U-2510

• NC 16 (Providence Road)
From the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the Existing
Multi-lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
State Project 8.1672801
Federal Aid Project No. M-5201(4)
T.I.P. Project No. U-2510 B & C
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATIONS
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (C)
and
49 U.S.C. 303
Date
1 H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
4/fps-
Date echo L. raf, P. E.
ivis on Administrator, FHWA
11
9. *-*V
NC 16 (Providence Road)
From the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the Existing
Multi-lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
State Project 8.1672801
Federal Aid Project No. M-5201(4)
T.I.P. Project No. U-2510 B & C
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATIONS
April, 1995
Documentation Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch By:

Klcnara L. nrewer, N. t.
Project Planning Engineer
?.•`'??A CARO'%,
:cESSiii:: y9
SEAL,
00 20115
s
Sol-
00,
Go*
R E0
t kt;
SL JIJ
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
s. Z.-C
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC 16 (Providence Road)
From the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the Existing
Multi-lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
State Project 8.1672801
Federal Aid Project No. M-5201(4)
T.I.P. Project No. U-2510 B & C
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Best management practices will be adhered to during construction to
minimize negative environmental impacts.
Cleared areas will be revegetated as quickly as possible after
construction is completed.
The type and level of wetland mitigation will be determined in
compliance with the Clean Water Act once the type of permit is clear.
In an effort to mitigate damages to the Helianthus Schweinitzii
Sunflower, the North Carolina Department of Transportation and FHWA have
authorized $31,970 for a prairie restoration project. This project will
be handled by the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department and
will be their responsibility for the development and maintenance of these
prairies. Additionally, the NCDOT will allow Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation Department and Dr. Larry Barden of the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte to transplant any specimens of the Helianthus
Schweinitzii to restoration sites prior to any construction activities.
Relocation of the endangered plants will be accomplished prior to
beginning construction.
NCDOT will provide a structure at Four Mile Creek that will
accommodate the greenway trail underneath the road for pedestrian and
bicycle traffic. The type and size of structure will be determined during
final design. The NCDOT will coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park
and Recreation Department during design of the structure to insure
adequate provisions for crossing is provided for pedestrians and
bicyclists.
NCDOT will coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation
Department during design to ensure a trail could be placed beneath the
McAlpine bridge to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic if in the
future the greenway is extended to the west side of NC 16.
-.-Constructi-on.operations will be carefully planned to minimize distur-
bance of existing` stream banks at the McAlpine Creek Crossing. At the
McAlpine Creek crossing, cofferdam sheeting will be needed if any bridge-
footings are in the water.. Any material excavated for footings in or near
water must be removed from the immediate vicinity' to prevent it from
eroding back into the water.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the N. C.
Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material
from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification
shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the
proposed borrow source.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will complete
a required certification indicating that new and modified structures will
not cause more than a 1.0 foot rise in the 100-year natural water surface
elevations. If final design plans do indicate that there will be changes
in the floodway(s), these changes will be coordinated with the affected
community for modification to the flood insurance maps and report. NCDOT
will coordinate with the city and county for compliance with their flood
plain ordinances.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative
action, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant
impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental
Assessment which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues
and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental Assessment
provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental
Assessment.
2. Description of the Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), proposes to
improve NC 16 (Providence Road) in Mecklenburg County from the Charlotte
Outer Loop to the existing multi-lanes in Charlotte. The existing
two-.lane roadway is to be widened to a four-lane divided facility with
curb and gutter and a 16-foot wide raised grass median in three stages,.
Part A 'which will be studied under a separate environmental document,
extends from NC 84 in Union County to approximately the Charlotte Outer
Loop. Part B and C are the focus of the aforementioned EA and this
report. Part B extends from SR 3626 (Providence Road West) and SR 3445
(McKee Road) to NC 51. Part C begins at NC 51 and ends at the existing
multi-lane section north of McAlpine Creek, the project's northern
terminus.
Part 6 includes a section of roadway on new location The Providence
Presbyterian'Church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Widening NC 16 in the church area would encroach on this historic
property. Therefore an avoidance alternative had to be generated. The
recommended alternative is a new location route that bypasses the church
on the west side. While the remainder of Part B is still in preliminary
design stages, the entire Part C of the project is widening NC 16
asymmetrically to the west of the existing centerline. This 6.7-mile
project has an estimated cost of $22,313,000 including $7,536,000 for
right-of-way and $14,711,000 for construction.
The proposed improvements to NC 16 are included in the 1995-2001
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Part C of the project is
scheduled to be built first, followed by Part B. Part A is scheduled for
a feasibility study. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
2
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1995 for Part C and in FFY 1997 for Part B.
Construction of Part C is scheduled to begin in FFY 1996, with Part B
being constructed beginning in FFY 1998. The current TIP includes a total
funding of $11,400,000 for the project, consisting of $7,880,000 for
right-of-way, and $9,300,000 for construction. The total estimated cost of
the recommended improvements exceeds the TIP estimate by $4,913,000.
3. Recommended Alternative
The recommended cross section is a 4-lane, median divided curb and
gutter section with a 16-foot grassed median. The median area will permit
construction of left-turn lanes and deceleration tapers at principle
intersections along the NC 16 corridor. At the Providence Presbyterian
Church, a new location section of roadway is recommended to the west of
existing NC 16. The alignment will occupy a corridor approximately
equidistant to the church buildings and the Berkeley neighborhood.
4. Permits Required
Bridge replacement at McAlpine Creek and the extension of culverts at
the other three primary creek crossings (McAlpine Creek Tributary No. 3,
Four Mile Creek, and Rocky Branch) could be authorized by Department of
the Army (DA) General Permit No. 198200031. The remaining five crossings
of unnamed headwater streams could be authorized by DA Nationwide Permit
No. 26.
FAUccording- to the Corps °of Engineers ;{COE): the total impact on 0.9,'
acre of wetlands for the project, is :considered-mi-nima-1 and no requirement'`
for compensatory mitigation is anticipated- at this time. The - North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
states that Individual Section, a fier-Quality Certifications will be
required. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the
COE.
The preferred project alignment is primarily on existing location
and, therefore, impacts to wetlands have been minimized to the greatest
practicable extent.
5. Circulation of the Environment Assessment
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, on November 10, 1994,
and by the Federal Highway Administration on November 14, 1994. The
approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following federal,
state, and local agencies for review and comments. An asterisk (*)
indicates a response was received from that agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in the Appendix of this document.
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
*U. S. Department of the Interior
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Field Station
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
13
U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
*U. S. Department of Commerce - National
N. C. Department of Environment, Health
*Wildlife Resources Commission
Natural Heritage Program
*Division of Environmental Management
*Division of Forest Resources
Marine Fisheries Service
and Natural Resources
Centralina Council of Governments - Charlotte
Mayor of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County Commissioner
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Mecklenburg County Schools
*Mecklenburg County Parks & Recreation
Charlotte Department of Transportation
The Environmental Assessment was also made available to the public.
6. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from
nine agencies and many interested citizens and property owners. The
following are excerpts of the substantive comments with responses, where
appropriate:
(a) U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
(1) Comment:
The study area for the proposed project is located in the
jurisdiction of the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, both of
which participate in the National. Flood Insurance Program. From a
review of the February 1982 Charlotte Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
and the February 1993 Mecklenburg County FIRM, it appears that the
roadway crosses McAlpine Creek and McAlpine Creek Tributary No. 3.
These are both detail study streams which have 100-year flood
elevations determined and floodway defined. The jurisdictional
boundary between the city and county runs along the roadway in the
area of these two streams. From a further review of the county FIRM,
the roadway also crosses Four Mile Creek, another detail study
stream. A certification will be required indicating that new and
modified structures will not cause any rise in the 100-year natural
water surface elevations. If changes in the floodways are required,
these changes should be coordinated with the affected community for
modification to the flood insurance maps and report. We also suggest
coordination with the city and county for compliance with their flood
plain ordinances.
Response:
Standard policy of the NCDOT requires the construction of highways
and structures within flood plains so that upstream surcharge is kept
below 1.0 foot. NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will complete all necessary
4
analysis and will prepare plans, forwarding the latter to local
agencies. After approval by these agencies, the plans will be
forwarded to the Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA) for review.
(2) Comment:
"Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed the referenced Environmental
Assessment which describes a -ymmetri-c=al widening of the existing
roadway throughout most of the project length. Th'i approach has
m-i•ni-mized._-.weti;and impacts at the four primary creek crossings;
(McAlpine Creek, McAlpine Creek Tributary No. 3, Four Mile Creek, and
Rocky Branch). Bridge replacement at McAlpine Creek and the
extension of existing culverts at the other three crossings could be
authorized by Department of the Army (DA) General Permit No.
198200031. The remaining five crossings of unnamed headwater streams.
;could be authorized by DA Nationwide Permit No. 26: The total -impact
of 09 acre of wetlands'for -the project is considered minimal and no
reggi_rement for compensatory mitigation is anticipated at this time.
Response:
During the planning phase of this project, new and updated
information is continuously made available.. For the widening on-
exi,stang_location, NCDOT planners and roadway designers have selected
the west side of NC 16, as opposed to a symmetrical widening
specified in the EA. (See Section 8 of this document for revisions
to the Environmental. Assessment.) However, wetlsan- -impact acreages
will not appreciably change from the figures reported in-the EA (0.9
acres for entire project). Those acreages are based on a 140-foot
corridor width, wh.i,ch covers the maximum limit-of taking needed for
asym trical widening. Furthermore, the proposed action includes all
reasonable and feasible measures to minimize harm to wetlands. The
NCDOT will comply with all requirements of the COE permits or
notifications.
(b) United States Department of the Interior
(1) Comment:
We concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to
avoid the Section 4(f) involvements with the Four-Mile Creek Greenway
and the McAlpine Greenway. We also concur that all means to minimize
harm have been considered.
Response:
NCDOT acknowledges DOI concurrence regarding the aforementioned
greenways.
(2) Comment:
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would like a to clarify a
statement made in the EA (Page 43) regarding sunflower habitat. The
EA notes that . . . the plant once inhabited open prairies and is now
5
adapted to disturbed areas with maintained open habitat. This
statement is misleading; it implies that the sunflower is a weedy
species--able to colonize new sites through mobile seeds. While this
sunflower species is presently found in disturbed areas such as road
rights-of-way and utility corridors, it is because these sites
contain specific habitat characteristics that this species requires
(proper soils, vegetation associations, and some form of disturbance
to maintain the open character of the habitat). Thus, it is
technically not correct to state that the species is adapted to
disturbed areas since it will not, and does not, grow on many
disturbed sites.
Response:
After consulting with a NCDOT biologist, it was determined that the
statement in question should be changed to read as follows: The
plant once inhabited open prairies and is now commonly found in
disturbed areas with maintained open habitat.
(3) Comment:
The FWS advises that it has reviewed the subject project with
regard to the effects that the proposed action may have on wetlands
and associated fish and wildlife resources and concluded that it will
have no significant impacts to wetlands in or adjacent to the
proposed impact area. Therefore, the FWS has no objection to the
proposed widening of NC 16 with regards to wetlands impacts.
Response:
NCDOT acknowledges the FWS comment regarding impacts to wetlands and
fish and wildlife resources. DOT maintains its policy to build good
roads while limiting impacts to the environment.
(4) Comment:
In conclusion, the FWS believes that all environmental concerns will
have been addressed satisfactorily, provided that the NCDOT fulfills
its commitment to fund the prairie habitat restoration project prior
to the signing of a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Response:
The habitat project has been funded and work is currently underway.
A portion of the sunflower plants have already been transplanted to
the habitat.
(c)
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(1) Comment:
We ask that NCDOT use Best Management Practices and use the Voluntary
Stream Relocation Guidelines for any stream channels requiring
modification.
6
Response:
NCDOT will follow the guidelines set forth in the Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. The stormwater drainage
system will be designed to comply with these practices and will be
completed during the roadway design phase of the project. NCDOT
att'ftpts"'to `avoid the necessity of altering or relocating streams
when-.designing and building highways. Nonetheless, this becomes a
necessity when no other reasonable or feasible alternative exists.
When stream relocation is necessary, NCDOT has as its standard
practice to design and construct culverts and other hydraulic
structures to avoid fish blockage, wildlife habitat degradation, and
upstream water elevation increases.
(d) N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Environmental Management
(1) Comment:
It does not appear that DOT investigated asymmetrical widening to
minimize wetland impacts. Would wetland impacts be reduced with
asymmetrical widening?
Response:
During the planning phase of this project, NCDOT planners and roadway
design engineers did investigate asymmetrical widening. In fact,
along part C of the project NCDOT has chosen to widen on the west
side of NC 16. (See Section 8 of this document for revisions to the
Environmental Assessment.) As stated in a previous response
[(d)(2)], ti`he wetland impact nreages do not appreciably change from
the figures reported in the EA (0.9 acres for entire project). Those
acreages are based on a 140-foot corridor width, which covers the
maximum limit of taking needed for asymmetrical widening.
Furthermore, the proposed action includes all reasonable and feasible
measures to minimize harm to wetlands.
(2) Comment:
Some wetland impacts will require an Individual 401 Certification.
Therefore, DOT should develop a mitigation plan for the wetland
impacts. The mitigation plan should be submitted to DEM for review
and comment.
Response:
According to the Corps of Engineers (COE), the total impact on 0.9
acre of wetlands for the project is considered minimal and no
requirement for compensatory mitigation is anticipated at this time.
Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
(3) Comment:
The stream classifications are correct. However, our scoping letter
requested that stream classifications be current. The natural
resources report references 1991 classifications. The environmental
document should reference the latest stream classification schedule.
Response:
Due to anomalous planning and design circumstances found on this
project, the planning document phase took an extended period of time.
At the time the natural resources document was completed, the
reference source was current. As the comment states, 1995 water
quality classifications show that all streams continue to be
classified correctly, as Class C waters.
(4) Comment:
Stream relocations/channelization should be completed using DOTS
guidance document. DOT should revegetate along stream relocations/
channelization associated with this project.
Response:
NCDOT will follow the guidelines set forth in the Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. All land areas
disturbed, cleared and grubbed, and/or graded, including stream
banks, will be seeded and revegetated pursuant to Section 880 Seeding
and Mulching of the NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and
Structures Manual.
(e) N. C. Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Environmental Health
(1) Comment:
This analysis focuses exclusively on the specific project corridor.
The impacts of the project must be examined relative to a larger
area. Several transportation management options involve area-wide
policies. This project must be evaluated on a more regional level.
If a wider scope examination is conducted one or more of the
transportation alternatives may prove viable thus eliminating the
need for additional single occupancy vehicle road construction.
Response:
Regional transportation studies are conducted by NCDOT prior to this
specific corridor study. The Statewide Planning Branch of DOT
predicts by computer modeling future traffic volumes and patterns in
a particular county or region. This branch formulates thoroughfare
plans that stipulate primary and secondary road systems in an area.
Once established, these thoroughfare plans are used as a basis for
individual highway project study. While TSM options can reduce
travel demand, even with the most optimistic projections they cannot
replace the need to widen NC 16.
a
(f) N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Forest Resources
(1) Comment:
The Right of Way contractor should make efforts to salvage for
pulpwood and sawtimber those merchantable trees that have to be cut
to permit construction activities.
Response:
The clearing of highway right of way and timber disposal is the
responsibility of the contractor. Property owners may elect to
remove the timber before public acquisition. The NCDOT is not
involved in removal or disposal of timber or debris. Removal of
unnecessary timber outside of construction limits will be
discouraged.
(g) N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Land Resources
(1) Comment:
This project will impact 9 geodetic survey markers. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
Response:
Before commencing construction, NCDOT will notify the NCDEHNR,
Division of Land Resources.
(2) Comment:
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from
the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Response:
The North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission approves the
program of erosion and sedimentation control associated with highway
construction used by the NCDOT. The erosion control plan for this
project will be prepared under this program.
7. Public Hearing and Comment
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a public
hearing was held at Charlotte Latin School on January 10, 1995 (see the
Appendix for a copy of the public hearing notice). Over 300 citizens and
15 NCDOT personnel attended the public hearing. The questions and
concerns dealt with individual property concerns, as well as questions
about the typical cross section, alignment, median crossovers, noise
abatement, construction easements, right of way, relocation assistance,
and the project schedule. All of the questions and comments were
sufficiently answered at the hearing. A transcript of the hearing is on
file with the N.C. Division of Highways.
Forty (40) written letters and comments from the public were received
and either personally answered or noted during the official commenting
period following the hearing. Principal topics of concern were traffic
noise and air quality, the recommended widening on the west side of
existing NC 16, and the relocation of NC 16 to the west of Providence
Presbyterian Church. Many of these topics were adequately addressed at
the hearing. However, for clarification, reiteration and amplification,
the following statements are provided below.
(a) Traffic Noise and Air Quality
Several neighborhoods and communities along NC 16 expressed concern
over increased noise levels and degraded air quality that would
result from the construction of this project. Many residential areas
requested walls or berms be placed to protect their homes from
intrusive traffic noise. NCDOT's Noise Abatement Policy, approved on
June 13, 1990, states unless special conditions exist and effective
abatement can be provided, it is not considered reasonable to provide
noise abatement on non-controlled or partial access controlled
facilities (Section II.B.7). For example, at Providence Landing the
access drive physically separates homes to the north and south. If
noise walls were built an approximate 50-foot opening between them
would be created by the driveway.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough, continuous enough, and long enough to shield the
receptor (dwelling, structure, etc.) from significant sections of the
highway. Openings for access such as driveways and crossing streets
severely reduces the amount of noise level reduction provided and
makes the barrier cost unreasonable compared to the benefits gained.
In addition, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barriers length
would normally be eight (8) times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access
opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise
reduction to approximately 4 dBA. NCDOT's Noise Abatement Policy
stipulates that one design criterion that must be achieved by a noise
wall is a minimum noise reduction (insertion loss) of 6 dBA for all
receptors adjacent to the wall. Another design criterion is that it
will not be reasonable to provide abatement unless the receptor is
located a distance of four times the height of the wall or more from
the proposed wall. Furthermore, safety at openings in the barrier,
because of restricted sight distance, is also a concern. For these
reasons, noise walls are not reasonable or feasible for all
development abutting NC 16.
10
Earthen berms are not reasonable or feasible for NC 16 as well.
Berms must be built with 2:1 sideslopes, meaning the width of the
base of the berm is four (4) times its height. For example an
earthen berm 12-feet tall would mean its base is 48-feet wide. This
berm would have to be located within DOT right of way. Considering
the width of the roadway, 72 feet curb face to face, right of way
would need to be on the order of 150 to 200 feet wide in order to
accommodate berms. A right of way taking of this magnitude could
cause the razing of many homes. The cost of this taking of right of
way and possible homes is not reasonable compared to the benefits of
noise reduction provided. Also, the issue of openings caused by
driveways and side streets that applies to noise walls also applies
to berms. For these reasons, berms are not reasonable or feasible
for all development abutting NC 16.
Historical case studies of highways have shown that the worst-case
air quality conditions occur at busy intersections, where vehicles
are required to stop and idle for certain periods of time. The EA
stated the NC 16 intersection with NC 51 would be such the place
along this project. The highest one-hour carbon monoxide level
predicted at this intersection in the design year 2016 is 14.8 parts
per million (ppm). As stated in the EA, this concentration is well
below the maximum permitted by National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), which for one hour is 35 ppm. Considering that the
intersection on this project predicted to have the worst-case air
quality conditions is well below the NAAQS, it is reasonable to
expect that no violations of these standards occurs at any other
place along the project.
(b) Recommended west side widening of NC 16
Many residents on the west side of NC 16 questioned why their side of
the road had been selected for the widening of the road to
multi-lanes. The west side of NC 16 was chosen as the most
reasonable and feasible location based on several factors. In the C
part of the project, from NC 51 north to the existing multi-lanes in
Charlotte, a major engineering factor was the necessary placement of
a new bridge over McAlpine Creek. The amount of existing development
north of the creek on the east side of NC 16 dictated that the new
bridge be built to the west of the existing bridge. To continue with
good alignment and minimize property damages with the best
information NCDOT had at the time, the remaining part of NC 16 to
NC 51 was designed to remain on the west side. Shifting construction
of a divided multi-lane highway from one side of the existing roadway
to the other can only reasonably be achieved at the location of a
significant horizontal curve.
If shifts were made on straight, or tangent sections, a reverse
horizontal curve would result, and the alignment and safety of the
road would worsen. There is only one such significant horizontal
curve in'Part C where the alignment could reasonably shift onto the
east side. This is the area of NC 16 between the Grace Lutheran
Church and the Candlewyck Church, north of NC 51. And in this
particular case, there is no justification on any grounds to shift to
11
the east. Property damages would not be lessened if widening were on
the east side in this area and the alignment and safety of the road
wou' not be benefited.
Part B, the section of this project from Providence Road West on the
south to NC 51 on the north, is still in preliminary design stages.
Shifts to the east are being studied to see whether such changes can
better minimize property damages while not sacrificing good alignment
and safety features of the highway.
(c) Realignment of NC 16 around Providence Presbyterian Church and
Cemetery
The Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemetery is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. Widening NC 16 on its existing
studied alignment in the church area would encroach on this historic
property. NCDOT would have to acquire nearly three acres of property
from the church. Federal laws pertaining to such historic sites
mandate that an avoidance alternative be studied. NCDOT found that
there is a feasible and prudent alternative, a new location route
that bypasses the church on the west side. The alignment will occupy
a corridor approximately equidistant to the church buildings and the
Berkeley neighborhood. A good alignment for the church bypass is
obtainable and property damages are minimized. The church complex is
benefitted by the road going on new location. The new alignment
moves traffic away from the cemetery and church buildings. Noise
levels will reduce by moving the traffic stream away from church
buildings. Widening to the east of the church and cemetery would
raze up to an estimated 10 homes while the recommended alignment
destroys none.
8. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment
During the planning phase of this project, new and updated
information was continuously made available. For widening on existing
location, at least in part C of the project (NC 51 to the existing
multi-lanes in Charlotte), NCDOT planners and roadway designers have
selected the west side of NC 16, as opposed to a symmetrical widening
specified in the EA (see section 7(b) above). Design of Part B has not
been finalized.
Due to all the changes occurring during the course of this study,
especially those relating to adjacent development, construction cost and
right of way cost figures were updated. These updated project costs are
shown below:
Construction $14,777,000
Right of Way $ 7,536,000
Total $22,313,000
*Exceeds T.I.P. costs by $4,913,000
12
9. Basis For Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon environmental studies and comments received from Federal,
State, and local agencies, it has been concluded that the proposed action
will have no significant adverse affect upon the quality of the
environment. The following is the basis for this conclusion:
(a) While the project has received moderate to significant input
from the public, it is not considered controversial on
environmental grounds.
(b) No significant adverse impacts on natural, ecological, cultural,
or scenic resources of national, state, or local significance
are expected.
(c) The -project is anticipated to displace two single family homes
and will not disrupt community cohesion.
(d) No significant detrimental impact on air quality, water quality,
or by increased noise levels is anticipated in the project area.
In view of the above, it has been determined that a Finding of No
Significant Impact is applicable to this project.

RLB/plr
APPENDIX
f
I
j
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A Project M - .SZ???/ Qn(J R,5 'lv 3Z 9?L,?
State Project A,1(o17aB01
T. I. P. No. /L
Description: 1JG /(p, ?EC.el.??tll.?lJ?2G ( _du?m? -?
i / ?
To ?? EY! ST/?lCr• /Utt LT/ -LJy ?c,/t? ,. ?'?? lL????
Yes No
?1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities ? a
on essentially the same location?
ti
?
l
2. oca
on
Is the project on new
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park,
recreation land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge / a
located adjacent to the existing highway? ?
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used
impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land,
in whole or in part, for its intended purpose?
?
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ..................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................. 1 acre
greater than 100 acres .............. 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and-habitat effects,
aesthetic values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land
?
• ?
use of such land for its intended purpose
impair the
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the assessment
of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the
proposed mitigation for, the Section 4(f) lands? _
2
Yes No
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or
improved with funds under the Land and Water
Conservation Act (Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus
property)? ?
B. If the project involves lands described in Item 7
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object ?
to the land conversion or transfer? _
9. Does'the project require preparation of an EIS? ?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or impacts
of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the highway without using th
adjacent u is ar recreations and or
wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management
measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact'
or (ii) substantial increased costs
Yes No
3L ?
v- F?

11

3
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
10 3. Build an improved facility on new location without
usin the public park recreations and or wildlife
and waterfowl re uqe. (This would be a localized
so run around.')
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties
and (9of such impacts, costs, or difficulties
truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
-VI F1
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
4
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1.
2.
The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm.
Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
Yes No
/F1
a. .Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least
comparable value.
1.0
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project
including sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, trees
and other facilities.
c?. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
Od. Incorporation of.design features and habitat features,
where necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
ne. Payment of the fair market value of the land and
??JJ improvements taken or improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
O Additional or alternative mitigation measures as
determined necessary based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
3.
A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
91
5se ?#,GE 4-h A &1b 10
f j
4A
The McAlpine Creek Greenway is a system of public recreational
trails, soccer fields, picnic areas, parking, rest rooms, and a lake.
Approximately 300 acres have been acquired along this creek under the
greenway program. A greenway trail between Sardis Road and Providence
Road/NC 16 will be constructed in the future to connect with the current
facilities.
The McAlpine Greenway property lies east/northeast of NC 16.
Adjacent to NC 16 is a 4 1/2 acre tract on the east side along the south
side of the creek, which will be crossed by the proposed widening and is
the subject of this projects' Section 4(f) involvement.
Since this project involves the widening of an existing facility, the
widening of NC 16 at McAlpine Creek will necessitate the taking of
right-of-way from greenway property adjacent to the existing roadbed. The
proposed improvement will also require the construction of a new bridge on
the west side. The current greenway does not cross under the existing
bridge located at McAlpine Creek. No negative impacts on the existing
greenway are anticipated and the proposed project does not pose a problem
for future expansion.
No mitigation for this property loss is proposed in conjunction with
this project; however, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
proposes to pay the current property owner fair market value for the
Greenway property acquired for this widening improvement. The NCDOT will
also coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation during
design of the new bridge to ensure a greenway trail could be retrofitted
underneath the bridge for future expansion.
The "do nothing" alternative has been considered during the
development of this project. Because there are both advantages and
disadvantages associated with almost any major highway project, it is
important to give consideration to the option of not constructing the
project. Some of the advantages of the project include enhanced traffic
carrying capability, enhanced access to future development, improved
mobility for emergency vehicles, and a decreased expenditure of time and
money by motorists.
Some disadvantages of building the project include impacts to the
McAlpine Creek Greenway and the Four Mile Creek Greenway; expenditure of
funds, the acquisition of additional right-of-way resulting in the
displacement of.families, the taking of wetland and forest resources, and
an increase in noise.
A critical need to relieve congestion on NC 16 exists between the
Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the existing multilane Section near
Blueberry Lane. For these reasons, the "do nothing" alternate is not
recommended.
48
Widening this facility without utilizing the Section 4(f) resource
would create substantial environmental impacts since it would involve
relocating the road. Many homes, businesses, schools and churches would
be impacted by this relocation. This scenario would be extremely costly
and environmentally disrupting. This option is not considered prudent.
In conclusion, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the
use of this Section 4(f) resource.
A
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies -
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved -
A
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criterial included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have n'Thereaare nodfethe asible findings
or prudent are
clearly applicable to this project.
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
are
be ham, and d there the
The project includes eall a ures to possible minimize harm will minimize
measures
assurances that the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
/ADa?e °? 4'
Manager, 4annin%g Environmenta Branch
NCOOT
Date Division Administrator, FHWA

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS. WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project M - Szb q(L d n IQs 'lv .32- 9?T_)
State Project R,/&7,2A0J
T. I. P. No.
Description:
?20?t?[ r' C!lA,E/!?TI? Qyy'11?2ti/ ltTf..? zM00
Yes No
?1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities
on essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park,
• recreation land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
located adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used
impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land,
in whole or in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ..................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................. 1 acre
greater than 100 acres .............. 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and-habitat effects,
aesthetic values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land
impair the'use of such land for its intended purpose?
/ El
Q ?i
F] z
O _?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the assessment
of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the
proposed mitigation for, the Section 4(f) lands? _ ?

2
Yes No
7. Does :1e project use land from a site purchased or
improved with funds under the Land and Water
Conservation Act (Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus ?
property)? -
8. If the project involves lands described in Item 7
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object " ?
to the land conversion or transfer? _
9. Does the project require preparation of an EIS? ? !?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
-
hi ?
1. Do
no t
ng. _L
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
`
?
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or impacts ?
of extraordinary measure? _
2. Improvement of the highway without usin the
adjacent public park recreational and or
?
wi i e water ow re uge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management ? ?
measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(-(i-)) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
a

3
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or S(iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
Using the public park, recreations and or wi d ife
and water ow re u e. This wou d be a oca ized
run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts.
or (iii) a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties .
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties
of truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No

Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.

4
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning to /
minimize harm. ?
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project
including sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, trees
and other facilities.
O Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
i
Od. Incorporation of design features and habitat features,
where necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
ne. Payment of the fair market value of the land and
JJ improvements taken or improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation measures as
determined necessary based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
4-A
i
I
4A
The greenway at Four Mile Creek has not been developed to date, but
the objective under the Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan is to
complete acquisition of flood plain along this creek and construct a
continuous trail. This greenway designation extends eastward to the Town
of Mathews and westward to the Town of Pineville. More than 100 acres
have been acquired along this creek. The greenway at Four Mile Creek will
be impacted by the widening improvement of NC 16. The proposed widening
of NC 16 will cross this greenway and is the subject of this projects'
section 4(f) involvement.
Since this project involves the widening of an existing facility, the
proposed improvement at Four Mile Creek will necessitate the talking of
right-of-way from greenway property adjacent to the existing road. To
mitigate impacts to this greenway system the NCDOT will construct a
culvert or structure to accommodate the greenway trail underneath the road
for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The Mecklenburg County Park and
Recreation Department prefers a bridge at Four Mile Creek. The type and
size of culvert or structure will be determined during final design. The
NCDOT will coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation
during design of the bridge.or culvert to insure adequate provision for
crossing is provided for pedestrians and bicyclist. The NCDOT will also
utilize AASHTO standards in developing the pedestrian/bicycle crossing.
Additionally, the NCDOT will pay the current owner fair market value for
property acquired from this greenway.
The "do nothing" alternative has been considered during the
development of this project. Because there are both advantages and
disadvantages associated with almost any major highway project, it is
important to give consideration to the option of not constructing the
project. Some of the advantages of the project include enhanced traffic
carrying capability, enhanced access to future development, improved
mobility for emergency vehicles, and a decreased expenditure of time and
money by motorists.
Some disadvantages of building the project include impacts to the
McAlpine Creek Greenway and the Four Mile Creek Greenway; expenditure of
funds, the acquisition of additional right-of-way resulting in the
displacement of families, the taking of wetland and forest resources, and
an increase in noise.
A critical need to relieve congestion on NC 16 exists between the
Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the existing multilane Section near
Blueberry Lane. For these reasons, the "do nothing" alternate is not
recommended.
Widening this facility without utilizing the Section 4(f) resource
would create substantial environmental impacts since it would involve
relocating the road. Many homes, businesses, schools and churches would
be impacted by this relocation. This scenario would be extremely costly
and environmentally disrupting. This option is not considered prudent.
In conclusion, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the
use of this Section 4(f) resource.
5
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies -
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved -
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets al December 23, included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible or prudent
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
be ihncorporand at deign the
The project that includes he measres to possible min mize harm will minimize
assurances
project.
All appropriate coordi.nation has been successfully completed.
Approved: / ?J.? n
D e
NCOOT
Date D?vis?on A mim strator, FHWA

R -, Q??, & &IAM -
• DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 7, 1995
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
GEI
FEB 1 3 1995
DIVISION Of ??
HIGHWAYS ??,
?1RON:
This is in response to your letter of November 17, 1994,
requesting our comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment
and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for NC 16 (Old Providence
Road), From the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the Existing
Multi-Lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, State Project
8.1672801, F. A. Project M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2), T.I.P. U-2510"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199500774).
Our comments involve impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
projects, flood plains, and other jurisdictional resources,
primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed roadway does not
cross any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project.
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,
9 lz"7? ? , e-?
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
February 6, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for
NC 16 (Old Providence Road), From the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the
Existing Multi-Lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, State Project
8.1672801, F. A. Project M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2), T.I.P. U-2510" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199500774)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis. Plan Formulation and Flood Plain
Services Branch, at [phone]
The study area for the proposed project is located in the jurisdiction of
the city of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, both of which participate in the
National F1ood.Insurance Program. From a review of the February 1982
Charlotte Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and the February 1993 Mecklenburg
County FIRM, it appears that the roadway crosses McAlpine Creek and McAlpine
Creek Tributary No. 3. These are both detail study streams which have 100-
year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. The jurisdictional
boundary between the city and county runs along the roadway in the area of
these two streams. From a further review of the county FIRM, the roadway also
crosses Four Mile Creek, another detail study stream. A certification will be
required indicating that new and modified structures will not cause any rise
in the 100-year natural water surface elevations. If changes in the floodways
are required, these changes should be coordinated with the affected community
for modification to the flood insurance maps and.report. We also suggest
coordination with the city and county for compliance with their flood plain
ordinances.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steve Lund. Asheville Field Office. Regulatory
Branch, at [phone]
We have reviewed the referenced Environmental Assessment which describes
a symmetrical widening of the existing roadway throughout most of the project
length. This approach has minimized wetland impacts at'tre four primary creek
crossings (McAlpine Creek, McAlpine Creek Tributary No. 3, Four Mile Creek,
and Rocky Branch). Bridge replacement at McAlpine Creek and the extension
of existing culverts at the other three crossings could be authorized by
Department of the Army (DA) General Permit No. 198200031. The remaining
five crossings of unnamed headwater streams could be authorized by DA
Nationwide Permit No. 26. The total impact of 0.9 acre of wetlands for the
project is considered minimal and no requirement for compensatory mitigation
is anticipated at this time.
Questions or comments concerning DA permits may be directed to Mr. Lund.
United States Department of the Interior
A
7 ;
.., OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
h WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER-94/905
JI'i N 2 6 1995
?GEI v?
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration (JAN 3 0
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442 Zy [;;,1? .: _.kl OF ?r
T Graf.
LCCr Mr. '
'vlOt
This responds to the request for the Department of the Interior's comments on the
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the SR-16 (Old Providence Road) from the
Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the Existing Multi-Lanes, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION COMMENTS
We concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid-the
Section:'4(f) involvements with the Four-Mile Creek Greenway and the McAlpine
Greenway.? We also concur that all means.to minimize harm have been considered.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMENTS
The Environmental Assessment (EA) indicates. that the project will impact
approximately 0.9 acres of wetlands associated with the crossing of four major
streams (McAlpine Creek, Six-Mile Creek, Four-Mile Creek, and Rocky Branch) and
four unnamed tributaries. The project will also destroy two known populations
of a federally 'endangered plant species, Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). .
In accordance with rrcvisiors of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, or
April 7, 1994, the Federal Highway Administration entered into a formal
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding impacts to
the sunflower populations. The FWS met, with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) representatives on-site April 19 and in Raleigh on May 26,
in order to identify measures to offset impacts to the sunflower populations. ,
As a result of the-consultation process., the NCDOT agreed to provide funding
($31,970 or 0.14 percent of.the total project cost) for a prairie habitat
restoration'project. The.prairie restoration project will be conducted by the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department, with assistance 'from
Dr. Larry Barden of the University of North Carolina in Charlotte, on forty-two
acres at two county-owned sites--Latta Plantation and. McDowell Park in
Mecklenburg County.
2
Prior to construction, individual sunflower populations will be transplanted to
the prairie sites. Based on this transplant effort, the FWS issued a "no
jeopardy" Biological Opinion to the Federal Highway Administration on'June 19.
The FWS believes that the prairie habitat restoration project, if completed-
successfully, will result in a net gain towards recovery of this species.
The FWS would like to clarify a statement made in the EA .(Page 43) regarding
sunflower habitat. The EA notes that "... the plant once inhabited open prairies
and is now adapted to disturbed areas with.maintained open habitat." This
statement is misleading; it implies that the sunflower is a "weedy" species--able
to colonize new sites through mobile seeds. While this sunflower species is
presently found in disturbed areas such as road rights-of-way and utility
corridors, it is because these sites contain specific habitat characteristics
that this species requires (proper soils, vegetation associations, and some form
of disturbance - to maintain the, open character of the habitat).. Thus, it is
technically not correct to state that the species "is adapted" to disturbed areas "
since it will not, and does not, grow on many disturbed sites.
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT COMMENTS
The FWS advises that is has reviewed the subject project with regard to the
effects that the proposed action may have on wetlands and associated fish and
wildlife resources and concluded that it will have no significant impacts to
wetlands in or adjacent to the proposed impact area. Therefore, the FWS has no
objection to the proposed widening of SR-16 with regards to wetlands impacts.
In conclusion, the FWS believes that all environmental concerns will have been
addressed satisfactorily, provided that the NCDOT fulfills its commitment to fund
the prairie habitat restoration project prior to the signing of a Finding,of No
Significant Impact.
SUMMARY COMMENTS
The Department of the Interior has no objection to Section 4(f) approval of this
project by the Department of Transportation..
Should you have any questions concerning fish and wildlife resources, please
contact Mr. Jon Andrew, Regional Environmental Coordinator, telephone
[phone], or Ms. Janice Nicholls of the Asheville Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 227.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincer ly,.
Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office o ironmental
Policy and Compliance
1-1 ON -To.
' " vS TAKEG?
WP may' J PRIDE IN
9
United States Department of the Interior AMERICA
\.-kTIO\.-kL P.kPK SERNZCE
MARC3. P.O. Box 37127
IN REPt.I'REFER TOWashinQton. D.C. 20013-7127
The Director of the National Park Service is pleased to inform
you that the following properties have been entered
in the National Register of Historic Places.
For further information call 202/343-9542.
6M
WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: :2/26/94 :,ROUGH 12/30/94
KEY: State, County, Property Name, Address /Boundary, City, Vicinity, Reference Number NHL Status, Action, Date, Multiple Name
ARIZONA, YAVAPAI COUNTY, Fleurv•s Addition Historic District, Roughly, Western and Gurley from Willow to Grove, and Willow,
Garden and Grove, from Western to Gurley, Prescott vicinity, 94001488, NOMINATION, 12/27/94 (Prescott MRA)
CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Lantern-an House, 4420 Encinas Dr., La Canada F1in-tridge, 94001504, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
CALIFORNIA, MONTEREY COUNTY, Pacific Biological Laboratories, 800 Cannery Row, Monterey, 94001498, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
CALIFORNIA, ORANGE COUNTY, Huntirator. Beach Elementary School. Gymnasium and P'srae, 1600 Palm Ave., Huntington Beach,
94001499, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
CALIFORNIA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Smiley Park Historic District, Roughly bounded by Brookside Ave., Cajon St., Cypress Ave.
and Buena Vista St., Redlands, 94001487, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
CALIFORNIA, SAN MATEO COUNTY, Brittan., Natharial. Party House, 125 Dale Ave., San Carlos, 94001500, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
CALIFORNIA, SONORA COUNTY, Rosenbura's Denartment Store, 700 Fourth St., Santa Rosa, 94001497, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
CALIFORNIA, STANISLAUS COUNTY, Hotel Covell, !023 J St., Modesto, 94001501, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE EQUIVALENT, Carnegie Institution of Washington. Geophysical Laboratory,
2901 Upton St., NW., Washington, 94001511, NCMINATION, 12/29/94
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE EQUIVALENT, Equitable Co-operative Building Association, 915 F St., Nw.,
Washington, 94001515, NOMINATION, 12/29/94 (Banks and Financial Institutions MPS)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE EQUIVALENT, Federal--American National Bank, 615--621 14th St., NW.,
Washington, 94001517, NOMINATICN, 12/29/94 (Banks and Financial Institutions MPS)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE EQUIVALENT, Penland, W. H.. 4 Company, 1211--1219 13th St., NW.,
Washington, 94001510, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE EQUIVALENT, Second National Bank, 1331 G St., NW., Washington, 94001516,
NOMINATION, 12/29/94 (Banks and Financial Institutions MPS)
FLORIDA, ORANGE COUNTY, Mizell--Leu House Historic District, 1730 N. Forest Ave., Orlando, 94001495, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
KENTUCKY, BOYLE COUNTY, Moore Christopher Collins. Fa---n, 3901 Harrodsburg Rd., Danville vicinity, 94001506, NOMINATION,
12/29/94
MISSOURI, MONROE COUNTY, Washington School, 529 S. Locust St., Monroe City, 34001502, NOMINATICN, 12/29/94
MONTANA, FLATHEAD COUNTY, Vance Lodge, Polebridge Loop Rd. N side, about 0.5 mi. NW of Polebridge, Polebridge vicinity,
94001505, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
NEW YCR.L, ONONDAGA COUNTY, Thornden Park, Roughly bounded by Ostrom Ave., Madison St., Beech St., Bristol•Pl., Greenwood Pl.
and Clarendon St., Syracuse, 94001490, NOMINATION, 12/29/94 (Historic Designed Landscapes of Syracuse MPS)
NEW YCRZ, ULSTER COUNTY, Middauah--Stone House and Dutch Barn, 476 Mill Rd., Rochester, 94001514, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
&O?RTR CAROLINA, MECKIINBURG COUNTY. Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemete-v (Boundary Decrease), 10414 Providence Rd.,
rl0tta, 94001480, BOUNDARY DECREASE, 12/27/94
DNA. GRADY COUNTY, Old US Pcst Office and Federal C=urthouse, Jct. of Fourth and Choctaw Sts., SW corner, Chickasha,
94001509, NOMINATION, 12/29/94
OKLAHCMA, MURRAY COUNTY, Davis Santa Fe Depot, 12 Main St., Davis, 94001507, VCMINATION, 12/29/94
OKLAHOMA, ROGERS COUNTY, Rogers. Will. Hotel, S24 W. Will Rogers Blvd., Claremore, 94001508, NCMINATION, 12/29/94
TEXAS, DALLAS COUNTY, Maanolia Petroleum Comoanv Citv Sales and Warehouse, 1607 Lyte St., Dallas, 94001473, NOMINATION,
:2/23/94
VERMONT. CHITTENDEN COUNTY, Honey Hollow Camp, 2 mi. S of VT 2, along Honey Hollow Rd., Bolton vicinity, 94001512.
NOMINATION, 12/29/94
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINA FISHERIES SERVICE
s>,.iso?? Beaufort Field Branch
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Caro 28516
November 30, 19 9 0 E I V ?40
Q'
5
Mr. H. Franklin Vic, P.E., Manager ?E? (} 5 1994
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways f :-
P. O. Box 25201 C;`v:??G^t C„
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Ce
"VVIRt,
Dear Mr. Vic:
The National Marine Fisheries Service has reviewed the Federal
Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
for NC 16 (Old Providence Road), from the Charlotte Southern Outer
Loop to the Existing Multi-Lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
State Project 8.1672801, F. A. Project M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2),
T.I.P. U-2510 included with your November 17, 1994, letter.
Fishery resources for which we are responsible are not found in the
proposed project area, therefore, we have no comments.
Sincere Y,
Lay H. Hard
Y
Branch Chief
Habitat Conservation Division
cc: FWS, ATLA, GA
FWS, Raleigh, NC
EPA, ATLA, GA
NCDEHNR, Raleigh, NC
NCDEHNR, Morehead City, NC
F/SE02
l
4 k
14. 01
t1 NORTH CAROL
FM208 D U DEPA N
116 WE H STJ
41995 RALEIG N
01-03-95 a? JAN
V
I ? 5
F 1UJECT MANAC?iv F''y?
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MAILED TO
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
WHIT WEBB
PROGRAM DEV- BRANCH
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I o?
ADMINISTRA
N S'STREET
TH CAROLINA 27
-? JAN U 9 1995
DIVISION OF Pp'''
atHamAWVAYi_c
FROM
NGHOUSE

/ ?3 ocl_
MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
ENV. ASSESS. - PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 16 (OLD PROVIDENCE RD-) FROM
THE CHARLOTTE SOUTHERN OUTER LOOP TO THE EXISTING MULTI-LANES IN
CHARLOTTE TIP #U-2510
SAI NO 95E42200338 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV- ASSESS.
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-C- REGION F
State of North Carolina .
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A 4 • -
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ® = H N FR.
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster ll, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0338 NC 16 Improvements, Mecklenburg County
DATE: December 22, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project.
The attached comments reflect specific concerns of our
divisions that should be recognized by the applicant. The
applicant is encouraged to work with our commenting divisions
throughout the planning of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments
j.
`;x•11 OED' ?•.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equcl Opportunity Affirmctive Action Emp!eyer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer pccer
• 'NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 21'94 12:04 No.001 P.06
_ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North CaroUna 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co inator
Habitat Conservation Program `,?/
DATE: December 21, 1994`
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Environmental Assessment (EA) for NC 16
(Old Providence Road) Improvements, from the
Charlotte Outer Loop to the existing multi-lanes
in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
TIP No. U-2510, SCH Project No. 95-0338.
Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject EA 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).
The proposed project involves widening existing NC 16
to a four-lane, curb and gutter facility with a 16-foot
raised grass median. The roadway will be constructed mostly
on existing alignment with symmetrical widening. The
project length is approximately 6.7 miles. Wildlife habitat
losses include approximately 54 acres of forested lands and
0.9 acres of wetlands.
NCWRC appreciates that NCDOT has significantly reduced
impacts to wildlife and fishery resources by the decision to
improve existing facilities rather than construction on a
new alignment. Improving existing roadways reduces wildlife
NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 21194 12:05 No.001 P.07
Memo Page 2 December 21, 1994
habitat fragmentation, lessens impacts from secondary
development and eliminates new stream or wetland crossings.
We feel that the EA adequately addresses our concerns
regarding wildlife and fishery resources in the project
area. Therefore, we will at this time concur with the
findings of this EA and anticipate concurrence with the
subsequent Finding of No significant Impact.(FONSI) for this
project. However, we do ask that NCDOT use Best Management
Practices and use the "Voluntary Stream Relocation
Guidelines" for any stream channels requiring modification.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA.
If we can be of any further assistance please call me at
[phone].
CC: Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
David Dell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
12/16/94 12:30 $919 733 9959 NC DEM WQ ENVSCI -.-" WQ HQ 0003.
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
December 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: Monica Swlhart P
From: Eric Galamb?lG
Subject: EA for NC 16 Widening In Charlotte
Mecklenburg County
DOT TIP # U-2510
DEHNR #95-0338, DEM # 10793
Y.9
E)EHNR
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental
Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. This project will impact 0.9
acres of wetlands.
DOT proposes to widen the road symmetrically about the existing two lane road. This
requires that the existing road be removed and used as a median. It does not appear that
DOT Investigated asymmetrical widening to minimize wetland Impacts. Would wetland
Impacts be reduced with asymmetrical widening?
Some wetland impacts will require an Individual 401 Certification. Therefore, DOT should
develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan should be submitted to
DEM for review and comment
The stream classifications are cofrecL However, our scoping letter requested that stream
classifications be current The natural resources report references 1991 classifications. The
environmental document should reference the latest stream classification schedule.
Stream relocations/channelizatlori should be completed using DOTs guidance document
DOT should revegetate along stream relocations/channelizaation associated with this project.
Please be advised that this review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
ncl6mec.ea
P.O. Box 29535. Rdelgh, North Carolina 27626-0635 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Oppcrtunlty Atfrmatho Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-conwmer paper
_State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, tirid Natural Resources v
INTERGOVERNMENTALAEVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
After review of this project it has been. determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
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 I
Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOLUREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 6 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, i sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. Construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.

Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 tlays
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application Copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pro-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M.06 NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for ary land disturbing activity. An erosion a seoimentano
control plan will be required it one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
davs before be immn activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or art must accom an the plan (30 davsi
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 tlays)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit . On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned.**
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA • (NIA)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit Inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
7
J
7

7
J
ft Ice Continued on reverse

• Nom,-, arocess
(statutory
time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure sue fs charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions a drawings of structure ft, proof of ownership (NIA)
• . of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Ouslity 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 near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if *,orphan- underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2N.1000 (Coastal Stornwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
?

/?
W ? A0 f. l -
A - ?.l o t?P?C-c.-ctailS `7
L
L
L
L
C
C
C
r
?L
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
fi
Pl
59 W ? Fayetteville Regional Office
n
ace
ood Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(7
4) 251b208
[phone]
1-, /Mooresville Regional Office
919 N
i
St
P
O
950
M
t
B ? Raleigh Regional Office -
3800 B
D
i
n
ree
.
.
ox
orth
a
, arrett
r
ve, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Re
ional Office
g
8025 North Point ivd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]

DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
December 12, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall ?j
SUBJECT:. EA -- NC 16 Improvements, Mecklenburg County
REFERENCE: 95-0338
The Division agrees with the findings of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service that the losses incurred by this project to two
populations of the federally and state Endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) will not likely jeopardize
the continued existence of the species. We are, however,
concerned about the ongoing losses of entire populations of this
species, many of which are located along roadside rights-of-ways
and in a rapidly urbanizing region of the state. Two other
populations of this species, for example, are in jeopardy due to
the proposed extension of Rea Road, just a short distance from
the current project.
We recognize that there are limited means_ of protecting species
that grow in such vulnerable situations.' In many cases, the
preferred alternative may be mitigation efforts similar to those
proposed for this project. It should be realized, however, that
even when transplantation can be successfully accomplished (and
there are many cases where it has failed), there will inevitably
be some loss of biological information in moving individuals away
from sites where they naturally occur, particularly regarding the
ecological associations of the species and its past biogeographic
history. Mixing individuals from different populations to create
a "restored" habitat will also lead to loss of genetic
information that may also be relevant in understanding the
overall biology of the species.
We.would prefer to see mitigation efforts be directed towards
protecting extant, high quality examples of entire natural
communities, i.e., sites that possess a significant amount of
biological meaning. While we do not object to the proposed
attempt to "create" a Piedmont Prairie habitat, we feel this
should be regarded as purely experimental and primarily of
educational benefit. Instead of working to formally dedicate the
two sites proposed to serve as repositories for the transplanted
sunflowers and other native prairie species affected by the
project, we would much rather work with the County and with DOT
to identify sites where mitigation efforts will be of much
greater value.
DEC 09 194 04:07PM
Cleari-house Project No. 95-0338
Mec..: burg County
December 9, 1994
E. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
P.2/4
This analysis focuses exclusively on the specific project corridor. The impacts of the project must be examined
relative to a larger area. Several Lransportation management options involve area-wide policies. This project
must be evaluated on a more regional level. If a wider scope examination is conducted one or more of the
t=anspbrtation alternatives may prove viable thus eliminating, the need for additional single occupancy vehicle
(SOV) road construction,

Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Compliance Branch
Public Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina. 27520
December 7, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy Development
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forestert;'IWA19
?EHNR
5 Ifft
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Proposed Improvements to NC 16 (Old Providence Road) from
Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to Existing Multi-Lanes in Charlotte in
Mecklenburg County
PROJECT # 95-0338 and TIP # U-2510
DUE DATE: 12-15-94
We have reviewed the above subject DOT document and have the following comments:
1. This project is in an urban forestry setting and the widening will impact a total of 55.1
acres of woodland.
2. The ROW contractor should make efforts to salvage for pulpwood and sawtimber those
merchantable trees that have to be cut to permit construction activities.
3. No further comments at this time.
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
Howard Williams - D12
File
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity AfflrmatNe Action Employer 50% recyctea/ 10% post-consumer paper
eC;;
State of North Caroline:
Department of Environment, Health, anc Natur
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
WUliam W. Cobey, Jr, Secretary Director
.Project Number: CJ 5 ??j County: /L-/-?
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact "f geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be*contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
Date
r
This proje(it will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
.Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as-part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
t? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
,e2? 4vd.ag' IZ%a E /94
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
A^
Y"
?LMarch 7, 1995

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department
Frank Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Frank:
E 1
MAR 1 0 1995
DIVISICN O *-
G' HIGHWAY:,
?,PA.. __RP!
Per our conversation today, please be advised that most of the
Helianthus schweinitzii have been removed from the Providence
Road site and transplanted in the McDowell Park piedmont prairie.
Many of the plant stems had decayed, making it very difficult to
account for all the plantsi Therefore, we will monitor the site
through next fall and transplant any remaining Schweinitz's
sunflowers at the end of the growing season. I will continue to
keep you informed of our actions.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Steven H. Law, Chief
Division of*Environmental Education
and Conservation
Copy to: Fred H. Gray, Deputy Director
Gary D. Marshall, Conservation Coordinator
Ronny P. Roberts, Conservation Coordinator
Dr. Larry Barden, UNCC Biology Department
Janice Nicholls, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

700 N. Tryon Street • Charlotte, North Carolina 25202 (79011) 336-3531 • FAX [phone]
All eorriror nro n±-He7hlo ?vifi:nuf regard to Orly!;!. sex. or dki hiiity
'Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
?cD
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: N r • ' n1a? I na ?)?n?v b? • Q •3?

Regional Office/Phone ,,,
Regional Office Area - - -
in-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Air ? Coastal management ? Water Planning
? Fayetteville

Mooresville
ater

roundwater
??I
? Water Resources nvironmental Health

[Wildlife Solid Waste Management
Raleigh and Quality Engineer
' Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? David Foster
?
hi
t
? W U Recreational Consultant,, Land Resources
on
ng
as
? Coastal management Consultant
Parks and Recreation ? Other (speF,i?
rrt?

El Wilmington
El Others ErVED
nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart AMY 0 p 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL 8CI
D
OA 4,nU
L
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached) -
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(les) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
M-104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
--State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C) E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb??
Subject: EA for NC 16 Widening in Charlotte
Mecklenburg County
DOT TIP # U-2510
DEHNR #95-0338, DEM # 10793
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental
Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. This project will impact 0.9
acres of wetlands.
DOT proposes to widen the road symmetrically about the existing two lane road. This
requires that the existing road be removed and used as a median. It does not appear that
DOT investigated asymmetrical widening to minimize wetland impacts. Would wetland
impacts be reduced with asymmetrical widening?
Some wetland impacts will require an Individual 401 Certification. Therefore, DOT should
develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan should be submitted to
DEM for review and comment.
The stream classifications are correct. However, our scoping letter requested that stream
classifications be current. The natural resources report references 1991 classifications. The
environmental document should reference the latest stream classification schedule.
Stream relocations/channelization should be completed using DOT's guidance document.
DOT should revegetate along stream relocations/channelization associated with this project.
Please be advised that this review of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
ncl6mec.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 096 post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Policy Development
Project Review Form ti y
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
1? =v33?( __L ,emu `? lZ 41 /

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
D? •og•
Regional Office/Phone I Regional Office Area
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas

? Fayetteville Air

Mooresville
l
[ Water
Groundwater
? Raleigh
El and Quality Engineer

n
hi
t
El
W Recreational Consultant
ng
o
as
? Coastal management Consultant
? Wilmington ? Others
? Winston-Salem

Manager Sign-Off/Region: I Date:
In-House Review
oil and Water
Coastal Management
? Water Resources .
Wildlife
Forest Resources
Land Resources
arks and Recreation
environmental Management
? Marine Fisheries
? Water Planning
Environmental Health
?Solid Waste Management
? Radiation Protection
? David Foster
? Other (specify)
RECEIVW
DEC VA 71994
ENV*DIVMEIVTAL SCIENCES
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
I ? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached) '
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not.needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development
44

TQ0 IjS_1\3 O.vt KJQ ?\ 6S6
NC 16 (Old Providence Road)
From the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the Existing
Multi-Lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
State Project 8.1672801
F. A. Project M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2)
T.I.P. U-2510
ADMINISTRATION ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and 49 U. S. C. 303
APPROVED:
"at H. Frank in Vick, P. ., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date lic s Graf , E.
`Federal Highway Administration '
NC 16 (Old Providence Road)
From the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the Existing
Multi-Lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
State Project 8.1672801
F. A. Project M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2)
T.I.P. U-2510
5

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
November, 1994

Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
" a . d`'fA'-e?70
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
??o??H•CARpZ?4
SS *0 1 %
SEAL
6944
L'.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY ................................................... i

R

I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................ 1
A. General Description ..... ...... ..................... 1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ................. 1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................. 2
A. Existing Facility .................................... 2
1. Project Terminals ............................... 2
2. Route Classification ............................ 2
3. Roadway Cross-section . ...................... 2
4. Right of Way and Access Control ................ 2
5. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ............... 2
6. Speed Limit ...................................
. 2
7. .
Intersections and Type of Control ............... 3
8. Railroad Crossings .............................. 3
9. Bridge and Culverts .............................. 3
10. Degree of Roadside Interference ................. 3
11. Utilities ....................................... 3
12. Sidewalks ................... 4
13. ....................
Bicycles ........................................ 4
14. School Bus Data .................. 4
...............
B. Traff ic/Truck Volumes ................................. 4
C. Other Highway Projects In.Area ........................ 5
III. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ............... 5
A. Length of Project ...................... ...:..........
B. Design Speed .........................................
C. Cross Section ........................................
D. Right of Way .........................................
E. Access Control .......................................
F. Speed Zones ..........................................
G. Bicycles .............................................
H. Landscape Planting ................. .............
1. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ...........
J. Sidewalks ............................................
K. Bridge/Culvert Work Required .........................
L. Special Permits ......................................
M. Staging ..............................................
N. Maintenance of Traffic ...............................
0. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ....................
P. Noise Barriers .......................................
Q. Estimates of Cost ....................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS ......................... 8
.................
A. System Linkage .................. 8
B. ..... ..
Thoroughfare Planning ................... 8
C. ............
Economic Development . '
D. Benefits to the State, Region and Community .......... 8
V. ALTE RNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . 9
......................
A. Four-Lane Facility .......................... 9
B. .........
Five Lane Facility ....................... 10
C. .............
Six Lane Facility ....................
. 11
D. .
...............
No-Build Alternative ....................... 12
E. ..........
Transportation Management .................. 12
..........
VI. LAND USE PLANNING ... 14
......................................
A.
B. Land Use .............................................
Existing Zoning 14

C ......................................
Future Land Use 15
.
D. ........ ...... ......................
Project Compatibility with Local Plans ........... 15
16
E. ....
Farmland ... 16
..........................................
VII. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ......... 16
A. Social Effects ....................... 16
................
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .................. 16
....
2. Economic Factors ....................... 18
..........
3. Public Facilities .................... 18
...........
4. Relocation of Residences and Businesses........... 20
5. Social Impacts ..................... 22
.............
B. Cultural Resources ........................ 22
...........
1. Historic Architectural Resources ................ 22
2. Archaeological Resources ....................... 23
. M
C. Air Quality Analysis ...................... 24
D. ...........
Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis ..... 27
1. Characteristics of Noise .................
. 28
....
...
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives .................. 29
...
3. Ambient Noise Levels ................... 29
.........
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels..... 29
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement Measure.. 31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
6. Do Nothing Alternative .......................... 33
7. Construction Noise .............................. 33
E. Natural Resources .................................... 33
1. Biotic Resources ................................ 33
2. Physical Resources .............................. 38
3. Special Topics ........ ....................... 40
4. Protected Species ............................... 43
F. Geodetic Markers ................................ 44
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation .............................. 44
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement ...................... 45
I. Construction Effects ................................. 45
VIII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................ 46
APPENDIX
A. Maps, Tables & Figures
B. Correspondence Letters
C. Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
94

Environmental Commitments
This document calls for the following environmental commitments:
Best management practices will be adhered to during construction to
minimize negative environmental impacts.
Cleared areas will be revegetated as quickly as possible after
construction is completed.
Nationwide Permits 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) and Nationwide Permits 33
CFR 330.5 (a) (26) will be required from the Corps of Engineers. Also,
an Individual Section 404 Permit may be required. Final permit decisions
rest with the discretionary authority of the Corps of Engineers.
The type and level of wetland mitigation will be determined in
compliance with the Clean Water Act once the type of permit is clear.
In an effort to mitigate damages to the Helianthus Schweinitzii
Sunflower, the North Carolina Department of Transportation and FHWA have
authorized $31,970 for a prairie restoration project. This project will
be handled by the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department and
will be their responsibility for the development and maintenance of these
prairies. Additionally, the NCDOT will allow Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation Department and Dr. Larry Barden of the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte to transplant any specimens of the Helianthus
Schweinitzii to restoration sites prior to any construction activities.
Relocation of the endangered plants will be accomplished prior to
beginning construction.
NCDOT will provide a structure at Four Mile Creek that will
accommodate the greenway trail underneath the road for pedestrian and
bicycle traffic. The type and size of structure will be determined during
final design. The NCDOT will coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park
and Recreation during design of the structure to insure adequate
provisions for crossing is provided for pedestrians and bicyclists.
NCDOT will coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation during design to ensure a trail could be placed beneath the
McAlpine bridge to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic if in the
future the greenway is extended to the west side of NC 16.
Construction operations will be carefully planned to minimize distur-
bance of existing stream banks at the McAlpine Creek Crossing. At the
McAlpine Creek crossing, cofferdam sheeting will be needed if any bridge
footings are in the water. Any material excavated for footings in or near
water must be removed from the immediate vicinity to prevent it from
eroding back into the water.
Special attention will be given to proper installation and
maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control devices.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this
project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the N. C.
Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material
from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that
in the National Register of Historic
shall be furnished to the Engineer
proposed borrow source.
is included or eligible
Places. A copy of this
prior to performing any
for inclusion
certification
work on the
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
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action The North Carolina Department of
Transportation NCDOT , Division of Highways, proposes to improve
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) in Mecklenburg County from the Charlotte
Southern Outer Loop to the existing multi-lanes in Charlotte (See
Appendix A, Figures 1 & 3). The proposed project will widen the
existing roadway to a four lane divided facility with curb and gutter
and a 16-foot raised grass median. The project will include the
construction of a new bridge over the McAlpine Creek. A 69.5-foot
clear structure roadway width with 5-foot sidewalks is recommended
for the new bridge. The new bridge is to be constructed on the west
side.of the existing structure. The total project length is
approximately 6.7 miles and will involve constructing a section of
NC 16 on new location from Bellwood Lane to Country Lane. The total
cost of the project is estimated to be $20,684,470. The estimated
cost in the 1995-2001 TIP is $17,400,000.
2. Sumnar of Environmental Impacts - The proposed project will have a
positive overall impact on the City of Charlotte by continuing to
serve as a southern cross town facility for traffic commuting from
the central business district to the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop.
The project will enhance the area's economic growth by increasing
accessibility to the region. Two families will be relocated by the
proposed improvements. There may be some erosion and siltation
during construction but strict adherence to erosion control measures
will minimize the damage. It is anticipated the proposed project
will have "no effect" on the historic Providence Presbyterian Church
and Cemetery, located north of the McKee Providence/Providence Road
West intersection. This property is listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. The SHPO is in concurrence with the FHWA that
the boundaries surrounding this property were inappropriate and has
submitted documentation to the Keeper of the National Register,
National Park Services for a boundary reduction. In the event the
Keeper of the National Register disagree with the new boundaries,
additional coordination with the SHPO will be done, therefore,
utilizing the revised boundaries as submitted to the Keeper of the
National Register, National Park Services, the FHWA have submitted a
"no effect" determination to the SHPO for their concurrence. If the
SHPO disagrees with this determination of "no effect" additional
coordination with the SHPO will be done. Should further improvements
than presently recommended be proposed near this property, the effect
these improvements will have on the Church or Cemetery will be
addressed and coordinated with the SHPO. Two undeveloped greenways
exist along the subject section of NC 16 and will be affected by the
proposed project. Since this project involves the widening of an
existing roadway, impacts to this linear 4(f) property is
unavoidable. To mitigate these damages NCDOT has coordinated with
the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department. The
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation has concurred with measures
proposed by NCDOT to mitigate adverse impacts to the greenways at
McAlpine Creek and Four Mile Creek. The project is located in the
Catawba River Basin. Four named creeks are crossed by the project
and a number of smaller unnamed tributaries. The project will
require the conversion of approximately 0.9 acres of wetland to
highway use. The project will be widened along the existing
alignment thereby minimizing plant community impacts. Impacts to the
Helianthus Schweinitz's Sunflower, a federally-Protected Species is
anticipated. To mitigate these damages, FHWA entered into Formal
Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the
USFWS. A prairie habitat restoration project and relocation of the
affected plants is planned to mitigate impacts to the endangered
plants. Future noise levels are expected to increase from a range of
+1 DBA to +4 DBA.
3. Alternatives Considered - Due to the nature of this project, widening
o an existing roadway, no alternative corridor alignments were
considered except where the project might encroach on the Providence
Presbyterian Church and Cemetery. To avoid this property, East and
West Alternative alignments were considered. In addition to the
recommended four lane divided cross section, five and six lane cross
sections were investigated, and transportation management was
considered. The Do Nothing Alternative was also considered, but
rejected because of the need to increase the traffic carrying capa-
city along this section NC 16. For further information concerning
these alternatives see Section V., Alternatives to the Proposed
Action.
4. Coordination - Several Federal, State and local agencies were
consulted Turing the preparation of this environmental assessment.
Comments from the following were received and considered during the
preparation of this assessment:
i

N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives
and History
N. C. State Clearinghouse
City of Charlotte
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N. C. Division of Emergency Management
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
N. C. Department of Environmental Management
Charlotte Mecklenburg/Planning Commission
Charlotte Department of Transportation
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department
ii
5. Actions Required by Other Agencies -

A general 401 Water Quality certification from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR ) will be f
required.
Nationwide Permits 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) and Nationwide Permits 33
CFR 330.5 (a) (26) will be required from the Corps of Engineers. Also,
an Individual Section 404 Permit may be required. Final permit decisions
rest with the discretionary authority of the Corps of Engineers.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposed 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]
a

iii
NC 16 (Old Providence Road)
From the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the Existing
Multi-Lanes in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
State Project 8.1672801
F. A. Project M-5204(1) and RS-6329(2)
T.I.P. U-2510
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen NC 16 (Old Providence Road) in Charlotte from
the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop Interchange (intersection of McKee
Road/Providence Road West and NC 16) to the existing four lanes just north
of the intersection of Blue Berry Lane and NC 16 (See Appendix A, Figures
1 and 3). The proposed improvement is to widen the existing two lane
facility to a four lane divided curb and gutter roadway with a 16-foot
raised grass median. Five-foot sidewalks are proposed along both sides of
NC 16. The total project length is approximately 6.7 miles and will
involve widening a section of NC 16 on new location from Bellwood Lane to
Country Lane. Additionally, this project will require the construction of
a new bridge over McAlpine Creek on the west side. A 69.5-foot clear
structure roadway width with 5-foot sidewalks is recommended for the new
bridge. The recommended total bridge length is 180 feet. This project is
included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with
right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)
1995 and construction to begin in FFY 1996. The estimated project cost in
the 1995-2001 TIP is $17,400,000. The project is currently estimated to
cost $20,684,470.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
A feasibility study of the proposed improvements was completed by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation in May, 1989. This feasibility
study recommended a four lane divided cross section with a 16-foot raised
grass median from Old Providence Road to the Outer Loop with provisions
for a future six lane divided curb and gutter section. The study also
recommended a new and wider structure over the McAlpine Creek.
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 1994 and construction scheduled to begin in FFY 1996.
Two Citizens' Informational workshops were held in Charlotte by NCDOT
representatives to present the proposed project to the public and to
obtain comments and/or suggestions about the anticipated improvement. The
first workshop was held on July 30, 1991 at the Charlotte Latin School.
Approximately 80 people attended this meeting to express their interest in
the improvement. A second workshop was then held at the Providence High
School on March 29, 1993. Approximately 350 people attended this
workshop.
2
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Facility
1. Project Terminals
The Northern project terminus is at the intersection of NC 16
and Blue Berry Lane. At this location NC 16 is a multi-lane
facility. The existing cross section is a five lane facility with
outside curbing. This facility then transitions to a predominantly
two lane facility until it intersects NC 51 where the road has been
widened to accommodate high traffic volumes.
At the southern project terminus, NC 16, intersects
McKee/Providence Road West where the Outer Loop interchange is
proposed. At this intersection NC 16 is a two lane, 24-foot roadway
with variable unpaved shoulders. From this point, south, NC 16 will
be a five lane curb and gutter roadway as proposed under TIP Project
R-211. McKee Road and Providence Road West are two lane facilities.
2. Route Classification
Within the city limits of Charlotte, NC 16 is designated as an
Other Urban Principal Arterial. The remaining portion of this
project is within Mecklenburg County and is classified as a Rural
Major Collector.
3. Roadway Cross section
Commencing at Blue Berry Lane, NC 16 is a multi-lane facility
that quickly transitions to predominantly a two-lane suburban roadway
with variable width shoulders. There are several sections through
out the project length where the pavement has been widened to
accommodate turning traffic. However, the through movements are
constrained to two lanes throughout the project except at the
NC 16/NC 51 intersection where the roadway has been widened to
accommodate high volumes of traffic.
4. Right-of-Way and Access Control
Existing right-of-way along the majority of NC 16 is 60 feet
(symmetrical about the centerline). No control of access exist along
the project corridor.
5. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The horizontal alignment of existing NC 16 in the project area
is good. The vertical alignment of the subject section of NC 16 is
rolling. No grades over 7% exist along this section of roadway.
6. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along NC 16 is 45 mph throughout the
project length.
3

7. Intersections and Type of Control
Many residential streets and driveways intersect NC 16 along the
subject section. All roads intersecting the project are at grade.'
Signals exist at the following intersections: Old Providence Road,
Rea Road/Alexander Road,.NC 51, and Providence Road West/McKee Road.
8. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroads in the vicinity of this project.
9. Bridge and Culverts
The existing roadway crosses four major streams: McAlpine
Creek, McAlpine Creek Tributary (No.3), Four Mile Creek, and Rocky
Branch. Approximately 0.8 miles north of the intersection of NC 16
and SR 3224, there is a bridge over McAlpine Creek (Bridge No. 132).
The bridge spans a total length of 169 feet. The bridge, which was
first built in 1930 and then reconstructed in 1966, appears to be in
good condition. A large sewer outfall is located on the east side of
this structure paralleling the roadway. This sewer outfall consists
of a 42" diameter pipe inside a 120 foot long tunnel with reinforced
concrete end walls.
Approximately 1500 feet south of the intersection of SR 3624 and
NC 16, there is a double barrel 7 ft. by 7 ft. Reinforced Concrete
(RC) box culvert. The culvert appears to be in good condition.
There is approximately 2 ft. of roadway fill over the culvert.
Approximately 0.8 miles south of the intersection of NC 51 and
NC 16, there is a five barrel 8 ft. by 14 ft. RC box culvert over
Four Mile Creek on NC 16. Built in 1931, the existing structure
appears to still be in good condition. The existing roadway grade is
only one foot over the top of the culvert.
Approximately 2,000 feet north of the intersection of SR 4867
and NC 16, there is a single barrel 9 ft. by 9 ft. RC box culvert
over Rocky Branch on NC 16. The culvert does not have a floor slab,
and the structure appears to be in good condition.
10. Degree of Roadside Interference
North of Providence Road West and McKee Road to NC 51 the neigh-
borhood is characterized with commercial, residential, and institu-
tional development. The remaining portion of the project site is
similarly situated with businesses, residential neighborhoods and
churches.
11. Utilities
Utilities conflicts along this project are considered to be high
in severity. The following utilities are located within the project
corridor: water, sewer, gas, telephone, and cable TV.
4
12. Sidewalks
Presently no sidewalks exist along the project corridor.
13. Bicycles
The subject section of NC 16 is not a designated bicycle route.
There are no exclusive bicycle lanes or trails along the existing
roadway.
14. School Bus Data
Thirty-two (32) school buses travel NC 16 within the project
area daily. These buses travel NC 16 both in the morning and
afternoons.
B. Traffic/Truck Volumes
Traditionally NC 16 has been a major traffic artery in Mecklenburg
County. With the recent, and continuing residential and commercial
development along the project corridor, NC 16 will continue to be a major
traffic route for the foreseeable future. Therefore, as traffic continues
to increase with Charlotte's rapid growth rate, the need for the project
becomes even more critical.
The projected 1996 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes range from a
low of 15,800 vehicles per day (vpd) near the southern end of the project
to a high of 33,200 vpd near NC 51. These volumes are expect to increase
to 26,300 vpd and 66,200 vpd respectively by the year 2014 (See Appendix,
Figure 4b and 4c).
At the present time, signalized intersections along NC 16 are
operating at level of services (LOS) C through F during peak periods. The
capacity of an arterial is generally controlled by the capacity of its
signalized intersections described by levels of service (LOS) which range
from A through F. Level of service A, the highest level of service, is
characterized by very low delay in which most vehicles do not stop at all.
Typically, drivers are 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. In the
design year the level of service at all intersections are expected to
approach LOS "F". A traffic analysis for a six lane facility was also
investigated. It was determined that this six-lane facility would also
operate at an unacceptable LOS. Although the traffic carrying capacity of
a six lane is greater, increased cost, social and environmental impacts
deem this alternative not prudent for the widening of NC 16 (See Section
V-C, Six Lane facility).
R'
f

5
C. Other Highway Projects In Area
TIP Project R-211 adjoins the
terminus. Project R-211 proposes tc
Outer Loop from West of I-77 to US 74
a four-lane freeway on new location.
construction.
subject project at the southern
construct the Charlotte Southern
. The proposed improvement consist of
This project is currently under
III. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
A. Length of Project
The total proposed length is approximately 6.7 miles long.
B. Design S eed
The design speed will be in conformance with the existing alignment
or a minimum of 50 mph. Design speed is a correlation of the physical
features of a highway which influence vehicle operation and reflects the
degree of safety and mobility desired along a highway. Design speed is
not to be interpreted as the recommended or posted speed.
C. Cross Section
The recommended cross section for NC 16 is a four lane divided curb
and gutter facility with a 16-foot raised grass median. This cross
section will provide for two 12-foot inside travel lanes and two 12-foot
outside lanes. Median openings will be provided at various locations
throughout the project. Left turn lanes will be provided at all median
openings. Additional turn lanes will be provided at major intersections.
Locations of median crossovers and left turn lanes will be determined
during project design. This cross section is compatible with the
adjoining four lane roadway just North of the Blue Berry lane.
D. Right-of-Way
It is recommended that the proposed improvement be constructed on 100
feet of right-of-way. Temporary construction easements will be required
at some locations to contain construction. Also, in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge at McAlpine Creek, temporary drainage easements will be
required.
E. Access Control
No control of access is proposed along the project.
F. Speed Zones
The existing speed limit along NC 16 is 45 mph. The speed limit is
expected to remain 45 mph on the new facility after completion of the
project.
6
G. Bicycles
The subject section of NC 16 is not a designated bicycle route.
There are no exclusive bicycle lanes or trails along the existing roadway.
The NCDOT Bicycle Program has advised that there does not appear to be any
need for special accommodations for bicycles on the project.
H. Landscape Planting
In accordance with the NCDOT Highway Landscape Planting Policy,
funding for landscaping is included in the construction cost estimate for
this project; no special landscaping is proposed as part of this project.
I. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All intersections on the proposed project are at grade. At present,
traffic signals located at Old Providence Road, Rea Road/Alex Road, and
Providence Road West/McKee Road will need to be upgraded in conjunction
with the proposed project. Final improvements will be determined during
project design. The cost of this improvement is included in the
construction cost.
J. Sidewalks
Sidewalks are proposed as part of this project. In accordance with
the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines, the NCDOT will fund 50% of the
cost of the sidewalk, up to 2% of the total project cost. The City of
Charlotte will be responsible for the remaining cost of the sidewalk
within the city limits. The sidewalk will run the entire length of the
project along both sides of NC 16. The total estimated cost for the
sidewalks is $1,077,000 and is included in the construction cost of the
project.
K. Bridge/Culvert Work Required
The widening of NC 16 to a four lane divided facility will require
the construction of a new bridge. The project also proposes to retain and
extend three culverts. The existing bridge at the McAlpine Creek will be
retained while a new bridge is constructed on the west side. The west side
is preferred in order to keep away from a large sewer outfall parallel to
the existing roadway on the east side. The existing bridge will be
removed once the new structure is in place. The roadway grade for the
proposed bridge will be revised to accommodate vertical clearances for the
100 year flood. The total bridge length will be approximately 180 feet.
A 69.5-foot clear structure width section is recommended for the new
bridge. This will provide two 12-foot inside 'travel lanes in each
direction and two 12-foot outside travel lanes which will match the
proposed roadway cross section. Five-foot sidewalks are also proposed
along both sides of the bridge.
Additionally, it is recommended three existing culverts located
within the project limits be retained and extended. These culverts
include a double 7 ft. by 7 ft. RC box culvert (approximately 1500 feet
south of SR 3624), a single 9 ft. by 9 ft. RC box culvert at Rocky Branch,
and a five barrel 8 ft. by 14 ft. RC box culvert at Four Mile Creek.
M
7
L. Special Permits
It is anticipated that the project will be authorized under
Nationwide Permits (33 CFR 330.5(a)(26) and 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14).
However an Individual Section 404 Permit may be required from the Corps of
Engineers at the McAlpine Creek Crossing.
A general 401 Water Quality certification from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be required.
M. Staging
This widening project will be constructed in two phases. Section C
consist of widening NC 16 from the existing multi-lane section to NC 51.
Right-of-Way and construction is scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 95 and
FY 96 respectively. Section B extends from NC 51 to the outer loop at
McKee and Providence Road West. Right-of-Way and construction of this
segment of NC 16 is scheduled for FY 97 and FY 98. No other staging of
the project is proposed.
N. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be maintained at all times during project construction.
All traffic control devices used on this project shall conform to the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
0. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
Due to rolling terrain, revisions to the vertical alignment are
necessary to maintain the recommended design speed and at the proposed new
McAlpine Creek bridge to maintain clearance above the 100 year flood.
P. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as part of the subject project (see
Appendix Section, VII., D-6).
Q. Estimate of Cost
Construction $149177,000*
Right-of-Way $ 59875,500**
Prairie Restoration $ 31,970
Total Cost $20,6849470
*Includes engineering and contingencies.
**Includes relocation, acquisition and utility costs.
8
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS
A. System Linkage
The proposed widening of NC 16 (Old Providence Road) is extremely
important as it is a heavily traveled route for locals and commuters. It
is a vital link in the Mecklenburg County highway system. NC 16 will
function as a southern cross town facility carrying high volumes of
traffic at moderate speeds. This facility will also serve as a direct
route to access the Charlotte Outer loop.
B. Thoroughfare Planninq
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) is listed as an urban major thoroughfare
in the 1988 mutually adopted Charlotte-Mecklenburg thoroughfare plan.
This facility is also classified as an urban other principal arterial on
the functional classification system.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg thoroughfare plan emphasizes the need for a
southern route from the central business district. These proposed
improvements are in conformance with this plan. Construction of this
facility will be a step toward the implementation of this thoroughfare
plan.
C. Economic Development
Growth in permanent population and increased development is occurring
at a rapid rate and is anticipated to continue in areas adjacent to the
proposed project. Future development in the area creates an increased
transportation demand. The proposed project will aid in the economic
development of the area by improving the accessibility to the central
business district and south Charlotte. The improved access to the area,
savings in operating costs, reduced accident potential, reduced travel
time, and the general improvement in the ease and convenience of travel
will benefit the local community, as well as the state.
D. Benefits to the State, Region and Community
Benefits of the proposed project to the state, region and community
will be primarily economic in nature. The increased capacity of NC 16
should improve the efficiency of the roadway. This increased efficiency
should result in reduced fuel consumption and travel time for the roadway
user.

9
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
lk
A. Four-Lane Divided Facility (Recommended).
The recommended alignment consists of widening NC 16 to a four lane
divided facility with a 16-foot raised median from the Charlotte Southern
Outer Loop to the existing multi-lane section in Mecklenburg County. The
proposed cross section provides for two travel lanes in each direction
divided by a 16-foot raised grass median with curb and gutter. This
project will also include the construction of a new bridge over McAlpine
Creek. A 69.5-foot clear structure roadway width with 5-foot sidewalks is
recommended.
The proposed roadway will be widened symmetrically about the existing
center line throughout most of the project. Exceptions to this symmetrical
widening include sections of roadway near McAlpine Creek and near the
Alexander Rea Road intersection. This asymmetrical widening is necessary
to accommodate the new bridge proposed on the west side and to minimize
environmental impacts, as well as impacts to residences. The proposed
improvement will be constructed on 100 feet of right-of-way and will
require the relocation of two residences.
The recommended improvement also proposes to eliminate encroaching on
the Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemetery, both which are listed on
the National Register of Historic Places. Under Section 4(f) of the 1966
D.O.T. Act the Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemetery qualify for
protection under the law. Section 4(f) protects the use and function of
publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and
historic properties. A transportation plan can only use land from a
Section 4(f) resources when there are no other feasible or prudent alter-
natives and when planning minimizes all possible harm to the resource.
Therefore, to avoid this property East and West new alternative alignments
were considered in addition to the symmetrical widening along the existing
roadbed. These properties are located along both sides of existing NC 16
just north of the McKee Road/Providence Road West intersection (See
Appendix A, Figure 3). The two alternatives which avoid these properties
are described below:
1. Eastern Alternative
The East alternative begins at the intersection of NC 16 and
McKee Road/Providence Road West then traverses north (east of exist-
ing NC 16) on new location where it crosses several housing develop-
ments between Bellwood Lane and Sarah Hall Lane (See Appendix A,
Figure 3). It rejoins NC 16 near the intersection of NC 16 and
., Country Lane. This alignment would have noise impacts on 12 more
residences than the Western Alignment. This alternative will require
the relocation of seven residences and one business. The estimated
cost of this alignment is $22,626,470 including $31,970 for Prairie
Restoration, $8,217,500 for right-of-way, and $14,377,000 for
construction.
10
2. Western Alternative (Recommended)
The West alternative begins at the intersection of NC 16 and
McKee Road/Providence Road West. This alignment then traverses North
(west of existing NC 16) on new location where it passes behind the
Providence Presbyterian Church property, running along the lower
slopes of the ridge. It rejoins NC 16 after crossing the Charlotte
Latin School athletic fields (a private school) near the intersection
of NC 16 and Country Lane (See Appendix A, Figure 3). This alternate
will not require the relocation of any residences or businesses.
Fewer residences would be impacted by noise than the Eastern
Alternative. It is anticipated the project will have "no effect" on
any historic architectural resources eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The estimated cost of this alignment is
$20,684,470 including $31,970 for a Prairie Restoration, $5,875,500
for right-of-way and $14,777,000 for construction.
B. Five Lane Facility
This alternative widens NC 16 to a five lane, 64-foot, face to face
of curbs roadway. This cross section provides for a 12-foot center turn
lane, two 12-foot inside travel lanes, and two 12-foot outside travel
lanes. Widening is symmetrical about the existing center line throughout
most of the project, except near the McAlpine Creek and Alexander Rea Road
intersection. This alternative is not considered to be a viable
alternative, and therefore rejected. The existing facility would have to
be closed during construction which is not feasible for the subject
section of NC 16. This alternative is also not compatible to the existing
four lane section along NC 16. The estimated cost of this improvement
along the existing facility is $16,153,970, including $31,970 for a
Prairie Restoration, $2,045,000 for right-of-way and $14,077,000 for
construction.
Alternatives to the west and east of NC 16 were also investigated for
this cross section. The estimated cost of these alternatives is as
follows:
1. Eastern Alternative
Construction $14,477,000
Right-of-Way 59124,000
Prairie Restoration 31,970
Total $19,6329970
2. Western Alternative
Construction $15,577,000
Right-of-Way 295659000
Prairie Restoration 31,970
PIP,
Total $18,173,970
11
C. Six Lane Facilit
This alternative involves the construction of a six lane, curb and
gutter facility. The proposed divided cross section provides for three
12-foot travel lanes in each direction divided by a 16-foot raised grass
median with curb and gutter. The improvement proposes to be constructed
in a 110-foot right-of-way width. This alternative would be highly
disruptive to the extensive development along both sides of the road.
Although detailed design studies have not been completed, it appears 17
houses would be impacted by such an improvement. The level of service on
the six lane facility would also be unacceptable when analyzed using
design year traffic. The design year volume represents a desired travel
demand. Due to the constraints placed on traffic by existing lesser
facilities at either end of the project, the design year volume probably
cannot actually reach the facility. At the southern terminus, the 5-lane
curb and gutter section currently under construction (TIP Project R-211)
is unlikely to be improved because of the interchange it joins. The
4-lane facility at the Northern terminus is also unlikely to be improved
due to the densely developed neighborhoods in the area and the proximity
damages a 6-lane facility would create. Signalized intersections and
access to many properties along the road would be difficult to maintain,
thereby deeming this alternative not prudent. Additionally, the increased
right-of-way width would have an affect on the Providence Presbyterian
Church, a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Therefore, this alternative is not a viable option because of the
community disruption, increased environmental impacts, increased costs,
and proximity damages it would cause. The estimated cost of this
improvement along the existing facility is $24,845,970 including $31,970
for a Prairie Restoration, $6,637,000 for right-of-way and $18,177,000 for
construction.
Alternatives to the west and east of NC 16 was also investigated for
this cross section. The estimated cost of these alternatives is as
follows:
1. Eastern Alternative
Construction $189177,000
Right-of-Way 6,6379000
Prairie Restoration 31,970
Total $28,054,970
2. Western Alternative
Construction $19,377,000
Right-of-Way 790419000
Prairie Restoration 31,970
Total $269449,970
12
D. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative was considered, but rejected since the
project will provide a safe, more efficient route in this area. Also, if
the proposed widening did not occur, 38 residences would experience noise
impacts from a range of +1 to +4 dBA.
E. Transportation Management
a.
In Transportation Management Areas (TMA) designated as non-attainment
for air quality, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act, (ISTEA) places restrictions on federally funded projects that
increase capacity for single occupancy vehicles (SOV). Section 1024(a) of
ISTEA states that projects which increase SOV capacity in TMA's classified
as non-attainment areas must be part of an approved Congestion Management
System.
North Carolina is currently developing its Congestion Management
System (CMS) A working plan for North Carolina's CMS will be in place by
October 1, 1995. Prior to implementation of the Congestion Management
System, projects that improve SOV capacity in non-attainment areas will be
analyzed to determine if travel demand reduction and operational
management strategies can be used to reduce SOV demand.
Charlotte is classified as a moderate non-attainment area for carbon
monoxide and ozone. The widening of NC 16 will increase the capacity for
SOV use. The following is an analysis of travel demand reduction
strategies, operational management strategies, and alternative
transportation modes that have been considered as part of the proposed
project.
Travel Demand Reduction Strategies:
The following travel demand reduction strategies were considered for
this project:
1. Staggering work hours at local businesses.
2. Growth Management
3. Road Use Pricing
Growth management involves public policies to regulate development so
that trip generation follows a desired pattern. Road pricing involves
charging motorists a "price" associated with their use of a particular
facility. Growth management and road use pricing are not considered
feasible options because they involve area-wide policies rather than
policies applicable to discrete corridors.
Staggered work hours, flex-time, or modified work weeks can be
implemented on a corridor level if large employers along the corridor
cause congestion at their entrances or exits. These applications would
reduce spot congestion at entrances and exits to large employers (those
employers attracting enough trips to cause congestion); however, there are
no such employers along this project.
13
Because SOV reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for
this corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted and will be provided
by the widening of NC 16.
Consideration of Alternative Transportation Modes:
The City of Charlotte and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation have adopted a thoroughfare plan designed to provide
Charlotte with an efficient transportation network. The thoroughfare plan
includes both highway improvements and transit service. The widening of
NC 16 with Project U-2510 is a part of the Charlotte's thoroughfare plan.
The City of Charlotte has alternative modes of transportation
available to commuters which are designed to reduce vehicular trips in the
city. The City's ultimate goal is to reduce SOV demand by 25%. Current
transit systems are estimated to reduce SOV demand by 10%.
Bus Service
To help meet their goals, Charlotte seeks to:
*Increase bus routes along various arterials in the metropolitan area,
*Increase the accuracy of arrivals and departures of buses, and,
*Increase transit ridership by 20% by advertisement.
Bus service in Charlotte is also being improved by the use of signal
preemption for buses. This system provides more continuous flow for buses
by reducing stopped time at intersections. A signal preemption system
currently exists for buses on the NC 24/27 corridor.
Bus service along this route consists of express service which does
not make stops along the facility. Therefore, no bus turnouts are needed
for the corridor.
Carpool/Vanpool Programs
Charlotte actively promotes both carpool and vanpool service to
reduce SOV use. Charlotte currently has 18 operating vanpools which serve
the entire metropolitan area. A computer matching system is available to
assist potential carpool and vanpool users find suitable rides. In
addition, a commuter service has been developed jointly with the City of
Rock Hill, South Carolina, to assist ridesharing for commuters who work
y across state lines.
Two "park-n-ride" lots exist along the NC 16 corridor. The
facilities provide adequate service for area commuters; therefore, no
"Park-n-ride" lots will be implemented as part of this project.
14
Bicycle Use
Bike lanes are not being incorporated into this project because the
high traffic volumes and travel speeds would be dangerous to bicyclists.
The NCDOT Bicycle Unit did not request special provisions be made for
bicycles along this project.
Congestion Management Strategies
To reduce potential congestion along project U-2510, progressive
signal timing has been evaluated as a congestion management strategy.
Progressive signal timing is a part of the City of Charlotte's Traffic
Signal System. Implementation of progressive signal timing will be
performed by the City for this project.
Other congestion management strategies such as ramp metering and High
Occupancy Vehicle lanes are not applicable because this project is not a
controlled access facility.
Consistency with ISTEA
ISTEA requirements, as amended in 23 USC 134, for the Charlotte TMA
have been reviewed as previously described. Project U-2510 is a part of
Charlotte's approved thoroughfare plan. Travel demand reduction
strategies, operational management strategies, and alternative
transportation modes have been analyzed along the NC 16 corridor to
determine if these strategies could eliminate the need for additional SOV
capacity.
Because SOV reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for
this corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted and will be provided
by the widening of NC 16.
VI. LAND USE PLANNING
A. Land Use
The land uses within the project area are dominated by residential
uses including both single family and multi-family development although
commercial and small office uses are interspersed with the residential
development throughout the project area. Land use intensity is highest at
the northern, more urban end of the project, and gradually becomes
suburban in character in the vicinity of NC 51. Land use finally taking
on a rural character around the Union County line at Weddington, with
large undeveloped, wooded tracts of land on each side of the existing
roadway.
A large mixed use development, The Arboretum, is located at the
intersection of NC 51 and NC 16. The development, includes retail
commercial, office, and multi-family residential uses. Retail development
is restricted to the southwest quadrant of the intersection of NC 16 and
14,

K
15
NC 51, with office uses in the other quadrants. The multi-family
residential areas do not front onto NC 16. Several single family housing
developments are currently under construction that access NC 16 south of
NC 51.
The Charlotte Latin School is located on NC 16, as well the
Mecklenburg County Aquatic center, a county-operated recreational
facility.
B. Existing Zoning
Virtually all the land in the vicinity on NC 16 north of NC 51 is
,. zoned Residential, R-15 District, which permits single family residential
development. The intersection of NC 51 and NC 16 is zoned for office and
business uses of various densities. A large Residential-Planned Unit
Development (R-PUD) District is located on the west side of NC 16, south
of the business district which accommodates The Arboretum development.
Planned Unit Development Districts generally permit a range of residential
land use densities. R-15 zoning continues to dominate south of NC 51 to
the Union County Line. Other small districts in the area include a
Business, B-1 District and other R-PUD districts.
C. Future Land Use
According to the South Mecklenburg Interim District Plan (SMIDP),
which includes the NC 16 project area, the planning area has surpassed its
projected yearly growth rate with the number of building permits issued
double the projected level.
The SMIDP addresses transportation issues, and lists high priority
transportation improvement projects. Widening Providence Road from
International Drive to NC 51 was the first priority project not funded at
the time the document was adopted (1987). The addition of two lanes to
NC 16 from Windbluff Drive to the County Line was also included in a list
of long-range South Mecklenburg Transportation Needs.
The SMIDP also addresses thoroughfare design, and encourages the
construction of four lane, median-divided roadways where possible. The
County understands that encroachment and maintenance agreements with NCDOT
would be required, as the Department does not maintain landscaped medians.
According to the Plan, a neighborhood mixed use development is
anticipated at the intersection of Providence Road West and NC 16. Less
intense commercial development, labeled a Neighborhood Convenience Center,
is expected at the future intersection of a Lower Mecklenburg County
Circumferential Major Thoroughfare, a Thoroughfare Plan element, and its
intersection with NC 16. The center is not likely to develop until that
proposed route and public utilities are in place. According to the Plan's
projected land use, the project area south of NC 51 is expected to
maintain and develop lower density residential uses no greater than four
units per acre. The project area north of NC 51 has a somewhat higher
density development of approximately six units per acre.
16
The Providence Road/Providence Road West/Southern Outer Belt
Interchange Special Project Plan indicates that multi-family development
of ten to twelve units per acre is anticipated in the vicinity of the
Providence Road and Providence Road West intersection. This plan also
states the following, "Widening of Providence Road should be sensitive to
the historic Providence Presbyterian Church and cemetery. Care should be
taken not to compromise the setting and historical features such as
significant trees, gravestones and monuments".
D. Project Compatibility with Local Plans

The proposed improvement is included in the area's Thoroughfare Plan
and is discussed in some detail in the South Mecklenburg Interim District
Plan. That Plan indicates that rapid growth makes the proposed
improvement necessary. The plan also recommends that this widening, and
all other multiple lane road widenings, be designed as four-lane, median
divided facilities. The multi-lane section of Providence Road joining the
proposed project is now a median-divided facility. Further, the
multi-lane improvements made by private developers to NC 16 in the NC 51
area also include landscaped medians. Therefore, the selection of an
alternative including a landscaped median in its design, is consistent
with other sections of the existing roadway.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of all land acquisition or
construction projects on prime and important farmland. Land which has
been converted to non-agricultural uses, either through development or the
planning activities of local government, is exempt from consideration
under the Act.
VII. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Social Effects
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Mecklenburg County is located in the south central section of
the state and is bounded by the state of South Carolina and Gaston,
Lincoln, Iredell, Cabarrus, and Union Counties. Mecklenburg County
according to the 1990 Census Report has a total population of
511,433.
The proposed project begins at the Charlotte Southern Outer Loop oc
and extends north to the existing multi-lane facility in Charlotte.
Hence, from north of Providence West and McKee Road to NC 51 the
neighborhood is characterized with commercial, residential, and
institutional development. North of Providence Road West and McKee
Road on the west side of the existing highway facility is a small
commercial building with three gas pumps in the front. From this
point on both sides of the existing highway facility to Alexander
Drive the neighborhood is characterized by residential development
within thickets of trees. North of Alexander Drive on the west side
17
of the existing highway facility is the Providence Presbyterian
Church. Providence Presbyterian Church consists of three detached
white frame structures. Directly across the existing highway
facility from the church on the east side is the Presbyterian Church
Cemetery. This is a rather large cemetery, and it is in close
proximity to the existing highway facility. North of the Providence
Presbyterian Church and cemetery on the west side of the existing
facility are Camp World Pool, Charlotte Latin School, and Greyson
subdivision. Residential homes are located on the east side of the
existing highway facility in the area.
The neighborhood continues to be residential on both sides of
the existing highway facility until the proposed project reaches Four
Mile Creek. And just north of Four Mile Creek on the east side of
the existing highway is the United Faith Assembly of God. The United
Faith Assembly of God consists of two detached buildings. These two
buildings composing the church are set back from the existing highway
facility. Therefore, the church should not be adversely impacted by
the proposed action or project. The church is surrounded on all
sides by residential homes enclosed with trees and ponds of various
sizes. North of the United Assembly of God and Shallow Wood Lane on
the west side of the existing highway facility is the Messiah
Lutheran Church. The church is set back from the existing highway
facility with a large paved parking lot between it and the existing
highway facility. Therefore, it will not be adversely impacted by the
proposed improvement. The existing highway widens to four lanes in
this area as it approaches NC 51. A large shopping center is in this
vicinity on the west side of the existing highway facility. Other
commercial establishments such as Wachovia Bank, NCNB and First Union
Bank are situated across the street from the shopping center on the
east side. As the proposed project continues its extension to the
north, NC 16 narrows back down to a two lane highway facility.
Professional Park, an office complex is located north of NC 51
on the west side of NC 16. Directly across the street from the
Professional Park on the east side are the Arboretum Apartments.
Candlewyck subdivision is north from the Arboretum Apartments and the
Professional Park on the west side of NC 16. Candlewyck Baptist
Church is located in this vicinity on the west side of the existing
highway facility in close proximity to the existing highway facility.
There appears to be ample room for widening on the east side in order
not to impact the church with relocation. On the extreme north end
of Candlewyck subdivision on the west side of the existing highway
facility is the Grace Lutheran Church. This church sets back from
the existing facility; therefore, it will probably not be adversely
impacted. From the site of Grace Lutheran Church north to the end of
the proposed project, the neighborhood is characterized with
residential homes and subdivisions.
It is important to note that throughout this proposed project,
there are neighborhoods, subdivisions, and residential sections with
various types of walls and fences at their entrances to identify
18
them. It is important
appear to be expensive,
relocating wall or fence
businesses.
2. Economic Factors
to note that though some of these barriers
there is no comparison when it comes to
barriers to relocating homes, families, and
The N.C. Employment Commission Civilian Labor Force estimates
indicated that for the month of November 1991, Union County had a
civilian labor force of 48,240. Out of This total, 45,680 persons
were employed. This left an unemployment total of 2,560 or 5.3
percent. The same source for the same period of time indicated that
Mecklenburg County had a total civilian labor force of 292,160. Out
of that total, 277,760 persons were employed. This left an
unemployment total of 14,400 or 4.9 percent.
The existing highway facility or NC 16 is narrow and congested.
One reason for the current congestion is due to the existing commer-
cial, and institutional generators that are scattered at various
intervals along the proposed project site. The economic activities
will be improved with the enhancement of accessibility and visibility
to the various traffic generators. The proposed improvement will
yield economic benefits by decreasing the length of time it takes to
get to the various businesses along the proposed project site.
The Texaco business facility just north of Providence Road and
McKee Road on the west side of the existing highway facility may
realize some proximity damage. The final construction design will
determine the extent, if any, the proposed action will have on this
business.
3. Public Facilities
There are several public facilities scattered at various
intervals along the proposed project site. The names and location of
these facilities have been given under the above section, entitled
Neighborhood Characteristics. Therefore, the location will not be
repeated in this section. Only the names of those public facilities
that may be adversely impacted will be mentioned under this current
heading.
Both the Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemetery are in
close proximity to the existing highway facility. Widening on the
east side of the existing highway facility will probably require the
relocation of some graves. If the widening takes place on the west
side of the existing facility, then the Presbyterian Church itself
may be directly impacted by either relocation.or proximity damages.
If the widening is symmetrical in this vicinity, then both the
Presbyterian Church and the Church's cemetery will probably be
adversely impacted.
Additionally, two creeks designated for greenway on the
Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan will be impacted due to the
proposed widening of NC 16. These greenways are located at the

i
19
McAlpine Creek and Four Mile Creek. Since this project involves the
widening of an existing facility avoidance of these 4(f) resources is
not feasible (See section below entitled, 4(f) resources).
It appears that other public facilities along the proposed
project site will not be adversely impacted. There may be some
proximity factors involved; but, these proximity factors don't seem
to be adverse. In order to be completely sure, it is important to
see the final construction design and the right of way reports.
a. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966, as amended, allows the use of publicly owned land from a
public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge,
or. land of an historic site of national, state, or local
significance, only if there is no prudent and feasible
alternative to using the land and the proposed project includes
all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource. Two
Section 4(f) resources, administered by the Mecklenburg County
Park and Recreation Department, are located along the subject
project. These resources, two greenways, are located at
McAlpine Creek and Four Mile Creek.
The McAlpine Creek Greenway consists of approximately 300
acres along the creek on the east/northeast side of NC 16.
Located adjacent to NC 16, is a 4J acre tract on the east side,
along the south side of the creek, which will be crossed by the
proposed improvement. This project will require the taking of
right-of-way from the greenway adjacent to the existing roadbed.
The right-of-way taking will be minimized by widening to the
west side of the existing bridge. The current greenway does not
extend across the existing facility. However, NCDOT will
coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation
during design to ensure a greenway path crossing could be placed
beneath the new bridge in the event future expansion is desired.
Therefore, no negative impacts of the existing greenway are
anticipated and the proposed project does not pose a problem for
future expansion. No mitigation for this property loss is
proposed in conjunction with this project (See Appendix C.
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation).
The project also proposes to impact the Four Mile Creek
Greenway. Although this greenway is not a system of developed
trails and recreational facilities; it consists of more than 100
acres along the creek. It is located on both sides of NC 16.
To mitigate damages to this greenway system the NCDOT will
construct a structure to accommodate a greenway trail underneath
the road for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The NCDOT will
coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation
during design of the structure to insure adequate provisions for
crossing is provided for pedestrians and bicyclists (See
Appendix C, Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation.)
20
No archaeological sites eligible for the National Register
will be affected by the project (see Section VII-B-2). It is
anticipated the project will have "no effect" on any historic
architectural resources eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (see Section VII-B-1).
4. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
"One of the unfortunate, but unavoidable, consequences of a
modern highway program... is the necessary displacement of a
comparatively small percentage of the population for the greater good
of the whole". NC 16 (Old Providence Road), from the Charlotte
Southern Outer Loop to existing four lanes in Mecklenburg County is
expected to require the relocation of two residences. There may also
be some proximity damages to dwellings, brick walls and fence
barriers at the front entrance to subdivisions, and residential
sites. "It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
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:
It is the policy 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 or 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.
21
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory 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 sanitary standards. The displacees are given at
least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displaced 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 organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an 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 supply information concerning other state or
federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will
provide other advisory 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 displacee 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 attorney'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, increased
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 $5250.
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 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.
22
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 appear to be adequate opportunities for
relocation within the area.
5. Social Impacts
The widening of NC 16 (Old Providence Road), from the Southern
Outer Loop Interchange to the existing four lanes in Mecklenburg
County will produce positive impacts. The improvement by widening
will enhance the safety factors throughout the length of the proposed
project. Visibility will be improved and increased accessibility to
commercial, residential, recreational, and institutional
establishments within the project area will be better. The
impediments that traffic congestion causes will be eradicated;
thereby saving time and energy and increasing the efficiency of
motorists.
The proposed project will not split any neighborhoods and it
will not disrupt community cohesion.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented
by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section
106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted
project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
A survey of historic architectural resources in the area of
potential effect was performed. This survey was documented in a
report which is a technical addendum to this Environmental Assessment
and is on file at NCDOT. The survey included project limits that
originally extended to NC 84 at Weddington in Union County. Since
then the project limits have been reduced.
A windshield survey of the general survey area was conducted by
automobile as well as on foot with the following goals: (1) to
determine the "area of Potential effect" (APE), defined as the
geographic area or areas within which and undertaking may cause
changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such
properties exist; (2) to identify all historic resources within this
area; and (3) to evaluate these resources according to the National
Register Criteria.
23
Following the windshield survey, preliminary background research
was conducted focusing on the historical and architectural
development and significance of the areas in Mecklenburg County
through which this section of NC 16 runs. Utilizing this research and
information obtained during the windshield survey, the area of
potential effect (APE) was determined. Intensive survey was then
completed for those properties within the APE which appeared to be
potentially eligible for the National Register.
Approximately 3 resources considered to be potentially
architecturally or historically significant and that retains their
integrity were identified within the APE. These properties include
religious buildings, cemeteries, and 1 residence. Providence
Presbyterian Church and Cemetery is listed in the National Register
of Historic Places and is a Mecklenburg County Locally Designated
Property.
The APE is characterized by the gently rolling terrain typical
of the North Carolina Lower Piedmont Region. Wooded areas and
cleared fields punctuate the countryside much as they have since the
first days of settlement. Interspersed among the rural areas with
their small scattered houses are dense modern subdivisions. By and
large, the lay of the land and the location of new construction which
determined the APE, with the boundary running along topographic
contours, tree lines, and the portion of residential development
facing NC 16. The boundary runs relatively close to the existing
road for most of the project. The APE also encompasses the National
Register boundaries of Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemetery.
The survey concluded boundaries surrounding the Providence
Presbyterian Church were inappropriately drawn. Documentation to
reduce the boundary is under preparation for submission to the Keeper
of the National Register, National Park Services. In the event the
Keeper of the National Register does not concur with the reduced
boundary, additional coordination with the SHPO will be done.
Therefore, utilizing the revised boundaries as submitted to the
Keeper of the National Register the FHWA has submitted a "no effect"
determination to the SHPO for concurrence. If SHPO disagrees with
this determination of "no effect" additional coordination with the
SHPO will be warranted. All improvements other than currently
proposed near this property will be coordinated with the SHPO for the
effect it may have on the Church of Cemetery.
2. Archaeological Resources
This project involves widening of NC 16 from McKee/Providence
Road West to the existing multi-lane section in Mecklenburg County.
The State Historic Preservation Office cleared the project for
archaeological resources in 1991. However, because the present
facility passes through the lands of the Providence Presbyterian
Church, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
two alternative alignment sections have been proposed to avoid those
lands. The National Register boundaries include the buildings and
24
ground of the church, located on the west side of Providence Road,
and the land directly across the road that includes the cemetery
associated with the church.
NCDOT staff archaeologists conducted a reconnaissance level
survey of the two alternative alignments on February 17, 1993. This
follows a previous brief reconnaissance of the NC 16 Project on
December 5, 1991. The two alternative alignments were not being
considered then. The State Historic Preservation Office recommended
in October, 1991, that no archaeological investigation was necessary
for the project since the likelihood of encountering significant
archaeological sites along the existing highway corridor was low. A
survey of historic architectural resources was conducted for the
project. That report contains a good description of the project
setting, the Area of Potential Effect, and the historic background.
According to a review of the files at the Office of State
Archaeology there are no archaeological sites recorded in the path of
either of the alternative alignments around Providence Church and
Cemetery. The only area with potential for archaeological site
location is at the southern end of the alternate, and this area
appears to have been somewhat disturbed by modern land alteration
associated with a house.
One archaeological site was found, extending into the proposed
right-of-way for the eastern alternative alignment. The previous
visit by staff archaeologists had found indications of a prehistoric
archaeological site in the cemetery vicinity. The historic
structures survey team had also reported a local oral tradition of
prehistoric artifacts being collected in the vicinity. During the
present reconnaissance, cultural material (several small lithic
flakes) was observed in the cemetery and in the disturbed cut bank
of a recently constructed residential street adjacent to the
cemetery. The street is part of a new development that the eastern
alignment crosses.
The likelihood 'of the project encountering any other
archaeological sites of significance is low, given the extensive
development that has already occurred in the project area.
Therefore, it is recommended that no further archaeological
investigation for this project is necessary.
C. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and emissions
from internal combustion engines. The impact resulting from the
construction of a new highway or the improvement of an existing highway
can range from aggravating existing air pollution problems to improving
the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide (SO2). and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate).

25

The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide.
Automobiles are considered to be the major source CO in the project area.
For these reasons, most of the analyses presented are concerned with
determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the
project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near
a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operation highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100
meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO
emissions from cars operating on streets further from the receptor
location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source
computer modeling and the background component was determined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) These two concentration components were determined separately,
then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for
comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone
and nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of
concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and expected to decrease in the
future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution
control. devices on new cars. These measures should help lower ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the
presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other photochemical oxidants. The best example to this type of air
pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account
for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions and less than
two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources
(e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars are very low, there is no
reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating
of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline
elimination lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental
26
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of
leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974
was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 grams per gallon.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars
use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 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.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concen-
trations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and "worst case"
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the design year 2016, fifteen years prior
(2001) and for twenty years prior (1996) using the EPA publication "Mobile
Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILESA mobile source emissions computer
model.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was estimated
to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources indicated that an
ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located at
the intersection of NC 16 and NC 51. This intersection has been upgraded
prior to the widening of Old Providence Road (NC 16). Hence, the results
of the Build and No-Build Alternatives are essentially the same. The
predicted 1996, 2001 and 2016 1-hour average CO concentrations for the
worst-case air quality scenario are as follows:
1-Hour CO
Concentration
Worst-Case (ppm)
Scenario Receptor 1996 2001 2016
Intersection of NC 16 R72 (Business) 7.5 7.4 10.7
and NC 51
R73 (Business) 8.2 8.5 12.7
R74 (Business) 10.8 10.4 14.8
R75 (Business) 9.3 9.2 13.6

.?
M'
It
27
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour average period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. See Tables Al, A2, and
A3 for input data.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection. Mecklenburg
county is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for Carbon Monoxide
• (CO) and Ozone (03). The attainment dates are December 31, 1995 for CO
and November 15, 1996 for 03. However, due to recent improved air quality
monitoring data, this area is under review to become a maintenance area.
All appropriate Transportation Control Measures (TCM) included in the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) which was approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on March 19, 1981 have been completed. The
Charlotte/Mecklenburg 2010 Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan (TP) and 1994
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have been determined to be in
conformity to the intent of the SIP. The approval dates of the TP and the
TIP by the MPO were on September 18, 1991 and September 15, 19939
respectively. The approval dates of the TP and the TIP by USDOT were on
November 15, 1991 and December 15, 1993, respectively. There have been no
significant changes in the project's design concept and scope, as used in
the conformity analyses.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
form clearing grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air Quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Measures will be
taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when the control of
dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents. 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.
D. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area (See Appendix A,
Figure 2). 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.
28
1. 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 (0). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in •
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places most emphasis on frequency range to
which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using A-weighting are often expressed as dBA.
Throughout this report, references will be made to dBA, which means
an A-weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as
they go about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or
annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise,
2) the relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise, and
3) the type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important
to note that individuals have different hearing sensitivity to noise.
Loud noises bother some more than others and some individuals become
aroused to anger if an unwanted noise persists. The time patterns of
noise also enter into an individual's judgement of whether or not a
noise is objectionable. For example, noises occurring during
sleeping hours are usually considered to be much more objectionable
than the same noises in the daytime. 01
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 much more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn
in the afternoon when background noises might be 55 dBA.
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
29
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 a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises
which intrude into their lives, particularly if the noises occur at
predicted intervals and are expected. Attempts have been made to
regulate many of these types of noises including airplane noises,
• factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In
relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement
criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuation sound levels of
traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with
the same energy content.
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken along the project
alternative at representative locations using a GenRad 1988 Precision
Integrating Sound-Level Meter and Analyzer. The noise levels were
recorded for a 20-minute period during anticipated peak traffic noise
periods. Traffic counts were taken at each measurement site
during the sampling periods and differences in the measured noise
levels are attributed to variations in site conditions and traffic
volumes. The ambient measurement sites and measured exterior Leq
noise levels are presented in Figure N2 (See Sites 2 through 6) and
Table N3 (See Sites 2 through 6), 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 between -3.2 and
+1.3 dBA of the measured noise levels for all of the locations for
which 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 vehicle speed.
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
30
different speeds through a continual changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Obviously, to asses the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (barrier Cost Reduction)
procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction
Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses
the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds,
the physical characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed,
elevated, etc.), receptor location and height, and, if applicable,
barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed
project is to widen the existing 2-lane roadway to a 4-lane curb and
gutter facility with a 16' grassed median. The proposed roadway was
modeled assuming no special noise abatement measures would be
incorporated. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were
considered. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were
assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents
worst-case topographic conditions. The noise predictions made in
this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the year being analyzed.
This computerized model was utilized to enable the determination
of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in
the design year 2016, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses
predicted to expect a substantial noise increase. The basic approach
was to select receptor locations such as 25, 509 1009 400, 800, and
1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to both
sides of the roadway). Three locations of these receptors were
determined by the change in projected traffic volumes along the
proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid of
receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N4 (Pages 2 through 7). Information included in
these tables consists of listings of all receptors in close proximity
to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the
estimated noise level increase for each.
The Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) Summary for each section
and/or alternative is listed in Table N5. These are noted in terms
of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in
exterior noise levels. Widening along the existing alignment will
create noise impacts for 75 receptors. Noise impacts to receptors on
the eastern and western alternatives are 16 and 4, respectively.
Other information included in Table N5 is the maximum extent of the
72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information should assist
a

f
31

local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining
undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway in local jurisdiction and
to prevent further development of incompatible activities and land
uses.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in the vicinity of the project.
Predicted noise level increases for this project are anticipated to
be less than 10 dBA along the widening portion of the project.
Substantial increases are anticipated along the eastern and western
relocation alternatives due to the new road traversing areas that
currently have little or no highway traffic noise in their acoustic
environment. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
barely detect 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.
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis/Abatement Measures
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT -definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower
portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise abatement measures must
be given to receptors which fall in either category.
a. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
defract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earthberms or
artificial abatement walls. However, these mitigating measures
may not be feasible or reasonable in all cases, particularly for
receptors with frontage along primary or secondary roads which
cross the proposed project. Reduction of traffic noise from the
proposed roadway may not necessarily lower the noise levels at
these receptors to within the recommended noise abatement
criteria and/or below a substantial noise level increase.
Along the project, there is no controlled access. Hence,
driveway connections will be permitted for any abutting property
for the majority of the project and most intersecting roadways
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
32
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight
(8) times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction
to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-1976-1, USDOT,
chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
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 their case.
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors
generally require noise barriers which are too costly because of
the length and height required for a reasonable noise level
reduction. For this reason, no isolated receptors were analyzed
in detail for this report.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatements measures
are feasible and none are recommended for this project.
b. Highway Alignment
An abatement measure such as alteration of the proposed
alignment is normally a reasonable abatement measure along areas
of relocation. Alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way
as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the
balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Hence,
further alteration of the proposed horizontal alignments is not
reasonable or feasible from a planning and design standpoint.
Changes in the vertical alignment can be effective in
limiting noise impacts of certain highway facilities. This
mitigation measure is not feasible or reasonable due to design
constraints associated with the planned intersecting network of
roadways.
C. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system 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.
33
6. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" alternative were
also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 38
residences would experience traffic noise impacts in the areas of the
proposed widening. For these receptors the exterior noise level
increases are anticipated to be in the range of +1 to +4 dBA. As
previous noted, a 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily
• noticeable.
7. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by
and those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. Construction noise
impacts are expected to be minimal along the proposed roadway, since,
for the most part, the project traverses through low-density areas.
However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction
noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these
impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures
are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not feasible or reasonable 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 reports are required for this project.
E. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Descriptions of the plant and wildlife communities are included
under biotic resources. Proposed construction will impact both plant
and wildlife communities. A description of each community is
provided below. Common and scientific names are stated for each
species listed; in subsequent references to the same organism, only
the common name is given.
a. Upland Communities
Five types of upland communities were identified in the
study area: Man-Dominated, Agricultural, Pine Forest, Hardwood
Forest and Pine/Mixed-Hardwood Forest. They are listed below:
34
Man-Dominated
The man-dominated community encompasses areas disturbed by
residential or commercial development and recently disturbed
areas from activities such as clearing. This community ranges
from scattered trees to sites that are dominated by grasses and
forbs. This community is found through the entire project but is
concentrated at the northern end of the project, north of the
US 51 intersection. South of US 51 this plant community is
scattered among other communities.
Small forested stands found in this community, adjacent to
development, are remnants of larger forested tracts. Tree
species include winged elm (Ulmus alata), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), scrub pine (Pinus viT ana), short-leaf pine (Pinus
ec nata), white pine Pinus stro us), red cedar (Juni erns
vir n ana), black oak ?uercuPe s ve?ina), water oa uercus
n? ra willow oak ( uercus hlos to ip poplar (Liao' dendron
to i ifera), sweetgum Li ui styraciflua), American Elm
U mus americana), white oak Quercus a a and black walnut
(Ju 1ans nigra Commonly lanted ornamentals include: Bradford
pear P??r---u-s callerana Bpradfordi') and bullbay (Magnolia
grandiflora).
Understory species observed include: red bud (Cercis
canadensis) dogwood (Cornus florida), black cherry Prunus
serotina sugar maple Acer saccFa-rum) and young tree saplings
of the above canopy spec ei s. The ground cover was very sparse
and includes: tree seedlings and vines such as Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Some sites were maintained
with no ground cover.
Disturbed roadsides receive full sun and support different
plant species than disturbed or undisturbed forested tracts.
Plant species include winged sumac (Rhus copallina), blackberry
(Rubus sp.), pokeweed (Ph tolacca ame cry ana), Queen Anne's lace
(DaT ucus carota), goldenrod Soi agg__o sp.). sunflower (Helianthus
microce a us Jerusalem art?chl?oTce (Helianthus tubTerosus ,
maypops Passiflora incarnata) and Microstegium ( vimineum).
Kudzu (Pueraria lobita is dominant in some areas.
Maintained lawns are located in residential and commercial
areas. These sites are man-dominated areas maintained in low
growing condition. Various herbaceous and woody ornamental
species are present.
Agricultural Land
There are few agricultural fields along the project
corridor. The majority of these areas are not in row crops, but
used for pasture. This community is also maintained in low
growing condition. Dominants include various grasses and forbs
such as partridge pea, goldenrod, Queen Anne's lace with
additions of Japanese honeysuckle and blackberry.

w
35
Pine Forest
There are a number of sites within the study area dominated
by pine or red cedar. Most of these stands are located south of
the US 51/NC 16 intersection. Dominant canopy species include
scrub pine, short-leaf pine and loblolly pine found separately
or mixed together. Scattered hardwoods such as willow oak and
southern red oak ( uercuuss falcata) are found in the canopy. The
canopy reaches a considerable height in some stands.
The understory is sparse and not well developed. Understory
species include sweetgum and winged elm. The ground cover was
also sparse and included partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata),
Japanese honeysuckle and beggar's ticks (Desmo ium sp.).
Hardwood Forest
Forested areas are composed of mixed hardwoods. Hardwood
species listed for the Man-Dominated Community are prevalent.
Pines and red cedar (Juni er?us vir inana) are minor components
of the canopy. Observed species inc u e various oaks such as
southern red oak, post oak ( uercus stellata) and black-jack oak
( uercus marilandica). American a m, winged elm, honey locust
(Gleditsia triacant os), hickory (Carya tomentosa) and black
walnut ere also ound in this community. The understory
components include sassafras (albidum), black cherry, privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and a mixtures canopy saplings. The ground
cover was sparse. Ebony spleenwort (As lenium lat neuron),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and catbrier (Smi ax sp, were noted.
Pine/Mixed-Hardwood Forest
The pine/mixed-hardwood forest is located throughout the
study area. It is more common than the pine or hardwood
forests. Canopy species are mixtures of the pine and hardwood
species listed above and include: white oak, willow oak,
southern red oak, post oak, American elm, winged elm and black
cherry. Gymnosperms such as red cedar, loblolly pine, shortleaf
pine and scrub pine are mixed with hardwoods. The understory is
composed of tree saplings. Red cedar is abundant. The ground
cover is sparse to absent and includes: beggar's ticks, Ebony
spleenwort Japanese honeysuckle.
b. Wetlands Communities
Palustrine Forested Wetlands
Palustrine forested wetlands are associated with stream
crossings along the project corridor. Wetlands in the study area
are small and border creeks, or in one case, a lake. Palustrine
forested wetlands are slightly lower in elevation than the
adjacent terrain and receive periodic flooding. Mixed hardwoods
dominate these portions of the study area and include: black
willow (Salix ni ra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box
36
elder (Acer ne undo) and hackberry (Celtis laevi ata). Privet
(Li ustrum sinense , tag alder (Alnus serru ata and spicebush
(Lines ra enzoin) are common shru?i components. Ground cover
species include jewel weed (Impatiens ca ensis), Microstegium,
false nettle (BoehT c lindrica , day lower (Commelina
communis), poison ivy (Toxico en ron radicans) and knotweed
Po onum ces itosum . A few of the stream crossings are
disturbed from man- ominated activities. Sewer lines are
adjacent to two stream crossings. A mixture of grasses
dominated these sites.
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction will impact the Man-Dominated Community,
Agricultural Field, Pine Forest, the Hardwood Forest and
Pine/Mixed-Hardwood Forest and Palustrine Forested Wetland
communities. Plant community impacts are reported in Table 1.
These estimates are preliminary and may change with final
design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community
Man-Dominated Community
Agricultural Field
Pine Forest
Hardwood Forest
Pine/Mixed-Hardwood Forest
Palustrine Forested Wetlands
TOTAL
Acreage Impacts
64.8
4.3
17.4
5.0
31.8
0.9
124.2
Estimated Impacts are based on 140' study area width.
Widening of NC 16 will decrease the amount of plant
community acreage. The majority of the study area is dominated
by the Man-Dominated plant community. Pine, Hardwood and Mixed
Pine/Hardwood forests are also prominent in the study area.
Efforts should be made to widen along the existing alignment as
close as possible to reduce plant community impacts.
The majority of the project impacts the Man-Dominated
community. Efforts should be made to minimize erosion
especially at stream crossings and other areas with steeply
sloping topography. Best Management Practices (BMP) should be
followed during construction. Clearing of vegetation should be
minimized throughout the project but especially in the Pine,

37
Hardwood, Pine-Mixed Hardwood forest and the Palustrine Wetland
Forest communities. Cleared areas should be revegetated as
quickly as possible after construction is completed.
d. Wildlife Communities
The wetland community is characterized in both the aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems. Limited descriptions of fauna which
} are likely to occur in these ecosystems are presented below.
Terrestrial Community
Mammals that might be found in the study corridor include:
Virginia opossum (Didel his virginiana), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus , eastern chipmunk (Tam striatus),
gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis), hispid cotton rat
(Si modon hissidus), raccoon Procyon lotor) and white-tailed
deer Odocoil eus virginianus).
Avian fauna anticipated in the study corridor include the
following: red-tailed hawk (Buteo amaicensis), killdeer
(Charadius vociferus), mourning dove Zenaai a maces rte), common
ME er Co a-1 tes auratus), blue-jay C anocitta cristata),
common crow &CorNu_s__5_ra-c-fivrhYnchos), tufted titmouse Parus
bicolor), mocR ngbir Mimus poly-lot?tos), American robin
Tur us mi ratorius), northern cardinal ardinalis cardinalis)
and rufous-sided towhee (Pi ilo er_ythropht a mus .
Amphibians and reptiles anticipated in uplands in the study
area include: marbled salamander (Amb stoma oPacum) American
toad (Bufo americanus), gray tree cogs Hy a chr soscelus),
spring peeper (Hy la crucifer), eastern box turt a Terra ene
carolina), eastern fence lizard (Scalo orus undulatus ,
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) and southeastern ive-lined
skink (Eumeces inexpectatus)-
Aquatic Communities
Amphibians and reptiles anticipated in aquatic environments
in the study area include: eastern newt (Noto hthalmus
viridescens), and three-lined skink (Eurycea gutto ineata .
No recent fisheries information was available for any of
the creeks according to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) fisheries biologist. Fish (1968) reports the
following fish species in Six Mile Creek: largemouth bass
(MicroIpterus salmoides), chain pickerel (Esox ni er), catfish,
sunfish and carp C rinus car io). Other creeks crossed by the
project are not listed in 1968).
e. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed widening project will also decrease the amount
of available wildlife habitat. Efforts should be made to
minimize disturbances to plant communities such as the Pine,
38
Hardwood, Pine Mixed Hardwood forests and Palustrine Wetland
which harbor wildlife.
Bridges allow for more light penetration and minimal bottom
disturbance. Bridges also allow for more waterflow, sediment
and debris movement during flooding periods. Noted during the
field survey: sediment deposits and debris. To lessen impacts,
BMP's should be strictly enforced during construction.
Subterranean, burrowing species are most vulnerable to
construction impacts. Mobile species will be displaced to
adjacent habitats and competitive pressures will result in the
loss of some individuals.
The amount of traffic volume and noise is likely to
increase during and after construction. Sensitive species may
react to the changes by altering patterns of migration. Road
kills will increase.
2. Physical Resources
a. Soils
Seventeen soil types are mapped in the study area. They
are stated in Table 2.
Table 2
Soil Type
Cecil sandy clay loam
Cecil-Urban land complex
Davidson sandy clay loam
Enon sandy loam
Iredell fsl
Mecklenburg fsl
Monacan loam
Wilkes loam
Soil Type Summary
Classification
Mecklenburg County
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-Hydric & Inclusions
Non-hydric
Hydric Inclusions
Non-hydric
Union County
Appling Non-hydric
Cecil Non-hydric
Chewacla Hydric Inclusions
Hydric Inclusion
pds2
pds
pds
w

01
It
fsl2 fine sandy loam
pds poorly drained soils
39
Cecil soil units are located on gently to strongly sloping
sites, are well drained and have a predominantly clayey subsoil.
They formed in residuum from acidic igneous and metamorphic
rock.
Cecil-Urban land units are found on nearly level to
strongly sloping urban areas, are well drained soils that have a
predominantly clayey subsoil and formed in residuum from acid
igneous and metamorphic rock.
Iredell-Mecklenburg units are found on nearly level to
strongly sloping sites, are moderately well drained and well
,. drained soils that have a predominantly clayey subsoil. They
formed in residuum from rock high in ferromagnesian minerals.
Wilkes soil units are found on gently sloping to steep
sloping sites, are well drained soils that have a predominantly
clayey subsoil. They formed in residuum from basic rock, or
from mixed acidic and basic rock.
Enon soil units are found on gently sloping to strongly
sloping areas, are well drained and moderately well drained
soils that have a predominantly clayey subsoil. They formed in
residuum from mixed acidic and basic igneous and metamorphic
rock.
Monacan soil units are found on nearly level sites, are
somewhat poorly drained with a predominantly loamy subsoil.
They formed in fluvial sediment on floodplains.
b. Water Resources
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin. Four
named creeks are crossed by the project. They are, from south to
north, Six Mile Creek, Rocky Branch, Four Mile Creek and
McAlpine Creek. The largest of these creeks is McAlpine Creek
which is approximately 20' to 30' wide at the bridge crossing.
Best usage classification for each of these streams is listed in
Table 3. A number of smaller, unnamed tributaries are crossed
by the project. Best usage classifications of these streams are
the same as the waterbody to which they are tributaries.
Mecklenburg is not in the Public Mountain Trout Water
jurisdiction. No Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality
Waters or Water Supply segments classified as WS-I or WS-II
occur in the study area. The creeks are not classified as Wild
and Scenic Rivers by the federal government, nor as state
designated Natural, Scenic or Recreational Rivers. Benthic
macroinvertebrate information is not available for any of the
creeks mentioned.
40
Table 3 Summary of Water Quality Classifications
Name
Classification
Six Mile Creek C
Rocky Branch C
Four Mile Creek C
McAlpine Creek C
Unnamed C

Source: (DEM 1991).
Best usage recommendations for Class C waters: aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may have a number of impacts to water
resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
Alteration of water level and flow due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow.
Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
Potential impacts such as these may reduce the number of
sensitive species that occur in the creeks crossed by the
project. Construction will allow for adequate flow during heavy
flooding periods. Nonpoint sediment sources should be identified
and efforts made to control sediment runoff. In addition,
strict adherence to restrictions identified as BMP's will be
adhered to during construction.
3. Special Topics k
a. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
41
saturated conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations
are described in the "Federal Manual For Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (Federal Interagency
Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1987). Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act.
' b. Summary of Impacts
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations
of vegetation, soils and hydrology. The vegetation is
dominated by plants defined as hydrophytic (Facultative,
Facultative-Wetland or Obligate) and soil colors were
classified as hydric due to low chroma values. Observed
wetland hydrological characteristics include evidence of
periodic flooding such as fluvial soil deposits, debris
present above the current water level and matted vegetation
above the water line. Table 4 summarizes wetland impacts
by site and Figure 2 indicates site location. These
estimates are preliminary and may change with project
design.
Table 4 Summary of Wetland Acreage by Site
Site Number Creek Name Acreage Impact
Site 1 McAlpine Creek 0.2
Site 2 Unnamed creek 0.1
Site 3 Unnamed creek 0.1
Site 4 Fourmile Creek 0.1
Site 5 Rocky Branch 0.1
Site 6 Lakeside wetlands 0.1
Site 7 Six Mile Creek 0.1
Site 8 Unnamed creek -
Site 9 Unnamed creek 0.1
Total 0.9
Values reported are in acres and are based on a study area width of 140'.
42
C. Permits
Jurisdictional wetland impacts are small at each location
and total impacts are less than one acre. Since the flow rates
of McAlpine Creek (Site 1), Four Mile Creek (Site 4) and Six
Mile Creek (Site 1) all exceeds 5 cfs, Nationwide permit 33 CFR
330.5 (a) (14) may be applicable if two conditions are
satisfied: a) the discharge is less than 200 cubic yards of fill
material below ordinary high water and b) discharges do not
extend more than 100' on either side of the ordinary high water
mark. If these conditions are not met at the McAlpine Creek
crossing an Individual Section 404 Permit may be required.
Two Nationwide permits are likely to be applicable for the
other locations (site numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9): Nationwide
permits 14 and 26. Nationwide permit 14, as described above, is
likely to be applicable at small crossings with unnamed creeks
such as site numbers 2, 3 and 9.
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26) authorizes the
discharge of fill material in nontidal waters and adjacent
wetlands that are above headwaters. Above headwaters refers to
nontidal rivers, streams and their lakes and impoundments,
including adjacent wetlands above which the average annual flow
is less than 5 cfs. This permit may be applicable at sites 5
(Rocky Branch) and 6 (Lakeside wetlands) which are categorized
as "above headwaters".
One additional note - The Corps of Engineers has proposed
to amend the Nationwide Permit Program. The quantities of fill
and areas of impact currently allowed are likely to change.
Final permit decisions rest with the discretionary authority of
the Corps of Engineers.
State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. One state permit
likely to be required is the 401 Water Quality Certification.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in
a discharge into waters and for which a federal permit is
required.
d. Wetland Mitigation
Projects that require an Individual Section 404 permit are
mitigated in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection
Agency. The type and level of wetland mitigation will be
determined in compliance with the Clean Water Act. At this time
no mitigation is proposed since the permit picture is unclear.
If Nationwide permits are authorized, generally no
mitigation is required according to the MOA, however, the final
decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
43
4. Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
locate any occurrences of protected species in the study area.
a. Federally-Protected Species
One federally protected species is listed by the USFWS
for both Mecklenburg and Union Counties: Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus sweinitzii).
• Schweinitz's Sunflower Federally Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a member of the composite
family. It is 0.6 to 1.5 meters tall, characterized by a
scabrous upper leaf surface and a soft tomentose lower leaf
surface. Stems are usually solitary. The flowers are
yellow, 5.5 cm in diameter and the flowering period is from
September to frost. It is limited to North and South
Carolina. The plant once inhabited open prairies and is
now adapted to disturbed areas with maintained open
habitat. Suitable habitat includes maintained right-of-way
areas, utility lines and disturbed habitat. It may also
occur at edges of upland woods. The study area supports
suitable habitat such as maintained roadsides, forest
edges, and utility lines. A plant-by-plant survey was
conducted in these areas. Two plant populations are
located in the study area approximately 1.25 miles north of
the NC 16/NC 51 interchange. One population is located
east of NC 16 between the ditch and the forest edge.
Approximately 20 plants were observed. Approximately 10
plants were observed at the second population located west
of NC 16. This population is located on a sloped bank
above the ditchline.
Due to the widening of an existing facility, impacts
to this plant species could not be avoided. Therefore,
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the FHWA
entered into Formal Consultation with the USFWS to mitigate
damages to the Helianthus Schweinitzii Sunflower. The
Y NCDOT and FHWA have authorized $31,970 for a prairie
restoration project. This project will be handled by the
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department and will
be their responsibility for the development and maintenance
of these prairies. Additionally, the NCDOT will allow
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department and Dr.
Larry Barden of the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte to transplant any specimens of the Helianthus
Schweinitzii to restoration sites prior to any construction
activities. Relocation of the endangered plants will be
accomplished prior to beginning construction (See Appendix
B, Consultation Documentation).
44
Five other species, the Georgia aster (eor ianus),
tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), smooth cone ower
(Echinacea laevigata), Heller's refoil (Lotus.helleri) and
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellulla), are listed by the USFWS
in Mecklenburg County as Candidate species and are not
afforded legal protection at this time. The status of
these species may change in the future.
b. State Protected Species
According to the NCNHP files, no other state protected
species are located in the study area.
NCNHP files do report a record of another plant in the
study area listed by the state as significantly rare:
(Solida oo ri ida ssp. labrata). This plant is not afforded
legal protection under state aws at this time.
Southeastern Bold Goldenrod State Significantly Rare
This plant is a member of the composite family and
occurs in diabase glades only in Durham, Granville,
Mecklenburg and Person Counties. The plant is
approximately 1 to 2 meters tall. The heads contain
between 30 to 50 flowers with yellow rays. Flowering period
is from August through October. In the study area the
plant occurs in an opening at the edge of a pine-cedar
forest on NC 16 approximately 1.1 miles south of the
intersection of NC 51 and NC 16. The population is located
on the east side of the highway.
F. Geodetic Markers
The proposed project could impact thirteen geodetic survey markers.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order
to allow resetting of monuments which will be disturbed. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute
102-4.
G. Flood Hazard Evaluation
-ft
Mecklenburg County is a participant of the National Flood Insurance }
Regular Program. All of the streams crossed by this project are included
in detailed flood studies. Included in the appendix are copies of Flood
Insurance Rate Maps on which are shown the approximate limits of the
100-year and 500-year floodplains as well as the 100-year floodway in the T
vicinity of each crossing. The floodplains for all of the stream
crossings are primarily wooded and residential with the potential for
additional development in the floodplain in the future. Two of the four
stream crossings (McAlpine Creek and Four Mile Creek) are below
headwaters, while the remaining two (McAlpine Creek Tributary No.3 and
Rocky Branch) are above headwaters. The terrain in the vicinity of the
project consists of rolling hills with natural draws and streams located
45
such that the proposed widening can !
water and existing drainage patterns
the proposed project construction.
authorized under Nationwide Permits.
may be required at McAlpine Creek.
Corps of Engineers.
ie drained without difficulty. Ground
will not be significantly affected by
It is anticipated the project will be
However, an individual 404 permit
Final permit decisions rest with the
Erosion and sedimentation control will be very important for this
project. Construction operations must be carefully planned to minimize
disturbance of existing stream banks. All runoff crossing construction
areas should be directed to temporary silt basins via lateral ditches with
rock check dams to slow and filter the runoff prior to discharging into
• streams. Roadway fill slopes shall be stabilized with seeding, and
temporary silt ditches, silt fence, etc. shall be provided at the toe of
fill. Berms along the top of the fill slope will be used to convey runoff
laterally to temporary slope drains, which empty into temporary sediment
basins. At the McAlpine Creek crossing, cofferdam sheeting will be needed
for bridge footings in water. Any material excavated for footings in or
near water must be removed from the immediate vicinity to prevent it from
eroding back into the water. Early placement of rip-rap slope protection
on the approach embankments will protect against surface erosion. Special
attention will be given to proper installation and maintenance of all
erosion and sedimentation control devices.
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement
Two suspected UST locations were observed along the project. They
are located at currently operating businesses and are described below:
1. An Exxon service station and car wash at the intersection of
Providence Rd. and Old Providence Rd.
2. A convenience store at the intersection of Providence Rd.
West and Providence Rd.
I. Construction Effects
Construction effects of the project will be temporary in nature. To
minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the following
measures, along with those already mentioned, will be utilized during the
construction phase of the project.
1. Solid wastes created as a result of highway construction will be
disposed of in accordance with Section 802 of the NCDOT Standard
Specifications.
2. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible
to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care
will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
3. An extensive rodent control program will be established where
structures are to be removed or demolished in order to prevent
the migration of rodents into surrounding areas.
46
4. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and ordinances, along with regulations of the North
Carolina Plan for Implementing National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Burning will be done only on the right of way, under
constant surveillance, with good atmospheric conditions, and as
remote from dwellings as possible.
5. The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all waste
areas, both during the work and until the completion of all
seeding and mulching or other erosion control measures
specified, in a manner which will effectively control erosion
and siltation.
6. NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Water
shall be followed during project construction in order to
prevent siltation of nearby streams.
7. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on
this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from
the N. C. Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the
removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect
on any known district, site, building, structure, or object that
is included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the
proposed borrow source.
VIII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies conducted for this
project, it is determined the proposed project will not have significant
adverse effects upon the human or natural environment. Therefore, an
Environmental Assessment is applicable for this project.
TAH/plr

T
If,
ti

K

END E r
J
PROJECT
t
1
. 1 O
1
1
s
r
y,
- 4
i
P
4 -41-
BEGIN
PROJECT -J
? v
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CHARLOTTE
WIDENING OF NC 16 (OLD PROVIDENCE ROAD)
FROM CHARLOTTE SOUTHERN OUTER LOOP
TO EXISITNG MULTI - LANES
IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY
U - 2510
FIG.
END
PROJECT
.k

1
1
T
1
Y
yyyyywwwww\.?
17 ' ,.f{'k?y NH N77
N-7
li "-
a lam
Y71,
i
i -V
t
sy
7jV!
BEGIN
-do
0
f
j)?DIVISION H. CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
F : Olw-b, ------ PROJECT
U - 2510
FIG. 2
SPORTATION
OF HIGHWAYS
NING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CH
CHARLOTTE
WIDENING OF NC 16 (OLD PROVIDENCE ROAD)
FROM CHARLOTTE SOUTHERN OUTER LOOP
TO EXISITNG MULTI -LANES
IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY
? k ? r ?+' s ? ?..?. , ? `
? e
?, ? ` ,` ?
r _ ,. ,?.. _,... A .?
WROP
Kl?
I k,

3

I
t ? ? 4 X54, :;
? q
'
s
wt.x M
.
?n
xx

to .• '. ,yk .S ? - _ K
}
}??p °.
up
®lY l .«,A01F1d4?? l ? ,.R.•.

7
r
r. ?
l?
C7` C
0o a
? n
C7
o ?
N
O
G r-•. ?i
C'+ iV
?• Ul
so
v
n
O
d
rn
s
? C
f-?
r-i
cD
CD
1
C
J
a.1 7
4 t

o ?g
f
°
N
U C.
700-
? 1? Il°
d Y
200 a °? I
800
u
600 0
0
?b 10

o ?o
?'
°
°
° ?-- 2200 0
11300
<r - 0
°
o I
I
1 a-- 8500
- 3600 1430
o-_
d
`o rf
3000 -? 11 r
14900 Ill00 --fl V N 157(
800 -? o E o
O
O e
7
0
`"
0 0
I
0
N
° W

10
--18oo
°
°
o
o 210(
?- 300
I v -1
G o 140(
V °
O

0
rl)l 0

N
O

' N r
?

0
o
o o -- 300
100
1 I
I q- _50
--50 400

a-
V o o
-50 --A 1
_
100
50 -?
cn _
200
-50 -? o v o
O
0
0
C) CO
?Oo
0
o 0 0
-1100
2000
1 -1100

1300
- 3500

.a
-
?
300 -?
_
032 0
180 -°

° _
4300
ll00-? ooo
0

of C.
?- -50
300 $ o °
1 a----50
-50 X100
d
1? 1-
100
500 -50- N ,... 1 100
400 --,,4 o 0 o
0
N
,O
° Q

o CD
N
s
0 o
4- -50
250 r
l I
I --50
- -5
0 50
Q/
b
lQ
?
-50 -? rr
v
--?
150
-50 -? I I

° -a
50
100 -? 0
Nl
R)
°o

N °

i.6-0 C.
0 b
_ 1600 1
3900
2300 -? 0 0
0

°o b 1 0

aul'1 u h??W
S - S
ao
of 3
t0
OD tz
Q tOr o o D N
!
l
i Xi
(O 70 d
V O
W
Q A -50 Q 0
Q.
?D
T.- ru -a I r co
100
m
o
d
-S 100 -? 0 0
°
W
°
l
A W
o o
°
° o N
m N
1900
o--
o
°
0 Q-100 n
0

1 0 0 1100 D
*-

900- 4

11
z 1000
t? x c-
Q
A 2000 C N
1 .Z7 1100 -.q oo
Qv
ED
0 1000
o

?D
°
0
o 0 o W

o
W

O
°o
?p 0
to 800

°- o
(D c)
J 1 r
C)
P N °o C)
p

m 50
d O
X
100 -? 4

I CJ
a
;0 d c4- I M

z o

-50 -T r 800

700 v
Q
cn -o r r
50 7
j -50 -? o °o
A
N
°
o °o

O
'01 1o
n N
o
CL 1900

n

10(
n IU -
h " 2000
;0 1901
Q
o l
V
O
D
M 0
A ?O
M 0\
Z N
A
Q

?c N
f

v, e P A
~
o ° M
9-
9
?
o
0
?- 500
M
1300 3 N
?- 800
A
r0
rp o
N
-o ?
ao
r 1200
o
N p
°o
W
c
°o
l
o N
0 o

?I
d
m A
f*1
h
o "

V
r
?
o i
i
?- -50
50 D N
-50 a a0
0 CJ
ti

m i
°o ° 50
1N
°
o
CDf
0 ?o
r
o
Q
CD
100 I

(D w
-50 -A Q W
_-0 I ty N
100
Q 100 -,q 0 0
0
00°!

j
3 1600 0 °
a-
O A) O 0 0 10 ?- 800 0
7 4'

3

100 -? (O W n N 4200

roo 0 0 0 -2200

-1400 4400 CL
(n
n
?
Q` o r
w r
1 00 A (
)
Q 1800 --? c o
o Q.

L/I _p
Q 300 -?

I
I N

_o Q- o?
3400 1600 -o 0

W
380
1500 c o
°o
ru
C) °
cm ED
I ?-- 50 v'
0
0
ro 100
Q b ?' 100
r?
A
(+ y
( O
W
Q -?
I N
o 100
z o
O

CD
zil ?" y
°
c °
? o O
O
d auto ' J.J
d
:)4.,OH
g a u 1 1 N?VnW g

i 7 au!j N:):?nN

?,l po

Q. ? 900
e--
Jl di ? ?
n
200 -?
\ --0
In ru
I

?
90D W
? °
(1
F? n 700 m ti
o
o "S
°
?. CD
?
O ?d' ? o o

n
1 1
'? o N

J

-/ h o

m ID m
D o
2800
1?-
T 14100 0 0 0°
?_ I I
10600 17900
v
dd ri ( 450
45D0 Z

rD , 0 n
i!i C 3800 -%
?-- 18700 13900 -fl -°
1%00
°
~
l-? 1000 -? o
°o
n A

° p

3 o
A
m
2200

CD C? p
? Q
d- 300 M

?a
Q7
b
1-4;

? 'C
x

°
n
CA
1 ?

p
° -o o
1700 r
V
0
° 7
?
I o
l
c? b
po
A
- 4W n

200
o-- 0 °o o
J I
1
o--100
500
PS (i1
d l? d--50
n
W
-50 On N
100 100
-?
200 1+
-50 -? °o v 0
o ;0
Q
°

%D
A 1
O
O
d v m -1400

26
0 o c
0 I d I
l I a- 1400
-- 1600 4 400 X y
'D
ca
an 0, p
4. W
400 -p 4 N
4000
4000
2200 -o 1
W -gyp
5300 .A
X
1400 -? °o c o
0
'

0
b
-50 r
300
o•-- -50 Q 50 a• cn
A
?- -50
Q .?

too (D w
400
400 -50
--o _?

50 M ?a
300 --? °0 0 v
°o Q

Ln
CD pg
C
LA
CO 1
4 - -50
a
300 3
x J 1 _50

50 450 vJ
C+ ;u
?n 0

100 _ W
3
200 -50 -o N 50
100 I
c
°o Q
Il
0
po
?
O ?
O O
2900 0 o ro

P
Cr-
1800 -?

4 300 1 1
2500 -? o
o 0
-
V I p
o°
S autl N:):?nW
?D ?g
CDl 10
200 0 °o
°- 1 d
20
loo -?
100 -?
.D 1
O
V N
0 0
0 0
d?
of
0
to
0 W
0

r00
0 0
CD N
°o
?O
0
?- 200
1500 D
o-
?- 1300 - X v
P A

G,
-? Q v
0 1500
w
o °
o °
po
1 ?
Lo
loo o b
°- J
d

_p -50 -? p
loo
100
oCD
of a
l
O

0 0
2300
?d
n
0
c C/)
N
to X
Q W
200--4
¢
o A
2600
2400 -? g o
0 Q
O t
° I A
o
r c' ?^ ?- 600
°o
°
o 1600 P N
•?----
1 loon
tr-
? A
n) N

N
c 1500 p
ID
°o
0
1 m
100 0 0°
Jd
-50 -?
200
200 -?
3
O
M
N co
2100
°- J d
_ loo -?
2040
2300
0
Q? 1
O UI
0 0
l?
?o
0
I
b (J
o CO
°o
\D
O
11
°o m
°
?- -50
d--.loo
r
p
X v)
eo
1n
QW
N A
A
t7 N
I

N
O
0 0
2400 ° °
1200
2600
1400 -?
0
Jl
1000 $
100 -s
1000
900 -?
N
0
rI
1
ND
W
CD
o°
N
I r°u
V
°
Vd
V I
°o 0
L
vl
°? dl
o°
°l p
A a
o °
0 0
0
N
10
0
A
?N
O
d
m
d
?s
r
j
z I
C-)
UO
A
N
M (/)
N
sz
P G)
X?
M
Q

D
pV
o°
?- -50
100
D
-100 _
o-- In O

pf O W

N
=R)

V 0
`D o
o° 100

t pp
o
°o
°d ?
? ro

.Z) A N N -1000

r0 w

o
n v) 5300
77 a - 0 o b
° ° °

d
o- 2800
5600
e- v) 70
W d--1800 n

Q Ln _ 400 A ti
-0
4300 2000 -o
?v m --0 Q Q,
4800

1900 --?
0 0 0 £
M

?l
o
S
too o 7 g auto nW g
0 a
- o0
0
QR
1(°
o
0 0
0
m.
pN ID
O
aurl
loo , r -
p
0
h
-4 1
0
N
n
0
0

au!-l 'oW
a
4
n '? od LA
? o

cy,
0
O O
1800
?
? Jd

{
Q
o V:
m
0 ?
400 -?
z R)
C- 1 r` 1800 ?j

C3
Q
1400
o 0 t7

°

° o

01 CD
cn V
N
co
Q-- 5500
31200
a- u
Io Q
J o--- 2'3000 36000
L 5 d- 7500 n

f.?
7500 -? v
?
313OS 0 27800 -o
w ?
° W _-0
39400

O 3500 -? o
o
° ° °

d
m

I
o
° QN
° v
0%
0
A
C7
0
?\ o
\

3
N ,
Q w
ob
V
I w

f7
r•:
N Np `.
0 0 0 °

2500

n
33 100 ° o c o--100 3100
500
r\D
Q
;v
CD
d

2000 --`i
3100 100 -fi
1900 -?
wl
w
O
N
ru CO
3200 ° o Cl °°o
i
c
?
c n o
(
?
cn
?
I I
o N cn -fl
o
1600 r
o I0 0
° N °
0
1 9

-1000 n
Q

3- 200 1300
vi
-100
n
? w
2000 -? O ru
ru
3200 200-
N N -°
600
1000 - °oJ o
o Q
N
? p N
co
!
A I
ID
O
co o a t-2700
5100
°- 0 0 0
J 1
-2800
- 3200
38700
x 0
0 A
d
Q W

800 --? r? m
N
-G
8000
4400 -fl I
I
N N _p
10600 A
2800 --? o L" 0
O A O Q
O °
? ( N
Ln
°
°
°
d
g
W
N co r
100
r
500 I°
J 1 o-- -50 200
?-
a
-100
0 Q?
? v
200 - ro V
-a
600
-50 -e I
I I
w -6
100 a
0

400 ---?
<? N
0
0 .
N

°
W
° I `D

°
°
?- 100 O
300 C> 0 3
1 -50
a-
200 300 <n
O

100 -? r 3 v
^
ON
300
300 -50-fl N N N -o
300
200 -? o y o
0 SL

Ln
0
0
0
1N
m
0
w o

3800
`? o C
0 0
J 1 Q

2500 -? Q
5700 N N
3200 N C
-?] o o Z
0
W Q N
A OD
Wb
c g
aurl N??tiW
H N N g
Ln
°b I Q
° o
° o
N
°
.- A
400 ? d ro th
O W
O
? 100
_ -? Q
400 I r
300 -? °o A°
00
Nb eN
V V
0 0
o °
N
O
0 0 400
Cl 0 2900 a
r- 2500 x
p 41.
4 P co
S2 V
?d
N o
.00 0 0
`? J d
- 50 - 0
loo
100 -?
Nd
w
O
$ Ln
4700
df
_ 400 -?
4900
4500 ---,q
Nl
V
0
o N
N
O O
l?
N N 2900
w o
o °
1ID
O
n
O

3

0
R
o
0
0
°
I I
r1i r%
O p
0
Q N
IW
0
? th
ro 7a
o ?
A
3,
Q
t N
T
co
0
-1300
3-200
N
-1900 z A
o
N
-o ?
N N
°
O O 3100 m

.
N
ru eN
v
l
0 CA
0
N
V
0o r
aoo o A
ter- ? ?1
l ro 70
d Ln
QW
? (Tj N.
100 - 1

400 W N d
300 ° i
0
0

°
N b
° 6 N

°
N
V

C') Q ,p

a
o
1 o
°
N 0`
CD C,
4800 0 0

2300-
5200
2900 -
N
o°
Ll
o
2000
Jd
200 -?
2000
1800 --?
O
°b
N o [n
2300 00 °o °o
3- Jd?
-0 500 -?
2300 800 -C-
1000
-?
wl
0
°o
R
N V
a: .n
O o
Io
N
00
I
li CD
0 CD

z
n
00
A
m ?
Q.
o (j
Q
o
-2000
3
-900 5800
n
r-
-3000 r
O
-
(D
a
c
? o
0 s300 ?
rg
° fn
C9
° -100
I 200

3--
N
1 p ?-100 UI
O W
1
' R)
N
?
Y °0 100
o°

«?w. l
O
O 4
I W
G

N O0 0 O
0 0
?- 2100
5200
O?? ?p0 0
35300 !!ss 3
7400 C
3

ro
o
01
Q
°
-

r
O
35300 -o
37400

1500 --?
3600
ob w I a
N g
N
°

4100
°
S N
J l M? ruwm

n W
X H 9200 0 0
200 -? p r
o A J d
4 0
4600 -? o a A ? 1200 -?
-?
CD 8200 3600 -o
M 3400 -?
0
o
l w
0
°
o
Ul l
N
0
° -100 °
o
o
. • 300 V)
Q
H
I
1 3-
; aur, 1,
1,
d- 200
O P
00
QW
_p N
w w 300 r
o
0 0
Ub w
o a
d au.- J. q nW y

?- 3000 O
<
3--4200 10000 r4p uj
0
?- 2800 - n A
?0 W
Q N
m A ro 8900
o c o tA
In
C+
°
1
CD
0
T -DW H
Z
O
a
'-i
0
V)
n
O
F
• s
j -
/ \ ,h . , ,\ --rte \ ?. ?? :e9.L /`jol ••y
`Rlv) Site 2 } Site 9 ,
Qom;
C y. + p v o
-> ? ? I/l/(\' .mac( ? . ??? , ?? .? • r,? </ ?? ?CF ? ? ? ? i ,i. ?,• ? rr.l ? C
widen ??: r?' ?, ? `?i?Vc •.?. ,?? ??
0)
1 O ( 1 ?; 1 Site 3 1J
. ,I?r`??. ?? ¢, \ ??. `?, ?,, ;??, l\ ig???1 ? \_ ? / ?ll ?I 'JI' ? rh -?- ? y?? ? ?h` Y ? l ,'O ---V
\ .?C\. J l ..1''c ?- \. -? "`•••ccc?????,, 1 rt<Ix? .Ss *L/? l/ (-.
-` r. °•
Golf Coutse"
Q8 \_J
r
R Lx_
D it ?+ct . n r / II at// • \? t ,?
6 6
, ? f ? h loot ?? /r' 1; ? -f- ? ? r?lY I ???`?xh (•i.
sit
/lR
-V 11 r Y ?,?---i
r ? 't ? ? /hl ?' A ? •. r?.v ? ? r: '? I 1' 1 r ? . . ? ?, ? ?.+. µ. ? , y'~ \ O C?-..::''Y F1ltl? ?" ? , 11 ? ? ,'
1 S• k. a?"y??. ? ? ?i , K. ? .n n., ,? rf s i
6 'tea, p } I (a
t ,' c L't? NEE ?r ?; ?r"x_ t,•
Y6'' 4fY
? ? ? ??/ : z _'_?.I .. r?) ??` ? c?-. f?'t 111 4 -ti+?.?_ ? s/? ?C
Cady O r x
rv sir Iakyr of
r
y "J,
BM 6716:
J ! , ,? j ? ??.!- ICI 110
'/ \ ?`6.':r'?+?d"`• ?? _? +,.
° ,. r.:. ?. Charlotte B
?• r°? ,,? NC 16 (old Providence Road) 02 A
From NC 84 In Union Co. To Existing-1
Four Lanes In Mecklenburg Co.
U-2510 ?.
a Figure 5 Wetland Locations
IQ 3

o lyll???

I
r
L?
i '
i -
-.Rocky -gym
600
l - ( ? ? 1 ll ? ???V 2?LC? A r x ?
J d,? h ? 11. l? I- ?J ??,Atl i gr;6 11 1
?? J/ U ?? VV i t U \? Sf 70 f a ?oP?_ /
?` i ?•? 119 ( ^? (\ a 0- 1 r3r \ oe ?? M ?i1P __.._ MC to
LL/ 4? _ !. h rJ /// J it ` .J_/ ?? yertfrvll ri' i 0 ?. ;-• .\ ?y
Q'I M651.
p; ;. 1 so ,
Cad 1 19 r' ?J t .
Lake/ U
:??°? _ ,I 91q" _ / r 650 .ill)JD (1 t
110
02
11 YY... ? / .?
0 630-? j Site 6 wG
\` vr?.: site 7
CA
•; d e bit
630-^.,
?.6 ?( 11 '` ??? 44 \, - .oaf ?"`, ????1?
. ? J
./ ? [ ?1 ? / 1 / 111 1 nG/ '\ 1 c . A 1 S S .r 1 \ p C .
? •ia ?? ? \ \\o ri ? III ? `?' .,?, ?;, ??? .. "* / I \U?
./' __ "'?'/-./ ? / d c;, _ / ?.a III \ \J----? \- 6J0 / ?? t?"i `'? ? ?? k• ? .1
t` o Begin Pro j ect
00
690
r
p IL
74
gjw
Charlotte fi t o
605 x r ' , / ? O
" 6a NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 In Union Co. To Existing 6 0
y=. } Four Lanes In Mecklenburg Co.
o a U-2510:. o/
0 ( C; Wetland Locations
Figure 5 e E.
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION PAGE 1
JOB: U-2510 / NC 16 AND NC 51 RUN: NC 16 AND NC 51 - YEAR 1996 BUILD
DATE: 06/01/1993 TIME: 08:42:25 .81
A
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
------------------
--
VS = .0 CM/S ------
VD -----
.0
CM/S ZO
- 108.
CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
8 LINX VARIABLES
----------
----
LINK DESCRIPTION
*
LINK COORDINATES (M)
*
LENGTH
BEG TYPE
VPH EF
B W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VER)
------------------------ *------------------------------------------ '---------- ----------- -------------- --------------- ----

1. NC 16 NB APPR
*
7.
3 -304.6
7.3
.0 *
305.
360. AG
1410. 5.7
.0 13.4 ----
2. NC 16 NB QUEUE * 7. 3 -17.1 7.3 -78.3 * 61. 180. AG 855. 100.0 .0 7.3 .83 10.2
3. NC 16 NBLT QUEUE * 0 -17.1 .0 -552.5 * 535. 180. AG 669. 100.0 .0 7.3 2.48 89.2
4. NC 16 NB DEP * 7. 3 .0 7.3 304.8 " 305. 360. AG 1440. 5.7 .0 13.4
5. NC 16 SB APPR * -7. 3 304.8 -7.3 .0 " 305. 180. AG 1290. 5.7 .0 13.4
6. NC 16 SB QUEUE * -7. 3 17.1 -7.3 203.8 * 187. 360. AG 954. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.05 31.1
7. NC 16 SBLT QUEUE * . 0 17.1 .0 445.1 * 428. 360. AG 719. 100.0 .0 7.3 **** 71.3
8. NC 16 SB DEP • -7. 3 .0 -7.3 -304.8 * 305. 180. AG 1570. 5.7 .0 13.4
9. NC 51 EB APPR " -304. 8 -9.1 .0 -9.1 * 305. 90. AG 1789. 5.7 .0 17.1
10. NC 51 EB QUEUE * -14. 6 -9.1 -470.5 -9.2 * 456. 270. AG 905. 100.0 .0 11.0 1.18 76.0
11. NC 51 EBLT QUEUE * -14. 6 .0 -743.5 -.2 * 729. 270. AG 613. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.88 121.5
12. NC 51 EB DEP * 0 -9.1 304.8 -9.1 ' 305. 90. AG 1409. 5.7 .0 17.1
13. NC 51 WS APPR * 304. 8 9.1 .0 9.1 * 305. 270. AG 1869. 5.7 .0 17.1
14. NC 51 WB QUEUE * 14. 6 9.1 610.0 9.2 * 595. 90. AG 942. 100.0 R .0 11.0 1.27 99.2
15. NC 51 WBLT QUEUE * 14. 6 .0 657.9 .1 * 643. 90. AS 632. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.95 107
2
16. NC 51 WB DEP * 0 9.1 -304.8 9.1 * 305. 270. AG 1959. 5.7 .0 17.1 .
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
• COORDINATES (M) R
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
________________________R------_---__-------_----_ -_------------R
1. REC 72 (SE CORNER) " 70.1 -100.6 1.8
2. REC 73 (SW CORNEA) ' - 45.7 -94.5 1.8
3. REC 74 (NW CORAR) ' - 54.9 48.8 1.8
4. REC 75 (NE CORNER) * ' 57.9 54.9 1.8
a
MODEL RESULTS
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4
_-_---*------------------------
MRX * 5.1 5.4 7.1 6.1
DEGR. * 295 8 101 254
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH. 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2510 / NC 16 AND NC 51
DATE: 06/01/1993 TIME: 13:54:04 .04
RUN: NC 16 AND NC 51 - YEAR 2001 BUILD
PAGE 2
t
SITE t METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS . .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AM - 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
f
---------------------
1. NC 16 NB APPR
2. NC 16 NB QUEUE
3. NC 16 NBLT QUEUE
4. NC 16 NB DEP
5. NC 16 SB APPR
6. NC 16 SB QUEUE
7. NC 16 SBLT QUEUE
8. NC 16 SE DEP
9. NC 51 EB APPR
10. NC 51 EB QUEUE
11. NC 51 EBLT QUEUE
12. NC 51 EB DEP
13. NC 51 WB APPR
14. NC 51 WB QUEUE
15. NC 51 WBLT QUEUE
16. NC 51 WB DEP
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 "
---"--=---------------------------------------*-
" 7. 3 -304.8 7.3 •0 "
* 7. 3 -17.1 7.3 -205.3
* 0 -17.1 .0 -727.1
" 7. 3 .0 7.3 304.8
* -7. 3 304.8 -7.3 .0 "
* -7. 3 17.1 -7.3 678.8
* 0 17.1 .0 464.1
" -7. 3 .0 -7.3 -304.8
" -304. 8 -9.1 .0 -9.1
* -14. 6 -9.1 -833.1 -9.2
* -14. 6 .0 -988.2 -•2 "
* 0 -9.1 304.8 -9.1 "
* 304. 8 9.1 .0 9.1
* 14. 6 9.1 1213.9 9.3
" 14. 6 .0 908.1 .2
* . 0 9.1 -304.8 9.1
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR " X Y Z
--- --------------------- *--------- -------- ----------- -----------*
1. REC 72 (SE CORNER) * 70.1 -100.6 1.8
2. REC 73 (SW CORNER) * - 45.7 -94.5 1.8
3. REC 74 (NW CORNER) * - 54.9 48.8 1.8
4. REC 75 (NE CORNER) * 57.9 54.9 1.8 .
sk MODEL RESULTS
-------------
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4
------*------------------------
MA( * 4.5 4.9 5.8 5.0
DEGR. * .286 7 99 253
LENGTH BRG TYPE
(M) (DEG)
----------------
305. 360. AG
188. 180. AG
710. 180. AG
305. 360. AG
305. 180. AG
662. 360. AG
447. 360. AG
305. 180. AG
305. 90. AG
816. 270. AG
974. 270. AG
305. 90. AG
305. 270. AG
1199. 90. AG
893. 90. AG
305. 270. AG
S.
VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
----------------------------------
1765. 3.8 .0 13.4
589. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.04 31.4
456. 100.0 .0 7.3 2.73 118.3
1801. 3.8 .0 13.4
1672. 3.8 .0 13.4
648. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.31 110.3
486. 100.0 .0 7.3 9.47 74.5
1960. 3.8 .0 13.4
2245. 3.8 .0 17.1
623. 100.0 .0 11.0 1.36 136.4
422. 100.0 .0 7.3 2.19 162.3
1838. 3.8 .0 17.1
2372. 3.8 .0 17.1
640. 100.0 .0 11.0 1.58 199.9
431. 100.0 .0 7.3 2.25 148.9
2455. 3.8 .0 17.1
.ti
\ -1 /L-
TABLE A3
i
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: U-2510 / NC 16 AND NC 51
DATE: 05/28/1993 TIME: 15:05:51 .52
RUN: NC 16 AND NC 51 - YEAR 2016 BUILD
l
PAGE 3
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS = .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
X U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (M)
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2
----------------------- - *-- - ---- ---------*---
1. NC 16 NB APPR * 7. 3 -304.8 7.3 .0
2. NC 16 NB QUEUE * 7. 3 -17.1 7.3 -1611.2
3. NC 16 NBLT QUEUE * 0 -17.1 .0 -1386.0
4. NC 16 NB DEP * 7. 3 .0 7.3 304.8
5. NC 16 SS APPR * -7. 3 304.8 -7.3 .0
6. NC 16 SB QUEUE * -7. 3 17.1 -7.3 2147.8
7. NC 16 SBLT QUEUE * . 0 17.1 .0 940.0
8. NC 16 SB DEP * -7. 3 .0 -7.3 -304.8
9. NC 51 EB APPR * -304. 8 -9.1 .0 -9.1
10. NC 51 EB QUEUE * -14. 6 -9.1 -2713.5 -9.5
11. NC 51 EBLT QUEUE * -14. 6 .0 -1853.8 -.4
12. NC 51 EB DEP * 0 ' -9.1 304.8 -9.1
13. NC 51 WB APPR * 304. 8 9.1 .0 9.1
14. NC 51 WB QUEUE * 14. 6 9.1 3155.5 9.5
15. NC 51 WELT QUEUE * 14. 6 .0 1853.8 .4
16. NC 51 WB DEP * 0 9.1 -304.8 9.1
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
-------°---------
*
COORDINATES (M)
x
RECEPTOR * X Y Z x
--------------- --*-------- ------------------------ -------*
'X 1. REC 72 (SE CORNER) * 70.1 -100.6 .1.8
2. REC 73 (SW CORNER) * - 45.7 -94.5 1.8
3. RSC 74 (NW CORNER) * - 54.9 48.8 1.8
4. REC 75 (HE CORNER) * 57.9 54.9 1.8
a
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REM REC2 REC3 REC4
*------------------------
MAX * 4.1 4.8 5.2 4.9
DEGR. * 283 8 97 191
LENGTH BRG TYPE
(M) (DEG) '
----------------
305. 360. AG
1594. 180. AG
1369. 180. AG
305. 360. AG
305. 180. AG
2131. 360. AG
923. 360. AG
305. 180. AG
305. 90. AG
2699. 270. AG
1839. 270. AG
305. 90. AG
305. 270. AG
3141. 90. AG
1639. 90. AG
305. 270. AG
re:,
VPB EF B w WC QUEUE
(G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
2830. 4.1 .0 13.4
466. 100.0 .0 7.3 1.70 265.7
356. 100.0 .0 7.3 4.42 228.2
2680. 3.8 .0 13.4
2760. 3.8 .0 13.4
506. 100.0 .0 7.3 2.10 355.1
376. 100.0 .0 7.3.**** 153.8
3130. 4.1 .0 13.4
3600. 3.3 .0 17.1
499. 100.0 .0 11.0 2.38 449.8
339. 100.0 .0 7.3 3.85 306.5
3120. 3.5 .0 17.1
3860. 3.5 .0 17.1
499. 100.0 .0 11.0 2.61 523.5
339. 100.0 .0 7.3 3.85 306.5
3940. 3.3 .0 17.1
v

FIGURE N1
` PROJECT LOCATION
NC 100, (vra- Rrev-iacnrc Raadf From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
TIP #U-2510, State Project # 8.1672801
N
END PROJECT r?
t

0
R
F Tom,. s? ?
•, It e
BEGIN PROJECT
6?14.1 4.1r.
A.

TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
I
i
It
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LAUD
90

D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E s0 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. 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 QUA
40

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOIA OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10

0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE BEARING
J( 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.)
.4
C:
y..
a
FIGURE N2
r
s
AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
TIP # U-2510, State Project # 8.1672801
% ? N 1
FEND PROJECT
'M

4
\ ( e
? ::FaF
?. 2
AL _LAI-
1151
i.
BEGIN PROJECT ..
R W'r
ti
chi
?? X

PIP
f'
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Y 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 roams, 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)
It
r
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.
U
fo:_
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
a State Project $ 8.1672801,TIP • U-2510.
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)

1 NC 16, .61 Miles North of Grassy Area 65
Hemby Road
la/ NC 16, .53 Miles South of Grassy Area 67
Kuykendall Road
_,,3' NC 16, .15 Miles North of Grassy Area 70
Kuykendall Road
?4 NC 16, .72 Miles South.of Grassy Area 69
NC 51
3,' NC 16, .21 Miles South of Grassy Area 70
Alexander Road
NC 16, .49 Miles North of Grassy Area 71
Alexander Road
* Background determined to be 45 dBA for the entire project.

It
N
Note:
The ambient noise levels were measured at sites 50 feet from the center
of the nearest lane of traffic. t:7
A
x

TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From.NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project N 8.1672801, TIP Y U-2510.
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
Begin Project to SR 1346 (Hamby Road)
1 Residence B NC 16 150 L 58 NC-16 150 L
2 School E " 180 R 56/<40 to 180 R
3 Church E " 140 L 58/<40 " 140 L
4 Business C to 100 R 61 " 100 R
5 Residence B " 200 R 55 " 200 R
6 Residence B '• 190 R 56 to 190 R
7 Business C " 60 R 65 " 60 R
8 Business C " 190 R 56 " 190 R
9 Residence B " 110 L 61 '. 110 L
10 Residence B '• 110 L 61 to 110 L
11 Residence B " 120 L 60 •' 120 L
12 Residence B " 140 L 58 "_ 140 L
13 Residence B " 280 R 52 to 280 R
SR 1346 (Hamby Road) to Providence Country Club
14 Residence B NC 16 140 L 56 NC 16 140 L
15 Residence B " 250 L 53 " 250 L
16 Residence B " 190 R 56 " 190 R
17 Residence B " 170 L 57 " 170 L
Providence Country Club to Cbarlotte Outer Loop
18 Residence B NC 16 200 L 57 NC 15 200 L
19 Residence B " 80 R 64 " 80 R
20 Residence B " 120 R 61 " 120 R
Char lotte Outer Loop to SR 3626 (Providence Road West)
21 Residence B NC 16 300 R 53 NC, 16 300 R
22 Residence B " 120 L 61 to 120 L
23 Residence B " 140 L 60 " 140 L
24 Residence B " 60 L 64 to 80 L
25 Residence B " 130 R 60 •' 130 R
26 Residence B to 130 R 60 •' 130 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
------------------------
1/7
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - 64 + 6
- - 62/<40 + 6/0
- - 65/40 + 7/0
- - 68 + 7
- - 61 + 6
- - 62 + 6
- - * 71 + 6
- - 62 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 67 + 6
- - * 66 + 6
- - 65 + 7
- - 60 + 8
- - 65 + 7
- - 60 + 7
- - 62 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - 63 + 6
- - * 71 + 7.,.
- - * 67 + 6
- - 62 + 9
- - * 69 + 8
- - * 68 +8
- - * 72 +8
- - * 68 + 8
- - * 68 + 8
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> PropoLed 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 (58/40). " _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
41
to

4<
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project f 8.1672801, TIP N U-2510.
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
SR 3626 (Providence Road West) to SR 4867 (Alexa Drive)
27 Business C NC 16 80 L 64 NC 16 80 L
28 Residence B " 100 R 63 of 100 R
29 Residence B " 100 R 63 " 100 R
30 Residence B " 110 R 62 " 110 R
31 Residence B " 140 R 60 " 140 R
32 Residence B " 180 L 58 to 180 L
33 Residence B " 120 R 61 " 120 R
34 Residence B " 100 R 63 " 100 R
SR 4867 (Alexa Drive) to Kuykendall Road
35 Church E NC 16 140 L 60/00 NC 16 140 L
36 Church E " 70 L 65/40 " 70 L
37 Residence B " 260 R 54 " 260 R
38 Residence B " 260 R 54 ^ 260 R
39 Residence B " 90 R 63 " 90 R
40 Residence B " 120 R 61 " 120 R
41 Residence B " 140 R 60 " 140 •R
42 Residence B " 180 R 58 to 180 R
Kuykendall Road to High Ridge
43 Residence B NC 16 60 R 69 NC 16 60 R
44 Residence B to 150 R 62 of 150 R
45 Residence B " 190 R 60 to 190 R
46 Residence B " 210 L 59 " 210 L
47 Residence B " 200 L 60 to zoo L
48 Residence B " 170 R 61 to 170 R
49 Residence B " 200 R 60 to 200 R
50 Residence B " 200 R 60 to 200 . R
51 Residence B " 200 L 60 to 200 L
52 Residence B to 160 L 63 of 160 L
53 Residence B 160 R 62 to 160 R
54 Residence B " 260 R 57 " ' 260 R
55 Residence B " 390 L 53 It 390 L
56 Residence B " 310 L 55 of 310 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
2/7
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - * 73 +9
- - * 71 + 8
- - * 71 + 8
- - * 70 + 8
- - 68 +8
- - * 66 + 8
- - * 69 +8
- - * 71 + 8
- - 68/43 + 8/3
- - 73/48 + 8/8
- - 62 + 8
- - 62 + 8
- - * 72 +9
- - * 70 + 9
- - * 68 +8
- - * 66 + 8
- - * 75 + 6
- - *68 +6
- - *66 +6 4
- - 65 + 6
- - 65 + 5
- - * 67 + 6
- - 65 + 5
- - 65 + 5
- - 65 + 5
- - * 69 + 7
- - * 68 +6
- - 63 + 6
- - 58 + 5
- - 61 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed eoadway'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).
TABLE N4 3/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project / 8.1672801, TIP S U-2510.
f
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECE PTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
. ..........
Nigh Ridge to NC 51
57 Church E NC 16 260 R 57/<40 NC 16 260 R - - 63/<40 + 6/0
58 Residence B " 280 R 56 •' 280 R - - 62 + 6
59 Residence B " 240 L 58 to 240 L - - 64 + 6
60 Church E " 230 L 58/<40 It 230 L - - 64/<40 + 6/0
61 Residence B " 140 R 63 to 140 R - - * 69 + 6
62 Residence B to 150 R 62 '• 150 R - - * 68 + 6
63 Residence B " 150 R 62 " 150 R - - * 68 + 6
64 Residence B " 130 R 63 " 130 R - - * 70 + 7
65 Residence B " 130 R 63 " 130 R - - * 70 + 7
66 Residence B " 160 R 62 " 160 R - - * 68 + 6
67 Residence B " 90 R 66 to 90 R - - * 73 + 7
68 Residence B " 80 R 67 to 80 R - - * 74 + 7
69 Business C to 200 L 60 "- 200 L - - 66 + 6
70 Business C It 160 L 62 to 160 L - - 68 + 6
71 Business C of 210 R 59 to 210 R - - 65 + 6
72 Business C to 260 R. 57 to 260 R - - 63 + 6
73 Business C " 150 L 62 of 150 L - - 68 + 6
NC 51 to Arboretum Apartment Road
74 Business C NC 16 180 L 61 NC 16 180 L - - 66 + 5
75 Residence B of 190 R 61 " 190 R - - 65 + 4
76 Residence B " 140 R 63 '• 140 R - - * 68 + 5
77 Residence B " 220 R 59 " 220 R - - 64 + 5
78 Residence B " 180 R 61 " 180 R - - * 66 + 5
79 Residence B " 150 R 63 " 150 R - - * 67 + 4
4! 80 Residence B " 320 L 55 " 320 L - - 60 + 5
81 Residence B " 290 L 56 It 290 L - - 61 + 5
Arboretum Apartment Road to Cedar Croft Subdivision
82 Residence B NC 16 120 R 65 NC 16 120 R - - * 70 + 5
83 Residence B " 120 R 65 " 120 R - - * 70 + 5
84 Residence B •' 280 L 57 " 280 L - - 62 + 5
85 Residence B " 270 L 57 " 270 L - - 62 + 5
86 Residence B " 260 L 58 " 260 L - - 62 + 4
87 Residence B " 210 L 60 •' 210 L - - 65 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
-Y --> Noiselievel from other contributi ng roadways.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise level s.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (56/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CPR Part 772).
4
.0
1*

TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union county
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project M 8.1672801, TIP k U-2510.
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR-INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft)
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
4/7
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
Arboretum Apartment Road to Cedar Croft subdivision (con't)
88
89
90 Residence
Church
Church B NC 16 170 L
E " 110 L
E " 140 L 62
65/40
•63/<40 NC 16
"
to 170
110
140 L
L
L - - * 67
- - 71/46
- - 70/45 + 5
+ 6/6
+ 7/5
Cedar Croft Subdivision to Rea Road
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100 Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence B NC 16 100 R
B it 100 R
B " 90 R
B " 80 R
B " 80 R
B " 80 R
B " 190 L
B " 140 L
B " 190 L
B " 120 R 66
66
67
68
68
68
61
63
61
65 NC 16
"

"
"
"
"
"
"
" 100
100
90
80
80
80
190
140
190
120 R
R
R
R
R
R
L
L
L
R - - * 71
- - * 71
- - * 72
- - * 73
- - * 73
- - * 73
- - 65
- - * 68
- - 65
- - * 70 + 5
+ 5
+ 5
+ 5
+ 5
+ 5
+ 4
+ 5
+ 4
+ 5
Rea Road to End Project
101
102
103
104
105

106
107
108

109

110
111

112
113

114

115

116

117

118 Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence

Residence B NC 16 160 L
B " 90 L
B " 90 L
B •' 170 L
B to 160 R

B to 110 L
B " 120 R
B "
70 R
B to 80 R

B " 90 R
B to 180 L

B " 150 L
B It 120 L

B to 100 L

B " 100 L

B to 100 L

B of 90 L

B it 150 L 63
68
68
62
63

66
65

69
68

68
62

64
65

67

67

67

68

64 NC 16
to
to
"
to

to
to

"
to

"
"

"
of

"

"

"

'•

to 160
90
90
170
160

110
120

70
80

90
180

150
120

100

100

100

90

150 L
L
L
L
R

L
R

R
R

R
L

L
L

L

L

L

L

L - - * 67
- - * 72
- - * 72
- - * 67
- - * 67

- - * 71
- - * 70

- - * 74
- - * 73

- - * 72
- - * 66

- - * 68
- - * 70

- - * 71

- - * 71

- - * 71

- - * 72

- - * 67 + 2
+ 4
+ 4
+ 5
+
4
+ 5 ?
+
5
+ 5
+
5
+ 4
+
4
+ 4
+
5
+
4
+
4
+
4
+
4
+
3
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed eadway'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).
TABLE N4 5/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project N 8.1672801, TIP Y U-2510.
i
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID M LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
-'v ..:_ ........ ...... ............ ?..: ............ .......... ..............
Rea Road to End Project (con't)
119 Residence B NC 16 80 L 68 NC 16 80 L - - * 73 + 5
120 Residence B •' 100 R 67 •' 100 R - - * 71 + 4
121 Residence B " 80 R 68 " 80 R - - * 73 + 5
122 Residence B •' 130 L 65 " 130 L - - * 69 + 4
123 Residence B '• 100 R 67 " 100 R - - * 71 + 4
124 Residence B '• 150 L 64 " 150 L - - * 68 + 4
125 Residence B " 140 L 64 " 140 L - - * 68 + 4
126 Residence B " 210 R 61 " 210 R - - 65 + 4
127 Residence B •' 130 R 65 '• 130 R - - * 69 + 4.
128 Residence B " 120 R 65 " 120 R - - * 70 + 5
129 Residence B '• 90 L 68 •' 90 L - - * 72 + 4
130 Residence B " 160 L 63 " 160 L - - * 67 + 4
131 Residence B " 140 L 64 " 140 L - - * 68 + 4
132 Residence B •' 140 L 64 " 140 L - - * 68 + 4
133 Business C " 110 L 66 " 110 L - - * 71 + 5
134 Residence B " 200 R 61 •' 200 R - - 65 + 4
135 Residence B " 160 R 63 " 160• R - - * 67 + 4
136 Residence B " 200 R 61 " 200 R - - 65 + 4
137 Residence B " 110 R 66 " 110 R - - * 71 + 5
138 Residence B " 100 R 67 " 100 R - - * 71 + 4
139 Residence B " 140 R 64 •• 140 R - - * 68 + 4
140 Residence B '• 180 L 62 '• 180 L - - * 66 + 4

.A
it
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).
l
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project # 8.1672801, TIP # U-2510.
A(
Eastern Alternative
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
'*' ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
(SR 3626) Providence Road West to (SR 4867) Alexa Drive
.f
4#
27 Business
28 Residence
29 Residence
30 Residence
141 Residence
142 Residence
143 Residence
31 Residence
33 Residence
34 Residence
144 Residence
145 Residence
146 Residence
37 Residence
147 Residence
148 Residence
149 Residence
38 Residence
39 Residence
40 Residence
41 Residence
42 Residence
C NC 16 80 L 64 Prop Alt 80 L - - * 73
B " 100 R 63 " 50 R - - * 76
B " 100 R 63 " 20 R ----------------R/W-----------
B " 110 R 62 " 10 L ----------------R/W-----------
B " 350 R 51 " 210 R - - 64
B " 350 R 51 " 140 R - - * 68
B " 480 R 47 260 R - - 62
B " 140 R 60 " 10 L -----------
B " 120 R 61 " 110 R - - * 70
B " 100 R 63 " 150 R - - * 67
B " 320 R 52 " 100 R - - * 71
B " 780 R 45 " 240 R - - 63
(SR 4867) Alexa Drive to Ruykendall Road
6/7
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
+ 9
* + 13
* + 13
* + 17
* + 15
+ 9
+ 4
* + 19
* + 18
B NC 16 760 R 45 Prop Alt 100 R - - * 71 * + 26
B " 260 R 54 " 120 R - - * 70 * + 16
B " 460 R 46 " 70 R - - * 74 * + 26
B " 420 R 49 " 150 R - - * 68 * + 19
B " 310 R 52 " 150 R - - * 68 * + 16
B " 260 R 54 ° 70 R - - * 74 * + 20
B " 90 R 63 " 10 R ----------------R/W----------------------
B " 110 R 62 " 110 R - - * 70 + 8 4
B " 140 R 60 " 140 R - - * 68 + 8
B " 180 R 58 " 180 R - - * 66 + 8
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 (56/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
1(
A
TABLE N4 7/7
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project # 8.1672801, TIP # U-2510.
Western Alternative
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
(SR 3626) Providence Road West to (SR 4867) Alexa Drive
27
28
29
32 Business
Residence
Residence
Residence C
B
B
B NC 16
'•
"
`• 80
100
100
180 L
R
R
L 64
63
63
58 Prop Alt
"
"
•' 80
200
220
180 L
R
R
R - - * 73
- - 65
- - 64
- - * 66 + 9
+ 2
+ 1
+ 8
(SR 4867) Alexa Drive to Ruykendall Road
150
151

152

153
154
155
156
157
35
36
158
39
159 Residence
Residence

Residence

Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Church
Church
Church
Residence
Residence
Business B
B

B

B
B
B
B
E
E
E
B
B
C NC 16
"

It

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
". 890
870

860

870
880
880
470
150
140
60
540
90
330 L
L

L

L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
R
L 45
45

45

45
45
45
47
59/<40
60/<40
62/<40
45
63
51 Prop Alt
"

"

"
" -
"
"
•'
"
•'
"
•'
" 360
340

330

340
340
360
10
280
290
280,
70
150

260 L
L

L

L
L
L
R
L
L
L
L
R

L - - 59
- _
59
- - 60

- - 59
- - 59
- - 59
----------------R/W-------
- - 62/<40
- - 61/<40
- - 62/<40
- - * 74
- - * 68

_ - 62 + 14

+ 14
* +
15
+ 14
+ 14
+ 14

+ 3/0
+ 1/0
0/0
* + 29
+ 5

* + 11
S
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).

TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union county
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project N 8.1672801, TIP k U-2510.
14
Maximum Predicted
Leq Noise Levels
_k dBA
Description 50' 100' 200'
Beginning to Hemby Road 70 66 60
Hemby Road to Providence Country Club 71 67 61
Providence Country Club to Outer Loop 71 67 62
Outer Loop to Providence Road West 73 69 63
-Providence Road West to Alexa Drive 73 69 64
*Alexa Drive to Ruykendall Road 74 70 64
Ruykendall Road to High Ridge 74 70 64
High Ridge to NC-51 74 70 65
NC-51 to Arboretum Apartment Road 74 69 64
Arboretum Apartment Road to Cedar Croft Rd 74 70 64
Ceder Croft Road to Rea Road 74 69 64
Rea Road to End of Project 74 70 64
40.
Eastern Alternative 73-74 69-70 64
Western Alternative 73-74 69-70 64
if
Contour Approximate Number Of Impacted
Distances Receptors According to
(Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
72 dBA- 67 dBA A B C D E

57, 114' 0 3 1 0 0
64' 127' 0 0 0 0 0
71' 132' 0 2 0 0 0
88, 159, 0 5 0 0 0
91, 163' 0 7 1 0 0
96, 172' 0 4 0 0 0
101, 178, 0 6 0 0 0
105' 185, 0 8 0 0 0
95, 168' 0 3 0 0 0
97' 172' 0 3 0 0 0
95, 168, 0 8 0 0 0
97- 172' 0 36 1 0 0

TOTALS 0 85 3 0 0
91'-96' 163'-172' 0 16 1 0 0
91'-96' 163'-172' 0 4 2 0 0
Notes:
1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
* These sections would comprise the Eastern and Western Alternatives if highwavis relocated.

4s
41

it
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 16 (Old Providence Road) From NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County
State Project M 8.1672801, TIP N U-2510.
Receptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Substantial
Noise
Section <.0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 >- 25 Increases
Beginning to Hemby Road 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hemby Road to Prov Con Club 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Prov Con Club to Outer Loop 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outer Loop to Prov Rd West 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•Prov Rd West to Alexa Drive 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
*Alexa Drive to Xuykendall Rd 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ruykendall Rd to High Ridge 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
High Ridge to NC-51 0 0 0 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC-51 to Arb Apt Road 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arb Apt Road to Cedar Croft 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cedar Croft to Rea Road 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rea Road to End of Proj 0 1 28 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 0 1 33 71 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eastern Alternative 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 2 3 2 3 0 0 2 12
Western Alternative 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 3
* These sections would comprise the Eastern and Western Alternatives if highway to. relocated.

*NX-
June 27, 1994

JtM12 9 W
22i,L DIVISION OFy
?P`b
HIGHWAYS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department
* Frank Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Frank:

V
Per our discussion last week, Mecklenburg County is prepared to
move forward with the establishment of two (2) piedmont prairies
to serve as reservoirs for Schweinitz sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). On June 20, the Board of County Commissioners
formally approved the establishment of these prairies at Latta
Plantation Park and McDowell Park and agreed to preserve these
sites in perpetuity. I am currently working with the County
Attorney and the staff of the NC Natural Heritage Program to
dedicate these prairies as state nature preserves through
conservation easements.
The proposed budget for establishing the two (2) prairies did
not involve the expenditure of County operating funds. As noted
in the budget, site preparation work and the purchase of
equipment/materials will be required prior to relocating the
sunflowers. Therefore, the County must receive the full $31,970
upfront before this project can be initiated. Please draft, as
soon as possible, any necessary documents required by NCDOT for
this exchange of .funds. To be most effective, side preparation
work should be initiated this summer.
In establishing these prairie ecosystems, the County agrees to:
• preserve the identified prairie sites in perpetuity through
conservation easements or other legal agreements;
• coordinate and supervise site preparation work;
• coordinate and supervise the planting and establishment of
native prairie grasses;
• coordinate the relocation of Schweinitz sunflowers from
Providence Road and future NCDOT project sites;
• provide long-term management and maintenance of transplanted
Schweinitz sunflowers and the entire prairie ecosystem.
700 N. Tryon Street • Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
All services are available without regard to origin, sex, or disability
Page 2
County staff are anxious to begin this exciting
forward to working with NCDOT and the U.S. Fish
Service in protecting this endangered species.
know if I can be of any assistance in drafting
agreement to facilitate the transfer of funds.
at [phone].
Sincerely,
Steve H. Law, Chief
Division of Environmental Education
and Conservation
project. We look
and Wildlife
Please let me
3 letter of
I can be reached
Copy to: R. Wayne Weston, Director
Fred H. .Gray, Deputy Director
Ronny P. Roberts, Conservation Coordinator
Gary D. Marshall, Conservation Coordinator
Janice Nichols, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dr. Larry Barden, UNC-Charlotte Biology Department

IV
°"'''L'b U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
• REGION FOUR
310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
June 30, 1994

Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and
Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vick:

In Reply Refer To:
HO-'C' C e
.,
JUL 0 S 1994
Z
Z. DIVIS10,V OF
HIGHW4A ,S
Subject: Federal-Aid Project M-5201(4), State No. 8.1672801,
U-2510, Mecklenburg County - Consultation under Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
Enclosed is a copy of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's letter
dated June 19, 1994 providing the Biological opinion concerning the
effects of the construction of the subject project on the Federally
endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzil). The
opinion reflects the agreement reached between the Service, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration at a May 26, 1994 meeting regarding participation in
the cost of a forty-two acre prairie habitat restoration project at
two county parks. The habitat project work will be performed by
the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department, The
sunflowers presently located on the NC 16 widening project will be
transplanted to the restored habitat prior to any highway
construction activities.
This Biological opinion concludes formal consultation under section
7 of the Act. Considering the length of time that may be required
to obtain the various necessary agreements with the Parks and
Recreation Department and complete work on the site, we recommend
work begin as soon as possible in order to prevent future delays to
the project. Please keep us informed of the progress being made in
the implementation of the report recommendations.
We appreciate the assistance of your staff in satisfactorily
completing the consultation process.
Sincerely yours,
l
t

For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure

C;
p,VCNi F ?tiF
i- United States Department of
D
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERNICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
June 19, 1994
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf. P.E.
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Graf:
fW:A N. G DIIMUK IN i
the 1&.t©92 u?
This letter represents the Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) concerning the effects widening NC 16
(Providence Road) in Mecklenburg and Union Counties will have on the
federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
It is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and is in response to your
April 7, 1994 (received on April 11, 1994), request to initiate formal
consultation. This Opinion does not address requirements of
environmental laws other than the Act. A complete record of-this
consultation is maintained and available for your review at this office.
Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to
widen NC 16 from Weddington in Union County to Charlotte in Mecklenburg
County, a distance of approximately 9.5 miles. The project will involve
widening the existing two-lane road to a four-lane facility. The project
will involve the clearing of approximately 17 acres of pine forest,
5 acres of hardwood forest, 32 acres of mixed pine/hardwood forest, and
65 acres of man-dominated communities (e.g., lawns, road rights-of-way).
The project will also involve impacts to approximately 0.9 acre of
wetlands associated with Sixmile Creek, Rocky Branch, Four Mile Creek,
and McAlpine Creek within the Catawba River Watershed. Environmental
impacts for the proposed project were outlined in a Natural Resources
Technical Report prepared by the NCDOT (NCDOT 1991). The NCDOT is in the
process of preparing an environmental assessment for the proposed
project. This project will receive funds from the Federal Highway
Administration (T.I.P. No. U-2510).
Consultation History
Surveys for federally listed endangered and threatened species were
conducted by the NCDOT in 1991.which led to the discovery of two colonies
cf'Helianthus schweinitzii within the right-of-way of the proposed
project. Both colonies are located just north of Rea Road, one on the
east side of NC 16 (east colony) and one on the west side of the road
(west colony). A NCDOT biologist notified the Service of these colonies
and the proposed project in December 1991. the NCDOT held an internal
meeting on December 16, 1992, to discuss possible alignments in relation
to the two Helianthus colonies and meeting minutes were transmitted to
the Service. Minutes indicated that the NCDOT was attempting to avoid
` both sunflower colonies with an asymmetric alignment (avoiding the west
colony) placing the east colony in a grassy median.
In a January 13, 1993, telephone conversation with a NCDOT biologist, the
Service expressed concern regarding the above mentioned proposal to put
one of the sunflower colonies .in the median. At that time, the Service
recommended (1) studying an asymmetric alignment to the west which would
impact the west colony and avoid the east colony; and (2) holding an on
site meeting between the Service and the NCDOT to discuss the proposed
project and possible alignments. This telephone conversation was
documented by the NCDOT and sent to the project engineer on January 27,
1993.
The Service then received a copy of a January 20, 1994, internal NCDOT
memorandum which indicated that an alignment had been selected for
further study. The alignment would widen asymmetrically to the west and
would impact the west sunflower colony. The NCDOT made a "no effect"
determination based on their understanding that the west sunflower colony
may be hybrids and thus, not protected under the Act. During a February
25, 1994, conference call with the NCDOT, the Service discussed this
misunderstanding regarding the colonies' hybrid status and disagreed with
a "no effect" determination.
On April 7, 1994, the Federal Highway Administration provided a
Biological Assessment which documented that the proposed project may
affect Helianthus schweinitzii. The Service requested an on site meeting
to further discuss this project, which was held on April 19, 1994. At
this meeting, the NCDOT presented the proposed alignment. The presently
proposed alignment will destroy both east and west colonies of Helianthus
schweinitzii along NC 16. Another meeting was held on May 26, 1993, in
Raleigh to identify measures to offset impacts to the sunflower colonies.
Species Status
Helianthus schweinitzii is perennial herb of the aster family
(Asteraceae). This species is endemic to the upper piedmont of the
Carolinas and the currently recogniTed range centers around Charlotte,
North Carolina; and Rock Hill, South Carolina. Historical descriptions
of the Charlotte area portrayed vast open prairies and blackjack oak/post
oak savannas and woodlands. It is believed that the sunflower inhabited
these prairie areas and open woodlands. However, with fire suppression
and pressing development, these habitats have either succeeded into
oak-pine-hickory forests or have been severely degraded and fragmented.
Presently, this species occurs in relatively open habitats--early
successional fields, forest ecotonal margins, or forest clearings. It
thrives in full sun but also grows in the light shade of open stands of
oak-pine-hickory. Regarding the species' present distribution, Dr. Larry
Barden of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte points out "the
fact that a majority of the extant populations are on road rights-of-way
might lead one to conclude that the species is 'weedy'; i.e., able to
colonize new sites through mobile seeds ...most newly discovered
populations appear to be well-established and are 'old,' not merely newly
observed (Barden 1993)."
Y Helianthus schweinitzii generally occurs on soils characterized as moist
to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy-clay loams that often have a high
gravel content. The draft recovery plan for this species points out the
importance of soils--"The geology and soils of this area appear to be an
important determining factor in the occurrence of Schweinitz's
sunflower." Helianthus schweinitzii is known from a variety of soil
types, including Iredell (Fine, Montmorillonitic, Thermic Typic
Hapluduff), Enon (Fine, Mixed, Thermic Ultic Hapludalf), and Cecil
(Clayey, Kaolinitic, Thermic Typic Hapludult) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1993).
The species was officially listed as endangered on May 7, 1991, due to
imminent threats and long-term vulnerability. At the time of listing,
only 13 populations were known to exist (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1991). In the past few years, a number of additional populations have
been found in both North and South Carolina; there are now approximately
64 populations (27 in North Carolina and 37 in South Carolina). While
seemingly more secure due to the boost in known populations, a majority
of the populations are extremely vulnerable and only a few are afforded
long-term protection. Indeed, as the Charlotte metropolitan area
continues to grow, sunflower habitat is increasingly under threat from
urban/suburban development.
Only two populations in North Carolina are presently protected; one
occurs on a preserve owned by The Nature Conservancy and the other is on
privately owned lands under a management agreement with The Nature
Conservancy. In North Carolina, approximately 70 percent of the known
populations occur on NCDOT rights-of-way. Of these sites over 50 percent
have been adversely impacted through herbicide applications, road
construction and mowing during the wrong time of year. Indeed, herbicide
was applied inadvertently to one of the largest populations in North
Carolina (McCoy Road site) in August 1993. Out of a population of
800 plants observed in 1992, only one surviving plant was observed in
September 1993 (Barden 1993).
Effects of the Action
This project as proposed will resu4t in the complete destruction of two
colonies of Helianthus schweinitzii. All plants and available habitat
will be destroyed during construction.
Alignment shifts, to avoid or minimize impacts to the plant colonies,
were discussed, but NCDOT determined that design changes were not
feasible due to safety concerns and other considerations (e.g., the road
must be widened to the west to accommodate a new bridge over McAlpine
Creek just north,.of the sunfl.ower colonies).
At the May 26, 1994, meeting, the NCDOT agreed to fund a prairie
restoration project to offset impacts to Helianthus schweinitzii from to
this project. Funding will be provided to the Mecklenburg County Parks
and Recreation Department and will be provided as soon as possible prior
to construction so that restoration activities can begin. The NCDOT also
agreed to allow Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department and
Dr. Larry Barden of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte to
transplant any specimens of Helianthus schweinitzii to restoration sites
prior to any construction activities.
The restoration proposal, developed by Dr. Barden and Mr. Steve Law of
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department, will involve the
restoration of 42 acres of prairie habitat at two county parks; Latta
Plantation Park (27 acres) and McDowell Park (15 acres) and will cost
$31,970 (see attached budget proposal). These sites were selected
because of proper soils, vegetation associations, and availability.
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation, in consultation with Dr. Barden,
will conduct the restoration activities--site preparation, prescribed
burning, planting, and monitoring. They will also transplant any
Helianthus schweinitzii specimens from the NC 16 project area to these
sites. Any Federal candidate species such as Heller's trefoil (Lotus
purshianus var. helleri) and/or State listed species will also be
transplanted. Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department and/or
Dr. Barden will contact the North Carolina Department of Agriculture,
Plant Conservation Division, regarding the need for any permits to
transplant specimens.
Transplanting endangered or threatened plant species from project impact
areas, while minimizing impacts to individuals, is generally not
recommended. The intent of the Act is to protect the ecosystems upon
which these federally listed species depend. Thus, protecting habitat is
considered to be a key factor for ensuring survival and recovery of
listed species. While this project will involve the destruction of
habitat and transplanting Helianthus schweinitzii individuals, it will
also include the restoration of historical habitat and ecosystem
management. These sites will be protected in perpetuity by the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department through a written
agreement with the Service.
Biological Opinion
The discovery of these two additional colonies of Helianthus
schweinitzii, in addition to the 51 new populations located since the
species was listed, is an important consideration in assessing the
species' status and the impact of toe project. While many of the
existing populations are degraded and/or declining for various known and
unknown reasons and only a couple of the populations are assured
long-term protection, the species does not appear to be in imminent
danger of extinction. In addition, this project will result in two new
sites that are protected in perpetuity, and it is the Service's opinion
that this project will result in a net gain towards recovery of the
species. The existing sunflower habitat along NC 16 is somewhat degraded
(the east colony site is heavily overgrown and backs up to a residential
subdivision and the west colony occurs under a power line along a road
bank which may have been impacted during power line maintenance since the
number of stems has declined). In view of this, it is our biological
opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of Helianthus schweinitzii.
Incidental Take
Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act do not apply to the incidental
R take of listed plant species. However, protection of listed plants is
provided to the extent that Section 9 of the Act requires a Federal
permit for removal or reduction to possession of endangered plants from
areas under Federal jurisdiction, or any act that would remove, cut, dig
e up, or damage or destroy any such species on any other area in knowing
violation of any regulation of any State or in the course of any
violation of a State criminal trespass law.
Conservation Recommendations
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. The term conservation recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat, help implement recovery plans, or
develop information.
The Service requests that the following conservation recommendation be
implemented by the NCDOT as part of the project plans: assist the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department and Dr. Barden with
the transplanting effort and provide an additional $3,000 to the Service
for the development and printing of a fact sheet on prairies and other
unique habitats in Mecklenburg County for educational purposes.
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions that either
minimize or avoid adverse effects or that benefit listed species or their
habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.
This concludes formal consultation under Section 7 of the Act. As
required in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is
required if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species ina manner not previously
' considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner which
was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified
action.
F The Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the assistance and cooperation
of the NCDOT, particularly staff members, Ms. Theresa Hart, Ms. Susan
Corda, and Mr. Randy Turner. Please keep us informed as to the progress
of this project. In any future correspondence pertaining to this
project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-91-096.
Sinc rely,
rian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Dr. Larry Barden, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Department
of Biology, Charlotte, NC 28223
Mr. Randy Turner, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning
and Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
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
Mr. Roy Shelton, Federal Highways Administration, P.O. Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801
Regional Director, FWS, Atlanta, GA (ES/TE, Attention: Mr. Richard
Hannan)
W
References
Barden, Dr. Larry. 1993. TNC Element Stewardship Abstract for
Helianthus schweinitzii. Report to The Nature Conservancy. 15 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1991. Natural Resources
Technical Report for NC 16 Union and Mecklenburg Counties. 19 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for
Helianthus schweinitzii. Federal Register 56(88):21088-21091.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Agency Draft Schweinitz's
Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 43 pp..

.

V,
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF
HELIANTHUS SCHWEINITZII/PIEDMONT PRAIRIE SITE:
AT LATTA PLANTATION MARK AND MCDOitiELL PARK

•

SITE PREPARATION
$ 4,520
• Latta Plantation Park (27 acres)
- drum crop ($100/acre): 27 acres @ $100 $ 2,710
- fire break - blade ($200/mile): 1 mile $ 2D0
- site prep burr. (Conservation Staff) -c-
McDowell Park (15 acres)
- disking ($12/acre): 3 treatments @ $180 $ 540
- mowing ($12/acre): 6 mowings @ $i80 $ i,GEO
- fire break - disk (Conservation Stafi) -0-
TRANSPLANTING/PLANTING $ 0
• Heliant'rus schwein.itzii (Conservation Staff' -0-
prairie grasses/wildflowers (Conservation. Staff) -0-
EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS $24,950
• fire school training: 3 @ $500 $ 1,5:0
• firesuit & accessories: 6 @ $220 $ 1,320
fire weather instrument kit: 1 @ $120 $ 120
• drip torch: 1 @ $140 $ 10
• collapsible backpack firefighting pump:
6 @ $120 $ 720
• fire rake: 6 @ $30 $ 180
• fire swatter flap: 6 @ $40 $ 240
• chain saw: 1 @ $400 $ 00
• herbicide $ 100
• prairie grass seed mix (Big Bluestem,
Little Bluestem, Indian Grass):
42 acres @ $180/acre $ 7,560
• prairie wildflower seed mix:
42 acres @ $240/acre $10,0=0
• broadcast seed spreader: 3 @ $80 $ 2:0
• cultipacker: 1 @ $1250 $ 1,250
• deer exclosure fencing and posts $ 1,0:0
• misc..supplies $ =:0
TECHNICAL ADVISOR, PROJECT MONITORING, AND REPORTS
• Dr. Larry Barden tUNCC)? 10 days @ $250/day $2,500
TOTAL
$ 2,500
$31,970
FM208
11-06-91
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116--WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
.
NC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
TERESA HART DIRECTOR
HIGHWAY BLDG N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
INTEROFFICE
• PROJECT DESCRIPTION
S4"13PING/WIDENING OF NC 16 FROM NC84 IN UNION COUNTY TO THE EXISTING FO
UR LANES IN MECKLENBURG CO
SkI NO 92E42200198 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
SH3ULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS# PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
L.L. REGION F

?-VA?t
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
G
0
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobg6 Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
C-
-
MEORANDUM
y
R
S
L
(t _
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee?
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 92-0198 - Scoping - Widen NC 16 North of Weddington,
Mecklenburg County
DATE: October 31, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If additional
information is needed during the preparation of the environmental
document, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
MM: bb
r
Attachments
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
A„ Fn-al nnnnrnuiin Arfirmari-- Arm- Fmnlnrrr
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
October 14, 1991

0
Memorandum -
TO: Melba McGee I? `z??? iL ?yti
THROUGH: Carol Tingley `
FROM: Stephen Hall, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Widen NC 16 North of Weddington, Mecklenburg
County
REFERENCE: 92-0198,
The Natural Heritage Program database contains a record for one
rare species of plant occurring in the vicinity of the project.
Southeastern bold goldenrod (Solidago rigida var. glabrata),
considered significantly rare in North Carolina, was observed
growing next to NC 16 approximately 1.1 miles south of the
junction with NC 51. This record is quite old, however, and the
presence of this population not been verified in recent years.
3199
Xb

w
io
e M STATj i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natura sotirces
Division of Environmental Health
Western Regional Office • Moore III
Black Mountain, North Carolina 28711f2-
[phone] -
James G. Martin, Governor Richard K. Rowe
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary ,Division Director
October,17, 1991

TO: Ms. Linda Sewall 0 OC73991
Deputy Director D ??
Division pf Environmental Health
?? PLANNING &
FROM: E D. Herndon -- ASSESSMENT
Regional Engineer ?lc'j,, - qyf
SUBJECT: Clearinghouse Project
No. 92-0198
Widen NC 16 (Old Providence Road)
Union, Mecklenburg County
We have reviewed the data submitted regarding the referenced Highway Project.

We have no objection to the project as proposed. If additional comments are
needed, please advise.
EDH/ab
Th•s WQS
An Fqual Oppnrtunity Affirmative Action Employer
RECEIVED
OCT D 3 1991
State of North Carolina UAUTY SECT!`'
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resource
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Chaves H. Gardner
Director
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: _ qa-OIQ$ County: (ML v.,, Ystk
flC I(v,?rcrn NCS?J,n u?11 o?C? 1. ?_y,s1,??y (--c ,%?_a nr; (ems ryLz k.CC'•
Project Name: -( ss_ ?r??- 1,?- ?• I(n'7.].QOf ?"A m-s?ol (4) 2S _(o3?9Ca?
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact .geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 17611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached) ??. Ix
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at 9) A37 3.W .
Revie ear Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
?f any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
' Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
.reased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
x should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information ntact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
/'-23- I/
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportuniry Affirmative Action Employer
• 1.2 `q
• v N
• r' r
o '? v ` •? N
n W , o,
_ D
Li b W
C, xu? l1J
)1ZE ?-

t
O
t'
,y

I Vim. s
:Yf

?C
,?1
?`?" tie.; ?,?I iN •m '.?. r1 nom..

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Co 6 'ssion KN-
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391"-=`==
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment,-Health, & Natural Resources
/
FROM: Dennis St6wart, Manager D, 0,
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: October 21, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation regarding fish and wildlife concerns for
a project to widen NC 16 (Old Providence Road), from NC
84 in Union County to existing four lanes in
Mecklenburg County, Union and Mecklenburg Counties,
North Carolina
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J.
Ward, P. E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the widening of NC 16, from NC 84 in Union County
to an existing four lane in Mecklenburg County.
The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is concerned over
direct and indirect adverse impacts on wildlife, fisheries, and
wetland resources within and adjacent to the construction
corridor.
Due to limited information in Mr. L. J. Wards' memorandum of
September 19, 1991 we can express our concerns and requests for
information only in general terms. Our ability to evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing project environmental documents will be enhanced by
inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the study
corridors. Potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories.
Memo Page 2 October 21, 1991
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including State and
Federal species of special concern, within, adjacent
to, or utilizing study corridors.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
projected related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
i habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with fragmentation.
6. The need for channelizing or relocating portions of
streams crossed and the extent of such activities.
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
8. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
9. Any discussions or other action regarding right-of-way
acquisition. This information is very important in
that it will allow resource agencies to prioritize work
loads as environmental documents are released. If
right-of-way acquisition has already been initiated
prior to review of environmental documents, as has been
the case with some highway projects in the past, then
there is little need for reviewing and commenting on
the document.
Be advised that the Wildlife Resources Commission is not
likely to provide a favorable review for any alternative which
does not clearly avoid, minimize, and mitigate destruction or
degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please call on us.
DLS\lp
cc: Steve Pozzanghera, Piedmont Habitat Conservation Biologist
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources b7 ;-41)
t
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
r
C
x r
C
C
C
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Due Date:
9.),419 io-/-,?-S/
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must 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
Regional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facilitygranted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days _
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
'
(NIA)
7 days
Well Construction Permit NIA
(15 days) -
Application copy must be served on each riparian property ovlner. 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal, Dredge and Fill Qermit. r ,

Pprmi,I,Utconstruct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources NIA :?:,;
?. 2,A .5 (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.

Demolition or renovations of structures containing 1
r
asbestos material must be in compliance with '1 60 days
NCAC 213.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA i•..;
prior to demolition.
(90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity: An erosion & sedimentation control plan
will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
1 exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources requirec "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (NIA)
404 permit from.Corps of Engineers.
Ps405 Continued on reverse

C
C
C
C
e
E
C
C
C
0
Normal process

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (N/A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (N/A)
of riparian property.

401 Water Quality Certification
N/A 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(180 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$10.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

CQ - /AJJaV.,aW7 lWFV 7-0 7/La ?. ?-C?iNF7,t L?"?
l . k)
CIMI
/
I
(9 Alky W01.1 bey nc5 c°_ c{eCQ ? p /o////f/ ?o viz q/

A _C
reviewer signature agency date
? Asheville Regional Office
r 59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
51.6208
/,)2
Moorseville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
STAIZ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Stanford M. Adams
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Griffiths Forestry Center Director
2411 Garner Road
' Clayton, North Carolina 27520 11 October 3, 1991 ? ?n ?1J3
?nil
MEMORANDUM T
c-
TO: Melba McGee a
6 r
Environmental Assessment Unit /
FROM: Don H. Robbins
Staff Forester
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping
Charlotte, N.C
County, N.C.
PROJECT #92-0198
DUE DATE 10-18-91
for the Proposed Widening & Improvements to
16 Highway from NC 84 in Union County to Mecklenburg
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 widening for the possible right-of-way purchases for
the project:
1. The total forest land acreage that would be taken out of forest
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil
series, that would be involved within the proposed right-of-way.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed
project.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Melba McGee
Project #92-0198
Page 2
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to- sell any
merchantable timber that is to be removed. This practice is
OL 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.
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 the improvements would have least impact to forest and
related resources in that area.
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
+•
9
W
?aM
ti
aw, vd'? 1?
i
,9

w
i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611..
James G. Martin, Governor David W. Sides
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
October 7, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to NC 16 in Mecklenburg and Union
Counties. Project No. 92-0198
The proposal is to widen an existing roadway. The impact on
unique, prime, or statewide important farmlands would be minimal.
Soil survey information is available for both counties. The
general location map shows the project crossing.several,creeks.
Impacts on wetlands and a wetland evaluation should be included
in the environmental assessment.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
- Enual Onnominim, Affirmative Action Emnlover
?,.. STAIZ.
North Carolina Department of

James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 22, 1991

MEMORANDUM
„J.
urces
rv
n of Archives and History
liam S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation I
FRAM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 16 (Old Providence Road) from NC 84 in Union County
to existing four lanes in Mecklenburg County, Union
and Mecklenburg Counties, U-2510, 8.1672801, M-5201(4),
RS-6329(2), CH 92-E-4220-0198
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within
the general area of the project:
Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemetery. 10140 Providence Road
(NC 16), Charlotte, Mecklenburg County. The Providence Presbyterian
Church and Cemetery was included in the National Register of Historic
Places on June 1, 1982.
Murkland United Presbyterian Church. East side of SR 3620, 0.4
• mile northwest of SR 3624, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County. The
Murkland United Presbyterian Church was included in our state study
list on January 11, 1990, as appearing potentially eligible for the
National Register.
The following six historic structures are a part of the Weddington
Historic District (Union County) which was included in our state
study list on November 16, 1991:
Former Weddington School. West side of NC 16 at junction with
NC 84.
Weddington United Methodist Church. South side of NC 84 at
the southeast junction with NC 16.
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
October 22, 1991, Page Two
William Hemby House. 1932 NC 84.
Thomas-Wrenn House. NC 84 at the northwest junction with SR
1344.
i
Matthews-Price House. West side of NC 16, 0.2 mile south of
NC 84.
Delaney Family House. South side of NC 84, 0.15 mile east of
NC 16, Weddington, Union County. The Delaney Family House has
not been evaluated for National Register eligibility.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that
any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
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: State Clearinghouse
Federal Highway Administration
B. Church

?, S[A7E °?
\ J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary

September 2, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for the widening
of NC 16 from NC 84 to existing four lanes,
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, U-2510,
8.1672801, M-5201(4), RS-6329(2), ER 94-7213
Dear Mr. Graf:
F'
Z?0
Z
pN
NIRHWq P
oNlvrEt
Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1993, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Suzanne Pickens for Greiner, Inc., concerning the above project.
The following property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places:
Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemetery (MK 26). The property was
placed on the National Register on June 1, 1982, under Criteria A, B, and C.
Please see our comments regarding the National Register boundaries in the
attachment.
The following property is included in our state study list:
Weddington Historic District (UN 99, 177, 249, 250, 388, 418, 419). The
historic district was placed on the state study list on November 16, 1983.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Weddington Historic District (UN 99, 177, 249, 250, 388, 418, 419).
Criterion A--The district is a superb Union County example of a rural village
which developed around a private academy. Criterion C--The district
contains an excellent collection of diverse and intact residential and
institutional architecture. Please see our comments regarding the district's
boundaries in the attachment.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places since both have undergone numerous character-altering
changes::
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
Nicholas L. Graf
September 2, 1993, Page 2
Heeseman-McCrary House (No. 1)
House (No. 2)
The following properties were included in the photographic inventory showing all
structures over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect but were not
evaluated in the report. Based upon the photographs, we concur these structures
are not eligible for listing in the National Register:
Stone Cottage (No. 3)
House (No. 4)
Farmhouse (No. 5)
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior. Specific concerns and/or corrections. which need to be addressed in
the preparation of an addendum are attached for the author's use.
Also, we have not yet received the USGS map locating all seven properties over
fifty years of age nor any survey site forms prepared by the principal investigator
for the project. We requested these background materials at the July 21, 1993
meeting between members of the Historic Preservation Office, Federal Highway
Administration, and North Carolina Department of Transportation. Please forward
the materials with the addendum to the report.
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.
Si y,
rook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachment
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
Suzanne Pickens
Charlotte/Mecklenburg County Historic
Landmarks Commission
Historic Structures Survey Report
for the widening of NC 16 from NC 84
to existing four lanes,
Mecklenburg and Union Counties,
U-2510, 8.1672801, M-5201(4), RS-6329(2), ER 94-7213
4 Specific Comments
1. Providence Presbyterian Church and Cemetery. We understand Federal
Highway Administration proposes to amend the existing National Register
boundaries for the property. We also understand Federal Highway
Administration will provide at a later date the additional information we
requested during the July 21, 1993, meeting; specifically, history of the land
behind the church and between the church and the manse as well as an
indication of the potential for archaeological sites in these areas.
2. Weddington Historic District. Although we concur the historic district is
eligible for the National Register, we are unable to determine if the proposed
boundaries are appropriate.. As we noted during the July 21, 1993 meeting,
we need the following information regarding the historic district:
a) It appears that tax parcel No. 44 borders the west side of NC 16 except
at tax parcels No. 46, 47, 48, and 48A. Why does the proposed
northern and eastern boundary exclude a portion of the parcel belonging
to the farm complex (No. 7 in the Weddington Historic District)?
b) The southern boundary is drawn through a lake. Although the boundary
appears to follow the line between tax parcels No. 37 and 39, if the lake
is historically associated with the house and outbuildings (No. 18 and
18A) which are contributing structures to the historic district, then the
boundary needs to be adjusted.
10

1rir.-crlV74 11:40 i1kom HPO TO 33585 P.02

ewe o?
Nortb Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Nwit JL, C10"Mor •
Bay ftY fin. S=cwy
March 29, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widening NC 16 from NC 84 to existing four
lanes, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, U-2510,
ER 94-8429
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Vi+IW= S. Prkx. Jr.. Dircctcr
Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1994, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the additional information provided to us concerning the
proposed amendment to the National Register boundary for the Providence
Presbyterian Church and Cemetery. We understand that the land behind the
church is not historically associated with the property since the church did not
acquire tax parcels 48 and 49 until 1986 and 1987. Thus, based upon the
documentation provided, we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's
determination that the proposed amended National Register boundaries-as shown
in Figure I1--are appropriate.'
We are concerned, however, about comments made in Greiner's December. 6,
1993 letter to the North Carolina Department of Transportation enclosed for our
review. In the letter, Greiner indicates that tax parcels 48 and 49 are "devoid of
standing structures and wooded" and that the "lack of standing structures places
us outside our purview in regard to this project." Please note that although land
may lack structures, it may be associated with the property historically and help
convey the property's historic setting. It was for this reason we requested the.
additional information on parcels 48 and 49. When selecting boundaries for a
historic property, we feel it is important to fully consider the historical significance
and integrity of the physical environment of a property.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 Fast Jooes sm - Rawoy Piaeth Cudba 276012W7
rir+K-c?-l??4 11;47 rnul•i hrru TO 33585 P.03

Nicholas L. Graf
March 29, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration: 'if you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' cerety,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
CC;- H. F. Vick
B. Church
Greiner, Inc.
Charlotte/Mecklenburg Historic
Landmarks Commission
•

16

North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
[phone]

September 30, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Cap s, ivision of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 92-E-4220-0198
N.C. DOT - Widening of NC 16 in Union County
y
a
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order
123, a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ?i -
P.O. BOX 1890
?i WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 1, 1991
Planning Division
it
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch © r
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of September 19, 1991, subject:
"Charlotte, NC 16 (Old Providence Road), From NC 84 in Union
County to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County, Union and
Mecklenburg Counties, U-2510, State Project #8.1672801, F. A.
#M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2)" and offer the following comments.
Mecklenburg and Union Counties and the city of Charlotte have
Flood Insurance Studies prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and participate in the Flood Insurance Program.
There are several streams within the area of the project. The
design of the roadway in the flood plains should ensure that there
will be no significant increase in flood stages and no greater
than a 1.0-foot increase in the floodway surcharge where a
regulatory floodway exists.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will than consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review the plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Steve Lund of our Regulatory Branch, Asheville, North
Carolina, at [phone].
-2-
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
s we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
a
ti
2,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
:J
9 i . g NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

116 West Edenton Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27603-1712
mrmnDAmmim
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H r
Assistan perintendent
Auxiliar r ices
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent
October 31, 1991 -^
g 9
\?A}?CH 8??c•
RE: Charlotte, NC 16 (Old Providence Road), from NC 84 in Union County to
Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County, Union and Mecklenburg Coun-
ties, U-2510, State Project #8.1672801, R.A. #M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2)
Please find attached communication from Charles R. Allison, III, Assistant
Superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment
an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer
?iJ J k
MECKLENBURG CO
Board of County Commissi
# October 23, 1991
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
r1 AV N!
??c?C?11?i?Il11Cl ?d
€4 >r 9 130
6
Q ! ?
Subject: NC 16 Widening from NC 84 in Union County to Existing
Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County: T.I.P. Project U-2510
Dear Mr. Ward:
As chairman of the Mecklenburg County Board of County
commissioners, let me express our appreciation for the North
Carolina Department of Transportation's Providence Road (NC 16)
widening project and urge that it be implemented as quickly as
possible. We also appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
project's planning. You have already received comments from local
transportation staff coordinated under the signature of Bob
Pressley and a supplement to that memo from our Parks Department
Planning Chief, Nancy Brunnemer. I agree with the issues raised in
those memos and wish to emphasize the following:
1) Providence Road has a median for most of its length. The
community strongly endorses a median for this project.
2) It appears that several sections of Providence Road will need
to be six lanes by 2010. Even if the full cross section is
not built as part of this project, right-of-way limits should
be set up for that cross section and current construction
should be designed to minimize disruption when the future
" cross section is built.
3) The design and construction must provide for grade separated
continuity of the greenway trail system (existing and
programmed) along McAlpine, Four Mile, and Six Mile Creeks.
4) Providence Road passes through the most rapidly suburbanizing
area of Mecklenburg County. If we are to make the road a part
of the community through which it passes rather than a barrier
to the community, it must have provisions for pedestrians and
bicyclists. We suggest wider outside lanes and sidewalks as
a way of providing for these other transportation modes.
OCT 25 '91
600 East Fourth Street • P.O. Box 31787 • Charlotte, North Carolina 28231 0 [phone]
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
October 23, 1991
Page 2
5) Providence Presbyterian Church is on the National Register of
Historic Places and is very important in the evolution of our
community. Dr. Dan Morrill of our Historic Landmarks
Commission [phone], would be happy to work with you to
examine alternatives for the road and mitigation techniques
for the property.
6) Please coordinate the design of and submit plans for all major
drainage crossings to Ed Myers of our Engineering Department
[phone], for coordination with FEMA and possible
letters of map revision to our floodway maps.
We look forward to working with NCDOT on this very important
project to our community. If you need any assistance, please
contact Bill Coxe of our Engineering Department at 336-3745.
Sincerely,
T. Rodney A e hairman
Mecklenburg County
Board of Commissioners
RA/WSC/b
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Dr.
Mr.
Mr.
fs
Bob Pressley
Wayne Weston
Dan Morrill
Bobbie Shields
Bill Coxe
ti
Auxiliary Services
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Post Office Box 30035
Charlotte, North Carolina 28230 John A. Murphy
Telephone: [phone] Superintendent
1991

October 29, 1991

Mr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
NC Dept. of Public Instruction
Education Building
116 West Edenton Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-1712
Re: Charlotte, NC 16 (Old Providence Road), from NC 84 in Union County
to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County, Union and Mecklenburg
Counties, U-2510, State Project #8.1672801, R.A. #M-5201(4) and
RS-6329(2)
Dear Charles:
The subject project will enhance the safe transportation of students
significantly. Our only concern relates to those construction options
that include a median which may extend some routes to serve both sides
of the divided highway.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond.
Sincerely,
Charles R. Allison III
Assistant Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
CRA/ddh
cc: Walt Neely
Administrative Offices Education Center 701 East Second Street

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS. WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project M-S214 I)anG R,5 -632gW
19
State Project R, 1&7,260Z
T. I. P. No. It -a7670
s
8b
Description:
r211M t r&eLOTIf J&?-lt0AW uTez Lmo
Tn Ew s?? ?w ?r? -car ?v? G?1ftk:[.y
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities
on essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park,
recreation land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
located adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used
impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land,
in whole or in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ..................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................. 1 acre
greater than 100 acres .............. 1 percent of site
Yes No
/o
a?
F? z
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and habitat effects,
aesthetic values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land D /
impair the use of such land for its intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the assessment
of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the /F]
proposed mitigation for, the Section 4(f) lands?
f
Yes No
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or
improved with funds under the Land and Water
Conservation Act (Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus
property)?
F-1 v,,,-
8. If the project involves lands described in Item 7
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object a
to the land conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? c?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or impacts ?
of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the hi hwa without using the
adjacent public ark recreationa land or
a wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management ? a
measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
Fm) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
l;
i
Ik

M.
3.
Note:
3
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or Seconomic substantial social, environmental, or
impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
Build an improved facility on new location without
Using-the public park, recreational and or wildlife
and waterfowl re uae. (This would be a localized
run aroun
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts.
or (Ror a substantial increase in project cost
engineering difficulties .
and (Rof such impacts, costs, or difficulties
truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
-t,/ 7
Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
i
I&

4
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1.
The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm.
Yes No
2.
Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least
comparable value.
/17
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project
including sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, trees
and other facilities.
Cc? Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
O Incorporation of design features and habitat features,
where necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
Q Payment of the fair market value of the land and
improvements taken or improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation measures as
determined necessary based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
3.
A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
5f-E Pie 4- q

4A
The greenway at Four Mile Creek has not been developed to date, but
the objective under the Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan is to
complete acquisition of flood plain along this creek and construct a
continuous trail. This greenway designation extends eastward to the Town
of Mathews and westward to the Town of Pineville. More than 100 acres
s have been acquired along this creek. The greenway at Four Mile Creek will
be impacted by the widening improvement of NC 16. The proposed widening
of NC 16 will cross this greenway and is the subject of this projects'
section 4(f) involvement.
Since this project involves the widening of an existing facility, the
proposed improvement at Four Mile Creek will necessitate the taking of
right-of-way from greenway property adjacent to the existing road. To
mitigate impacts to this greenway system the NCDOT will construct a
culvert or structure to accommodate the greenway trail underneath the road
for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The Mecklenburg County Park and
Recreation Department prefers a bridge at Four Mile Creek. The type and
size of culvert or structure will be determined during final design. The
NCDOT will coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation
during design of the bridge.or culvert to insure adequate provision for
crossing is provided for pedestrians and bicyclist. The NCDOT will also
utilize AASHTO standards in developing the pedestrian/bicycle crossing.
Additionally, the NCDOT will pay the current owner fair market value for
property acquired from this greenway.
The "do nothing" alternative has been considered during the
development of this project. Because there are both advantages and
disadvantages associated with almost any major highway project, it is
important to give consideration to the option of not constructing the
project. Some of the advantages of the project include enhanced traffic
carrying capability, enhanced access to future development, improved
mobility for emergency vehicles, and a decreased expenditure of time and
money by motorists.
Some disadvantages of building the project include impacts to the
McAlpine Creek Greenway and the Four Mile Creek Greenway; expenditure of
funds, the acquisition of additional right-of-way resulting in the
displacement of families, the taking of wetland and forest resources, and
an increase in noise.
A critical need to relieve congestion on NC 16 exists between the
Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the existing multilane Section near
Blueberry Lane. For these reasons, the "do nothing" alternate is not
recommended.
Widening this facility without utilizing the Section 4(f) resource
would create substantial environmental impacts since it would involve
relocating the road. Many homes, businesses, schools and churches would
be impacted by this relocation. This scenario would be extremely costly
and environmentally disrupting. This option is not considered prudent.
In conclusion, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the
use of this Section 4(f) resource.
5
/' COORDINATION
f The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies -
C. US Coast Guard -
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved -
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criterial included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated andfethe asible findings
prudent are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
are
be harm, there the
The project includes all possible nimizie harm will minimize
assurances that the measures to m
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
D e
Date

Division Administrator, FHWA

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
lu N Park and Recreation Department
October 20, 1994
Teresa Hart
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: State Project 8.1672801
T. I. P. No. U-2510
NC 16, Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Hart:
DPS#9420
A:PROV
DPS#IV
The above project area for the widening of NC 16/Providence Road
extends from the International Drive area to the Charlotte Southern
Outer Loop (I-485). The project will impact two (2) creeks
designated for greenway on the Mecklenburg County Greenway Master
Plan. This plan was adopted by the Mecklenburg County Board of
Commissioners in 1980 and is a component of the comprehensive plan
for Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
The greenway creeks affected by this project are McAlpine Creek and
Four Mile Creek. Mecklenburg County has acquired property
adjoining the right of way of NC 16/Providence Road on both creeks.
At McAlpine Creek a four and a half (4 1/2) acre tract has been
acquired on the east side of NC 16 along the southerly side of the
creek. At Four Mile Creek a twelve (12) acre parcel was purchased
on the east side of the right of way which includes both sides of
the creek.
V

Based on the current Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan,
greenway designation on McAlpine Creek terminates at NC 16 (on the
east side). Approximately three hundred (300) acres have been
acquired along this creek under the greenway program. This
property lies east/northeast of NC 16. Facilities at McAlpine
Creek Greenway and McAlpine Creek Park include five (5) miles of
trails, five (5) soccer fields, picnic areas, parking, rest rooms
and a lake. A greenway trail between Sardis Road and Providence
Road/NC 16 will be constructed in the future to connect with these
currently existing facilities. It is my understanding that a
700 N. Tryon Street • Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
All services are available without regard to origin, sex, or disability
October 20, 1994
Providence Road/NC 16
Page Two
new (second) bridge will be constructed over McAlpine Creek at NC
16. Should greenway designation be extended along this creek in
the future in a west/southwest direction, it would be feasible to
retrofit a trail underneath the bridges for greenway continuity
here. Thus this highway construction project has no negative
impact on the existing greenway and would not likely impose a
problem on a future extension.
Greenway designation along Four Mile Creek extends eastward to the
Town of Matthews and westward to the Town of Pineville. More than
one hundred (100) acres have been acquired in small tracts along
the length of this designated section of Four Mile Creek. The
objective of the Greenway Master Plan is to complete acquisition
of flood plain along this creek and construct a continuous trail.
We request that the highway improvement project include a bridge
over Four Mile Creek that will accommodate a greenway trail
underneath for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mecklenburg County
utilizes AASHTO standards for new bicycle facilities relative to
vertical clearance and horizontal width for underpasses. If safe
greenway continuity is included in this portion of the highway
improvement project, it would then have no negative impact on the
future plans Four Mile Creek Greenway.
Please advise if you need additional information.
Very truly yours,
Nancy M. Brunnemer, AICP
Park Planner
Copy to: Fred H. Gray, Jr., Deputy Director
Dot S. Stallings, Administrative Division Manager

f
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A.' Project M-SS26YZI)Qnd R,5 '1v329CL?
State Project 6,1lo7a60/
T. I. P. No. /L_ ra?S/D

Description: /iC, /
?2Oiv( t C!'l??c?T ??av?r?tE,e?./ l?uTt? Lm?
70 7)f'E Ew,Sti-/A C, -
Yes No
?1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities
on essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park,
recreation land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
located adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used
impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land,
in whole or in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired

less than 10 acres ..................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................. 1 acre
greater than 100 acres .............. 1 percent of site
a?
F1 z
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and-habitat effects,
aesthetic values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land ?
impair the'use of such land for its intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the assessment
of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the /
proposed mitigation for, the Section 4(f) lands? ?/_
/ 2
Yes No
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or
improved with funds under the Land and Water
Conservation Act (Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus
t
?

F?

l-
proper
y) v
8. If the project involves lands described in Item 7
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object ?
to the land conversion or transfer?

9. Does the project require preparation of an EIS?
F _
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
`
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? Q
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? F
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? F
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or impacts ?
of extraordinary measure?
2.. Improvement of the hi hwa without usin the
adjacent ublic ark, recreational and or ?
wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management ? El
measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(-(i-)) substantial adverse community impact,
or (ii) substantial increased costs
3
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
using the public park, recreations and or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge. This would be a localized
run around.
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in:'(circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
.or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (Ror a substantial increase in project cost
engineering difficulties .
and (Rof such impacts, costs, or difficulties
truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
9-
A
Yes No
V/ 7
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
j;

t
4
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1.
The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm.
Yes No
2.
Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least
comparable value.

b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project
including sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, trees
and other facilities.
cO. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
O Incorporation of.design features and habitat features,
where necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
Payment of the fair market value of the land and
improvements taken or improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
Additional or alternative mitigation measures as
determined necessary based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
3.
A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
5se P^GE 4-q A uh A13
r
N
4A
The McAlpine Creek Greenway is a system of public recreational
trails, soccer fields, picnic areas, parking, rest rooms, and a lake.
Approximately 300 acres have been acquired along this creek under the
greenway program. A greenway trail between Sardis Road and Providence
Road/NC 16 will be constructed in the future to connect with the current
facilities.
The McAlpine Greenway property lies east/northeast of NC 16.
Adjacent to NC 16 is a 4 1/2 acre tract on the east side along the south
side of the creek, which will be crossed by the proposed widening and is
1 the subject of this projects' Section 4(f) involvement.
Since this project involves the widening of an existing facility, the
widening of NC 16 at McAlpine Creek will necessitate the taking of
right-of-way from greenway property adjacent to the existing roadbed. The
proposed improvement will also require the construction of a new bridge on
the west side. The current greenway does not cross under the existing
bridge located at McAlpine Creek. No negative impacts on the existing
greenway are anticipated and the proposed project does not pose a problem
for future expansion.
No mitigation for this property loss is proposed in conjunction with
this project; however, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
proposes to pay the current property owner fair market value for the
Greenway property acquired for this widening improvement. The NCDOT will
also coordinate with the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation during
design of the new bridge to ensure a greenway trail could be retrofitted
underneath the bridge for future expansion.
The "do nothing" alternative has been considered during the
development of this project. Because there are both advantages and
disadvantages associated with almost any major highway project, it is
important to give consideration to the option of not constructing the
project. Some of the advantages of the project include enhanced traffic
carrying capability, enhanced access to future development, improved
mobility for emergency vehicles, and a decreased expenditure of time and
money by motorists.
Some disadvantages of building the project include impacts to the
McAlpine Creek Greenway and the Four Mile Creek Greenway; expenditure of
funds, the acquisition of additional right-of-way resulting in the
displacement of families, the taking of wetland and forest resources, and
an increase in noise.
A critical need to relieve congestion on NC 16 exists between the
Charlotte Southern Outer Loop to the existing multilane Section near
Blueberry Lane. For these reasons, the "do nothing" alternate is not
recommended.
48
Widening this facility without utilizing the Section 4(f) resource
would create substantial environmental impacts since it would involve
relocating the road. Many homes, businesses, schools and churches would
be impacted by this relocation. This scenario would be extremely costly
and environmentally disrupting. This option is not considered prudent.
In conclusion, there are no feasible or prudent alternatives to the
y use of this Section 4(f) resource.
n
r

5
j COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies -
C. US Coast Guard -
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved -
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
E
The project meets all criterial included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. "There are no feasible or prudent
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
are
be harm,
The project includes all possible t 1 niml ire harm will minimize
ncorporated a ne the
assurances that the measures
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved: `
Da ye Manager, anning & Environments Branch
NCDOT
Date Division Administrator, FHWA

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department

October 20, 1994
Teresa Hart.
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Re: State Project 8.1672801
T. I. P. No. U-2510
NC 16, Mecklenburg County
Dear Ms. Hart:
DPS#9420
A:PROV
DPS#IV
The above project area for the widening of NC 16/Providence Road
extends from the International Drive area to the Charlotte Southern
Outer Loop (I-485). The project will impact two (2) creeks
designated for greenway on the Mecklenburg County Greenway Master
Plan. This plan was adopted by the Mecklenburg County Board of
Commissioners in 1980 and is a component of the comprehensive plan
for Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
The greenway creeks affected by this project are McAlpine Creek and
Four Mile Creek. Mecklenburg County has acquired property
adjoining the right of way of NC 16/Providence Road on both creeks.
At McAlpine Creek a four and a half (4 1/2) acre tract has been
acquired on the east side of NC 16 along the southerly side of the
creek. At Four Mile Creek a twelve (12) acre parcel was purchased
on the east side of the right of way which includes both sides of
the creek.
Based on the current Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan,
greenway designation on McAlpine Creek terminates at NC 16 (on the
east side). Approximately three hundred (300) acres have been
acquired along this creek under the greenway program. This
property lies east/northeast of NC 16. Facilities at McAlpine
Creek Greenway and McAlpine Creek Park include five (5) miles of
trails, five (5) soccer fields, picnic areas, parking, rest rooms
and a lake. A greenway trail between Sardis Road and Providence
Road/NC 16 will be constructed in the future to connect with these
currently existing facilities. It is my understanding that a
700 N. Tryon Street • Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
All services are available without regard to origin, sex, or disability
October 20, 1994
Providence :toad/NC 16
Page Two
new (second) bridge will be constructed over McAlpine Creek at NC
16. Should greenway designation be extended along this creek in
the future in a west/southwest direction, it would be feasible to
retrofit a trail underneath the bridges for greenway continuity
here. Thus this highway construction project has no negative
impact on the existing greenway and would not likely impose a
problem on a future extension.
Greenway designation along Four Mile Creek extends eastward to the
Town of Matthews and westward to the Town of Pineville. More than
one hundred (100) acres have been acquired in small tracts along
6 the length of this designated section of Four Mile Creek. The
objective of the Greenway Master Plan is to complete acquisition
of flood plain along this creek and construct a continuous trail.
We request that the highway improvement project include a bridge
over Four Mile Creek that will accommodate a greenway trail
underneath for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Mecklenburg County
utilizes AASHTO standards for new bicycle facilities relative to
vertical clearance and horizontal width for underpasses. If safe
greenway continuity is included in this portion of the highway
improvement project, it would then have no negative impact on the
future plans Four Mile Creek Greenway.
Please advise if you need additional information.
Very truly yours,
Nancy M. Brunnemer, AICP
Park Planner
Copy to: Fred H. Gray, Jr., Deputy Director
Dot S. Stallings, Administrative Division Manager
t
w"
N d r?"'°Oa
ti
y?yvx n ?y
Ww
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T)?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 17, 1994 .1 "ece.,,
Mr. Eric Gal amb ",
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management 1,
512 North Salisbury Street 990,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation for NC 16 (Old Providence Road), From the Charlotte
Southern Outer Loop to the Existing Multi-Lanes in Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, State Project 8.1672801, F. A. Project
M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2), T.I.P. U-2510
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. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by December 21, 1994. 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,
14 ILA IDM
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
?1%
. «r
Y
LOOON -- AdOO
NC 16
Union and Mecklenburg Counties
TIPn U-2510
State Project Number 8.1672801
Federal Aid Project Number M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2)
Natural Resources Technical Report
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
Susan Corda, Biologist
December, 1991
' lOOOr4 -- AdOO .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .......................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................1
1.2 Purpose .........................................1
1.3 Study Area ......................................1
1.4 Methodology .....................................1
2.0 Natural Resources ..................................3
2.1 Biotic Resources ................................3
2.1.1 Plant Communities ..........................3
2.1.1.1 Uplands ...............................3
2..1-.-l.-2 Wetlands - .:
5
2.1.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........6
2.2.1 Wildlife Communities ...................6
2.2.1.1 Terrestrial Communities ...............7
2.2.1.2 Aquatic Communities ...................7
2.2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........7
2.2 Physical Resources ..............................8
2.2.1 Soils ......................................8
12.2.2 Water Resources ............................9
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .......10
3.0 Special Topics ....................................10
3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ........................10
3.1.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............11
3.1.2 Permits ..........11
i. ;4it4gation ................................13
3:2 Protected Species ..............................13
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species ............13
3.2.2 State Protected Species ...................14
4.0 References ....... .............................15
Appendix A Natural Resource Agency Comments ...........17
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map ..........................2
Figure 2 Wetland Locations ............................12
Table 1 Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts..6
Table 2 Soil Type Summary ..............................8
Table 3 Summary of Water_Quality Classifications ......10
Table 4 Summary of Wetland Acreage by site ............11
I
1OOON - AdOO
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The project is a widening of existing NC 16 from
Weddington in Union County to Charlotte in Mecklenburg County
(Figure 1). Total length of the project is approximately 9.5
miles. The existing road is a two-lane facility and proposed
to be widened. Three alternates are proposed: 1) a four-
lane curb and gutter section with a 16' grass median, 2) a
four-lane shoulder section with a 16' grass median, or 3) a
five lane curb and gutter section. It is not known at this
time whether -the -p:r_oiect -wiry=-be-?Msymmetric.al--or w--
asymmetrical widening. A 140' limit, 70' to either side of
the center line, is the study area used in field surveys.
The project is federally funded Environmental Assessment.
1.2 Purpose
This report describes 1) the natural resources in the
project area and 2) anticipated impacts to these resources.
This information is intended for inclusion into an EA
Document.
1.3 Study Area
The project begins in Union County at the town of
weddington and proceeds north to Charlotte city limits in
Mecklenburg County in the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
The study area is rural in the southern portion and more
urbanized in the northern portion of the project. A variety
of plant communities are located along NC 16 including:
residential sites, agricultural, forested and disturbed areas
are located along NC 16.
Topography in the area ranges from gently to moderately
sloping. Slopes may range up to 15 percent but the majority
of the project ranges from 2 to 8 percent. Elevation ranges
from 570' to 700' (above mean sea level). Sixmile Creek,
Rocky Branch, Four Mile Creek, McAlpine Creek and several
unnamed streams cross the project.
1.4 Methodology
Aerial photographs, USGS quadrangle maps (Weddington and
Charlotte East) Mecklenburg._County_Soil,survey (Soil
Conservation.Service, 1980) and hydric soils list for both
counties were obtained for the study area. The Union County
soils mapping was obtained from the local Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) office. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were
identified from the soil survey maps and hydric soils list.
A site visit was made on September 26 and 27, 1991 to
.: "END PROJECT",
=^? \
-5624 , ?•.
SR
.j, 16 51 • y ...
Cli
oll
r ?_ r
A PROJECT
---_ '" LIMITS
"'•'"', SR 4867
/ + er -
-- ? SR 3498 - ? i ..
.. - r SF? 3626-- ? ..SR 3445 '/ /?/ •w / /
SR 1346 - -
\ TRArOWORTATTON
olvmm b? HIOHRfAYI
is
v \ `? 1'IAlTNIMO AND ElfVIRON?IElfrAl.
BEGIN PROJECT_-? w P"
/ FROM NC ed IN UNION COUNTY Tb 1
?• \ `?0°"a'Oi EXISTING FOM LANES N
`;?•?- r µ'Ow'-,M? MECKLENBURO COUNTY
134

1000N -- AdOO
7
J
inventory natural resources and determine wetland locations
-an - oundaries :-_ j_ ---_--__...
Information on the occurrence of federal and state
protected species was obtained from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and wildlife
Service (USFWS). A federally protected plant, Sweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus sweinitzii), is located within the
study area. More information on this plant is located in
section 3.2.1. Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM, 1991). .
A
2-9 Natural Resources
The natural resource section is divided into two parts:
biotic resources and physical resources. Descriptions of the
plant and wildlife communities are included under biotic
resources. Soil and water resource information is discussed
in the physical resources section.
Qk!- Biotic Resources
A description of the plant communities in the study area
is provided below. Common and scientific names are stated
for each species listed; in subsequent references to the same
organism, only the common name is given.
2.1.1 Plant Communities
Proposed construction will impact upland and wetland
communities. A description of the plant communities in the
study area follows. A summary of anticipated impacts lists
total project impacts by community type.
2.1.1.1 Uplands
Five types of upland communities were identified in the
study area: Man-Dominated, Agricultural, Pine Forest,
Hardwood Forest and Pine/Mixed-Hardwood Forest.
Man-Dominated
The man-dominated community encompasses areas disturbed
by residential or commercial development and recently
disturbed areas from activities such as clearing. This
community ranges from scattered trees to sites that are
dominated by grasses and forbs. This community is found
through the entire project but is concentrated at the
northern end of the project, north of the US 51 intersection.
South of US 51 this plant community is scattered among other
communities.
' - 1000N - Ad00
4
-- _...-Small-..f.orested _.stands. found.- in -this-community, --adjacent
to development,- are remnants of larger forested tracts. Tree
species include winged elm (Ulmus alata), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), scrub pine (Pinus virginiana), short-leaf pine
(Pinus echinata), white pine (Pinus strobus), red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), black oak (Quercus velutina), water
oak (Quercus niQra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liauidambar
stvraciflua), American Elm (Ulmus americana), white oak
(Ouercus alba) and black walnut (Jualans nigra). commonly
planted ornamentals include: Bradford pear (Pvrus callervana
'Bradfordi') and bullbay (Magnolia grandiflora). Understory
species observed include: real bud (Cercis canadensis) dogwood
(Cori us, f orida) black-cherry !tPrunus ser.otina.Y.-?uga-r.-Map;l.e,_N:-,.:
(Acer saccharum) and young tree saplings of the above canopy
species. The ground cover was very sparse and includes: tree
seedlings and vines such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Japonica). some sites were maintained with no ground cover.
Disturbed roadsides receive full sun and support
different plant species than disturbed or undisturbed
forested tracts. Plant species include winged sumac (Rhus
copallina), blackberry (Rubus sp.), pokeweed (Phvtolacca
americana), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), goldenrod
(SolidaQo sp.), sunflower (Helianthus microcephalus),
Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), maypops
(Passiflora incarnata) and Microstegium (Microstegium
vimineum). Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) is dominant in some
areas.
Maintained lawns are located in residential and
commercial areas. These sites are man-dominated areas
maintained in low growing condition. Various herbaceous and
woody. or_?an?ental species are present.
Agricultural Land
There are few agricultural fields along the project
corridor. The majority of these areas are not in row crops,
but used for.pasture. This community is also maintained in
low growing condition. Dominants include various grasses and
forbs such as partridge pea, goldenrod, Queen Anne's lace
with additions of Japanese honeysuckle and blackberry.
Pine Forest
There.--are- a number-of sites within the study area
dominated by pine or red cedar. Most of these stands are
located south of the US 51/NC 16 intersection. Dominant
canopy species include scrub pine, short-leaf pine and
loblolly pine found separately or mixed together. Scattered
hardwoods such as willow oak and southern red oak (Quercus
falcata) are found in the canopy. The canopy reaches-a
considerable height in some stands.
' LOOON - AdOO
The understory is sparse and not well developed.
Understory species include sweetgum and winged elm. The
ground cover was also sparse and included partridge pea
(Cassia fasciculata), Japanese honeysuckle and beggar's ticks
(Desmodium sp.).
Hardwood Forest
Forested areas are composed of mixed hardwoods.
Hardwood species listed for the Man-Dominated Community are
prevalent. Pines and red cedar (Juniperus virginana) are
minor components of the canopy. Observed species include
various oaks such as southern red oak, post oak (Ouercus
stellata) and black-jack oak (Ouercus marilandica). American-
elm, winged elm, honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos),
hickory (Carva tomentosa) and black walnut were also found in
this community. The understory components include sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), black cherry, privet (Ligustrum sinense)
and a mixture of canopy saplings. The ground cover was
sparse. Ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platvneuron), goldenrod
(solidago sp.) and catbrier (Smilax sp.) were noted.
Pine/Mixed-Hardwood Forest
The pine/mixed-hardwood forest is located throughout the
study area. It is more common than the pine or hardwood
forests. Canopy species are mixtures of the pine and
hardwood species listed above and include: white oak, willow
oak, southern red oak, post oak, American elm, winged elm and
black cherry. Gymnosperms such as red cedar, loblolly pine,
shortleaf pine and scrub pine are mixed with hardwoods. The
understory is composed of tree saplings. Red cedar is
abundant,. The ground cover is sparse to absent and includes:
beggar's ticks, Ebony spleenwort Japanese honeysuckle,
Wetlands
Palustrine Forested Wetlands
Palustrine fores-ed wetlands are associated with stream
crossings along the project corridor. wetlands in the study
area are small and border creeks, or in one case, a lake.
Palustrine forested wetlands are slightly lower in elevation
than the adjacent terrain and receive periodic flooding.
Mixed hardwoods dominate these portions of the study area and
include: black willow (Salix nigra), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), box elder (Aces negundo) and hackberry (Celtis
laevigata). Privet (Ligustrum sinense), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata) and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) are common shrub
components. Ground cover species include jewel weed
(Impatiens capensis), Microstegium, false nettle (Boehmeria
cvlindrica),__day flower (Commelina communis), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and knotweed (Polvaonum cespitosum).
J*
6
A few of the stream crossings are disturbed from man-
dominated activities.--Sewer-,lines are adjacent to two stream
crossings. A mixture of grasses dominated these sites.
lOOON - AdOO
J--2-1--I-.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction will impact the Man-Dominated Community,
Agricultural Field, Pine Forest, the Hardwood Forest and
Pine/Mixed-Hardwood Forest and Palustrine Forested Wetland
communities. Plant community impacts are reported in
Table 1. These estimates are preliminary and may change with
final design.
Table-1. Summary- -of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community
Man-Dominated Community
Agricultural Field
Pine Forest
Hardwood Forest
Pine/Mixed-Hardwood Forest
Palustrine Forested Wetlands
TOTAL
124.2
Estimated Impacts are based on 140' study area width.
Widening of NC 16 will decrease the amount of plant
community acreage. The majority of the study area is
dominated by the Man-Dominated plant community. Pine,
Hardwood and Mixed Pine/Hardwood forests are also prominent
in the study area. Efforts should be made to widen along the
existing alignment as close as possible to reduce plant
community-impacts.
The majority of the project impacts the Man-Dominated
community. Efforts should be made to minimize erosion
especially at stream crossings and other areas with steeply
sloping topography. Best Management Practices (BMP) should
be followed during construction. Clearing of vegetation
should be minimized throughout the project but especially in
the Pine, Hardwood, Pine-Mixed Hardwood forest and the
Palustrine Wetland Forest communities. Cleared areas should
be revegetated as quickly as possible after construction is
completed.
?. rb :Wildlife Communities
Limited descriptions of fauna which are likely to occur
in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are presented.
Complete listings of terrestrial and aquatic organisms can be
found in specific references presented in section 4.0. The
wetland community is characterized in both the aquatic and
Acreage Impacts
64.8
4.3
17.4
5.0
31.8
0.9
J*
JOGON - nd00
7
terrestrial ecosystems.
a? Terrestrial Communities
Mammals that might be found in the study corridor
include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virainiana), eastern
cottontail (Svlvilaaus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamais
striatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), hispid
cotton rat (Siamodon hispidus), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virainianus).
Avian fauna anticipated in the study corridor include
the following: red-tailed hawk (Buteo iamaicensis), killdeer
(Charadius- _roc if er_us.)•...r,-.mourr_--ng. `dove_...(_Zenaida_. macroura) ,,.
common flicker (Colaptes aurarus), bile- ay (Cyanocitta
cristata), common crow (Corvus brachvrhvnchos), tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor), mockingbird (Mimus polyalottos),
American robin (Turdus miaratorius), northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis) and rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus).
Amphibians and reptiles anticipated in uplands in the
study area include: marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum)
American toad (Bufo americanus), gray treefrogs (Hula
chrysoscelus), spring peeper (Hula crucifer), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern fence lizard (Scaloporus
undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) and
southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus).
z`L Aquatic Communities
Amphibians and reptiles anticipated in aquatic
environments in the study area include: eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens), and three-lined skink
(Eurvicea gubto-linzata-)
No recent fisheries information was available for any of
the creeks according to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) fisheries biologist. Fish (1968) reports
the following fish species in Sixmile creek: largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), chain pickerel (Esox niaer),
catfish, sunfish and carp (Cvprinus carpio). Other creeks
crossed by the project are not listed in Fish (1968).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed widening project will decrease the amount
of available wildlife habitat. Efforts should be made to--
minimize disturbances to plant communities such as the Pine,
Hardwood, Pine Mixed Hardwood forests and Palustrine Wetland
which harbor wildlife.
Bridges -are _-pr--e-f-er-r-ed---ove-r--cu-lvert-s --at -all.--stream---- - -----------_-------
crossings.---Bridges allow for more light penetration and
1000N - A400
8
crossings. Bridges allow for more light penetration and
minimal bottom disturbance. Bridges also allow for more
waterflow, sediment and debris movement during flooding
periods. Noted during the field survey: sediment deposits
and debris. To lessen impacts, BMP's should be strictly
enforced during construction.
Subterranean, burrowing species are most vulnerable to
construction impacts. Mobile species will be displaced to
adjacent habitats and competitive pressures will result in
the loss of some individuals.
The amount of traffic volume and noise is likely to
increase .during- and,after-- con.stru.ction..-,Sersitive..specie.s._.
may react to the changes by altering patterns of migration.
Road kills will increase.
-2:-2---Physical Resources
Soil and water resource information in the study area is
described below.
Soils
Seventeen soil types are mapped in the study area. They
are stated in Table 2.
Table _ Soil Type Summary
Soil Type Classification Hydric Inclusion
Mecklenburg County
Cecil sandy clay loam Non-hydric
Cecil-urban land complex-- Non-hydric
Davidson sandy clay loam Non-hydric
Enon sandy loam Non-hydric
Iredell fs11 Non-Hydric & Inclusions pds'
Mecklenburg fsl Non-hydric
Monacan loam Hydric Inclusions pds
Wilkes loam Non-hydric
Union County
Appling Non-hydric
Cecil Non-hydric
Chewacla Hydric Inclusions pds
fsl' fine sandy loam
pds' poorly drained soils
Cecil soil units are located on gently to strongly
sloping sites, are well drained and have a predominantly
--clayey subsoil. --- They -formed---in--residuum from acidic- igneous-- -
-- - --- and metamorphic rock. Cecil-Urban land units are found on
J*
loaON -' ,,dOD
9
nearly level to strongly_sloping urban areas, are well
drained soils that have a predominantly clayey subsoil and
formed in residuum from acid igneous and metamorphic rock.
Iredell-Mecklenburg units are found on nearly level to
strongly sloping sites, are moderately well drained and well
drained soils that have a predominantly clayey subsoil. They
formed in residuum from rock high in ferromagnesian minerals.
Wilkes soil units are found on gently sloping to steep
sloping sites, are well drained soils that have a
predominantly clayey subsoil. They formed in residuum from
basic rock, or from mixed acidic and basic rock.
Enon soil units are found on gently sloping to strongly
sloping areas, are well drained and moderately well drained
soils that have a predominantly clayey subsoil. They formed
in residuum from mixed acidic and'basic igneous and
metamorphic rock.
Monacan soil units are found on nearly level sites, are
somewhat poorly drained with a predominantly loamy subsoil.
They formed in fluvial sediment on floodplains.
{?. 2--2-:2 Water Resources
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin. Four
named creeks are crossed by the project. They are, from
south to north, Sixmile Creek, Rocky Branch, Four Mile Creek
and McAlpine Creek. The largest of these creeks is McAlpine
Creek which is approximately 20' to 30' wide at the bridge
crossing. Best usage classification for each of these
streams is listed in Table 3. A number of smaller, unnamed
tributaries are crossed by the project. Best usage
classification-. of these streams --ar-e-- --same a the
waterbody to which they are tributaries.
Mecklenburg and Union counties are not in the Public
Mountain Trout Water jurisdiction. No Outstanding Resource
Waters, High Quality Waters or Water Supply segments
classified as WS-I or WS-II occur in the study area. The
creeks are not classified as wild and Scenic Rivers by the
federal government, nor as state designated Natural, Scenic
or Recreational Rivers. Benthic macroinvertebrate
information is not available for any of the creeks mentioned.

J.000N - AdOZ)
10
- - - Table 3 Summary of Water Quality Classificatiohs
Name Classification
Sixmile Creek C
Rocky Branch C
Four Mile Creek C
McAlpine Creek C
Unnamed C
Source: (DEM 1991).
Best usage recommendations for Class C waters: aquatic
life propagation and surv.ival,_.fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
C•- Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may have a number of impacts to
water resources such as:
-Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction
and/or erosion.
-Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
-Alteration of water level and flow due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow.
-Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
Potential impacts such as these may reduce the number of---
sensitive species that occur in the creeks crossed by the
project. Construction should allow for adequate flow during
heavy flooding periods. Nonpoint sediment sources should be
identified and efforts made to control sediment runoff. In
- addition, strict adherence.--to restrictions identified as _
BMP's should be adhered to during construction.
Special Topics
-3--r Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations
are described in the "Federal Manual For Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (Federal Interagency
Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act.
1000N - AdOO
11
?O. 3--3.1-Summary of Impacts
Wetland boundaries were determined from observations of
vegetation, soils and hydrology. The vegetation is dominated
by plants de fined as hydrophytic (Facultative, Facultative-
Wetland or O bligate) and soil colors were classified as
hydric due t o low chroma values. Observed wetland
hydrological characteristics include evidence of periodic
flooding suc h as fluvial soil deposits, debris present above
the current water level and matted vegetation above the water
line. Table 4 summarizes wetland impacts by site and
Figure 2 indicates site location. These estimates are
preliminary and may change with project design.
Table 4 summary of Wetland Acreage by Site -
Site Number Creek Name Acreage Impact
Site 1 McAlpine Creek 0.2
Site 2 Unnamed creek 0.1
Site 3 Unnamed creek 0.1
Site 4 Fourmile Creek 0.1
Site 5 Rocky Branch 0.1
Site 6 Lakeside wetlands 0.1
Site 7 Sixmile Creek 0.1
Site 8 -Unnamed creek -
Site 9 Unnamed creek 0.1
Total 0.9
Values reported are in acres and are based on a study area
width of 140'.
?--r 2 Permits
Jurisdictional wetland impacts are small at each.
'.ocation and total impacts are less than one acre. Since the
flow rates of McAlpine Creek (Site 1), Fourmile Creek
(Site 4) and Sixmile Creek (Site 7) all exceeds 5 cfs,
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) may be applicable if
two conditions are satisfied: a) the discharge is less than
200 cubic yards of fill material below ordinary high water
and b) discharges do not extend more than 100' on either side
of the ordinary high water mark. If these conditions are not
met at the McAlpine Creek crossing an Individual Section 404
Permit may be required.
Two Nationwide permits are likely to be applicable for
the oth.2r locations (site numbers 2, 3,-5-, 6,-and-9):
Nationwide permits 14 and 26. Nationwide permit 14, as
described above, is likely to be applicable at small
crossings with unnamed creeks such as site numbers 2,3 and 9.
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)_(26) authorizes the
=--..discf il.l material in nontidal waters and adj acent-
i?

.t
I
50/ f)A ?w
Rocky
r"
J 1 a , 11 ..,a
\\ k
?,' -i ? *?:. 11 ?? , ?'
?•Qt so \\ Oq ?11 dSO ( a N - ? ???? - .,.p ?' 1 -?
! o
i. I \uo ?\ 11 a. \' , D. _ '? // f MC /CEE
56 F'' 1 ? ?\n ',4 VV \J, /ff ?,
J 1 _
r Cady ? \ 11 !.Y 0 / / 1' _ 1 +? ? ? '
Lak
131, /r
.v ? 11
6 _1hv\/
e - (?, `? . "?'• - 4
?' , t •? > j \ 1 `. I ' 610. - S i 6
G
Site 7 v
I,k
J \ O \? ...r ---> ?.
?` ? `\J 1(' •? _..? \. 1? ; / i ? '1 1i h? ?a1 'r I . ? y .:E a L-1• r •' 0p?.
t' 1 ?'` // ( av3 I_
41
II j _ 1 ? ,\ o
NLI
4,, oil
IL 4
y0o a, gin Project
600
U _';,a3`'?i • ,? ,, 211 , ?: - - ? 1 ? ? 'r `? •c, \l C
n_ -? Charlotte { ?, t c ( o,-
605%6 s NC 16 (Old Providence Road i ` ~ r
C) ... t,.
From NC 84 In Union Co. To Existing
o.
-- r? / Four Lanes In Mecklenburg. Co .
t / U-2510
Figure 2 Wetland Locations
?, .C1 '.f f 1'; f
`? wF nY y 1 ... ? \
?k 7,
IOU
WOON - AdOO
13
wetlands that are above headwaters. Above headwaters refers
to nontidal rivers, streams and their lakes and impoundments,
including adjacent wetlands above which the average annual
flow is less than 5 cfs. This permit may be applicable at
sites 5 (Rocky Branch) and 6 (Lakeside wetlands) which are
categorized as "above headwaters".
One additional note - The Corps of Engineers has
proposed to amend the Nationwide Permit Program. The
quantities of fill and areas of impact currently allowed are
likely to change. Final permit decisions rest with the
discretionary authority of the Corps of Engineers.
State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. One state permit
likely to be required is the 401 Water Quality Certification.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result
in a discharge into waters and for which a federal permit is
required.
Mitigation
Projects that require an Individual Section 404 permit
are mitigated in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental
Protection Agency. The type and level of wetland mitigation
will be determined in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
At this time no mitigation is proposed since the permit
picture is unclear.
If Nationwide permits are authorized, generally no
mitigation is required according to the MOA. The final
decision r?sts with the Corps of Engineers.
-3-2--Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
locate any occurrences of protected species in the study
area.
ez-, 3--i-2-1 Federally Protected Species
One federally protected species is listed by the USFWS
for both Mecklenburg and Union Counties: Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus_.sweinitzii)..
Schweinitz's Sunflower Federally Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a member of the composite
family. It is 0.6 to 1.5 meters tall, characterized by a_._
ppe ??f-surface--aril a soft tomentose lower-leaf
- - - --surface Stems are usually solitary. The flowers are
' 1000N - Ad00
14
yellow, 5.5-cm-in diameter and the flowering period is from
September to frost. It is limited to North and South
Carolina. The plant once inhabited open prairies and is now
adapted to disturbed areas with maintained open habitat.
Suitable habitat includes maintained right-of-way areas,
utility lines and disturbed habitat. It may also occur at
edges of upland woods. The study area supports suitable
habitat such as maintained roadsides, forest edges, and
utility lines. A plant-by-plant survey was conducted in
these areas. Two plant populations are located in the study
area approximately 1.25 miles north of the NC 16/NC 51
interchange. One population is located east of NC 16 between
the ditch and the forest edge..,Approximately 20 plants were
observed. Approximately 10 plants were observed at the
second population located west of NC 16. This population is
located on a sloped bank above the-ditchline. All efforts
should be made to avoid these populations. Formal
Consultation, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
is required with the USFWS prior to construction.
Five other species, the Georgia aster (Aster
georgianus), tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum), smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), Heller's trefoil (Lotus
helleri) and Nestronia (Nestronia umbellulla), are listed by
the USFWS in Mecklenburg County as Candidate species and are
not afforded legal protection at this time. The status of
these species may change in the future.
In Union County, the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigonia
decorata), Georgia aster (Aster aeorgianus), Isoetes (Isoetes
virctinica) and Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) are listed as
candidate species.
b, 3-.4-2- State Protected. Species -.
According to the NCNHP files, no other state protected
species are located in the study area.
NCNHP files do report a record of another plant in the
study area listed by the state as significantly rare:
(Solidago rigida ssp. glabrata). This plant is not afforded
legal protection under state laws at this time.
Southeastern Bold Goldenrod State Significantly Rare
This plant is a member of the composite family and
occurs in diabase glades only in Durham, Granville,
Mecklenburg and Person Counties. The plant is approximately
1 to 2 meters tall. The heads contain between 30 to 50
flowers with yellow rays. Flowering period is from August'
through October. In the study area the plant occurs in an
openina at-the-edge-of a pine. cedar.- forest--on- NC---14 - -- --- - - - --
_--- approximately-1.1:miles south of the intersection of NC 51
and NC 16. The population is located on the east side of the
1000N - Ad00
15
highway. Efforts.should be made to avoid this plant.
3 4-0 REFERENCES
Division of Environmental Management. 1991. "Classifica-
tions and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters
of the Catawba River Basin". North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development.
Federal Interagency Committee for
Federal Manual for Delineating
Jurisdictional.:-Wet 1a_nds...--U. S.
U.S. Environmental Protection
wildlife service and USDA Soil
Washington, D.C. Cooperative
76 pp. plus appendices.
Wetland Delineation. 1989.
and Identifying
Arnt y_ Corps of Engineers,_
Agency, U.S. fish and
Conservation Service,
technical publication.
Fish; F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in
North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Lee, D.S. et al. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater
Fishes., North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., Clark, M.K. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh,
N.C. North Carolina. Biological Survey and North Carolina
Sate Museum of Natural History.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1975. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. Press of the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, North'Carolina. 177 pp.
Menhenick, E.F., T.M. Burton and J.R. Bailey. 1974. An
annotated checklist of freshwater fishes of North
Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 90(1):24-50.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1990.
"Endangered Wildlife Of North Carolina". NCWRC.
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
States. Second Edition. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
(contains insect information)
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
---Sates-.------Thi-rd-- Edition New York-.- - John - Wiiey and Sons-; - - - -
100DN -- Ad00
16
Plant Conservation Program. 1990,. "List Of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Plant Industry Division. North Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., Parnell, J.F. and Teulings, R:P. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Scha-fale, M. P. and A-. S. -Weakley. - 1990. Class'a.fication of
The Natural Communities Of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
USDA-SCS. 1980. Soil Survey: Mecklenburg County.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing office.
LOOON - AdOO
17

Appendix A
Natural Resource Agency Comments
1000N - Ad00
1000N -- Ad00
,,ENT OF r
?
y
rP
F, TAKE+
?`• ?.?
y? United States Department of the Interior PRIE)E IN
9 AMERICA
.r
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
yq ?gp9 Asheville Field Office
_ cN 3 --330• Ridgefield Court--- - -
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 - -
October 16, 1991

LL

Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager iy
` a o i-?
W
Planning and Environmental Branch CO
oQ
Division of Highways -
North Carolina Department of Transportation N>1 C? c??
?
P?O:--Box"25231- - - - - - ?
Raleigh,r'o: th Carolina 27611-5201 PLA
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Proposed widening of NC 16 from Old Providence Road, Charlotte,
Mecklenberg County, to NC 84, Union County, North Carolina,
U-2510, State Project #8.1672801, F. A. #M-5201(4) and
RS-6329(2)
This responds to your letter of September 19, 1991 (received
September 25, 1991), requesting our comments on the subject proposal.
These 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).
The-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed action may have on listed
endangered or threatened species and on stream and wetland ecosystems
within the project impact area. Preference should be given to
a;tern-atve ali,nmFlt_s; -stream crossing-structures arid-con=struct-ion_-
techniques 'that avoid or minimize encroachment and impac_ts_t-d-th-,ese
resources. The enclosed copy of an U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventory map showing the approximate proposed route
(in red) and potentially affected wetlands (in blue) is included for your
planning and assessment. Alternatives you may develop that avoid
wetlands will lessen the need for mitigation/compensation as required
under the Service's Mitigation Policy (Federal Register 46(15):7644-7663,
January 23, 1981).
The Service officially listed Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's
sunflower) as a federally endangered species on May 7, 1991 (Federal
Register 56 (88)-::21087 2109.1) ._ This species occurs in Meckl enberg _and
Union Counties and may occur in the project area. In accordance with the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, it is the responsibility of
the appropriate Federal regulatory agency (or their designated
non-Federal representative) to review its activities or programs and to
identify any such activities or programs that may affect endangered or
1000N -- Ad00
1000N -' Ad00
threatened species or their habitat. If it is determined that these
proposed activities may adversely affect any species listed as endangered
or threatened, formal consultation with this office must be initiated.
Therefore, before the Service can agree that the Federal Highway
Administration (or their designated non-Federal representative) has
satisfied its responsibilities for this species under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (Act), you must provide us with information to
support the determination that Helianthus schweinitzii does not occur
within the impact area of the project. No other proposed or listed
species are known to occur in Mecklenberg or Union County. Obligations
under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
suggests that the action may affect listed species in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner not previously considered, or (3) a new species is listed or
critical. hab_i tat.,as, determi.nedth_at.,_ay be affected by the identified
action.
The legal responsibilities of a Federal.agency or their designated
non-Federal representative under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
as amended, are on file with the North Carolina Department-of
Transportation. If you would like a copy of this material or if you have
any questions, please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff at 704/665-1195. Please
note that this is a new phone number as we have relocated our office.
Our new address is 330 Ridgefield Court, Asheville, North Carolina 28806.
In addition to the listed species detailed above, five other species of
plants known from Mecklenberg County (Nestronia - Nestronia umbellula,
Georgia aster - Aster georgianus, tall larkspur - Delphinium exaltatum,
smooth coneflower - Echinacea laevigata, and Heller's trefoil - Lotus
helleri) and one clam (Carolina heelsplitter - Lasmigonia decorata)
and three plants (Georgia aster - Aster georgianus, Virginia quillwort -
Isoetes virginica, and Heller's trefoil - Lotus helleri) from Union
County are currently under status review (candidate species) by the
Service and may occur in the impact area of the project. The latter
three.species listed for Mecklenberg County, tall larkspur, smooth
ccnefl ors'°r, and-andI er-'.s .trefai 1,. iia.va rfl t~,?en . f) n(1 i Ti i ie%&12nv2'r'y'
County for over 20 years. Candidate species aie- not'lrgally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in
our response to give you advance notification. These species may be
listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the
Endangered Species Act. Meanwhile, we would appreciate anything you
might do to avoid impacting these species.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
'(1) A complete analysis and comparison of--availablev.
alternatives, including the no-action alternative.-
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional rights-of-way
1000N - Ad00
WaON AdOO
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
(3)- Acreage and description of branches, creeks, streams
rivers, or wetlands that will be filled because"of
the proposed highway improvements. Wetlands affected
by the proposed project should be mapped in
accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be
relocated because of the proposed improvements.
(5) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, that will
-- - be.-eliminated because.of the.- proposed h ighway-
improvemeffrs.
(6) Techniques that will be employed for designing and
constructing any relocated stream channels.
(7) Description of expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed
work.
(8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed
improvements.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that
you continue to keep us informed on the progress of this project. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our log
number 4-2-91-096.
/Si and G. Biggins
Acting Field Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
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
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
lOOON AdOO
1000N AdOO
-YO
%
. i `, 't..?,'r.t it16Mh ":?' .:••'? ::. s - .,b ? ? `. ??' ?'?a•:.' lyJ.
??.-??V ??AT.? ?-i- y f • .`i? ? .:? _.1•. ? !O\:? ? .i t ? ?\ .?!'•? 1 0 LINL'4 \::'?t / '?
?? ?1 ? s :%' •!'(7rriscisnl . .ri':r .: ty" ? '1- • °?..j E-
'AF
PMA
.?
TEMIC
..``1? / ..? i •• -?'.1• • O 1 ..± ti.??t \j -t.,.
r'?Y?? .?'?•.. ?Q J'A._ ?r.?/ ?',;.` \' .,•?/-l•
'1_ tYrr' ?' /? d•
?? T 1 0
;li i?`\ a• •-;cr o L% (? _ ?: ?\??.? \? ?. :\ })S wage isWal'
•-r` 1 ? g: .. •\.J?.. .gip •. I \ZCn 'ice / •bi - - `.t a I/y/?•L ?t \• - O . , K: .K.? • C%'F"• •
WTIe.
A 10 Sch 0 • '? ?/ r iy. ?? \i/ •_ r
RCN (?,\ • ?s ; , s c': i ?v / ` 'Y : • • co t? , PFOIC. .'
i? r fPF01}4. CZ
y"'?(J6Hft)?? ,?? t,' r _`iF; 'i? \ i 9?L? "? ^?•? i l
. ;,.
V .4, pq*, . R
??. ?l? - (?y``_"1 ? ??'?- } .??,'?`'? Y i\`. 11\.? L?.?\\:? C•.. tr?.m$:.. ?9±t.f r?/?`'a.'T,?' \??;(:?` ?`li\
`lam ll /6 \ .',??-[' i,??•t:S. /1 v tom:.(. ,••'?'.t?',y?.-_?, ??`il ?lif.
.. QJ y ? °p.?"'a? ? % \ .?. / '. ? . 4.•"lS?{11 ... ? w,7 ? .. .?; L:'• .l.Gf"':.. . 1;?' L ,..
.` • •\ _
? ? .. ??.•?. \. •'"?`, 1?- i?culi, ?.?; ????? !`' r,•i%?•¢O \' % ???R2??-•-i: 1• ,s'•.. ?:.?r..'%.??t??i? ? •r•?'bL`.
/ :J .l/!r? ?' Jar.. 'So •,y Y: {??, .: ?i.? ?``?' `'? "?i-:.i•• 1 ?_?.
•? % 'fir '1•: % r. \ / ?(? v/ ' ' r. `:.'\-.`/?i ? o
%
t r. .<... .._ :.; .may~` ,>.?,- •.
-3tv1 •Sj$ 47.30" 1.7 Ml. TO N.C. 31SN) '? ranw.ow-GeotoaL.?"wwly, Mesta". v.•
Sji •Q""?"`
WEDOINGTON 7 Mi.
CHARLOTTE
NOTES TO THE USER -
I EXAMPLE • Wetlands which have been field examined are indicated
on the map by an asterisk
• Additions or correction's to the wetlands information
PUBHh v I?p U R2um }? ?N A683
.. R2t18tt? PFOIA Pu6m^ P08H6--0 . ; ` ' '
-PEMIC
y \ j ` ?" \ - ,PUfSHh Q---PUSHh PUBHh?
1 ''(ltciv:f'rDt?iicrrCC ` ??-0 , • ?_ ' rua+a,...ti-- -; _? .._. -
HEEr 2 OF-3' r• •E' -?El I.. -
?=? •?' 'i?.-aA-R:t0-T.'h ED WID IING
OF NC 16P
IjNfe
A `4 _ r 1 • ? PUB /' ,L
': i;
? ` rFOlc-Q : -
%
MIF4
.. , t \ ?. y/ , fl r \
%
IN -Ct.
PEMtA._ , ? -
I'JS(6dlf Course
IA' ?' `' r PPPFFF000
{Fi? /? _ -\ - ?/ j ?? • %? t_ PFOIA_, -' J _R2UBN 1 ?J
\? 1r J ..? i r•? i PFDIA
` / PuBIU+: OIA
?OIN-' _ (Ego
r. i .l. ?. -?--' ?•
77
.? -
• ?' ?•PFDIA ` ? c." ? ?? 9181+ ' ;•..? O
PuaH
w%%7 l _ r Y_ ; F it J (;
:2UBHx bOEMlGc \x Ro kyr '?.? -% ?'??- ? it. ry ; > y ` .73AZ _ ^? ?i .?`.?
` i £ \
rF01Ch_ 'rr r .
PUBith _ '/ _ l _ ' P1344111 -
:I A-
' ! .? \ ' ???' f' ? :ter ,;' ';i-- `\1 ?./ ? _ Crd?? \? ?% .?• • f r -- `-• _ l .+ i ,• ???_ 1 t ; Y ? v . -
' ? ? PU6f1h 1' ? '1 '? .,:fir---?? t \ v ' • : y 1
\ PuBH.-fit / PUBNh ` Cf
Y PUBHh ?? I y
7 PU6NI, '
PEMIAh
Pf01C--? . .
PFOIC
Cast Joner:: t6• ? .. ;'. ? ; : ? v,
P?o
PEAAlCh PUBNF, I 1 PUBHh--0 !•rt,,T ?° sip
PFOIC y ?S PsslFh--q' PROPOSED '.WIDENING
?- PEd--PSSICti OF NC MIA :. s {
ECk"Y
_.i Cooly °--'PFO,c?^?`,._ t?r?fSHh---O - ERG, & UNIOti •IES; > <I
Gak ' PD61Y, NORM
C+?OL'I ?
I,c f- `\ t
N, a
/- PFOIA
Q " VC? t , PFolc
1 / .a / ,' 'PFOIA PFOIC J-v
Kol
PFOIC ?0 Jam.. 02
?--1• V •. J $IA i
,PFOIA ?_ PFOIG
o :iF* PFOIA / ?R '.r \ - ` PSS,A??C? 3478
a-PFOic 614h
7?• r .\ \' Va \\ ??
J _ y! jk PUBH,c PFOIr% IK /?-.=
J '? `PUBNh . K&4. PEMIFh
71iY' PUBHh:
. / T-PU64-h PUBH X17
K E' PFOIA V -t u6
KOIC
w PEMIA
Pss,A
,v> Pssa PMC
•. : r te: s, BHh ti .
Z PU
PFOIC - - _- • `?, 1 \ J, ,' 3x76 poaKh
PUBHh PFOIA
EMIA PUSH •\ PUBHh v _ ?`-^PUBH
h 1 %
We.ddiygton
V \N,
? ? r _.. . . - '•?. - ?? ' \ 70(7 ?' ,=. ? ?

149a?N -^518?? -
o'`f?pT Olf,y''^ ..
. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
°`lA•?:of Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
f
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Attention Teresa Hart
_.
c.ar- ter.. Ward:---
September 27, 1991 SER21/MF
?} 9 -5090
? u .
q\. ?4
U.l
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has received
notification dated September 19, 1991, where the Planning and
Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways is initiating
studies to widen NC 16 (Old Providence Road). Since there are no
resources in the area for which NMFS is responsible, we have no
comments on the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincer7ly yours,
Andzeas Mager Jr.
?Assistant Rec?`fonal Director
`1 Habitat Conservation Division

1L>. Ztr-
L
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. Box 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 1+ 1991
Planning Division
...L.
b2 Hey '
d bye. ',:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch fl Qf ^r;
Division of Highways 1? `=f
North Carolina Department of Transportation 0
Post?-0€fice•:Box• ?520i_.,....?..?.....?.:,•,_.- __. .. _ _ ? • ??'.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 J ?.`
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of September 19, 1991, subject:
"Charlotte, NC 16 (Old Providence Road), From NC 84 in Union
County to Existing Four Lanes in Mecklenburg County, Union and
Mecklenburg Counties, U-2510, State Project #8.1672801, F. A.
#M-5201(4) and RS-6329(2)" and offer the following comments.
Mecklenburg and Union Counties and the city of Charlotte have
Flood Insurance Studies prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and participate in the Flood Insurance Program.
There are several streams within the area of the project. The
design of the roadway in the flood plains should ensure that there
will be no significant increase in flood stages and no greater
than a 1.0-foot increase in the floodway surcharge where a
regulatory floodway exists.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 40-4 of the' Clean Water dct-of -as-auaaded; wi=i-be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will than consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review the plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Steve-Lund-3f our Regulatory Branch,. Asheville, -North
Carolina, at [phone].
f

i
r
Y
1?@flinr- Ad(a9'J
_2_
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If,
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Ch-ief-,--?lannin&,D: -wis h: