R-2632A

514r UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
r Yz REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ovember 9, 2006 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Gregory J. 'Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 iVlail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Subject: NC 73 (Sam Furr Road) Widening
.Mecklenburg County; TIP No. R-2632A
Dear Dr. Thorpe
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 was requested to
review a September 29, 2006, scoping notice provided by STV/Ralph Whitehead
Associates. According to the notice, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to update the
planning report and Categorical Exclusion for this proposed 3.6-mile widening project.
A copy of the 1993 Categorical Exclusion was provided to EPA for review following our
October 4, 2006, e-mail comments on the scoping notice. The cover letter to the scoping
notice indicates that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project.
EPA's letter is to provide early planning comments on the proposed action.
The 1993 Categorical Exclusion describes the widening project as both a five-lane
undivided section and a four-lane median divided facility. The September 29, 2006,
scoping notice describes a multi-lane facility as 4 or 6 lanes, using a best-fit alignment.
EPA recognizes that NCDOT and FHWA no longer prefer a 5-lane undivided facility for
safety reasons. There have been substantial changes in both NCDOT facility design
criteria and environmental requirements since 1993 (e.g., Executive Order 12898, on
Envirotunental Justice).
The 1993 Categorical Exclusion identifies several areas of potential
environmental impacts, including approximately 2 acres of impact to jurisdictional
wetlands and streams. The document cites that there are potentially 19 wetland areas and
1 1 streams within the proposed right of way for NC 73 (Page 4-17). The 1993
Categorical Exclusion identifies two potential archeological site impacts (i.e., 31 MK587
and 31 MK594), two endangered species that could be impacted (At a minimum, surveys
would need to be updated; M. Buncick, FWS-Asheville Field Office; personal
communication 11/8/06), and at least 23 sensitive noise receptors impacted. Of the 23
impacted receptor sites (Page 4-7 of the Categorical Exclusion), 14 exceeded the "2016
Build" alternative's FHWA maximum noise level for a Category B activity (residence).
NCDO"f updated its noise policy in 2004 and the noise abatement guidelines would need
to be rc-evaluated.
Intomet Address (URL) • hilp://www.opa.gov
lip cycle dMecyclable • Pnnted with Vegetable Oil E3ased Inks on Hecycled Paper (Minimurn 30",6 Postconsurner)

It is also apparent from the review of the 1993 Categorical Exclusion that there
has been increased development in the project study area and that relocation estimates
need to be further examined. The air quality analysis also needs to be updated per
requirements of the Clean Air Act amendments (Mecklenburg County is in a non-
attainment area for Carbon monoxide and Ozone).
Based upon the project scope and characterization of the project study area, EPA
believes that the proposed 3.6-mile long widening project should be processed as an
Environmental Assessment consistent with FHWA's NEPA criteria at 23 CFR Part 771.
A `mitigated FONSI' might be required for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and
streams. EPA has also stated its preference that this widening project should be
implemented through Process II of the 404/NEPA Merger 01 process. However, if
jurisdictional impacts can be reduced during early alternatives analysis, EPA would,fully
support streamlining actions through Process 11(e.g., Combined concurrence meetings)
or removing the project from most of the Merger concurrence points if the potential
jurisdictional impacts are minimal. EPA recognizes that FHWA and NCDOT prepare
most Categorical Exclusions to an "EA-type" document. EPA believes that it would be
beneficial and potentially more efficient to receive formal public and resource agency
input on the proposed project before the submission of permit applications to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(DWQ).
EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Should you have
any questions, please contact Mr. Christopher Militscher of my staff at 919-856-4206.
Sincerely,
1
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management
Cc: S.' McClendon, USACE
J. Hennessy, NCDWQ
C. Coleman, FHWA-NC
?F W ATF9
l? \Q? QG
DQ1
o ?
MEMOIUkNDUM
OAT I `? ?D
_ 6 D
4 AZ) Kq ?RQU??oo6
??tVq? B
RAN?jy
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
October 10, 2006
To: Mr. Brian Defiler, P.E., Project Manager, STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Aldie Whitmore, P.E., Project Manager, NCDOT Division 10
From: Polly Lespinasse, NC Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
Subject: Scoping Comments on Proposed Improvements to NC 73 from Nest of US 21 to East of SR 2693
(Davidson-Concord Road) in Alecidenburg County, TIP R-2632A
Please reference your correspondence dated September 29, 2006 in which you requested comments for the above
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams and
jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
?)trC alil 1'? 1ttt1' IZI?€ I' 1-1:4titn ; tY???;lill l.t`?;-llFl,llttul Stream 1ndvN Number
Ramah Creek Yadkin C 13-17-4-4
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Quality
requests that'the consultant and NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC
21-1.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and
wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that allow for treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ
Stornnvater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention
basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the
applicant is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts
to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to
wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
One
NhCarol i na
Jvaturn!!J
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 Phone [phone]
Internet: vvwvv.ncsvateraualitv.ora Mooresville, NC 28115 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportun4lAffirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
9
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)), mitigation
will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values.
The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The applicant
should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and
any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ believes the use of a
Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of Engineers to determine the required
permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless otherwise
authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be
a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within
the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block
fish passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed across the bridge
and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.)
before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NC DWQ Stornnvater Best Management
Practices.
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct contact between
curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to
surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and
elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody
species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing
the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root
mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the elevation of the
streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert
diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life.
Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or
upstream and down stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the
equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to
bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on
how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely
as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where appropriate. Widening the stream
channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.

15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Gcotechnical work is approved
under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained
in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise approved by
NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance
Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste
areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
21. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels.in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should be
inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure.
If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts,
minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new
alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain.
Approach fills should be removed and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with
grass and planted with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes
aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed, sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The applicant is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and designated
uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse
at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Sonia Gregory, DWQ Central Regional Office
File Copy
1

1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
[phone] fax:[phone]
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
September 29, 2006
Mr. John Hennessy,
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
SUBJECT: NC 73 Improvements from
(Davidson-Concord Road)
TIP No. R-2632A
Dear Mr. Hennessy,
J
West of US 21 to East of SR 2693
O
1 of '90
?os ?OSt?lr >00 0
r Ro 6
?ycy
The Town of Huntersville, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Division of Highways, has retained the firm of STV / Ralph Whitehead Associates to
conduct planning, environmental and engineering services and prepare an updated Planning
Report / Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed NC 73 Improvements. As an integral part
of this study, we are soliciting input from agencies and individuals concerning the potential
impacts of the proposed improvements on any structure or feature within the project area and the
impacts this project may have on the social, economic, cultural, physical or biological conditions
in the area. Attached is a location map for your information and reference.
The proposed project is included in the Draft 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) as TIP No. R-2632A. The scope of the project consists of improving NC 73 to relieve
traffic congestion and enhance safety in the project study area.
Alternatives that will be studied for the project include:
1. Do Nothing/No-Build
2. Transportation Systems Management Alternative
3. Mass Transit Alternative
4. Widening NC 73 to a multi-lane facility (4 or 6 lanes) using a best-fit alignment.
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed project. Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this
project. This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the subject
project. In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, it is requested
that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts of the proposed project
relating to the interest of your agency. For the study effort to stay on schedule and for your input
to be included, please respond by October 29, 2006.
an employee-owned company providing quality service since 1912
J
4
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates
Please direct your comments to:
Mr. Brian D. Dehler, P.E., Project Manager
STV / Ralph Whitehead Associates
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28208
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-MAIL: brian.dehler Q stvlnc.com
Or
Aldie Whitmore, P.E., Project Manager
NCDOT/ Division 10
716 West Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-MAIL: awlhitmore(a?dot.state.nc.us
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this project, please contact
Mr. Dehler or Mr. Whitmore by one of the means noted above.
Sincerely,
;67
A '
c
/t-"BrianD. Dehler, P.E., Project Manager
STV / Ralph Whitehead Associates
NC 73 Improvements
September 29, 2006
Page 2 of 2
J