDOT Planning Unit. Background research was undertaken prior to the site visit.
Relevant sources of site information included the Soil Survey Manual for Cabarrus
County (Stephens 1988), hydric soils lists (Soil Conservation Service 1991), USGS 7.5
minute topographic map (Kannapolis quadrangle, PR 1988; Concord quadrangle, PR
1987; Harrisburg quadrangle PR 1988; Concord SE quadrangle, PR 1987), geologic map
of N.C. (N.C. Geological Survey 1985), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (LeGrand 1990; Weakley 1993; database) data for rare and
protected species. Stream classification and water quality data were obtained from
various reports of the Division of Environmental Management of the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
The project area was investigated during the period from January 5-17, 1995.
Field methodology involved reconnaissance survey and evaluation of the biota, natural
communities and physical resources present in the area. The entire area that included the
proposed project R/W, interchange and adjacent areas was walked and inspected, and
probable impacts due to construction were assessed.
Plant communities were identified and classified following Schafale and Weakley
(1990). Floristic and faunistic lists were developed, and communities were mapped.
Wetlands were determined following standard procedures (Cowardin et al. 1979,
Environmental Laboratory 1987, Reed 1988). With a few exceptions, plant names follow
Radford, Ahles and Bell (1968). Animal names follow treatments in Martof et al. (1980);
Potter, Parnell and Teulings (1980); Rohde et al. (1994); and Webster, Parnell and Biggs
(1994). Godfrey (1980) provided useful information on expected animal occurrences.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Geology
The project region is in the Charlotte Belt of intrusive rocks. The project area lies
over gabbro (mostly) and syenite of the Concord Plutonic Suite. The project vicinity is in
an area known locally as the "Concord Ring Dike." Locally extensive boulder fields and
rock outcroppings are common in the project area.
2.2 Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Cabarrus County is located in the Piedmont physiographic
province in south-central North Carolina in the Central Piedmont Ecoregion (Omernik
1987). The landscape is generally rolling with extensive broad and nearly level areas,
and there are only gentle to moderately steep slopes along main drainageways. The broad
areas are broken by small knolls of slightly higher elevation. Floodplains are narrow,
with only a few wide bottoms along Coddle Creek outside the project area. The elevation
range throughout the length of the project vicinity is between about 174-213 in (570-700
ft) above sea level.
The soils of the project vicinity are all in the Mecklenburg-Iredell soil association.
These soils occur on nearly level to strongly sloping land and have formed in residuum
from mafic rocks high in ferromagnesian minerals. They are well-drained and
moderately well-drained soils that have a clayey subsoil. Wetness, slow permeability,
and high shrink-swell potential characterize these soils. Mecklenburg loams are the most
abundant series in the vicinity. Mecklenburg soils are well-drained, on convex ridges,
side slopes, and large knolls. Iredell loams are moderately abundant in the vicinity.
Iredell soils are moderately well-drained, in the broad, nearly level areas and on gently
sloping ridges. Minor series of the association that are present in low abundance in the
vicinity are the Enon sandy loam (narrow slopes), Chewacla sandy loam (floodplains),
and Armenia loam (depressions) soils. Somewhat more Chewacla units than Armenia
units are mapped in the vicinity.
The Armenia soil is the only series in the vicinity that is entirely hydric. The soil
is poorly drained on nearly level areas, on broad flats and in depressions at the heads of
intermittent drainageways; soil saturation and ponding of water characterize these soils.
The Chewacla and Iredell soils have inclusions of hydric soils and wet spots. The
Chewacla soils are frequently flooded, and may have inclusions of the hydric Wehadkee
soil adjoining the upland side slopes in slight, usually long and narrow depressions. The
Iredell soils on nearly level land often have Armenia inclusions in depressions.
2.3 Water Resources
2.3.1 Waters Impacted
The project region lies in the Rocky River sub-basin (03-07-11 to 14) of the lower
Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage 2rea of the 2Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The Rocky
River sub-basin drains 2330 km (1448 mi ). The project area (located in sub-basin
03-07-11) is generally aligned northeast and parallel to Coddle Creek which flows
southeasterly into the Rocky River. Coddle Creek joins the Rocky River about 2.6 km
(1.6 mi) southeast of the project area. The Rocky River flows eastward and eventually
joins the Yadkin River to form the Pee Dee River.
All drainage from the project area is through tributaries of Coddle Creek flowing
in a southwesterly direction. Afton Run is the northernmost tributary in the project area
near I-85. Wolf Meadow Branch crosses the project area in the vicinity of the Roberta
Mill community about halfway between US 29 and NC 49. Several other unnamed
tributaries cross the project area at various places. The tributaries include small perennial
and intermittent streams.
Coddle Creek will receive all of the runoff from the roadway and construction
activity.
2.3.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Fish (1968) describes the section of Coddle Creek in the project region as a
typical medium-size Piedmont stream in his "Robin-Warmouth" ecological classification.
This type of stream has moderately abundant pools, minimum flows of 0-50 cfs, warm
summer temperature, varying turbidity, bottoms of sand, muck and silt, and faunal types
including robin, other centrarchids, and creek chubs. The 19.3 kin (12 mi) section from
the mouth of the creek to the NC 73 bridge in Cabarrus County is reported to have an
average width of 9.8 m (32 ft). Fish reports that the deeper pools in this section harbor
redbreast sunfish and bluegill. Afton Run and Wolf Meadow Branch are said to be too
small to be of fishing significance.
The streams in the project area are entrenched and mostly not associated with
wetlands. Locations of larger perennial streams are mapped in Figure 3. At the time of
site study, there was good flow and water was clear. The larger perennial streams are
briefly described as follows:
#1 (Wolf Meadow Branch): meandering stream 3 m (10 ft) in width in 6.1 in
(20 ft) channel, steep banks, water depth averaging 30-46 cm (12-18 in),
rocky substrate with many sediment bars, rip-rapped and probably
channelized where it crosses road under bridge.
#2: channel and stream 3 m (10 ft) in width, straight banks 1.2 m (4 ft)
in height, water depth 15-20 cm (6-8 in), rocky and pebbly substrate with
some flatrock. New location.
43: stream width 1.5-1.8 m (5-6 ft), water depth 10 cm (4 in), banks 0.9-
1.2 to (3-4 ft) in height, rocky but many silt beds, trashed, crossing road
through pipe culvert.
#4: perennial stream in pasture, crossing road through pipe culvert.
#5: perennial stream in pasture, crossing road through pipe culvert.
#6 (Afton Run): stream width 3-3.7 m (10-12 ft), water depth 10 cm (4 in),
banks 1.2 m (4 ft) in height, flat bottom with abundant sediment, crosses
under road through large box culverts. Includes small tributary to Afton
Run in R/W.
#7: stream width 1.8 m (6 ft), water depth 10 cm (4 in), banks 0.3-0.6 m
(1-2 ft) in height, rocky but heavily silted. New location.
There are many small perennial and intermittent streams and ditches in the project area, at
least eight of which will be crossed by the R/W.
2.3.1.2 Best Usage Classification
Coddle Creek and all of its tributaries in the project vicinity are classified as Class
"C" streams (NCDEHNR 1993). The northern sections of Coddle Creek outside the
project region are Class "WS-II" waters. The nearest "WS-11" waters are about 4.3 km
(2.7 mi) north of the project vicinity at Mill Creek.
Class "C" streams are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR 1994). This is
the lowest freshwater classification; all freshwaters receive this classification at a
minimum. All tributaries carry the same classification as the streams to which they are
tributary.
2.3.1.3 Water uali
Concord, Kannapolis and Mooresville are the major urban areas in the Rocky
River sub-basin. There are nine dischargers in the sub-basin that are permitted now
greater than or equal to 0.5 MGD. Three of the dischargers are in sub-basin 03-07-11
(includes the project area) with a total permitted flow of 32.2 MGD. There are no
dischargers located on Coddle Creek.
There are no chemical and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical
or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings] available for the section of Coddle
Creek or its tributaries in the project vicinity (NCDEHNR 1988, 1989,1990,1991,1992).
There is one monitoring station on Coddle Creek about 8 km (5 mi) north of the project
area near the Iredell County line; the bioclassification for this site is "Good-Fair." The
first station downstream of the project area is located on the Rocky River east of the
junction with Coddle Creek, about 8 km (5 mi) distant; the bioclassification for this
station is also "Good-Fair." Within the Rocky River sub-basin, there is greater stress in
the upper part near the Mooresville WWTP and steady recovery downstream from
Davidson to Norwood, the recovery apparently due to changes in regional geology (DEM
1989). The upper part, which would include the project area, is also reported to be more
susceptible to land-disturbing activities.
There are no overall ratings available for the sections of the sub-basin in the
project vicinity. The overall rating for use support of the Rocky River (a mostly Class
"C" stream) is generally "S" (Fully Supporting) with the 1990 biological rating being
"Good."
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
There are no water quality data indicating whether or not streams in the project
area are supporting their designated uses. The designated uses are in the lowest
classification. Construction impacts could degrade these waters, with sediment loads and
other pollutants affecting water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint.
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs
deriving from construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage and
control runoff. These measures must include an erosion and sediment control plan,
provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management measures, and
appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices should be employed
consistently.
Table 1 summarizes potential surface water resource impacts. There will be seven
crossings of large perennial streams and at least eight crossings of small perennial and
intermittent streams and ditches. Three of the stream crossings involve new location
crossings. The R/W is closely adjacent and parallel to stream #7 for approximately 122
in (400 ft). Significant pollution discharges are possible with construction of culverts and
bridges and from roadbed runoff.
Table 1. Water resources potential impacts and encroachments under 61 in
(200 ft) R/W and interchange. Sites are indicated in the map on Figure 3.
Location
Large perennial stream crossings X on map
[each <0.1 ha (<O.1 acre)]
Wolf Meadow Branch #1
Unnamed stream #2
Unnamed stream 43
Unnamed stream 44
Unnamed stream #5
Afton Run #6
Unnamed stream #7
Small perennial and intermittent
stream and ditch crossings x on map (8 locations)
Wetlands [each >0.1 ha (>0.33 acre)] W on map
0.14 ha (0.34 acre) #8
0.41 ha (1.02 acre) 49
0.60 ha (1.40 acre) #10
0.16 ha (0.40 acre) #11
0.56 ha 1.38 acre) #12 (below headwaters)
1.87 ha (4.54 acre) total
Small wet spots w on map (14 mapped
[each <0.1 ha (<O.1 acre)] locations and others
unmapped)
Ponds p on map
0.27 ha (0.67 acre) #13 (impounded)
0.09 ha (0.23 acre) #14 (excavated)
1 Includes entire pond though only part is under R/W.
There will be direct impacts to approximately 1.9 ha (4.5 acres) of jurisdictional
wetlands that lie within the R/W (Table 1). Each wetland site is larger than 0.13 ha (0.33
acre). There are numerous small wet spots, each less than 0.1 ha (0.1 acre) in size). Two
farm ponds totaling 0.36 ha (0.9 acre) will be drained, though only a portion of each pond
is under R/W. There could be potential indirect impacts to downstream offsite wetlands.
Wetlands are treated further in Section 4.1.
There are some small areas of historical floodplain wetlands present in the project
R/W, but most of these wetlands have been drained such that the modified hydrology no
longer meets wetland determination criteria. The vegetation is also changing under this
modified hydrology. Facultative and upland species are becoming established.
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of any of the streams that
are presently crossed by existing roads, certainly not much more than they already have
been modified through past construction of highway. Crossings on new location also
should not modify stream flows. Streams can be crossed effectively with appropriately
designed and placed bridges and culverts. Careful design should avoid the necessity of
any stream relocation. Erosion control measures will be necessary to protect all streams,
and all instream activities should be scheduled during low flow periods.
There will be unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that protects
streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures, and changes in species
composition will modify affected stream reaches.
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified ORW
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-1 (water supplies in
natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped watersheds).
The project does not lie within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of such resources.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of the Central
Piedmont Ecoregion. A few unusual or especially significant elements were located
during the field investigation, as noted below. Only common names are used in the
discussion below after the scientific name is first introduced.
3.1 Plant Communities and Land Types
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project R/W. Most of the natural vegetation of the project area
would be classified as Basic Oak--Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
However, most of the land surface in the project vicinity is no longer covered in the
natural vegetation. For purposes of discussion and quantification, twenty communities
and land types are recognized in the R/W. These are divided into four groups: Natural
Communities, Agricultural Communities, Developed Land Types, and Miscellaneous
Types. These communities and land types are described below, and acreage estimates for
each classification are given in Table 2. Most of the land impacted under R/W is
developed [32.9 ha (81.3 acres)], followed by agricultural land [23.7 ha (58.4 acres)],
natural communities [20.0 ha (49.7 acres)], and miscellaneous types [2.4 ha (5.7 acres)].
Vegetated fencerows and borders-various mixes of trees, saplings, shrubs, vines,
and herbs-though important as habitat, were not separately determined; they are included
in the listed communities and land types. Driveways and most lateral roads, except for
some state roads, are likewise included within the communities and land types within
which they are located. Stream acreage is not separately determined as a type in the area
estimates given in Table 2. Pines are notably scarce in the project area; only a few
Virginia pine (Pines virginiana), shortleaf pine (E. echinata), and loblolly pine (E. taeda)
(probably naturalized) were observed sporadically in a variety of communities. White
oak ( uercus alba) was extremely rare in the project area.
Table 2. Area estimates of community and land types impacted under R/W,
in hectares (acres), for existing alignment/new location (including
interchange). All figures rounded to nearest tenth.
Existing align./new location Total

Basic Oak--Hickory Forest 0.9(2.3)/5.51(13.6) 6.4(15.9)
Dry Oak--Hickory 0.7(1.8)/0.3(0.7) 1.0(2.5)
Upland Depression Swamp F. -/0.6(1.4) 0.6(1.4)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 1.2(3.0)/1.7(4.2) 2.9(7.2)
Early woody succ. comm. 1.2(3.0)/0.4(1.0) 1.7(4.1)
Early succ. old field 2.6(6.4)/1.5(3.7) 4.1(10.1)
Upland thicket 0.9(2.3)/1.6(4.1) 2.5(6.3)
Alluvial thicket 0.4(1.1)/- 0.4(1.1)
Non-forested wet comm. 0.4(0.9)/0.1(0.2) 0.4(1.1)
Cropland 2.5(6.2)/3.1(7.6) 5.6(13.8)
Pastureland 7.3(17.9)/3.0(7.4) 10.3(25.4)
Hayland 3.7(9.1)/4.1(10.2) 7.8(19.2)
Maintained fields 2.2(5.5)/- 2.2(5.5)
Lawn 6.6(16.2)/0.4(1.0) 7.0(17.2)
Residential landscape 1.4(3.3)/0.6(1.6) 2.0(4.9)
Built-up area 5.1(12.6)/4.0(9.8) 9.1(22.4)
Maintained roadside 4.8(12.0)/0.8(1.9) 5.6(13.9)
Paved highway 5.2(12.9)/1.8(4.6) 7.0(17.4)
Pond -/0.2(0.4) 0.2(0.4)
Ruderal area 0.6(1.4)/1.6(4.0) 2.2(5.3)
TOTAL 47.7(117.8)/31.2(77.2) 79.0(195.0)
3.1.1 Natural Communities.
Basic Oalc--Hickory Forest. This is one of the rarer community types in North
Carolina and does not have many good examples protected. It is the predominant natural
community in the project area and was likely the predominant community type in the
vicinity before lands were cleared for agricultural purposes. Most of this forest type in
the project area is mature. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program reports a
Priority Natural Area containing this community type along the project alignment just
south of US 29. It appears that road widening in this area will impact the edge of this
natural area.
Most of the Basic Oak--Hickory exists as mature stands. The community forms
on the dominant circumneutral and basic soils of the area. Canopy dominance is shared
among many species including shagbark hickory (Cara ovata), post oak ( uercus
stellata), white ash (Fraxinus americans), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis var. georgiana),
and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Red elm Ulmus rubra), winged elm (U. slats),
Carolina shagbark hickory (Ca a carol inae-septentrionalis), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), willow oak ( uercus hp ellos) and scarlet oak Q coccinea) are frequently
present and may be common in some sites. Virginia pine (Pines vir inians), mockernut
hickory (Ca a tomentoss), black cherry (Prunus serotina), black walnut (Juglans nigra),
swamp white oak ( uercus bicolor), Shumard's oak (Q. shumardii), and water oak Q.
niera) were rare to infrequent. The subcanopy frequently included abundant red cedar,
hackberry, and sugar maple; and flowering dogwood (Cornus florid a) was sometimes
present. In places the understory was sparse and open. The common shrubs and vines
present were coralberry (Svmphoricarpos orbiculatus), black haw (Viburnum
prunifolium), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicers 'a onica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). Privet (Ligustrum sinense), blackberry (Rebus sp.), buckeye (Aesculus
sylvatica), and crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata) were uncommon. (Cocculus
carolinus) was a rare occurrence. Herbs noted in this community included ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), sedges (Carex spp.), wild onion (Allium vineale),
Indian sea-oats (Uniola latifolia), witchgrass (Dichanthelium spp.), aster (Aster sp.),
avens (Geum sp.), bedstraw (Galium sp.), elephant foot (Elephantopus sp.), and
mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastium sp.).
Dry Oak--Hickory Forest. Most of this forest type in the project area is mature.
There was not always a clear line of distinction between it and the Basic Oak--Hickory
Forest. Common trees were black oak ( uercus velutina), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea),
southern red oak (Q. falcata), post oak, hackberry, shortleaf pine, shagbark hickory,
mockernut hickory (Car a tomentosa), and pignut hickory (C. ovalis). Small cedars and
dogwood (Cornus florida) were often present. Japanese honeysuckle was sometimes
present.
Upland Depression Swamp Forest. This forest is usually found within a matrix
of Basic Oak--Hickory Forest which grades into swamp forest in either sharp or broad
ecotones. Saturated soils, wet depressions and ponded areas characterize the community.
Many of the species are those found in the Basic Oak--Hickory Forest, but there are
notable differences. There was severe windthrow of trees in the largest unit of this type
in the proposed interchange area. The canopy is typically dominated by overcup oak
( uercus 1 rata), ash (Fraxinus sp.), red maple (Acer rubrum), post oak, and willow oak.
Shumard's oak and persimmon (Diosl2yros virginiana) were infrequent. There is little or
no cedar. The understory varies from open to very thick. Thick areas usually include
blackberry, common greenbrier (Smilax rotund ifolia), and trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans). Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) is a common shrub. Grapes (Vitis sp.) is
sometimes present. Various herbs that are locally dominant include sedge (Carer
tribuloides) and broomsedge (Andropocon sp.),
Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Most of this forest type in the project area is young to
mid-age. Common canopy species variously included sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak, boxelder (Acer negundo), black walnut,
river birch (Betula nigra), red elm, winged elm, American elm (U. americana), hackberry,
ash (Fraxinus sp.), willow oak, and persimmon. Tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera) and
cottonwood (Po_ 2tilus deltoides) were important in one site. Shumard's oak, swamp white
oak, overcup oak, shagbark hickory, and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos) were
sometimes present. Hackberry was the dominant in one site. Cedars may be present.
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) was an important understory tree in a few locations.
Common shrubs and vines include privet, multiflora rose, blackberry, crossvine, common
greenbrier, poison ivy, and Japanese honeysuckle. There were occasional grapes and
flowering dogwoods. Sugar maple and overcup oak saplings were sometimes present.
Various herbs are present, depending on the specific location. Some of the frequently
occurring herbs were speedwell (Veronica sp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), bottlebrush
grass(H, sy trix atula), Indian sea-oats, sedges, Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum),
wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), avens, asters, ground ivy (Glecoma hederacea),
fumewort (Cor, dY alis sp.), and chickweed (Stellaria media).
Early Woody Successional Community. Significant coverage of woody
vegetation distinguishes this community from the Early Successional Old Field, but forb,
grass and shrub coverage may still be important. Red cedar is typically common to
dominant. Occasional young hardwood trees are present, the species present depending
on the site. In most cases, it was obvious that the succession was proceeding toward
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest.
One site that had Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) present was very distinct. It was
an open cedar stand over shallow soil, with thickets of coralberry . Abundant species
were gama grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium sp.), lovegrass
(Era rg ostis sp.), broomsedge, and purple-top grass (Tridens flavus). Other species
present were sericea (Lespedeza cuneata), prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia compressa),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), blackberry, witchgrass, chickasaw plum (Prunus angustifolia),
and hardwood saplings.
Early Successional Old Field. This community is typically dominated by
broomsedge, goldenrod, and asters, but lovegrass, gama grass, and fescue (Festuca sp.)
were sometimes most important. Other herbs variously present included joint-head
arthraxon (Arthraxon his idu ), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), purple-top grass,
foxtail grass (Setaria sp.), wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), sericea, round-head
bushclover (Lespedeza ca itata), rabbit tobacco, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
tick-trefoil (Desmodium spp.), dogbane (Apocynum sp.), sunflower (Helianthus
laetiflorus), and sericea. Occasional invading shrubs, vines, and trees that were present
included multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, coralberry, winged elm, ash, cedar,
blackberry, and pines.
Upland Thicket. This community type includes a variety of subtypes composed
of different combinations of hardwood saplings, trees, shrubs, vines, and herbs. The
usual dominants are multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, smooth sumac
(Rhus labra), blackberry, and grape. Several sapling thickets of hackberry, ash, and
honey locust were present.
Alluvial Thicket. This type was typically composed of ash, red maple, and black
willow (Salix nigra), with blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, Japanese grass, goldenrod,
aster, dog fennel, and tick-trefoil present.
Non-forested Wet Community. A variety of subtypes found in meadows,
ditches, and depressions are included here. Some are very thick and dense with shrubs,
such as silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), alder (Alnus serrulata) and swamp rose (Rosa
alustris), or small willows, but some are open and semi-marshy. Only occasional trees,
such as ash, are found in these sites. Herbs that were usually present were rush (Juncus
coriaceus) and fescue, but others such as Japanese grass were also sometimes present.
3.1.2 Agricultural Communities
Cropland. Most fields had been plowed or bogged recently.
Pastureland. These are grasslands dominated by broomsedge and with such
species as sericea, asters, and dog fennel commonly included. Occasional multiflora rose
and cedars may occur.
Hayland. Most fields appeared to be fescue-based. Prickly-pear cactus was
noted in a flatrock area in one field.
3.1.3 Developed Land Types
Maintained Fields. This type is similar to maintained roadside or hayland, but is
not maintained for either of those purposes.
Lawn. This category is defined as being generally open area around residential or
commercial/industrial structures, with insignificant amounts of woody vegetation present.
Residential Landscape. This category generally includes yards that are primarily
wooded or not open, with lawn aspects not being well-developed.
Built-up Area. This category is defined to include structures and highly
developed or built-upon areas. Any associated lawns and residential landscapes, if
present, are also included in this category when structures are present. In one case, a
large junkyard in the R/W is included in this category.
Maintained Roadside. This is a community maintained in a low state of
succession by regular mowing. The community is grass-dominated, with occasional
forbs occurring. Common grasses included fescue, foxtail grass, broomsedge and
bluestem (Andropogon spp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Johnson grass,
lovegrass, and witchgrass. Asters, sericea, rabbit tobacco, fennel (Eupatorium
hyssopifolium), goldenrod, sunflower (Helianthus laetiflorus), evening primrose
(Oenothera sp.), plantain (Planta o sp.), vetch (Vida sp.), and clovers (Trifolium spp.).
were common forbs. By assuming a 3.0 in (10 ft) roadside on each side of the existing
alignment throughout its length and including some other small areas, an area of 4.7 in
(11.7 acres) of maintained roadside was calculated for the R/W.
Paved Highway. This category includes all the pavement under the existing
alignment, as well as most major state road crossings. A 6.7 in (22 ft) wide pavement
section was assumed throughout the existing alignment; this gives a 5.2 ha (12.9 acre)
calculated area under pavement.
3.1.4 Miscellaneous Types
Pond. Two ponds were present, one impounded and one excavated. There was
no significant wetland or aquatic vegetation associated with either site.
Ruderal Area. These are areas recently disturbed by grading for new
construction, excavation, filling, clearing, or depositing of rubble and similar waste
materials. The vegetation is usually some combination of herbs, shrubs, vines, or
saplings. Typical plants are broomsedge, witchgrass, foxtail, purple-top grass,
tick-trefoil, dog fennel, horseweed (Frig eg ron canadensis), Queen Anne's lace, asters,
goldenrod, rabbit tobacco, blackberry, sericea, Japanese honeysuckle, hackberry, and
thistle (Cirsium sp.). A sunflower (Helianthus laetiflorus) was present in one location.
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area
without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through
habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and
other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating
the expected fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence
available and the human population density and development, are given below. Those
taxa actually observed in the field or for which direct evidence was seen are noted with an
asterisk (*) in the text.
A wide diversity of habitat types exists in the project area, but except for a few
types, most of the habitat types are quite fragmented and habitat units are quite small.
There are few large contiguous forested tracts and over 75% of the project vicinity is in
open communities and land types. The most abundant habitat types are open agricultural
and developed areas with the associated successional, ecotonal and border areas. The
most important natural community types are small oak--hickory forests and successional
old fields. Ecotonal edges are abundant. Linear habitats of often thick vegetation are
well-developed along ditches, streams, fence lines, property boundaries, and roadsides.
The large mix of habitat types and ecotonal areas is beneficial for many species,
but the fragmented distribution and size of the habitats is detrimental for others. Good
species diversity is expected for some taxonomic groups, but the extensive human
development of the area excludes many species that are not tolerant of human intrusion or
which require large expanses of natural communities. The landscape types and diversity
in the area are judged to be generally good for birds of open areas, but poor for those
requiring interiors of large unbroken tracts of forest. Avian fauna were found to be
notably abundant. Because few ponds and no lakes or large marshy areas were noted in
the project vicinity, the distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent such
areas was not expected in the project area.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general groups, four
mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth being somewhat ubiquitous.
These are more open areas, consisting mostly of early successional old fields, croplands,
pasturelands, haylands, lawns, residential landscapes, and maintained roadside areas;
intermediate habitats, consisting of early woody successional communities, thickets,
fencelines, borders, ruderal areas, and most ecotones; forest; and aquatic or very wet
habitats.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowler's toad (B. woodhousei), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and spring
peeper (Hula crucifer). The abundant non-forested wetlands and wet spots in the project
area appear to be good habitat for northern cricket frogs (Acris crepitans). The two-lined
salamander (Eur 7cea bislineata), the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), and the
slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) are expected in the moister forest habitats.
Treefrogs (Hula sp.) should be common,-particularly in the alluvial and swamp forests.
Ambystomid salamanders (Ambystoma spp.) are expected because of the presence of
apparently suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake (F,laphe obsoleta), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), earth snake (Virginica sp.), and
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix). The eastern hognosed snake might be expected in
some of the more open areas having friable soils. In intermediate habitats, likely
occurrences include eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus utdulatus), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), and eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triang ug lum). Typical
reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling),
ground skink (Scincella lateralis), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), redbelly snake (S.
occipitomaculata), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus). Eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus) might be expected in the open
wet areas.
The avifauna of open areas include *American kestrel (Falco sparverius), *turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura), *mourning dove (Zenaidea macroura), *killdeer (Charadrius
vociferus), field sparrow (S ip zella up silla), common grackle ( uiscalus quiscula),
*brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), *robin (Turdus migratorius), starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), *eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), *loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), and eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis). There was good diversity and abundance of birds frequenting open areas.
Birds in intermediate areas include *brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), *mockingbird
(Mimes polX Ig ottos), goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), indigo bunting (Passerine c anew),
common yellowthroat (GeothlXpis trichas), kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus),
*white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), and bobwhite (Colinas virginianus).
Forest species include various wood warblers (Parulidae), wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), tufted titmouse (Paris bicolor), summer tanager (Piran a rubs), eastern
phoebe (Sgyornis hn oebe), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), American redstart
(Setophaga ruticilla), and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea). Species ranging
through many habitats include *red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), screech owl (Otus
asio), *common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), *cardinal (Cardinalis), *Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludoviciantis), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), *rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), *red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), *hairy
woodpecker (Picoides villosus), and Carolina chickadee (Pars carolinensis). Other birds
observed that are not particularly characteristic of any given habitat were *purple finch
(Carpodacus purpureus) and *cedar waxwing (Bomb,, c? cedrorum). Green-backed
heron (Butorides striates) and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) probably utilize
some of the larger streams and the two farm ponds. One flock of *Canada geese was
observed in the project area.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis 12ary long-tailed weasel (Mustelg frenata), meadow
vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon llispidtis). Those
ranging into forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are southern short-tailed
shrew (Blaring carolinensis), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), gray fox (Urocyo cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vul es), white-footed
mouse (Perom scus leucopus), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Several
species usually shunning open areas, but in the intermediate and forested areas, include
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striates), pine vole (Microtus
pinetorum), golden mouse (Ochrotomvs nuttalli), and southern flying squirrel
(Glaueomys volans). Several kinds of bats, such as little brown myotis (Myotis
lucifegus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), and red bat (Lasiurus borealis),
might be expected foraging over the streams and broken forests. Exclusively forest
species include *raccoons (Procyon lotor), *gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and
evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis). Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and mink (Mustela
vison) should be present along the ditches and in riparian areas around the streams. Scant
evidence of *white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a typically mid-successional
species, was observed in the area.
3.3 Aquatic Life
No fish were observed during the study. Fish that should be expected in the larger
streams are creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochin's),
redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), warmouth (L. gu losus), and other sunfishes (Centrarchidae)
(Fish 1968). Some segments might support yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) and creek
chubsucker (Erimti zon oblongus). Smaller fish that might occur in the smallest streams
would likely be rosyside dace (Clinostomus f indeloides) and creek chub. Some of the
small streams should also be appropriate habitat for darters (Percidae) and sculpins
(Cottidae).
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the streams and adjacent habitat could
support two-lined salamander (Euryce bislineata), three-lined salamander (E.
guttolineata), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), possibly marbled
salamander (Ambystoma onacum) and spotted salamander (A. maculatum), bullfrog
(Rana catesbeiana), green frog (Rang clamitans), and pickerel frog (Rana 12alustris). The
two small ponds are likely habitat for bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and northern cricket
frog (Acris cripitans).
Good turtle habitat is not present. Turtles which might possibly be in the area are
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentaria) and painted turtle (Chrysemys picta). Northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and queen snake (Regina septemvittata) are the most
likely water snakes of the area.
Evidence of *crayfish (Cambaridae) was noted in some areas.
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
3.4.1 Terrestrial Systems
Projected direct impacts due to project construction are given in Table 2.
Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications available and the
precision possible in this study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial
photographs onto which prospective R/Ws and interchange areas were drawn. The
existing paved roadway was included in area estimates. With the exception of the
maintained roadside (completely destroyed during construction, but eventually recreated),
only the edges of most other communities will be affected, thus reducing the total area of
habitats and land types in the project area.
The most significant impacts will be the reduction of Basic Oak--Hickory Forest
and losses of Upland Depression Swamp Forest and Piedmont Alluvial Forest.
The actual impacts to biotic communities would be less than those indicated in Table 2 if
some of the R/W is not utilized in construction. There will be major losses of agricultural
lands and impacts to developed areas.
The data in Table 2 suggest only the direct impacts on land and community types
due to construction. The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend
on the construction design. There will net loss of habitat for small animal species and
predators and scavengers that utilize open areas. There will be a reduction in the
available habitat for animals that require forest and intermediate habitats. Other indirect
effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not change significantly.
Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should may increase because of the greater
amount of roadway that will have to be traversed during movement. The riparian zone
and strip forest of creeks are probably important corridors for animal movement. The
existing roadway already disrupts natural corridor movement, so stream crossings should
not introduce a significantly new factor except during the construction phases of the
project.
Construction damage can result to forest land outside the R/W and construction
limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and injury, placing
of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and skinning of trees
by machinery. With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be avoided.
The most important impact will occur in the new location portions of the project
as a result of fragmentation of habitat for the larger species and for those smaller species
that require large tracts of unbroken forested land (such as many neotropical migrant
birds). Road on new location will introduce another obstacle and barrier zone for many
species and shrink the suitable habitat for others.
3.4.2 Aquatic Systems
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced.
Any culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of
movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance
and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively
alter the stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have
negative effects on sessile benthic organisms. At least seven larger streams and many
smaller streams will be impacted in this way.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands by direct taking and by alteration of
characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are important
because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species; maintenance of
biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal; sediment
trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology;
recreation; their uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some cases.
Highway construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of
jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgement
of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Jurisdictional waters in the project R/W include palustrine wetlands and surface
waters in streams and ponds. Construction will be limited to the project R/W. Some
jurisdictional wetlands are likely present downstream of several of the Coddle Creek
tributary crossings and potentially will receive inputs from road construction.
Surface water in streams under the R/W should total no more than 0.13 ha (0.3
acre). There is approximately 0.36 ha (0.9 acre) of surface water in ponds that will be
drained. Approximately 1.87 ha (4.54 acres) of palustrine wetlands comprised of forests
and thickets lie under R/W (Table 1). Alluvial and depressional forested wetlands would
be classified as type PFO1 (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous), and alluvial
thickets would be classified as type PSS6 (Deciduous Scrub-Shrub). These palustrine
wetlands are described in Table 3.
Table 3. Description of apparent or potential jurisdictional wetland
sites.
#8: Piedmont Alluvial Forest [0.14 ha (0.34 acre)]. Young forest, part
of a larger system. Above headwaters. Fair quality.
49: Piedmont Alluvial Forest [0.41 ha (1.02 acres)]. Mid-age forest, part
of a larger system. Good quality. Above headwaters. On new location.
#10: Upland Depression Swamp community [0.60 ha (1.40 acre)]. Mature
forest, but with lots of blowdowns. Ponded water in most places at time
of site visit. Surrounded by large tract of Basic Oak--Hickory Forest.
Good quality. Isolated wetland. On new location.
#11: Alluvial Thicket community [0.16 ha (0.40 acre). Inclusion near
stream. Poor quality. Isolated wetland.
#12: Piedmont Alluvial Forest [0.56 ha (1.38 acres)]. Mature forest, part
of a larger system. Poor to fair quality. Below headwaters. Soils not
uniformly hydric throughout.
Many small wet spots less than 0.1 ha (0.1 acre) are located sporadically
throughout the project area. Collectively, they would probably total no more than 0.6 ha
(1.4 acres) at maximum. These small wetlands occur in upper drainages, in depressions,
against slopes, and along streams. Many of the wet spots that might reasonably be
classified as wetland would be considered PEM 1 (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent), but
others are forested and shrub types, PFO1 and PSS6, respectively. A number of these wet
spots will be impacted directly by construction. It will be impossible to avoid these in
project design and construction. (see Section 2.3.2 for further discussion)
There are some wet ditches parallel to existing roadway and culvert wet areas that
appear to be a direct result of modern road construction. Even though they have
appropriate hydrological conditions and good representative hydrophytic vegetation, they
have almost exclusively developed as inclusions over non-hydric soils. For these
reasons, they are excluded from meeting the definition of jurisdictional wetlands.
It is difficult to judge the extent of wetland impacts, except for actual takings
under R/W, until the particular design requirements are known for the terrain in question.
4.1.1 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. Nationwide Permits
[33 CFR 330.5 (a)(14 and 26)] authorize actions that have no significant environmental
effect, such as when dealing with road crossings of wetlands or waters of small size [<O.1
ha (0.33 acre) and short bridge crossings [<61 in (<200 ft)] or because of their location
above stream headwaters (<5 cfs) or in isolated wetlands or waters. Individual or General
Permits are required for situations where the criteria for Nationwide Permits are not met.
Potential wetland # 12 does not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit, lying as
it does below the headwaters and being larger than 0.1 ha (0.33 acre). It appears that an
Individual Permit may be necessary for this site. All other wetland sites and stream
crossings can be authorized with Nationwide Permits.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity
in surface waters where a federal permit is required.
4.1.2 Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and
palustrine wetlands. Compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. Because an
Individual Permit will likely be required for the Afton Run crossing at wetland site 412,
all sites will have to be accumulated for mitigation purposes. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and roadway in
order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of drainage culverts
will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion control devices will have to be installed
to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into streams and wetlands, and soil
stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after construction
of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil will be
disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures and borrow locations should not be
placed in wetlands.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of November 17, 1994, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service reports two species with one of these classifications for
Cabarrus County (Table 4).
Table 4. Federally protected species in Cabarrus County, with state
category also given.
COMMON NAME
Carolina
heelsplitter
Schweinitz's
sunflower
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Lasmigona decorata1
FED. CAT. STATE CAT.
E C2
Helianthus schweinitzii
E E
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (or in the state); C2 = Candidate 2, shows some
evidence of vulnerability, but there are not enough data to support
listing as endangered or threatened at this time.
1 No specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
The Carolina heelsplitter is a molluscan bivalve in the Unionidae. Bivalves, in
general, require unpolluted habitats and are usually most abundant in larger streams
(deeper waters and good current). Stable sand and/or gravel substrates are usually best
suited for them. Most would not be found in waters with pH below 7.0. Except for the
pH (which should be neutral or slightly alkaline because of the mafic geology), the
streams of the project area appear to be too small and with substrate unsuitable to support
significant bivalve populations. Virtually nothing is known about the biology and
ecology of this species, and it appears that specimens in North Carolina have been taken
only from the Catawba River drainage and from the Pee Dee River system in Union
County (Scientific Council 1990). It is recommended that NCDOT biologists conduct
in-stream assessments in the project area during the Spring 1995 season. Biological
Conclusion: Unresolved.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a tall perennial composite with a restricted regional
distribution centered in the south-central Piedmont of North Carolina. Extant populations
have been documented within the last ten years for Cabarrus County and the surrounding
counties of Mecklenburg, Union, Stanly, and Rowan. It favors open woods and
roadsides, apparently because it was once a component of formerly open prairie-like
communities on basic soils that were common in this region. The Natural Heritage
Program does not report any known occurrences within the project area. No populations
were discovered after carefully searching for this plant during the field work in January,
however, suitable habitat for the sunflower does exist in the area. It is recommended that
NCDOT biologists conduct thorough searches for this species during the Late
Summer-Fall season of 1995. Biological Conclusion: Unresolved.
Construction of this project should have no adverse effect on any federally
protected animal or plant species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
Candidate 1 (C 1) and Candidate 2 (C2) taxa are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions until formally
proposed or listed as E or T. C1 species are supported by sufficient information to
warrant listing as E or T, but they are not yet listed because of the large number of
backlogged C1 taxa. C2 species show some evidence of vulnerability, but there are not
enough data to support listing proposals at this time.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered, Threatened, and Special
Concern (SC) species in the state. Plants are legally protected under the Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979, and animals are legally protected under the N.C.
Endangered Species Act of 1987.
There are three taxa listed as federal candidate species for Cabarrus County (Table
5). They are mentioned here for information purposes in the event they become federally
listed in the future. The state listing is also given. Two additional taxa are listed by the
state, but not federally (Table 5). Two of the five taxa are present in the project area, but
the possibility of occurrence of the others cannot be excluded.
The Natural Heritage Program database includes records of the Carolina darter
from Afton Creek and other tributaries of Coddle Creek. This species is state-listed.
The Pee Dee crayfish ostracod is a federally listed species known only from the
Pee Dee River Basin. It is an external symbiont of certain crayfish. Adams (1992)
reports that it is documented for Coddle Creek, but the habitat and biology are mostly
unknown; it is suggested that there may be water quality limitations.
One of the federal candidate and state listed species was noted in the project area.
A population numbering about 50 dead stems of Heller's trefoil was found in the open
roadside along the east side of SR 1310 about 0.5 km (0.3 mi) north of the intersection
with SR 1304. This population would likely be completely destroyed by road
construction. This is a species similar in origin, distribution, and requirements to the
sunflower described above.
Nestronia is a colonial shrub of upland forests, believed to be parasitic on pines.
Suitable habitat for the species does not exist in the project area.
No specimens have been recorded in Cabarrus County within the last 20 years.
Prairie dock is reported to occur in the project vicinity by the Natural Heritage
Program. This species occurs over mafic rock in open or semi-open sites. Suitable
habitat for the species occurs in the project area, but no plants were found.
Several individuals of swamp white oak ( uercus bicolor) were found in the
project area associated with the Upland Depression Swamp Forest community. This
taxon is on the North Carolina Plant Watch List, listed in category WI (rare, but
relatively secure).
Table 5. Federal Candidate and State Listed species for Cabarrus County.
COMMON SCIENTIFIC FEDERAL STATE SUITABLE
NAME NAME CATEGORY CATEGORY HABITAT
Carolina Etheostoma collis SC Yes.
darter Species
present
Pee Dee Dactylocythere C2 Unknown
crayfish peedeensis
ostracod
Heller's Lotus purshianus C2 C Yes.
trefoil Species
present
Nestronia Nestronial C2 SR No
umbellula
Prairie dock Silphium C Yes
terebinthinaceum
C = Candidate, very rare and likely to merit listing as E or T if trends
continue; SC = Special Concern, requires monitoring; SR = very rare in
N.C., generally with 1-20 populations.
1 No specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
5.0 REFERENCES
Adams, W. F. (compiler) 1992. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's
freshwater and terrestrial crustacean fauna. Scientific Council on Freshwater and
Terrestrial Crustaceans. Report to the North Carolina Nongame Wildlife Advisory
Committee, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/013S-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech.
Report Y-87-1.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A catalog of the inland fishing waters in North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, NC.
Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project, F-14-R.
Godfrey, M. A. 1980. A Sierra Club Naturalist's Guide to the Piedmont. Sierra Club
Books, San Francisco.
s
LeGrand, H. E., Jr. 1990. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1988 and 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient
network (BMAN) water quality review. 1983-1986, Report No. 88-03. 1983-1988,
Report No. 89-08. Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1990. Water quality progress in North Carolina
1988-1989, 305(b) report. Report No. 90-07. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1991. Biological
assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: Benthic macro invertebrate data
base and long-term change in water quality, 1983-1990. Water Quality Section. Raleigh,
NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1992. Water quality progress in North Carolina
1990-1991, 305(b) report. Report No.92-06. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1993. Classifications
and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin.
Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. (Reprint from NCAC: 15A
NCAC 2B.0309)
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1994. Administrative
Code Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0100 - Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality
Standards and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 - Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina. Division of Environmental
Management, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Land Resources, Raleigh, NC. .
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am.
Geograph. 77(1):118-125.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Univ. of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the
Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Southeast
(Region 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biological Report
88(26.2).
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, NC.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
NC.
Scientific Council of Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks. 1990. A report on the
conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna.
Report to Nongame Wildlife Advisory Committee, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of Cabarrus County, NC. Technical
Guide, Section II-A-2. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC.
Stephens, R. B. 1988. Soil survey of Cabarrus County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A., Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the rare plants of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
r
. htCWRC, HCP , FALLS LAKE

Rf .,
Ed North Carolina Wildhfe Resources Commission n
512 N. Sal6bury Strcct, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program (' ?GY
DATE: i)ecentber 13, 1996
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (N(a)U'f) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass Extension, NC 49
to 1-85, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-2246, SCH Project No.
97-0338.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Coniniission have reviewed the subject
EA and arc familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
asses, project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Envirotunental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c;)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to comstruct a roadway, part on new location, rival NC 49 to I-85, west
and south of the city of Concord. The project consists of constructing a four-lane divided
highway from NC 49 to SR 1394, and a five-lane curb and gutter roadway from SR 1394 to 1-85.
The project length is approximately 6.5 miles. Estimated wetland impacts from the
recommended improvements total approximately •1,54 acres.
We generally lcel (bait the FA adequately describes the wildlife and fishery resources in the
project area. However, we remain eoncemed over possible effects of the project on protected
species. We recommend that NCDOT complete protected species surveys prior to the
distribution of environmental documents to avoid future project delays. This infurmntion must
be included in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to allow us fo complete our review
of this project.
TEL : [phone] Dec 19 ' 96 9:51 halo . 008 P.02
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 19'96 9:52 P1o.008 P.03
Memorandum 2 December 13, 1996
At this time, we concur with the EA for thin project. We request that NCDOT dcyigil the
project to avoid wetlands to the maximum cNtent practicable, We will likely recommend that
wetland impacts be covered under an individual '404' permit.
Thank you flur the opportunity to cottuilent on this EA. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rnleigh
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO:
{.,
Eric Galam`- R

E IN OR ? OG.
FROM` Bill Kinlaw REP W. f ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
r
e „a FATE oky,
I r c ?a1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TI?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. 60X25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 28, 1993
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor 0 ?J
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., ManagerC"
Planning and Environmental Branch 9.
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Concord-Kannapolis, Westside
Bypass Extension, From NC 49 to I-85, Cabarrus County,
TIP No. R-2246
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 July 28, 1993 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). This project is programmed
to be a federally funded project. 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
Bill Kinlaw, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. 9
4? ?Jlj 0 ? ?WA
BK/pl r
Attachment CIS C? C \?

?.
? Chu 1h? '?•;k,
1
0r,?l,,l 13 0
-10
Ww J

1
P

VNIIOHV0 N1a0N
F
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE: 06/23/93
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP NO.: R-2246
PROJECT NO.: 3.2661601
F.A. PROJECT NO.: STP-OOOS(46)
DIVISION: 10
COUNTY: Cabarrus
ROUTE: Section A: SR 1309; Section B: SR 1310; Section C: new location; Sections D&E:
SR 1430;
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Other Urban Principal Arterial
LENGTH: Total: 6.5 miles - Section A: 1.9 mi.; Section B: 1.7 mi.; Section C: 1.3 mi.;
Section D: 1.0 mi.; Section E: 0.6 mi.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: The project is expected to provide an important link in the outer
loop thoroughfare system in the Kanlacon (Concord-Kannapolis-Landis-China Grove)
Thoroughfare Plan. It is intended to function as a bypass to relieve some of the
traffic congestion along US 29 through Concord and Kannapolis. The project is also
intended to serve local traffic generated from abutting properties and nearby
development.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND MAJOR ELEMENTS OF WORK: The
project will consist of constructing 4 lane facility with a 46-foot median. The
project begins at the intersection of NC 49 and SR 1309, follows existing SR 1309 to
SR 1304 (Roberta Rd.). It then continues a short distance on new location, intersects
SR 1310 (Roberta Ch. Rd.), and follows SR 1310 to US 29. Between US 29 and SR 1431
(Weddington Rd.), the proposed project is on new location. The project then follows
SR 1430 (Crisco Rd.) to I-85. It is anticipated 100 feet of right of way will be
sufficient to contain the project construction. Limited access, one access per
property, will be utilized.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: DEIS
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITIES, DEVELOPERS, OR OTHER?
YES: NO: X
IF YES, BY WHOM:
IF YES, BY WHAT AMOUNT: (r) , or (0)
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID?
PAGE 1
I
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
THOROUGHFARE PLAN CLASSIFICATION: Major Thoroughfare
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL- FULL: PARTIAL: X NONE:
NUMBER OF- INTERCHANGES: 0 GRADE SEPARATIONS: 0 STREAM CROSSINGS: 3
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY: Ttvo 12-foot lanes in each direction separated by a 46-foot
grassed median. h?
.20
TRAFFIC- CURRENT : DESIGN YEAR : % TRUCKS :
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE- AASHTO: X 3R:
DESIGN SPEED: 50 mph
PRELIMINARY RESURFACING DESIGN:
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN:
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING LJ
AND CONTINGENCIES) ...................................... $ 10,05`,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATIONS,
UTILITIES, AND ACQUISITIONS) ............................ $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .............................................. $
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING .......................................... $
TOTAL COST .............................................. $
TIP COST ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION ..................................................... $ 9,450,000
RIGHT OF WAY ..................................................... $ 3,260,000
TOTAL COST .............................................. $ 12,710,000
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
LIST ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT, WHICH COULD AFFECT COST OR
SCHEDULE OF PROJECT-
ITEMS REQUIRED (
COMMENTS
COST
ESTIMATED COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS:
_PAVEMENT
-SURFACE .................................................... $
-BASE ....................................................... $
-MILLING & RECYCLING ........................................ $
-TURNOUTS ................................................... $
SHOULDERS: PAVED ............................................ $
-EARTH ............................................ $
_EARTHWORK ..................................................... $
-SUB-SURFACE ITEMS ............................................. $
-SUB--GRADE AND STABILIZATION ................................... $
-DRAINAGE (LIST ANY SPECIAL ITEMS) ............................. $
-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 ................................. $
-CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER ........................................ $
-CONCRETE SIDEWALK ............................................. $
_GUARDRAIL ..................................................... $
-FENCING- W.W.: AND/OR C.L.: _ .......................... $
-EROSION CONTROL ............................................... $
_LANDSCAPE ..................................................... $
_LIGHTING ...................................................... $
-TRAFFIC CONTROL ............................................... $
-SIGNING: _ NEW .............................................. $
UPGRADING ........................................ $
-TRAFFIC SIGNALS: _ NEW ...................................... $
_ REVISED .................................. $
_RR SIGNALS: _ NEW ........................................... $
REVISED ....................................... $
_ WITH OR WITHOUT ARMS .......................... $
_IF 3R: _ DRAINAGE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ........................ $
ROADSIDE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ........................ $
REALIGNMENT FOR SAFETY UPGRADE ..................... $
-PAVEMENT MARKINGS- PAINT: THERMO: MARKERS: ........ $
_DELINEATORS ................................................... $
-OTHER (CLEARING,GRUBBING,MOBILIZATION,MISC.) .................. $
CONTRACT COST (SUBTOTAL) .................... $
PAGE 3

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
CONTINGENCIES & ENGINEERING ...................................... $
PE COSTS ......................................................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT .................................................... $
SUBTOTAL $
RIGHT OF WAY:
WILL CONTAIN WITHIN EXIST. RIGHT OF WAY- YES: NO: X
-EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 60 feet (approx.)
NEW RIGHT OF WAY NEEDED- WIDTH: EST. COST ............ $
-EASEMENTS- TYPE: WIDTH: EST. COST ............ $
-UTILITIES .................................................. $
RIGHT OF WAY SUBTOTAL $
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $
INCLUDES R/W
PREPARED BY: DATE: ?? 93
THE ABOVE SCOPING HAS BEEN REVIEWED 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
BOARD OF TRAN. MEMBER
MGR. PROGRAM & POLICY
CHIEF ENGINEER-PRECON
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
INIT. DATE
SCOPE SHEET FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS WILL BE SENT TO DIVISION ENGINEER FOR HANDLING.
COMMENTS OR REMARKS :
*IF YOU ARE MOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT OR SCOPING, NOTE YOUR PROPOSED
REVISIONS IN COMMENTS OR REMARKS SECTION AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER COMMENTS.
PAGE 4
ow
<.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO:
Eric Galamb REF.E. _R °N
FROM: I REP f{p
. pR ROOM, BLDG.
Bill hinlaw 6C 1.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME A13OUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER [ FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
is-
eM $TA7[
ti
?t{,=1 S'
JAMES B. HUNT, JP_
GOVERNOR
September 30, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATIO
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Bill Kinlaw 814'
Project Planning Engineer
OCT - 41993
ou"I
ECTM !
K. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
Concord-Kannapolis, Westside Bypass Extension, NC 49 to
I-85, Cabarrus County, State Project 8.2661601, R-2246
The following is a summary of the scope of studies for the subject project.
This was arrived at as a result of the July 28, 1993 scoping meeting.
The scoping meeting was attended by:
Linwood Stone Planning & Environmental
Bill Kinlaw Planning & Environmental
Harry Thompson Roadway Design
Debbie Barbour Roadway Design
W. S. Cox Roadway Design
Ron Allen Roadway Design
Olivia Farr Traffic Engineering
Joel Gulledge Location & Surveys
John Taylor Location & Surveys
0. R. Azizi Structure Design
Robin Stancil DCR-SHPO
Eric Galamb DEM
David Foster DEHNR
Don Sellars Right of Way
Keith Johnston Photogrammetry
Jack Matthews Photogrammetry
Danny Rogers Program Development
Jerry Snead Hydraulic Design
Linda Dosse Statewide Planning
Roy Shelton FHWA
David Yow NCWRC, Habit Conservation
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a multi-lane divided bypass
to relieve some of the traffic congestion along US 29 through Concord and
Kannapolis. The project is also intended to serve local traffic generated
Pq
!C

September 30, 1993
,f Page 2
from abutting properties and nearby development. The length of the proposed
project is 6.5 miles (1.7 miles on new location). The right of way width
along the existing roadway sections is generally 60 feet (or the state
maintained width).
The entrance to Frank Liske Park is located approximately 550 feet southeast
of Roberta Road (SR 1304) on the north side of Stough Road (SR 1309). The
park property fronts Stough Road for about 1000 feet. The railroad tracks
which pass through the park near the entrance are located approximately 25-30
feet from the centerline of Stough Road. No park facilities are located
between the railroad tracks and Stough Road. The proposed roadway will be
designed to avoid the park land if possible.
The office of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) stated they
would require archaeological surveys. The Roberta Hill area from Roberta
Road (SR 1304) to 1000-1500 feet east on Stough Road would need to be
assessed for National Register eligibility. One house on Weddington Road
(SR 1431), approximately 0.6 mile northeast of Concord Farms Road (SR 1432),
was identified as potentially eligible for the National Register.
The bicycle unit, prior to the scoping meeting, expressed a desire for the
paved shoulders to be a minimum of 4 feet wide to accommodate bicycling
traffic.
The railroad unit had no comments pertaining to this project.
The Division had no problems with the project. They are aware of the growth
in the area and would like to see the project progress on schedule.
One culvert, #325 over Afton Run Branch, and one bridge, #245 over Wolf
Meadow Branch, are located on the project. Three (3) other stream crossing
were identified. Culverts will be used for all crossings except at Wolf
Meadow Branch. A new bridge will be constructed to replace the existing
bridge. However, prior to replacing the Wolf Meadow Branch bridge, the
proposed roadway will have to be raised to prevent flooding during high water
times. Wolf Meadow Branch flows into Coddle Creek which has a water
classification of Water Supply II (WSII). The new section of roadway will
probably be phased constructed in order to maintain local traffic.
Utilities are located along both sides of the roads. A high voltage
transmission line is located along the northeast side of Crisco Road
(SR 1430). An underground gas line is located on the east side of Stough
Road from NC 49 for approximately 1 mile.
The office of the Wildlife Resources Commission suggested an alignment south
of the TIP project alignment along Pitts School Road (SR 1305). This
suggested alignment was rejected due to the fact it does not conform to the
current thoroughfare plan for this corridor. This section of roadway is to
connect into the Kannapolis Westside Bypass (TIP #U-2009) to provide a
continuous roadway from the Kannapolis/Landis/China Grove area to NC 49.
The possibility of constructing a 5-lane roadway from Roberta Road to NC 49
was discussed. It was stated that a 5-lane section could reduce the
relocatees, but it was conceded that it would cause as much damage, directly
and indirectly, as a 4-lane divided section.
September 30, 1993
Page 3
Major intersecting roads with the project were identified and discussed. A
preliminary unsignalized analysis was accomplished previously. The
Weddington Road intersection has the lowest ADT of the major intersections.
The preliminary analysis resulted in this intersection functioning at a level
of service F as soon as traffic is put on the new 4-lane median facility.
This indicates that signalized intersections will be needed for the major
intersections, with the possibility of an interchange at US 29. A more
detailed analysis will be accomplished by Planning and Environmental.
Mike Byrd, Randolph County planner, has indicated to Planning and
Environmental that development in the area of the proposed project is
increasing rapidly. The county has reserved 200 feet of right of way on the
1.7 miles of relocation between Weddington Road (SR 1431) and US 29. Mike
also indicated that all right of way, except for one parcel adjacent to
Weddington Road, has already been dedicated.
The current T.I.P. schedule for this project shows right of way acquisition
to begin in fiscal year 1997 and construction in fiscal year 1999. Cost
estimates contained in the T.I.P. were based on constructing 2 lanes on a
4-lane right of way (per Danny Rogers). Currently, the T.I.P. cost estimate
is $13,200,000 ($500,000 - prior year, $3,260,000 - right of way, $9,450,000
- construction). Roadway design will prepare a map with the proposed right
of way limits (with and without an interchange at US 29) for a typical
section of 4 lanes with a 46-foot median. This mapping will be used by right
of way and utilities to provide a cost estimate for Program Development by
October 1, 1993. The TIP costs will be adjusted accordingly.
The type of environmental documentation anticipated is an Environmental
Assessment to be followed by a Finding Of No Significant Impact. The project
was programmed for an EIS but, based on the findings and discussions at the
scoping meeting, there are no significant impacts to require EIS level
documentation. Roy Shelton, FHWA, concurred with this action at the scoping
meeting. A new schedule was set after the scoping meeting. The new dates
are as follows:
EA to be completed in September, 1994
FONSI to be completed in March, 1995
WBK/plr
y State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
4,
February 3, 1994°
MEMORANDUM i' L FE6 - 3
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Developmelt ti Lit;`::
FROM: Monica Swihart,"Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0495; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Concord-Kannapolis Westside Bypass, NC49 to
I-85, Cabarrus County, TIP #R-2246
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer W% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Melba McGee
February 3, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10501er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Bill Kinlaw DOT, DOH, P&E
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE _ ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION,
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS R / FOR YOUR INFORMATION
L
[3 PLEASE ANSWER _
[/FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION _ ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

JAN - 7 1'04
?V,
WERAIM GROUP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA %'LITER OUALITY SECT10 1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Concord-Kannapolis, Westside Bypass, NC 49 to I-85,
Cabarrus County, State Project No. 8.2661601, Federal-Aid
No. STP-OOOS(46), TIP No. R-2246
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed new route for the Westside Bypass Extension.
The project is included in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1997
and construction in fiscal year 1999.
The project extends from NC 49 to I-85 (see attached map). The proposed
project will generally follow SR 1309 (Stough Road) and SR 1310 (Roberta
Church Road) between NC 49 and US 29. Between US 29 and SR 1431 (Weddington
Road), the project will be on new alignment. The proposed alignment will
then generally follow SR 1430 (Crisco Road) between SR 1431 (Weddington Road)
and I-85. Existing pavement widths vary from 18-22 feet along the existing
roads.
The project study includes widening to a 4-lane roadway with a 46-foot
median. The improvements along existing roads will be generally symmetrical
about the existing center line with minor alignment shifts to improve design
speed and reduce relocatees. It is anticipated that 200 feet of right of way
will be sufficient to contain the project construction. Limited access (one
access per property) will be utilized.
Based on preliminary capacity analyses, signals at SR 1304 (Roberta
Road), SR 1431 (Weddington Road), and SR 1394 (Poplar Rent Road) will be
required. Also, interchanges at US 29 and at NC 49 are anticipated.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency.
D
January 5, 1994
Page 2
Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment (EA). This document will be prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by February 18, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Bill
Kinlaw, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment
VNI108VO H18ON