I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop)

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) From I-77 to US 521 (Johnston Road) South of Charlotte Mecklenburg County Federal Aid Project IMNHF-485-(8) WBS Element 39929.1.1 TIP Project No. R-4902

Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

One noise sensitive area has been identified within the project limits, based upon preliminary noise studies. The impacted receptors are located near the I-485 interchange with South Boulevard and will be further studied during final design to more accurately determine anticipated noise impacts and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. Additional public involvement will be performed if noise mitigation measures are warranted.

A Section 404 Individual Permit is anticipated as a result of the proposed project. In addition to the 404 permit, other required authorizations include the corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Individual Permit. NCDOT will perform a quantitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis and the results will be placed in the administrative record. If the quantitative MSAT analysis indicates MSAT emissions will increase as a result of this project, NCDOT will present the findings of this analysis to the public and to environmental review agencies prior to making a final decision as to how to proceed with the project.

NCDOT Division 10

NCDOT Division 10 will coordinate with Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department prior to construction regarding temporary closures of McAlpine Creek and McMullen Creek greenways during construction. This coordination will allow appropriate time needed for public notice in advance of the closures and to provide detour information.

NCDOT Division 10 will coordinate with the Town of Pineville Volunteer Fire Department and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Emergency Management agency (MEDICS) to allow Pineville Fire Department/MEDICS to plan for and mitigate any potential disruption in access and/or increase response time.

NCDOT Division 10 will coordinate with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County School System to allow Transportation Department to make any necessary plans regarding bus routes in the project area.

NCDOT Division 10 will coordinate with Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) to allow for necessary planning regarding mass transit routes/schedules and commuter programs in the project area.

This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated streams. Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the

R-4902 Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 2 Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

NCDOT Hydraulics Unit- Floodplain Mapping Program Coordination

The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services and PMP, the delegated state agency for administering FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, to determine the status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’s Memorandum of Agreement with FMP, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

R-4902 Categorical Exclusion Page 2 of 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SUMMARY ...... i A. Description of Proposed Action ...... i B. Summary of Purpose and Need ...... i C. Project Cost, Schedule, and Funding ...... i D. Alternatives Considered ...... i E. Summary of Environmental Effects ...... ii F. Permits Required ...... ii G. Coordination ...... ii H. Additional Information ...... iii

I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...... 1

II. NEED AND PURPOSE FOR PROJECT ...... 1 A. Need for Project ...... 1 B. Purpose of Project ...... 1 C. Description of Existing Conditions ...... 2 1. Functional Classification ...... 2 2. Physical Description of Existing Facility ...... 2 3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ...... 2 4. Right of Way and Access Control ...... 2 5. Speed Limit ...... 2 6. Intersections and Interchanges ...... 2 7. Railroads...... 3 8. Structures ...... 3 9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways ...... 3 a. Bicycle Facilities ...... 3 b. Pedestrian Facilities ...... 3 c. Greenways ...... 3 10. Utilities ...... 5 11. School Buses ...... 5 12. Airports ...... 5 13. Public Transportation ...... 5 14. Park and Ride Lots...... 5 a. South Boulevard LYNX Blue Line Station ...... 5 b. Carolina Place Mall ...... 5 15. Intelligent Transportation Systems ...... 6 16. Lighting ...... 6 17. Noise Abatement ...... 6 D. Traffic Volumes and Traffic Carrying Capacity ...... 6 1. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes ...... 6 2. Existing and Future Levels of Service ...... 6 a. General Information ...... 6 b. Existing Levels of Service (2007) ...... 6 c. Future Levels of Service (No Build Scenario) ...... 7 d. Future Levels of Service - Build Scenario (NCDOT-Preferred) ...... 7 E. Crash History ...... 7 F. Transportation and Land Use Plans ...... 8 1. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program ...... 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridor ...... 8 3. Department of Defense Strategic Highway Network ...... 8 4. Mecklenburg-Union MPO Long Range Transportation Plan ...... 8 5. Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study ...... 9 6. Local Land Use Plans ...... 9 G. System Linkage ...... 10 1. Existing Road Network ...... 10 a. Commuting Patterns ...... 10 b. Local Thoroughfare Plan ...... 10 2. Modal Interrelationships ...... 10 a. Public Transportation ...... 10 b. Rail Freight Service ...... 11 c. Motor Freight Service ...... 11 d. Air Service...... 11 H. Legislative Mandate ...... 11 I. Benefits of Proposed Project ...... 11

III. ALTERNATIVES ...... 11 A. Alternate Modes of Transportation ...... 11 B. Travel Demand Management ...... 12 C. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ...... 12 D. Build Alternatives ...... 12 E. New Location Alternatives ...... 12 F. No Build Alternative ...... 12 G. Improve Existing Facility (NCDOT-recommended alternative)...... 12

IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...... 12 A. Roadway Cross Section and Alignment ...... 12 B. Right of Way and Access Control ...... 13 C. Speed Limit ...... 13 D. Design Speed ...... 13 E. Anticipated Design Exceptions ...... 13 F. Intersections/Interchanges ...... 13 G. Service Roads ...... 13 H. Railroad Crossings ...... 13 I. Structures ...... 13 1. Bridges...... 13 2. Culverts...... 14 J. Utilities ...... 14 K. Landscaping ...... 14 L. Noise Abatement ...... 14 M. Work Zone Traffic Control and Construction Phasing ...... 14 N. Public Transportation ...... 15 O. HOV and HOT Lanes ...... 15 P. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITM) Measures ...... 15 Q. Transportation System Management Measures ...... 15 R. Travel Demand Management Measures ...... 15 S. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways ...... 15 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ...... 15 2. Greenways ...... 15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ...... 16 A. Natural Resources ...... 16 1. Physical Resources...... 16 a. Soils ...... 16 b. Water Resources ...... 16 c. Water Quality Information ...... 18 d. Permitted Discharges ...... 18 2. Biotic Resources ...... 18 a. Terrestrial Communities ...... 18 b. Terrestrial Community Impacts...... 20 c. Terrestrial Fauna ...... 20 d. Aquatic Resources ...... 21 3. Jurisdictional Topics ...... 22 a. Waters of the United States ...... 22 b. Jurisdictional Wetland Descriptions ...... 22 c. Wetland Quality ...... 23 d. Surface Waters Descriptions ...... 23 e. Stream Importance ...... 24 4. Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas ...... 24 a. Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands ...... 24 b. Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams ...... 25 5. Permits and Certifications Required ...... 27 a. Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act ...... 27 b. Mitigation Basis ...... 27 c. Mitigation Evaluation ...... 27 6. Protected Species ...... 28 a. Federally Protected Species...... 28 b. Bald Eagle Protection ...... 30 c. Federal Species of Concern ...... 30 d. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ...... 31 B. Cultural Resources ...... 31 1. Compliance Guidelines ...... 31 2. Historic Architecture and Archaeological Resources ...... 31 C. Sections 4(f) and 6(f) Resources ...... 32 1. Section 4(f) Resources ...... 32 2. Section 6(f) Resources ...... 32 D. Community Impact Assessment ...... 32 1. Local Resources ...... 32 2. Community Impact Issues ...... 32 3. Recommendations ...... 32 4. Key Community Characteristics ...... 33 a. Geographic Location ...... 33 b. Population Trends ...... 33 c. Racial Makeup ...... 33 d. Ethnic Makeup ...... 33 5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ...... 34 E. Relocations ...... 34 F. Title VI and Environmental Justice ...... 34 G. Limited English Proficiency ...... 34 H. Farmland Impacts ...... 35 I. Flood Hazard Evaluation ...... 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Traffic Noise Analysis ...... 36 1. Characteristics of Noise ...... 36 2. Noise Abatement Criteria ...... 36 3. Ambient Noise Levels ...... 37 4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ...... 37 5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ...... 38 6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ...... 39 a. Highway Alignment Selection ...... 39 b. Traffic System Management Measures ...... 39 c. Noise Barriers ...... 39 d. Other Measures ...... 40 7. No Build Alternative...... 40 8. Construction Noise ...... 40 9. Summary ...... 41 J. Air Quality Analysis ...... 41 1. Introduction ...... 41 2. Attainment Status ...... 41 3. Carbon Monoxide ...... 42 4. Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide ...... 42 5. Particulate Matter and Sulfur ...... 43 6. Lead ...... 43 7. Mobile Source Air Toxics ...... 43 K. Hazardous Materials ...... 48 1. Purpose ...... 48 2. Summary ...... 49 L. Construction Impacts ...... 49

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...... 51 A. Public Involvement ...... 51 1. Local Officials Meeting ...... 51 2. Citizens Informational Workshop ...... 51 3. Ballantyne Breakfast Club Meeting Presentation ...... 52 B. Public Hearing ...... 52 C. NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process ...... 53 D. Additional Agency Coordination ...... 53

VII. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ...... 53

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Summary of Project Impacts ...... ii Table 2 – Existing Bridges ...... 4 Table 3 – Crash Rates ...... 7 Table 4 – Nearby STIP Projects ...... 8 Table 5 – Soils in the Project Study Area ...... 16 Table 6 – Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Project Study Area ...... 17 Table 7 – Coverage of Vegetative Communities in the Project Study Area ...... 20 Table 8 – Jurisdictional Wetland Areas in the Project Study Area ...... 25 Table 9 – Jurisdictional Surface Water Characteristics for the Project Study Area ...... 26 Table 10 – Federally Listed Species for Mecklenburg County ...... 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 11 – Federal Species of Concern for Mecklenburg County ...... 31 Table 12 – Potential Geo-environmental Impact Sites ...... 48

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph (10 sheets) Figure 3 - Photos of Existing Conditions (2 sheets ) Figure 4 – CATS Public Transportation Figures 5a through 5c – Traffic Volumes Figures 6a through 6c – Levels of Service (LOS) 2007/2030 Figure 7 – Area STIP Projects Figure 8 – Local Thoroughfare Map Figure 9 a and 9b– Proposed Typical Sections Appendix B – Traffic Density Analysis Appendix C – Correspondence Appendix D – Preliminary Traffic Noise Analysis Appendix E – Air Quality Analysis Information Appendix F – Public Meetings Information

SUMMARY

I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) From I-77 to US 521 (Johnston Road) South of Charlotte Mecklenburg County Federal Aid Project IMNHF–485–(8) WBS Element 39929.1.1 STIP Project R-4902

A. Description of Proposed Action

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose widening I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) to a basic six-lane facility from I-77 to US 521 (Johnston Road) in Mecklenburg County. The project is approximately 6.8 miles in length and is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The proposed improvements (shown in Figure 2) also include the following:

• Construction of eastbound and westbound lanes within the existing median from I-77 to US 521 (Johnston Road) • Widening of existing bridges on I-485 within the proposed project limits, except for bridges over I-77 • Construction of a flyover structure to provide northbound US 521 (Johnston Road) access to westbound I-485 • Rehabilitation (milling and overlay) of existing pavement and outside shoulder reconstruction within the project limits • Install Travel Information devices (IT cameras)

B. Summary of Purpose and Need

The purpose of this project is to increase system capacity and improve efficiency on I-485 for local and regional traffic.

C. Project Cost, Schedule, and Funding

The estimated project construction cost is $58,900,000, which includes $12,968,535 for structures and ITS, $25,024,650 for roadway approaches, and $1,945,815 for utilities. The proposed project improvements will be constructed within the existing right of way, therefore the acquisition of additional right of way is not anticipated. The NCDOT 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) calls for construction to begin in Fiscal Year 2015. The STIP includes a total funding of $51,795,000 for the project.

D. Alternatives Considered

In addition to the NCDOT-recommended improvement to widen to the median, the following alternatives were considered: Alternate Modes of Transportation, Travel Demand Management, Transportation Systems Management, the No-Build Alternative, and New Location Alternatives. These alternatives do not meet the purpose and need of the project or in the case of a New Location Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts and are not recommended.

E. Summary of Environmental Effects

A summary of project impacts is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of Project Impacts STIP Project R-4902 Feature Anticipated Impact Project length-miles 6.8 Railroad crossings 0 Residential relocations 0 Business relocations 0 Major utility crossings 1 Historic properties 0 Archaeological sites 0 Wetland impacts-acres 0 Stream impacts-linear feet 0 100-year floodplain crossings 0 Water supply watershed protected areas 0 Impacted noise receptors (see Note 1) 20 Federally-protected species in Mecklenburg County (see Note 2) 4 Hazardous material sites 0 Voluntary agricultural district impacts (acres) 0

Notes: (1) Based upon preliminary traffic noise analysis (2) Biological conclusions: No Ef fect for Carolina heelsplitter, Michaux’s sumac, Schweinitz’s sunflower, and Smooth coneflower

F. Permits Required

Impacts to jurisdictional resources will be limited to the existing right of way and therefore it is anticipated that construction of the project may be authorized under a US Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit. As such, it is not anticipated that an individual Section 404 permit will be needed. However, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required prior to the issuance of a nationwide permit.

G. Coordination

Federal, state and local government agencies were consulted during the project studies. Written comments received from those agencies are presented in Appendix B. A local officials meeting and a citizens informational workshop were held on June 19, 2007 (see Appendix E). No impacts to streams and wetlands are anticipated; therefore this project will not follow NEPA/Section 404 Merger process.

H. Additional Information

Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting either of the following individuals:

John F. Sullivan III, P.E. Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone (919) 856-4346

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NC Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1501 Telephone: (919) 733-3141

iii I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) From I-77 to US 521 (Johnston Road) South of Charlotte Mecklenburg County Federal Aid Project IMNHF-485(8) WBS Element 39929.1.1 S.T.I.P. PROJECT R-4902

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) propose widening I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) to a basic six-lane divided facility from I-77 to US 521 (Johnston Road) in Mecklenburg County. The project is approximately 6.8 miles in length and is shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the proposed improvements on an aerial photograph. The proposed improvements also include the following:

• Construction of a flyover structure at the US 521 (Johnston Road) interchange to carry traffic from northbound US 521 to westbound I-485. • Rehabilitation of the existing pavement (milling and overlay) and outside shoulder reconstruction on I-485 within the proposed project limits. • Widening of existing structures on I-485 • Install Travel Information devices (IT cameras) within the proposed project limits.

The estimated project construction cost is $58,900,000. The proposed project improvements will be constructed within the existing right of way, therefore the acquisition of additional right of way is not anticipated. The NCDOT 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) calls for right of way acquisition (if needed) to begin in Fiscal Year 2011 and for construction to begin in Fiscal Year 2015. The STIP includes a total funding of $51,795,000 for the project.

II. NEED AND PURPOSE FOR PROJECT

A. Need for Project

I-485 is the primary circumferential freeway in the Charlotte metropolitan area. Between I-77 and US 521, I-485 serves as a crucial east-west connector for local commuters and functions as a bypass for regional traffic to I-85, I-77, US 521 and US 74.

This segment of I-485 is one of the most congested freeways in the state of North Carolina. In 2007 average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes ranged from 100,000 to 124,000 vehicles per day (vpd) within the project limits. Trucks made up 7% of the vehicles within the proposed project limits. Based on 2007 ADT information, these volumes exceed the capacity of the existing facility and I-485 operates at a level of service (LOS) F in the peak hour. Traffic volumes are expected to double by the design year (2030). If no improvements are made this segment of I-485 is expected to operate at a more congested LOS F as traffic density increases and mean speed decreases.

B. Purpose of Project

The purpose of this project is to increase system capacity and improve efficiency on I-485 for local and regional traffic.

1 C. Description of Existing Conditions

1. Functional Classification

I-485 is classified as a rural principal arterial interstate in the North Carolina functional classification system.

2. Physical Description of the Existing Facility

I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) is a six-lane divided facility with three 12-foot lanes in each direction from I-77 to South Boulevard. Within that segment of I-485 auxiliary lanes are provided between many of the interchanges due to their close spacing. From South Boulevard to US 521 (Johnston Road), I-485 is a four-lane divided facility with two 12-foot lanes in each direction. Within the proposed project limits, cable guard rail exists within a 70-foot grassed median. Photos showing the existing conditions are presented in Figure 3 in Appendix A.

3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

The existing horizontal and vertical alignment of I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) is suitable for the posted speed limit of that facility, 65 mph.

4. Right of Way and Access Control

The existing right of way width varies from 350 to 380 feet along I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) within the project limits. Access to I-485 is fully controlled and is limited to the four interchanges within the project study area: I-77, South Boulevard/ North Polk Street, NC 51 (Pineville-Matthews Road), and US 521 (Johnston Road). Nations Ford Road (SR 1126), Westinghouse Boulevard (SR 1128), Park Street, and Carmel Road cross I-485 via grade separated bridge crossings, but no interchanges are provided at those locations.

5. Speed Limit

The posted speed limit on I-485 is 65 mph within the project limits.

6. Intersections/Interchanges

There are four interchanges and four grade-separated crossings along I-485 within the project limits. These locations are described below and are shown in Figure 2:

• I-77, Exit 67-three-level fully directional interchange; ramps in all four quadrants, flyover ramps in all quadrants for access to northbound and southbound I-77 from east and west bound I-485 and for access to east and westbound I-485 from I-77 • Nations Ford Road (SR 1126) - grade separated crossing; two-lane bridge over I-485 • Westinghouse Boulevard (SR 1128) - grade separated crossing; two-lane bridge over I-485 • South Boulevard (SR 3998)/North Polk Street, Exit 65-partial cloverleaf interchange; ramps in all four quadrants, loop in northeast quadrant for access to westbound I-485 from northbound South Boulevard, loop in southeast quadrant for access to northbound South Boulevard from eastbound I-485 • NC 51 (Pineville-Matthews Road), Exit 64-partial cloverleaf interchange; with ramps in all four quadrants, loop in northwest quadrant for access to southbound NC 51 from westbound I-485, loop in southeast quadrant for access to northbound NC 51 from eastbound I-485

2 • Park Road (SR 3687) - grade separated crossing west of Carmel Road; two-lane bridge over I-485 • Carmel Road- This grade-separated crossing of I-485 is located just west of US 521 (Johnston Road); two-lane bridge over I-485 • US 521 (Johnston Road), Exit 61- partial cloverleaf interchange, with ramps in all four quadrants, loop in northwest quadrant for access to southbound US 521 (Johnston Road) from westbound I-485, and loop in southwest quadrant for access to eastbound I-485 from southbound US 521 (Johnston Road)

7. Railroads

Norfolk Southern Railway’s north/south Charlotte to Columbia South Carolina R-line crosses over I-485 via a grade separated bridge structure immediately west of the I-485 and the South Boulevard/North Polk Street interchange (Exit 65). The location is shown on Figure 2, sheet 5, in Appendix A

8. Structures

The project study area contains twenty one bridges, including nine bridges over streams and twelve bridges over highways. Information about each structure is presented in Table 2 on the following page.

9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities/Greenways

a. Bicycle Facilities

I-485 is not designated as a bicycle route nor does it correspond to a bicycle STIP request. However, bike lanes exist along two facilities that intersect I-485 within the project limits, Carmel Road and US 521 (Johnston Road).

b. Pedestrian Facilities

There are no sidewalks along I-485 within the proposed project limits. Sidewalks are provided for a short distance on US 521 (Johnston Road) north of the interchange with I-485. There are existing sidewalks on Nations Ford Road and Park Road, both of which are grade separated facilities that cross I-485. No other sidewalk is provided along roadways that intersect I-485 and no sidewalk is provided on the bridges that cross I-485.

c. Greenways

Two greenway facilities cross under I-485 within the project limits. Lower McAlpine Creek Greenway and McMullen Creek Greenway run under I-485 adjacent to the I-485 bridge structures over McAlpine and McMullen Creeks. These greenways are identified on Figure 2, sheets 8 and 9.

The City of Charlotte Bicycle Master Plan approved September 9, 2008 includes Little Sugar Creek Greenway currently under development and design in progress. The greenway segment in the design phase is outside the project limits, but is planned to parallel Little Sugar Creek and eventually cross under I-485. Also, greenway corridors along Sugar Creek and Kings Branch intersect I-485 are proposed for future greenway development.

4 10. Utilities

High voltage transmission lines cross I-485 between US 521 (Johnston Road) and McAlpine Creek. In addition, two substations are located northeast of the I-77/I-485 interchange, immediately adjacent to the ramp which carries westbound I-485 traffic onto north and south bound I-77. Neither of these substations is located within existing right of way for the proposed project improvements. The exact locations of these features are presented in Figure 2, sheet 1 in Appendix A.

The City of Charlotte and the Town of Pineville have utilities that are located along existing - Y- lines within the proposed project limits. The current project scope does not include -Y- line improvements, but it is anticipated that relocation of some existing utilities will be necessary during construction. Other subsurface utilities are also located along the project such as telephone, power, cable, gas and force main sewer.

11. School Buses

Charlotte Mecklenburg County Public School System bus routes utilize segments of I-485 within the project limits. Forty one buses travel west bound and twenty four buses travel east bound for a total of 64 total trips per day.

12. Airports

There are no airports located within the proposed project limits. However, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is located approximately 12 miles to the northwest via NC 160 (West Boulevard) and US 74.

13. Public Transportation

The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) operates public transportation (bus service and light rail service) for both the City of Charlotte and the Town of Pineville within the project study area (see Figure 4). There are seven individual CATS bus routes that provide transit service to or that traverse the project area on Nations Ford Road, Westinghouse Boulevard, South Boulevard, I-485, North Polk Street, Carmel Road, and US 521 (Johnston Road).

14. Park and Ride Lots

There are no park and ride facilities located within the existing right of way within the project limits, but two facilities are within the project study area. These facilities are described as follows:

a. South Boulevard LYNX Blue Line Station

The South Boulevard LYNX Blue Line station located immediately west of South Boulevard north of I-485 exit 65 includes a 1,200 space underground parking facility and a bus transfer station.

b. Carolina Place Mall

Carolina Place Mall is designated as a CATS park and ride lot for commuters. CATS Routes 58 (Pineville) and 20 (Sharon Road) originate/terminate from this location.

15. Intelligent Transportation Systems

There are currently no existing intelligent transportation system (ITS) provisions within the proposed project limits.

16. Lighting

Interchange lighting is provided at the I-77/I-485 interchange. No other lighting is currently provided within the proposed project limits.

17. Noise Abatement

Noise walls are located in the existing right of way from McAlpine Creek to NC 51 (Pineville- Matthews Road) along both sides of I-485 within proposed project limits. The specific locations are shown on Figure 2.

D. Traffic Volumes and Traffic Carrying Capacity

1. Existing and Future Traffic Volumes

Traffic volumes on I-485 in the year 2010 range from 115,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 137,000 vpd within the project limits. The projected design year (2030) traffic volume is estimated to range from 182,000 vpd to 204,000 vpd between I-77 and US 521 (Johnston Road) Figures 5a and 5b located in Appendix A display current and projected average daily volumes along the corridor.

2. Existing and Future Levels of Service

a. General Information

Freeway element and intersection analyses were performed for this project following the NCDOT Congestion Management Section’s Capacity Analysis Guidelines for TIP Project Traffic Analyses. Traffic operations analysis for individual elements (basic freeway segments and ramp merge/diverge areas) was conducted using Highway Capacity Software 2000 (HCS 2000, version 4.1f), which is based on the methodologies of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Synchro Version 7 (Build 757) was used to determine the level of service (LOS), corresponding delay, and capacity at signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Software 2000 (HCS 2000, version 4.1f) was used to determine the LOS, corresponding delay, and capacity at unsignalized intersections.

A summary of the Final Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum is presented below. A copy of the entire report is available for review in the offices of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, located at 1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601.

b. Existing Levels of Service

The existing freeway operations analysis indicates that many individual elements and segments of the project currently operate at a LOS of F. These segments and corresponding LOS are shown in Figure 6a in Appendix A.

c. Future Levels of Service (No Build Scenario)

A No-Build traffic analysis was performed to determine the level of service in the year 2030 if no improvements were made to I-485 between I-77 and US 521 (Johnston Road). I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) currently operates at a level of service F. Under a no build scenario, this facility will operate at a more congested level of service F by 2030.

d. Future Levels of Service- Build Scenario (NCDOT-preferred improvements)

The proposed additional lane will improve the operation of the facility by reducing the density of traffic during peak AM and PM travel times in certain locations and as a result, LOS is improved. These locations and the LOS are identified in Figure 6b. The percent improvements in vehicular densities range from none to as much as 75 %. See Appendix B for the listing of densities, speed, and percent improvements for all of the freeway components analyzed along the project corridor.

Additional through lanes would be required on the roads crossing I-485 (in addition to the lanes proposed for construction under STIP Project R-4902) to improve the operation of these intersections above the shown levels of service.

E. Crash History

During a three year period between September 1, 2005 and August 31, 2008, 864 vehicular crashes occurred on I-485 within the project limits. The most frequent type of crash (57%) consisted of rear end crashes. This was followed by sideswipe crashes in the same direction (16%) and vehicles hitting fixed objects (10%). These accidents are primarily the result of heavy stop and go traffic during peak travel times. Two fatal crashes were reported during the rating period. The total, non-fatal and night crash rates on I-485 within the project limits are greater than the 2005-2007 statewide rates for similar urban interstate facilities. In addition, the night crash rate exceeds the critical rate for similar facilities of this type. A summary of the accident rates for the analyzed section of I-485, statewide average rates and the critical rates for similar urban interstate facilities is provided in the following table.

Table 3 Crash Rates per 100 million vehicle miles (100MVM)

Number of Crashes per Crash Type Statewide Rate 1 Critical Rate 2 Crashes 100 MVM Total 864 113.67 109.33 115.63 Fatal 2 0.26 0.51 1.00 Non-Fatal 240 31.58 31.41 34.82 Nighttime 233 30.65 26.89 30.05 Wet Conditions 106 13.95 22.49 25.39 1 2005-2007 Statewide Crash Rate for Urban Interstate Route 2 Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence). The critical crash rate is a statistically derived value against which a calculated rate can be compared to see if the rate is above an average far enough so that something besides chance must be the cause.

7 F. Transportation and Land Use Plans

1. NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program

There are four NCDOT highway projects in the vicinity of the proposed STIP project R-4902 included in the NCDOT 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Those projects are presented below in Table 4 and are shown in Figure 7 in Appendix A.

Table 4 Nearby STIP Projects STIP County Project Description Project Schedule Number I-485/SR 3468 (Weddington Road), Right of way Fiscal Year 2009 R-211EC Mecklenburg Construct Interchange Construction Fiscal Year 2011 NC 51,South Carolina State Line to Right of way Complete U-3447 Mecklenburg SR 3645 (Downs Circle), Widen to Construction Fiscal Year 2009 multi lanes NC 160 (West Boulevard) Relocation, East of I-485 (Charlotte Right of way Complete U-3411 Mecklenburg Outer Loop) to Horseshoe Lane, Construction In Progress multi lanes on new location Garden Parkway, I-85 west of Mecklenburg, Right of way Unfunded U-3321 Gastonia to NC 160 in Mecklenburg Gaston Construction Unfunded County, multi lanes on new location

2. NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridor

I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) is identified as a segment of Strategic Highway Corridor 16, connecting Spartanburg, South Carolina to Petersburg, Virginia. The NCDOT created the Strategic Highway Corridors initiative in collaboration with the N. C. Department of Commerce and the N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The purpose of this initiative was to protect and maximize the mobility and connectivity on a core set of highway corridors throughout North Carolina, while promoting environmental stewardship through maximizing the use of existing facilities to the extent possible and fostering economic prosperity through the quick and efficient movement of people and goods. The Strategic Highway Corridors policy was adopted by the North Carolina Board of Transportation in September 2004.

3. Department of Defense Strategic Highway Network

This segment of I-485 serves as an access-controlled reliever facility to US 74, which is a part of the Department of Defense Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET).

4. Mecklenburg-Union MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan

The Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) is responsible for overseeing the development of a transportation system in Mecklenburg and Union Counties. MUMPO’s 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) plans for the widening of I-485 to six lanes by 2020 and to eight lanes by 2030. MUMPO is currently in the process of updating the 2030 LRTP.

5. Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study

The Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study has been undertaken to examine the feasibility of Fast Lanes on major highways in the area. Study partners include the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the South Carolina DOT, the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO, the Gaston Urban Area MPO, the Rock Hill-Fort Mill Transportation Study, the Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization (RPO), the Rocky River RPO, and the Town of Mooresville. This study was undertaken due to the recognition that traditional approaches to congestion (e.g. widening existing roads) likely will not be sufficient to solve existing or future problems.

Fast Lanes, or managed lanes, offer enhanced operational conditions within separated lanes and provide greater efficiency, free-flow speeds, or reduced congestion. Fast Lane alternatives include High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, and Special Use lanes. HOV lanes are reserved for buses, carpools, and vanpools. HOT lanes allow buses, carpools, and vanpools to travel at no charge; single-occupant vehicles are also allowed, but must pay a toll. Special Use lane alternatives include express bus lanes with limited entrances and exits, bus-only lanes, and truck-only lanes.

A Final Corridor Screening Report for the Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study was completed in February 2008. That report identified the five highway corridors that met the screening criteria and recommended those corridors for detailed study. I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) in Mecklenburg County, which includes the segment of I-485 being addressed under STIP Project R-4902, was among the five corridors recommended for further evaluation under Phase 2 of the Fast Lanes Study. The Phase 1 report indicates this segment of I-485 meets the congestion, HOV demand, and physical threshold criteria.

The Phase 2 Analysis has been completed and the Fast Lanes Study Final Report was completed in July 2009. The Phase 2 Analysis evaluated the five corridors with respect to trip time savings for managed lane users, levels of congestion in the general purpose and managed lanes, mobility (number of vehicle and person trips per hour, forecasted revenues, and estimated capital costs).

I-485 was originally constructed to accommodate two additional travel lanes in each direction within the existing median. Therefore, no special design exceptions are necessary to accommodate the proposed typical section included in the Fast Lanes Study. The proposed flyover structure at the I-485/US 521 (Johnston Road) interchange would need additional design to adjust span lengths to accommodate the proposed typical section on I-485 in order to accommodate the proposed Fast Lanes managed lane requirements.

6. Local Land Use Plans

The Town of Pineville has adopted a Zoning Ordinance to implement the goals and policies of the Pineville Land Use Plan and Downtown Master Plan. Pineville has also established overlay districts (Downtown Core, Corridor, Industrial, Neighborhood-Mixed Use, and Residential) which outline specifically crafted appearance, density, building, and infrastructure requirements with the goal of managing and directing growth and redevelopment within these districts. In addition to a number of different industrial, residential and office-commercial zoning classifications for the various parcels adjacent to I-485 within Pineville, each one of the overlay districts is represented. The northern portion of Pineville west of the South Boulevard interchange has an industrial overlay

9 district. There is a downtown core overlay district located to the east that encompasses Polk Street north of the South Boulevard interchange. A corridor overlay district is located to the west of the NC 51 interchange and adjacent to I-485. This corridor overlay district also extends to the east of the NC 51/I-485 interchange along NC 51. In addition to the corridor overlay district along NC 51 in the portion of Pineville east of I-485, there is a mixed-use overlay district to the north of NC 51 and a residential overlay district to the south of NC 51.

According to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department, zoning maps shall be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Generalized Land Plan, district plans, area plans and other public policies related to land development adopted by the City Council. The Charlotte- Mecklenburg planning sphere of influence is divided into a grid system of zoning maps. The proposed project area appears on maps 149, 156, 157, 168, 175, and 176 and the parcels adjacent to the proposed project have a number of various industrial, residential and office-commercial zoning classifications.

G. System Linkage

1. Existing Road Network

a. Commuting Patterns

I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) is the primary circumferential freeway in the Charlotte metropolitan area. I-485 between I-77 and US 521 serves as a crucial east-west connector for local commuters and also functions as a bypass for regional traffic to I-85, I-77, US 521 (Johnston Road), and US 74.

b. Local Thoroughfare Plan

The Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) Thoroughfare Plan adopted on November 17, 2004 classifies I-485 as a Freeway-Expressway (see Figure 8 in Appendix A). Intersecting facilities are classified in the MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan as follows:

I-77: Freeway-Expressway Nations Ford Road (SR 1126): Class II Minor Thoroughfare Westinghouse Boulevard (SR 1128): Class II Major Thoroughfare South Boulevard/North Polk Street: Class II Major Thoroughfare NC 51 (Pineville-Matthews Road): Class II Major Thoroughfare Park Road: Class II Minor Thoroughfare Carmel Road: Class II Minor Thoroughfare US 521 (Johnston Road): Class II Major Thoroughfare, Limited Access Facility

2. Modal Interrelationships

a. Public Transportation

Charlotte Area Transportation System (CATS) offers public bus service for both the city of Charlotte and the town of Pineville. Several bus routes travel segments of I-485 within the project limits. CATS operates a passenger light rail service which terminates on South Boulevard at park and ride lot north of the South Boulevard interchange with I-485. See Figure 4 in Appendix A for a map that shows the specific bus routes within the project limits.

b. Rail Freight Service

Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) operates a north-south Charlotte to Columbia South Carolina rail line which crosses I-485 just west of the South Boulevard interchange adjacent to several large industrial parks. This NS rail line is known as the R-line and ten to fifteen trains use this line per day.

c. Motor Freight Service

I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) is a federally designated truck route. Truck traffic accounts for 7% of the existing traffic volumes within the proposed project limits. In addition, the following intersecting facilities within the project study area are designated truck routes; I-77, South Boulevard, and US 521 (Johnston Road) south of I-485.

d. Air Service

I-485 provides access to the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport located approximately 12 miles to the northwest via NC 160 (West Boulevard) and US 74. Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is the busiest airport in the state and is a designated NHS (National Highway System) Intermodal Freight Connector facility.

H. Legislative Mandates

The need for the proposed improvements included in STIP Project R-4902 was originally identified and funded as mandated by the General Assembly and included in the Highway Trust Fund created in 1989. This fund was established to allocate funding for the specific purpose of improving the intrastate network of major, multi-lane arterial highways to further economic growth and development in small urban and rural areas and also included the construction of urban loops in several cities, including Charlotte. The funds allocated for the Charlotte urban loop included widening the then completed segment of I-485 to six lanes from I-77 to US 521 (Johnston Road), now identified as STIP Project R-4902.

I. Benefits of Proposed Project

The proposed improvements will provide relief from present and future congestion and provide a higher level of efficiency on I-485 for local and regional traffic. When constructed, the additional lanes should result in a slight reduction in travel time for motorists using this segment of I- 485. In addition, the project will also improve a facility that is consistent with the goals of the National Highway System (NHS), North Carolina Intrastate System, and the Strategic Highway Corridor Initiative.

III. ALTERNATIVES

A. Alternate Modes of Transportation

The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) operates public transportation (bus service and light rail) in the project study area. These services, even if expanded, do not eliminate the need to improve I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop). Thus, alternative modes of transportation in lieu of the proposed I-485 improvements are not recommended.

B. Travel Demand Management

Travel demand management improvements were considered for the project but would not eliminate the need to improve I-485. Therefore, implementing these measures in lieu of the proposed I-485 improvements is not recommended.

C. Transportation Systems Management (TSM)

Transportation system management was considered for the project. However, the improvements would not meet the purpose and the need of the project.

D. Build Alternatives

NC 51 (Pineville-Matthews Road) was identified and considered as an alternative to the proposed widening of I-485. NC 51 begins in Pineville and terminates near Mint Hill, east of Charlotte and is parallel to I-485. This facility is primarily a two-lane roadway with no control of access and minimum traffic carrying potential. Improvements needed to increase capacity of NC 51 as an alternative to the proposed widening of I-485 are not feasible and do not satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed project.

E. New Location Alternatives

Given the amount of development in and near the I-485 corridor, constructing a new freeway facility would not be a cost-effective means of addressing the highway capacity deficiency. In addition, environmental impacts would be considerably greater if a new facility were constructed. For these reasons construction of a freeway on new location is not recommended.

F. No Build Alternative

The existing facility is currently operating at a level of service F. This alternative would not provide relief from existing traffic congestion and would result in the further deterioration of traffic conditions as volumes increase. For these reasons, the no-build alternative is not recommended.

G. Improve Existing Facility (NCDOT-recommended alternative)

The NCDOT-preferred alternative proposes improvements to existing I-485 from I-77 to US 521 (Johnston Road). This alternative includes construction of one additional travel lane in each direction within the existing median and construction of a flyover structure at the I-485/ US 521 (Johnston Road) interchange. The flyover structure would provide west-bound I-485 access for north-bound US 521 traffic.

IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

Proposed improvements to I-485 are presented below and are shown in Figure 2 in Appendix A.

A. Roadway Cross Section and Alignment

A basic six-lane median-divided freeway is proposed along I-485 (see Figure 9a, typical sections) providing a basic six-lane freeway throughout the project will require constructing one additional lane in each direction within the existing median.

B. Right of Way and Access Control

Proposed improvements are proposed within existing right of way and the acquisition of additional right of way is not anticipated.

C. Speed Limit

The existing speed limit of 65 mph will be maintained on I-485.

D. Design Speed

The proposed design speed is 70 mph for I-485.

E. Anticipated Design Exceptions

No design exceptions are anticipated.

F. Intersections/Interchanges

US 521 (Johnston Road)

The proposed improvements include the construction of a flyover structure to provide northbound US 521 (Johnston Road) access to westbound I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) and will tie into the existing ramp in the northwest quadrant. The existing ramp was constructed to accommodate the flyover structure and will require minor improvements. The left turn movement from US 521 onto the westbound I-485 ramp will be eliminated; however southbound traffic on US 521 will not be affected. The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2. The proposed typical sections for US 521 (Johnston Road) and proposed flyover structure are shown in Figure 9b in Appendix A.

G. Service Roads

No service roads are included in the proposed project improvements.

H. Railroad Crossings

No changes are anticipated for the existing NS RR Bridge over I-485 located just west of the I-485 and South Boulevard interchange.

I. Structures

The project study area contains 23 structures, including eleven bridges over highways, nine bridges over streams, and three reinforced concrete box culverts carrying streams under I-485. Information about each of these structures is presented in Table 2 (see page 4). The proposed treatment of each structure is presented below:

1. Bridges

Existing bridges on I-485 over I-77, Sugar Creek, Westinghouse Boulevard, NC 51 (Pineville- Matthews Road), Little Sugar Creek, McMullen Creek, and McAlpine Creek will be retained. Of these, all will be widened with the exception of the bridges on I-485 over I-77. In addition, all

13 existing bridges that carry roadways over I-485 will require installation of concrete barriers or guardrails for median pier protection.

A new flyover structure is proposed at the existing US 521 (Johnston Road) interchange with I-485. This structure will provide access to westbound I-485 for northbound US 521 (Johnston Road) traffic.

2. Culverts

All existing concrete box culverts and pipe culverts will be retained. All existing drainage structures were designed and constructed to accommodate future median widening. Therefore, it is anticipated existing drainage structures will not require lengthening and no supplemental conveyance is anticipated.

J. Utilities

The proposed ITS equipment will require installation of additional utilities and measures. The design details are unknown at this time, but impacts are not expected to be significant.

K. Landscaping

No special landscaping is proposed along the proposed project limits.

L. Noise Abatement

Based on the preliminary traffic noise analysis performed for the project, and in accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, 20 potential traffic noise impact areas were identified within the project limits. All mitigation measures will be reevaluated during the design phase of the project to determine more accurately the noise impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Please note that this noise analysis was based upon preliminary plans. The number of traffic noise impacts could change based upon the final plans to be prepared for the project. Additional public involvement will be performed if noise mitigation measures are warranted. The results of this analysis are presented in Section V. I and in Appendix D.

M. Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction Phasing

This project is located within a Transportation Management Area (TMA). A TMA is defined as an area with a population greater than 200,000 and the impact of this project is expected to be high. In addition, impacts to high traffic generators on the -Y- lines are anticipated during construction. The use of extensive Public Information is recommended prior to and during construction of this project.

This proposed project will create a significant impact to motorists and the transportation network surrounding I-485 and will require a Transportation Management Plan (TMP). Proactive mitigation of traffic is necessary and may include workzone ITS equipment to provide motorists with alternate routes, enhanced Incident Management, additional signing for alternate routes, and other advanced technology devices in work zones to provide and notify motorists of current conditions in the area.

I-485 has a current ADT which exceeds the minimum limits used when considering time restrictions during construction and as many lanes as possible will need to be maintained during

14 construction. Temporary pavement, alternative delivery techniques, and other traffic management techniques will be considered during construction.

N. Public Transportation

As discussed in Section II.C.13 of this report, the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) operates public transportation (bus service) within the project study area (See Figure 4). Existing public transportation includes; CATS local routes 43 (Ballantyne), 58 (Pineville), 20 (Sharon Road), 12 (South Boulevard), 42 (Carowinds Boulevard), 55 (Westinghouse), 44 (Fort Mill) and CATS express routes 45X (Carmel Road) and 82X (Rock Hill).

The LYNX passenger rail South Corridor Blue Line terminates north of I-485 on South Boulevard adjacent to the project study area. Due to the locations close proximity, coordination with CATS will be necessary to determine if special provisions are needed to accommodate the proposed improvements.

O. HOV and HOT Lanes

Currently there are no plans to accommodate or include provisions for the addition of HOV or HOT lanes as part of STIP Project R-4902.

P. Intelligent Transportation Systems Measures

Surveillance, detection, and traveler information will be implemented during the early phases of project construction. These measures will include installation of conduit and fiber-optic cable, changeable message signs, and highway advisory radio. Additional utilities will be required to support these measures. The exact design and locations will be determined prior to construction.

Q. Transportation System Management Measures

Existing traffic signals throughout the project limits will be repaired and upgraded as needed. In addition, existing traffic signals in the vicinity of each interchange will be coordinated to ensure optimal traffic flow.

R. Travel Demand Management Measures

Travel Demand Management measures are not proposed within the project limits.

S. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Greenways

1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

There are currently no bicycle improvements for the proposed project.

2. Greenways

Future greenways are proposed along Sugar Creek, Little Sugar Creek and Kings Branch. The proposed improvements to I-485 will be constructed to accommodate the future greenways, if possible.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION

A. Natural Resources

1. Physical Resources

The project study area is located in the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion (45b) of the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina (USEPA 2001). Topography in the project vicinity is generally characterized as gently rolling, well rounded hills and low long ridges with a few feet of elevation difference between the hills and valleys. Elevations range from approximately 520 to 610 feet above mean sea level (MSL).

a. Soils

The Mecklenburg County Soil Surveys identify eighteen soil types within the project study area, as shown in Table 5:

Table 5 Soils in the Project Study Area Hydric Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Status Monocan loam MO Somewhat poorly drained Hydric Iredell fine sandy IrB Well drained Hydric loam Cecil sandy clay loam CeB2, CeD2 Well drained Non-Hydric Cecil –Urban land CuB N/A Non Hydric Complex 1 Davidson sandy clay DaB, DaD, DaE Well drained Non Hydric loam Enon sandy loam EnD Well drained Non Hydric Mecklenburg loam MeB, MeD Well drained Non Hydric Mecklenburg –Urban MkB N/A Non-Hydric land complex 1 Pacolet sandy loam PaF Well drained Non Hydric Urban Land 2 Ur N/A N/A Wilkes loam WkB, WkD, WkE Well drained Non Hydric Udorthents loam 3 UL N/A Non-Hydric

1 This unit consists of areas where most of the natural soil has been disturbed (altered or covered) as the result of construction activities. 2 This map unit consists of areas where more than 85 percent of the surface area is covered by impervious surfaces. Most of the soil has been disturbed by construction activities and the natural characteristics have been destroyed. 3 This map unit consists of areas where all of the original soil has been removed for use as fill material. The exposed surface now consists mainly of bedrock or weathered bedrock that had underlain the natural soils.

b. Water Resources

Water resources within the project study area are within sub-basin 03-08-34 of the Catawba River Basin (USGS Hydrolgic Unit 03050103). Twenty-three streams were identified in the project study area. The location of each water resource is shown in Figure 2 in Appendix A. The physical characteristics of these streams are provided in Table 6. Drainages within the project study area are all part of the Lower Catawba River watershed.

16 Table 6 Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Project Study Area

Map ID Bank Bank Water Channel Stream Name Stream Height Width Velocity Clarity a Depth (in) Substrate No. (ft) (ft) UT to McAlpine Creek S1a 6 12 10 cobble, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to McAlpine Creek S1b 5 12 10 gravel, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to McAlpine Creek S2a 4 7 6 gravel, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to McAlpine Creek S2b 4 7 6 gravel, sand, clay slow slightly turbid McAlpine Creek S3 8 18 12 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear McMullen Creek S4 8 20 12 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear UT to McMullen Creek S5 3 3 4 sand, silty, clay moderate clear UT to McMullen Creek S6a 1 2 1 sand, silty, clay slow clear UT to McMullen Creek S6b 3 6 1 rip-rap slow slightly turbid UT to Little Sugar Creek S7a 3 5 2 cobble, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to Little Sugar Creek S7b 3 5 2 cobble, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to Little Sugar Creek S8a 3 3 3 gravel, sand, clay slow clear UT to Little Sugar Creek S8b 3 3 3 gravel, sand, clay slow clear Little Sugar Creek S9 9 20 14 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear UT to Little Sugar Creek S10 2 3 1 gravel, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to Sugar Creek S11 4 5 4 gravel, sand, clay slow slightly turbid Kings Branch S12 9 16 4 gravel, sand, clay slow clear Sugar Creek S13a 10 20 12 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear Sugar Creek S13b 7 22 14 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear Sugar Creek S13c 12 25 15 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear Sugar Creek S13d 12 25 15 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear UT to Sugar Creek S14a 3 3 5 gravel, sand, clay slow clear UT to Sugar Creek S14b 3 5 5 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear UT to Sugar Creek S14c 8 8 5 cobble, sand, clay moderate clear UT to Sugar Creek S15 2 3 2 gravel, sand, clay slow clear UT to Sugar Creek S16 4 4 1 sand, silty, clay slow slightly turbid UT to Sugar Creek S17 2 2 2 gravel, sand, clay slow clear UT to Sugar Creek S18a 4 10 6 gravel, sand, clay slow clear UT to Sugar Creek S18b 5 10 6 gravel, sand, clay slow clear UT to Sugar Creek S18c 5 10 6 cobble, sand, clay slow clear UT to Sugar Creek S19 5 6 1 rip-rap slow slightly turbid UT to Sugar Creek S20a 6 12 3 cobble, sand, clay slow slightly turbid

UT to Sugar Creek S20b 6 12 3 cobble, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to Sugar Creek S21 4 6 1 rip-rap slow slightly turbid UT to Sugar Creek S22 5 6 1 gravel, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to Sugar Creek S23a 3 5 2 gravel, sand, clay slow slightly turbid UT to Sugar Creek S23b 3 5 2 gravel, sand, clay slow slightly turbid a The number of stream segments may be greater than the number of streams due to the project study area shape.

All surface waters identified within the study corridor limits have been assigned a primary water resource classification of “C”. There are no anadromous fish present or essential fish habitat identified.

Three stream segments within the project study area are included on the Draft 2010 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Little Sugar Creek (S9) from Archdale Road to NC 51 is listed for 17 copper. McMullen, McAlpine Creek (S3) from NC 51 to US 521 and Sugar Creek (S13) from SR 1156 to NC 51 are listed for ecological/biological integrity. No High Quality Waters (HQW), water supply (WS-I or WS-II) areas or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW’s) are located within the study area. No stream that flows through the project study area is designated as a National Wild and Scenic River or a state Natural and Scenic River. There are no trout streams designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC).

c. Water Quality Information

There is a benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station (CB146) located at N35.08503; W80.88237 which is within one mile of the project study area. At this location, the bioclassification was characterized as fair on July 11, 2007. There is a fish community monitoring station (CF28) located at N35.08500; W88.27770 which is within one mile of the project study area. At this location, the bioclassification was characterized as fair on April 24, 2007.

d. Permitted Discharges

There is one permitted discharge within one mile of the project study area. McAlpine Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, Permit No. NC0024970 is owned by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department. This large municipal facility is located on McAlpine Creek, approximately 2,050 feet southwest (downstream) from the project study area boundary and discharges 64,000,000 gallons per day (DWQ 2007c). This facility is shown in Figure 2 in Appendix A.

2. Biotic Resources

a. Terrestrial Communities

Distribution and composition of vegetative communities throughout the project study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use practices. When appropriate, the vegetative community names have been adopted and/or modified from the NCNHP classification system (Schafale & Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local variations within the project study area. Three natural communities were identified within the project study area including Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, pine/mixed hardwood forest, and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. The majority of the site can be classified as Urban Disturbed. There was a small segment of agricultural land near McAlpine Creek Disposal site. A description of each community type follows:

• Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest

This community designation corresponds to the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont subtype) natural community of Schafale and Weakley (1990). Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is found within the project study area along stream channels, lower slopes, and ravines bordering intermittent tributaries. These areas are usually associated with gentle to moderate slopes adjacent to stream floodplains and/or in floodplain areas of deeply cut intermittent streams. The community is dominated by white oak ( Quercus alba ), red oak (Quercus rubra ), tulip poplar ( Liriodendron tulipifera ), red maple ( Acer rubrum ), and sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua ), with an occasional American beech ( Fagus grandifolia ). Pines may be present, but represent less than 20 percent of the canopy coverage. The understory varies in density and includes saplings of the canopy species, flowering dogwood ( Cornus florida ), American holly ( Ilex opaca ), ironwood ( Carpinus caroliniana ), and deerberry ( Vaccinium stamineum ), with an occasional winged elm ( Ulmus alata ). Groundcover consists of vines such as Japanese honeysuckle ( Lonicera japonica ), greenbrier ( Smilax spp .), poison ivy ( Toxicodendron radicans ), giant cane ( Arundinaria gigantea ) and yellow jessamine

18 (Gelsemium sempervirens ). On some slopes along natural drainage areas, these communities may include seepage areas which support various sedges ( Carex spp. and Cyperus spp.), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea ), and rush ( Juncus spp.).

• Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest

This community is characterized by the co-dominance of pines and hardwoods in the canopy. Pines, such as loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda ), shortleaf pine ( Pinus echinata ), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana ) contribute between 20 and 80 percent of canopy dominance, with the remainder of the canopy typically dominated by a mix of hardwood species such as red maple, sweetgum, winged elm, hickories ( Carya spp.), red oak, tulip poplar, and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana ). Depending on landscape position, this community may represent a successional stage of various other natural communities including the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Basic Mesic Forest, and Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest of Schafale and Weakley (1990). Pine to hardwood ratios vary considerably from site to site depending in part on age of the community and previous land management practices. Understory/shrub composition includes a mixture of American holly, wax myrtle ( Myrica cerifera ), flowering dogwood, and saplings of canopy species present. Greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, blackberry ( Rubus spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia ), and other herbs occur sporadically throughout herbaceous layers, dependent in part upon the degree of disturbance and hydrologic conditions.

• Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest

This community designation is consistent with the palustrine system for river floodplains of the natural community of Schafale and Weakley (1990). Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest is found within the project study area along stream channels and floodplains in which separate fluvial landforms and associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish. These areas are usually associated with small stream floodplains and/or floodplains in areas of deeply cut intermittent streams, which have poor development of the depositional fluvial landforms which determine vegetation (Schafale & Weakley 1990). The community is dominated by river birch ( Betula nigra ), American sycamore ( Plantanus occidentalis ), tulip poplar, red maple, and sweetgum, with an occasional winged elm. The understory varies in density and includes saplings of the canopy species, box elder ( Acer negundo ), American holly, ironwood, and silky dogwood ( Cornus amomum ), with an occasional pawpaw ( Asimina triloba ). Groundcover consists of vines such as Virginia creeper, greenbrier, poison ivy, and giant cane, and herbs such as various sedges, cinnamon fern, witchgrass ( Leptoloma cognatum ), and rush.

• Agricultural Land

Agricultural land is used for the cultivation of row crops and field crops as well as for grazing pasture. The primary use noted for the one area identified within the project study area was pasture which was dominated by grass and herb mixes.

• Maintained/Disturbed Land

Maintained/disturbed areas occupy a large percentage of land within the corridors, especially along the existing Interstates (I-485 and I-77) and secondary roads. This category includes areas with disturbed vegetation and/or soils with man-made structures including buildings, roadways, parking lots, maintained yards, and areas where other human activities dominate. Wide maintained roadside rights-of-way, power line corridors, maintained road frontages, private home sites, residential communities, and commercial complexes are included in this category. Ornamental

19 trees, shrubs, and grasses intermix with native pines, hardwoods, and occasionally invasive weeds in an anthropogenic landscape setting.

b. Terrestrial Community Impacts

Table 7 summarizes acreages of terrestrial communities located within the project study area. The terrestrial communities within the project study area were delimited on an aerial photograph base and verified in the field.

Table 7 Coverage of Vegetative Communities Present within the Project Study Area Plant Community Area of coverage Area (acres) % of PSA * Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 93.0 15.3 Piedmont / Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 14.3 2.4 Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest 33.1 5.4 Agricultural Land 3.8 0.6 Maintained/Disturbed Land 279.6 45.9 Impervious Surface 184.9 30.4 Total: 608.7 100 * PSA is the Project Study Area

c. Terrestrial Fauna

The majority of the project study region is urban to sub-urban; therefore, much of the landscape has been altered or disturbed through commercial development, residential development and road construction. The project study area is primarily developed with forested areas along the streams, tributaries and storm drain features. The clearing and conversion of tracts of land for development uses and roads has eliminated cover and protection for many species of wildlife while increasing habitat for other species able to utilize these anthropogenic habitats. Developed or maintained areas not only provide food for wildlife, but also create edge habitat favored by many species.

Most of the mammals expected to occur within the project study area are the conspicuous larger and medium-sized species that have wide habitat tolerances. Mammal species observed (*) and expected within the project study area, particularly within the remnant forested areas and edges, include gray squirrel ( Sciurus carolinensis )*, Virginia opossum ( Didelphis virginiana ), eastern cottontail ( Sylvilagus floridanus )*, raccoon ( Procyon lotor )*, beaver ( Castor canadensis ), common gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ), domestic dog ( Canis familiaris )*, domestic/feral cats ( Felis silvestris )* and white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus )* (NatureServe 2007; ASM 2001).

No quantitative surveys were conducted to document the small mammal populations within the project study area. The forested communities within the project study area are expected to provide habitat for small animals including insectivores such as southeastern shrew ( Sorex longirostris ), masked shrew ( Sorex cinereus ), and eastern mole ( Scalopus aquaticus ) and rodents such as white-footed mouse ( Peromyscus leucopus ), and black rat ( Rattus rattus ) (NatureServe 2007; ASM 2001).

Birds commonly observed (*) and/or expected in residential yards and other maintained disturbed areas included turkey vulture ( Cathartes aura )*, mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura )*, 20 Canada goose ( Branta canadensis )*, American robin ( Turdus migratorius ), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula ), European starling ( Sturnus vulgaris ), chipping sparrow ( Spizella passerina ), brown-headed cowbird ( Molothrus ater ), and American crow ( Corvus brachyrhynchos )*. Birds observed in forested areas included many of these species as well as wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ), redheaded woodpecker ( Melanerpes erythrocephalus ), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus ), red shouldered hawk ( Buteo lineatus )*, red-tail hawk ( Buteo jamaicensis )*, Carolina wren ( Thryothorus ludovicianus )*, gray catbird ( Dumetella carolinensis ), and orchard oriole (Icterus spurius ). Species observed in or near aquatic habitats included mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos )*, wood duck ( Aix sponsa ), great blue heron ( Ardea herodias )*, and prothonotary warbler ( Protonotaria citrea ).

Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the project study area include eastern box turtle ( Terrapene carolina ), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis ), black racer ( Coluber constrictor ), southern toad ( Bufo terrestris ), and common gray treefrog ( Hyla versicolor ). Common reptiles expected to occur within the project study area include copperhead ( Agkistrodon contortrix ), five-lined skink ( Eumeces fasciatus ), eastern fence lizard ( Sceloporus undulatus ), rat snake ( Elaphe obsoleta ), and eastern garter snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis ). Common terrestrial or arboreal amphibians expected to occur within the project study area include red salamander ( Pseudotriton ruber ), marbled salamander ( Ambystoma opacum ), and spring peeper ( Pseudacris crucifer ). (Behler and King 1998; NatureServe 2007).

d. Aquatic Resources

Aquatic habitats within the project study area include ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial waters present in streams, depressional wetlands, and riverine habitats. These aquatic habitats are defined by having a hydroperiod long enough to support various stages or the entire life cycle of aquatic dependent species.

According to BasinPro Version 3.1, none of the streams within the project study area are considered Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat (NCGIA 2002 and USGS 2007). Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat identifies the extent of endangered or threatened species populations and the tributaries and headwaters of their habitats (NCGIA 2002 and USGS 2007).

Fish sampling was not conducted within the project study area. In addition, the water bodies within the project study area have not been sampled by the DWQ Biological Assessment Unit (DWQ 2007b). Species expected to occur within the project study area include, but are not limited to golden shiner ( Notemigonus crysoleucas ), bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki ), spottail shiner ( Notropis hudsonius ), sandbar shiner ( Notropis scepticus ), swallowtail shiner ( Notropis procne ), white sucker ( Catostomus commersonii ), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus ), greenfin shiner ( Cyprinella chloristia ), whitefin shiner ( Cyprinella nivea ), bluehead chub ( Nocomis leptocephalus ) and tessellated darter ( Etheostoma olmstedi ) (DWQ 2008a).

The larger streams within the project study area would be expected to support populations of game fish such as white catfish ( Ameiurus catus ), flat bullhead catfish ( Ameiurus platycephalus ), largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ), and several sunfish species including red breast sunfish (Lepomis auritus ) and green sunfish ( Lepomis cyanellus ) as well as bluegill.

Streams within the project study area provide riparian and benthic habitat for amphibians and aquatic reptiles. Aquatic reptiles expected within the project study area include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina ), mud turtle ( Kinosternon subrubrum ), and northern water snake ( Nerodia

21 sipedon ). Aquatic amphibians expected within the project study area include bullfrog ( Rana catesbeiana ) and southern leopard frog ( Rana sphenocephala ) (NatureServe 2007 and Behler & King 1998).

3. Jurisdictional Topics

a. Waters of the United States

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharges into “Waters of the United States.” Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the USACE has major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.

Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered “Waters of the United States.” Wetlands have been described as:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. [33 CFR 328.3(b) (1986)]

The USACE requires the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) in support of a jurisdictional determination.

b. Jurisdictional Wetland Descriptions

The wetland areas present within the project study area are primarily identified as palustrine in nature as defined by Cowardin et al . (1979) and as identified on NWI mapping (USFWS 1979; USFWS 1978a; and USFWS 1978b). Palustrine systems include all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5%. Some wetland systems are defined as palustrine but are hydrologically influenced by adjacent streams through periodic overbank flooding and are considered riverine wetlands. Non-riverine wetlands are not typically influenced by overbank flooding.

Wetlands within the project study area vary in vegetative composition, depending in part on hydrologic regime and site-specific disturbances. The majority of the wetlands within the project study area were identified as palustrine, forested (PFO). The class, Forested wetland, is characterized by having woody vegetation that is 20 feet tall or taller. Twenty-three stream channels (riverine system under Cowardin et al.) were identified within the project study area and are considered surface waters.

Wetland systems vary in vegetative composition, depending in part on hydrological regime and site specific disturbances. All wetlands within the boundaries of this project have been disturbed and altered to some extent so special modifiers denoting particular disturbance factors have not been utilized in this classification scheme, except where necessary to differentiate communities. Three wetland types were identified: palustrine forested, palustrine emergent, and palustrine unconsolidated bottom. Each of these community types is discussed below:

• Palustrine Forested (PFO) These areas are identified as forested jurisdictional wetlands which are palustrine in nature. Vegetation within this wetland type varies throughout the project study area. One general wetland forest type is present within the project study area, the deciduous hardwood community (NWI designation PFO1), primarily located in floodplain or headwater areas of smaller streams. This community is discussed below.

• PFO1 – Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous forests located within the project study area consist of hardwood dominated areas. The hydrologic regimes range from saturated (along higher topographic features of the floodplain) to seasonally flooded.

• Palustrine Emergent (PEM) These areas are identified as palustrine emergent wetland systems. Within the project study area, these systems typically have persistent vegetation and are found in low landscape depressions or partially excavated areas where woody shrubs and trees cannot establish or are kept from establishing by routine maintenance or disturbance. Hydrologic regimes exhibited in these systems range from seasonally flooded to semi permanently flooded. Soft rush ( Juncus effuses ), cattail (Typha sp.), and woolgrass ( Scirpus cyperinus ) are common components of this wetland type.

• Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB) Areas identified as palustrine, unconsolidated bottom wetlands within the project study area are typically small ponds or ditches with permanent or semi permanent flooding with an ordinary high water mark that have been claimed as jurisdictional features by the USACE.

c. Wetland Quality

The system used for the wetland analysis was the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina: Fourth Version (DEM 1995). The procedure rates wetland value according to six attributes: water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and recreational/educational value. Attributes are weighted to enhance the results in favor of water quality value. Pollutant removal is weighted to be the most important wetland attribute, while water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, and aquatic life values are given equal weight as secondary attributes. Wildlife habitat and recreation/education are given minimal credit. Scores range from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate higher wetland values. Actual impacts cannot be quantified until a functional design has been completed.

For purposes of this study, wetland values derived from the DWQ rating system range from 43-82. The wetlands within the floodplains of S5, S16, and S26 received higher scores than storm drainage systems, such as W3, W4, and W7 due to greater water storage capacity and their potential aquatic life value. A new wetland rating methodology is currently being evaluated by DWQ and may be available should future analysis be necessary.

d. Surface Water Descriptions

As part of the Natural Resource Investigation, all surface waters were classified using the Cowardin Classification (Cowardin et al . 1979). The streams within the project study area are considered to be riverine systems. Riverine systems may be perennial or intermittent and are identified as those areas contained within a channel that are not dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and contain less than 0.5 parts per thousand

23 (ppt) ocean-derived salts. Stream lengths, flow characteristics (perennial or intermittent), and other characteristics are provided in Table 9.

• Riverine, Lower Perennial (R2) –S3, S4, S9, and S13 are considered to be lower perennial riverine systems according to Cowardin et al. (1979). These systems are characterized by low gradient, slow to moderately moving water with no tidal influence.

• Riverine, Upper Perennial (R3) –S1, S2, S11, S12, S14, S16, 17, and S18 are considered to be upper perennial riverine systems according to Cowardin et al. (1979). These systems are characterized by high gradient, fast moving water with no tidal influence.

• Riverine, Intermittent (R4) –S5, S6, S7, S8, S10, S15, S19, S20, S21, S22, and S23 are considered to be intermittent riverine systems according to Cowardin et al. (1979). These systems are characterized by having flowing water for only part of the year. Water may remain in pools or be absent during the summer and dry seasons.

e. Stream Importance

To aid in alternative analyses and to help determine stream mitigation requirements, the USACE designates streams as either important or unimportant. Streams that have perennial flow, associated wetlands, significant aquatic fauna, or associated Threatened and Endangered species are generally considered to be important and impacts to these streams would require mitigation. Intermittent streams may be considered important if the associated wetlands, significant aquatic fauna, or Threatened and Endangered species criteria are met. Streams designated as unimportant do not support important aquatic function based on USACE’s determination and could potentially require less mitigation (such as 1:1 ratio instead of 2:1).

4. Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas

Jurisdictional areas are present within the project study area. Tables 8 and 9 provide a summary of jurisdictional areas within the project study area. The project study area is approximately 609 acres in aerial extent based on project boundaries provided by NCDOT. Areas presented are based on the total project study area.

a. Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands

Table 8 summarizes acreage of wetlands located within the project study area. Areas presented are based on the total project study area. Potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands located in the project study area have been analyzed based on vegetation type (Cowardin Classification) and source of dominant hydrologic influence (riverine or non-riverine). While jurisdictional wetlands are present within the project study area, no impacts to wetlands are expected as part of the proposed project.

24 Table 8 Jurisdictional Wetland Areas for the Project Study Area

Wetland TOTAL Riverine Wetland Wetland Quality

Number a AREA (Ac.) Influence b Type c Rating W1 0.11 Yes PFO1 62 W2a 0.67 Yes PEM 82 W2b 0.51 Yes PFO1 82 W3 0.01 Yes PFO1 43 W4 0.03 Yes PFO1 49 W5 2.18 Yes PFO1 69 W6 0.62 Yes PFO1 69 W7 0.03 No PUB 49 W8 0.03 Yes PFO1 62 a The number of wetland segments may be greater than the number of wetlands due to the project study area shape. b Riverine wetlands receive overbank flooding compared to Non-Riverine wetlands which do not receive overbank flooding. c Wetland Type: PFO1 palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous; PEM palustrine, emergent; and PUB palustrine, unconsolidated bottom.

b. Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams

Potential impacts to streams located in the project study area have been analyzed based on two general characteristics: flow characteristics (perennial or intermittent) and stream importance. Table 9 on the following page summarizes the streams located within the project study area.

Table 9 Jurisdictional Surface Water Characteristics for the Project Study Area Map ID Length Cowardin Perennial Stream Stream No. a in PSA (ft) Type b Intermittent Importance S1a 467 R3 Perennial Important S1b 6 R3 Perennial Important S2a 28 R3 Perennial Important S2b 87 R3 Perennial Important S3 434 R2 Perennial Important S4 498 R2 Perennial Important S5 76 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S6a 163 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S6b 815 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S7a 237 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S7b 286 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S8a 27 R4 Perennial Important S8b 85 R4 Perennial Important S9 651 R2 Perennial Important S10 25 R4 Perennial Important S11 491 R3 Perennial Important S12 35 R3 Perennial Important S13a 459 R2 Perennial Important S13b 484 R2 Perennial Important S13c 1064 R2 Perennial Important S13d 195 R2 Perennial Important S14a 8 R3 Perennial Important S14b 1217 R3 Perennial Important S14c 5 R3 Perennial Important S15 63 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S16 164 R3 Perennial Important S17 113 R3 Perennial Important S18a 331 R3 Perennial Important S18b 1095 R3 Perennial Important S18c 417 R3 Perennial Important S19 184 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S20a 364 R4 Perennial Important S20b 667 R4 Perennial Important S21 24 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S22 37 R4 Intermittent Unimportant S23a 82 R4 Perennial Important S23b 68 R4 Intermittent Unimportant a The number of stream segments may be greater than the number of streams due to the PSA shape. b Cowardin Type: R2 - Lower perennial; R3 - Upper perennial; and R4 – Intermittent

5. Permits and Certifications Required

a. Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act

Impacts to jurisdictional resources will be limited because all proposed improvements are to be completed within the existing right of way, and therefore it is anticipated that construction of the project may be authorized under a United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) nationwide permit. As such, it is not anticipated that an individual Section 404 permit will be needed for this project. However, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification must be obtained from the NC Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Quality prior to issuance of a nationwide permit.

b. Mitigation Basis

Mitigation has been defined in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) step-down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq .), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the USACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961) (1977), and USFWS mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7644-7663) (1981).

The NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent practicable during project design and construction. The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities once a final design has been approved and actual construction limits have been evaluated and determined. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). In accordance with the “Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District” (MOA), July 22, 2003, the EEP will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.

c. Mitigation Evaluation

• Avoidance - Due to the location of wetlands, streams, and surface waters within the project study area, avoidance of all jurisdictional impacts is not possible. Avoidance of the specific wetlands and streams within the project study area may be accomplished once a final design is completed.

• Minimization - The approved jurisdictional delineation within this project study area will be utilized to further minimize wetland and surface water impacts when designing the proposed improvements. Reduction of fill slopes at stream and wetland crossings will reduce unnecessary impacts. Impacts can be minimized by designing support structures to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever possible. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas within wetlands.

• Compensatory Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation will likely be required for all unavoidable losses after all practical avoidance and minimization options are utilized. A specific mitigation plan cannot be developed until final design is completed and actual impacts determined. NCDOT will evaluate the potential for on-site mitigation once the

27 LEDPA has been selected. NCDOT will use the Ecosystem Enhancement Program to meet mitigation requirements provided there is no suitable on-site mitigation available. In accordance with the “Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District” (MOA), July 22, 2003, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal CWA compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.

6. Protected Species

a. Federally Protected Species

Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq .) as amended. Table 10 presents the federal protected species listed for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (31 January 2008 USFWS list). Descriptions of these federally protected species along with habitat requirements and biological conclusions for this project are presented following the table.

Table 10 Federally Listed Species for Mecklenburg County, NC

Federal Habitat Biological Common Name Scientific Name Status a Present Conclusion Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E Yes No Effect Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E Yes No Effect Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E Yes No Effect a E – Endangered

Carolina heelsplitter ( Lasmigona decorata ) Endangered Family: Unionidae Federally Listed: 1993 BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system, in South Carolina. In North Carolina, the species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Rocky and Catawba River systems.

The species exists in very low abundances, usually within 6 feet of shorelines, throughout its known range. The general habitat requirements for the Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas either in ponded portions of streams or in runs along steep banks with moderate current. The more recent habitat where the Carolina heelsplitter has been found is sections of streams with bedrock with perpendicular crevices, with sand and gravel in between the crevices, and with large buffers associated with the stream.

The species is in decline primarily as a result of impoundments and channelization projects and the general deterioration of water quality resulting from siltation and other pollutants contributed as a result of poor land use practices. In North Carolina, urban sprawl from the Charlotte metropolitan area threatens all extant populations. Exotic mollusk species may also impact this species negatively as Asiatic clam ( Corbicula fluminea ) is established in all the streams where this mussel occurs.

28 NCNHP records indicate no documented occurrences of the Carolina heelsplitter within 1.0 mile of the project study area (NCNHP 2007). Based on a mussel report prepared by NCDOT, the lack of live native mussels found at the project site in Sugar Creek, Little Sugar Creek, McMullen Creek and McAlpine Creek is likely due the highly sediment load within the streams. Given the lack of live native mussels at the project site, the stream characteristics, and the distance to known mussel populations, it is appears that the Carolina heelsplitter does not occur in Little Sugar Creek, McMullen Creek or McAlpine Creek.

Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) Endangered Family: Anacardiaceae Federally Listed: 1989 BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Michaux’s sumac is a rhizomatous shrub that grows to between 0.7 ft and 3 ft in height, is dioecious, and is densely pubescent over the entire plant. The leaflets are generally oblong to oblong-lanceolate. The bases of the leaflets are generally rounded and the edges are simply or doubly serrate. Flowers are usually borne in a terminal, erect, dense cluster, with each one being four to five parted and greenish, yellow to white in color. Flowering usually takes place in June (USFWS 1993).

Michaux’s sumac typically grows in sandy or rocky open woods on acidic soils with low cation exchange capacities and may depend on disturbance to maintain its habitat. Artificial disturbances such as rights-of-way may be replacing the natural occurrence of fire as the major disturbance responsible for maintaining openings (USFWS 1993).

NCNHP records indicate no documented occurrences of Michaux’s sumac within 1.0 mile of the project study area (NCNHP 2007). Potential habitat is present within the project study area along the roadside margins of I-485 and its interchanges. All habitat areas were systematically surveyed by walking overlapping transects on 10 and 11 October 2007. No individuals were observed during the field investigation. An updated survey was conducted by NCDOT biologists on October 6, 2009 and the biological conclusion remains “No Effect”.

Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii ) Endangered Family: Asteraceae Federally Listed: 1991 BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Schweinitz’s sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to approximately 6 ft in height. The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but sometimes nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above; in shape they are lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The leaves are rather thick and stiff, with a few small serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and the lower surface is usually pubescent with soft white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from late August to frost; the yellow flower heads are about 0.6 inch in diameter (USFWS 1994).

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the current range of this species is within 60 miles of Charlotte, North Carolina. It occurs on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in texture. Schweinitz’s sunflower is typically found on the following soil types: Iredell, Enon, Badin, Cecil, Misenheimer, Gaston, and Zion soils. It may also occur in Tatum, Cid, Secrest, Georgeville, Mecklenburg, and Uwharrie soil types. This species needs open areas protected from shade or excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies. Disturbances such as fire maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (USFWS 1994).

29 NCNHP records indicate no documented occurrences of Schweinitz’s sunflower within 1.0 mile of the project study area (NCNHP 2007). Potential habitat is present within the project study area along the roadside margins of I-485 and its interchanges. All habitat areas were systematically surveyed by walking overlapping transects on 10 and 11 October 2007. No individuals were observed during the field investigation. An updated survey was conducted by NCDOT biologists on October 6, 2009 and the biological conclusion remains “No Effect”.

Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata ) Endangered Family: Asteraceae Federally Listed: 1992 BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect

Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that can grow up to 5 ft tall from a vertical root stock. The stem is usually smooth with few leaves. The largest leaves are the basal leaves which are elliptical to broadly lanceolate in shape and can reach 7.3 inches in length. Midstem leaves, if present, typically have shorter petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves. Flower heads are typically solitary. The ray flowers are typically colored pink to purplish, are usually drooping, and are 1.8 inches to 2.9 inches in length. Disk flowers typically have tubular purple corollas, are about 0.2 inches long, and have mostly erect, short triangular teeth (USFWS 1995).

Habitat for smooth coneflower consists of mainly open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line rights-of-way. Smooth coneflower is usually found on magnesium and calcium rich soils associated with amphibolite, dolomite, limestone, gabbro, diabase, and marble. Smooth coneflower can be thought of a “piedmont prairie” species (USFWS 1995).

NCNHP records indicate no documented occurrences of smooth coneflower within 1.0 mile of the project study area (NCNHP 2008). Potential habitat is present within the project study area along the roadside margins of I-485 and its interchanges. All habitat areas were systematically surveyed by walking overlapping transects on 10 and 11 October 2007. No individuals were observed during the field investigation. An updated survey was conducted by NCDOT biologists on October 6, 2009 and the biological conclusion remains “No Effect”.

b. Bald Eagle Protection

Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eagle ( Halieaeetus leucocephalus ) was delisted from the Endangered Species Act. A Biological conclusion is no longer necessary for this species. The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines restrict disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 330 to 660 ft outward from a nest tree, which is considered critical for maintaining acceptable conditions for bald eagles (USFWS 2007b). Although it appears from the map within the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines that the bald eagle may have occurrences and nesting habitat along the Catawba River, the project study area is greater than one mile from any potential habitat or feeding source. During the field assessments for the project in December 2007, no individuals or nesting sites were observed within the project limits. This project will therefore have no adverse effects on the bald eagle.

c. Federal Species of Concern

The USFWS also maintains a category of species designated as “Federal Species of Concern” (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. However, these are listed since they may attain federally protected status in the future. The presence of potential habitat (based on LeGrand et al . 2006; Franklin 2006; and NatureServe 2007)

30 within the project study area has been evaluated in Table 11 for the FSC species listed for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (USFWS 2007a).

Table 11 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Mecklenburg County, NC State Habitat Common Name Scientific Name a Designation Present American eel Anguilla rostrata N/A No Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis SC Yes Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana E Yes Dwarf aster Eurybia mir abilis SR-T Yes Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum E-SC No Prairie birdsfoot-trefoil Lotus unifoliolatus var. helleri SR-T Yes Shoals spiderlily Hymenocallis coronaria N/A No a N/A – Not applicable – no state designation; E – Endangered; E-SC – Endangered, but propagated material may be traded or sold under specific regulations; SC – Special Concern; S-RT – Significantly Rare throughout landscape.

A review of the NCNHP records indicates that one federal species of concern has been documented within 1.0 mile of the project study area, Carolina birdsfoot-trefoil ( Lotus helleri ) (SR-T) (NCNHP 2007). The 1,000+ stem population was last observed on June 3, 1994 and is located approximately 1,300 feet southwest of the project study area in the Ballantyne development, south of McAlpine Creek, east of US 521, and west of Elm Lane West.

d. Endangered Species Act Candidate Species

Candidate species are plants and animals which have sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The only listed candidate species for Mecklenburg county is the Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgianum ) (USFWS 2008). At this time, the Georgia aster does not receive statutory protection under the ESA. Habitat would be considered present along the I-485 right of way for this species.

B. Cultural Resources

1. Compliance Guidelines

This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.

2. Historic Architecture and Archaeological Resources

The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) noted that no historic resources would be affected by the proposed project (correspondence dated 8-17-06, Appendix C). Therefore, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, in regards to architectural and archaeological resources is complete and no further action is necessary.

C. Sections 4(f) and 6(f) Resources

1. Section 4(f) Resources

Existing greenways at McAlpine and McMullen Creeks will not be removed but access will be restricted during construction for safety. The greenways will be reopened after construction is complete. NCDOT will coordinate with the City of Charlotte prior to construction on greenway closures.

2. Section 6 (f) Resources

No Section 6 (f) properties will be affected by this project.

D. Community Impact Assessment

The following is an abridged version of the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) for STIP Project R-4902. A copy of the entire, unabridged CIA is available for review in the offices of the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, located at 1 South Wilmington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601.

1. Local Responses

• Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) has requested that all existing and planned greenways crossing the I-485 corridor be taken into consideration and incorporated in the final design of this project. • The Operations Director of the MEDICS Mecklenburg EMS Agency stated that his primary concern would be potential lane closure during construction and its possible effect on response time, especially in periods of peak traffic volumes during rush hour in the morning and in the evening.

2. Community Impact Issues

• Although the widening will not result in any physical or aesthetic impacts to surrounding parcels and/or structures, the proposed fly-over, the design of which has not been finalized, could impact the Atkins Circle apartment complex from a noise standpoint during construction. This complex is located in the area to the northwest of the I-485/US 521 Johnston Road interchange, adjacent to the on-ramp which carries traffic from southbound US 521 to westbound I-485. • Residences along the length of the proposed project could be subject to increased noise and light pollution if NCDOT implements 24 hour or nighttime construction.

3. Recommendations

• NCDOT will work to minimize temporary construction related impacts to residences and businesses adjacent to the right-of-way along the project corridor. • NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department and MUMPO regarding any project scheduling and/or design requirements necessary to accommodate the two planned greenways along Sugar Creek and Little Sugar Creek, both which are currently under development.

32 • NCDOT will coordinate project schedules and traffic management plans with The Town of Pineville Volunteer Fire Department and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Emergency Management agency (MEDICS) to allow the Pineville Fire Department/MEDICS to plan for and mitigate any potential disruption in access and/or increase in response time. • NCDOT will coordinate project schedules and traffic management plans with the Charlotte- Mecklenburg County School System to allow the Transportation Department to make any necessary plans regarding bus routes in the project area. • NCDOT will coordinate project schedules and traffic management plans with the Charlotte Area Transit System to allow for necessary planning regarding mass transit routes/schedules and commuter programs in the project area.

4. Key Community Characteristics

a. Geographic Location

Project R-4902 is located in southern Mecklenburg County approximately two miles northwest of the North Carolina/South Carolina state line. The section of I-485 that is to be widened is located primarily within the City of Charlotte’s municipal limits on its northern and eastern ends and within the Town of Pineville’s municipal limits in the central section. Mecklenburg County is located in the western Piedmont region of North Carolina. Consequently, the topography around the project is mainly comprised of rolling hills. Mecklenburg County is bordered by Union and Cabarrus Counties to the east, Iredell County to the north, Gaston and Lincoln Counties to the west, and the state of South Carolina to the south.

b. Population Trends

According to the 2000 Census, 28,126 people lived in the demographic study area. In comparison, the population for Mecklenburg County was 695,454 in 2000. The demographic study area underwent a 101% growth in population from 1990 (pop. 14,019) to 2000. This figure can be compared to the 36% growth in population in Mecklenburg County (1990 US Census pop. 511,211) and to that of North Carolina as a whole, which experienced a 21.3% increase in population during that decade time period. The population growth within the demographic study area can likely be attributed to the increased residential development within that decade. This residential development was generally in the form of single-family subdivisions, which in many cases represented a transition in land use from the existing low-density rural residences.

c. Racial Makeup

At the time of the 2000 Census within the demographic study area, 70.5% of residents identified themselves as White, 20.6% identified themselves as African-American, and 3.6% identified themselves as Asian. The percentage of African-Americans in the demographic study area is lower than that of Mecklenburg County at 27.7% but is in line with that of North Carolina as a whole where 21.4% of people identified themselves as African-American.

d. Ethnic Makeup

In the demographic study area 5.4% of residents identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. In comparison; Mecklenburg County was 6.5%, The City of Charlotte was 7.4% and the Town of Pineville was 8.1% Hispanic or Latino in 2000. The Census numbers likely did not report a large number of Hispanic or Latino residents who are in the United States illegally. Statistics from North Carolina overall suggest that illegal immigrants make up as much as half of the Hispanic or Latino population statewide. Other statistics suggest that births have rivaled immigration this decade as

33 the largest source of Hispanic or Latino population growth. These statistics suggest that nationally, one child in every five born is Hispanic or Latino ethnically. As a result of these trends, it is likely that the actual number of Hispanic or Latino residents in the demographic area was and is higher than what the Census numbers reported. The numbers likely under reported illegal immigrants in 2000 and do not reflect the growth that has likely occurred since 2000.

5. Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The existing controlled access, four-lane median divided facility is being widened by one lane in each direction, within the existing median. This project is intended to increase vehicle capacity along the corridor. Vehicular access in the area is not being changed. When constructed, the additional lanes should result in a slight reduction of travel time for motorists using this portion of I- 485. The travel time savings as a result of the project are not expected to affect route choice or development decisions.

Employment in the area is forecasted to grow annually by approximately 2% through 2016. According to the State Demographers Office, population for Mecklenburg County is projected to grow by an average annualized rate of 1.99 % between 2000 and 2029 (the identified time horizon) from 695,370 to 1,231,225.

Although the study area is largely built out, additional development will be controlled locally by stringent growth management. Specifically, existing zoning in Charlotte and Pineville and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department’s Centers, Corridors, and Wedges Growth Framework and the Draft Sharon and I-485 Transit Station Area Plan will ensure that any further development will occur in a planned fashion.

Based on these factors, this project is not expected to result in a change in land use. Therefore, no further study is warranted.

E. Relocations

The proposed project improvements will be constructed within existing right of way and no additional property acquisition is anticipated.

F. Title VI and Environmental Justice

Title VI and Environmental Justice considerations promote the fair treatment and involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental law and regulations. In order to assess social impacts associated with this project, a field review and review of the demographic information, available through the US Census Bureau, were performed. The proposed project is not expected to have a disproportionately high or adverse impact on low-income or minority populations.

G. Limited English Proficiency

Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency", requires all recipients of federal funds to provide meaningful access to persons who are limited in their English proficiency (LEP). The US Department of Justice defines LEP individuals as those "who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English" (67 FR 41459). Data about LEP populations was gathered in the 2000 Census.

34 Table 12 shows the percentages of adults (18 years of age or older) who speak English less than "Very Well" by language category.

Table 12 Percentages of Adults who speak English less than “Very Well”

Primary Language Group of Persons Who Speak English Less than Very Well Total Total LEP LEP Adult Spanish Other Indo-Euro Asian/Pacific Other Pop # % # % # % # % # % CT 58.06 BG 1 1,113 321 28.8% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 321 28.8% CT 58.06 BG 4 476 45 9.5% 30 6.3% 0 0% 0 0% 75 15.8% CT 58.06 BG 5 1,190 10 0.8% 27 2.3% 16 1.3% 6 0.5% 59 4.9% CT 58.06 BG 6 400 0 0% 8 2% 0 0% 0 0% 8 2% CT 58.07 BG 1 1,821 25 1.4% 0 0% 7 0.4% 0 0% 32 1.8% CT 58.07 BG 3 2,073 59 2.8% 41 2% 31 1.5% 0 0% 131 6.3% CT 58.08 BG 1 1,027 12 1.2% 17 1.7% 0 0% 8 0.8% 37 3.6% CT 58.08 BG 2 613 30 4.9% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 30 4.9% CT 58.08 BG 3 1,860 78 4.2% 10 0.5% 60 3.2% 0 0% 148 7.9% CT 58.08 BG 4 597 9 1.5% 38 6.4% 0 0% 0 0% 47 7.9% CT 58.08 BG 5 1,739 44 2.5% 7 0.4% 20 1.2% 0 0% 71 4.1% CT 58.18 BG 1 1,321 0 0% 0 0% 34 2.6% 0 0% 34 2.6% CT 58.19 BG 1 2,622 7 0.3% 8 0.3% 39 1.5% 0 0% 54 2.1% CT 59.05 BG 2 2,149 14 0.7% 0 0% 67 3.1% 0 0% 81 3.8% DSA 19,001 654 3.4% 186 1% 274 1.4% 14 0.1% 1,128 5.9% Aggregate County 521,996 23,721 4.5% 5,108 1% 7,039 1.3% 1,407 0.3% 37,275 7.1%

The DSA data indicate there are no language groups within the DSA in which more than 5% of the population or 1,000 persons speak English less than “Very Well”. Therefore, demographic assessment does not indicate the presence of LEP language groups that exceed the Department of Justice’s Safe Harbor threshold. However, NCDOT will include notice of Right of Language Access for future meetings for this project. Thus, the requirements of Executive Order 13166 appear to be satisfied.

H. Farmland Impacts

No farmland impacts are anticipated within the proposed project limits.

I. Flood Hazard Evaluation

Mecklenburg County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The major streams crossed within the limits of the proposed project are: Westinghouse Branch, Sugar Creek, Kings Branch, Little Sugar Creek, McAlpine Creek, McAlpine Creek Tributary 1A, McAlpine Tributary 1, and McMullen Creek. All of the streams crossed except Westinghouse Branch are included in detailed flood studies (see Figure 2 for the 100-year flood plain limits associated with these nine streams).

The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services for approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

35 This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated streams. Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-yr. floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

J. Traffic Noise Analysis

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 (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency-weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).

The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's.

Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table C-1 in Appendix D, which 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. 3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.

Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises, including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few years.

2. Noise Abatement Criteria

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table C-2 of Appendix D. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which, in a given situation and time period, has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.

36 3. Ambient Noise Levels

Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area, measured 50 feet from the edges of pavement, ranged from 77 to 80 dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was determined to be used in areas where traffic noise is not the predominant source. The ambient measurement locations are described in Table C-3 of Appendix D.

The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic noise prediction model to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged less than 1 dBA difference from the measured noise levels for the location where noise measurements were obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.

4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels

In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of variables that describe different cars driving at different speeds through continually changing highway configurations and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise. The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the FHWA-produced Traffic Noise Model software (TNM 2.5).

The TNM 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.), noise receptor location, receptor height above the roadway, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.

In this regard, it must be noted that only preliminary alignment information was available for use in this noise analysis. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes widening I-45 from Johnston Road to I-77 south of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County. Peak hour design and level- of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. All roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions.

The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the design year (2030) being analyzed. The majority of the development along the project already has noise mitigation in place based on the initial construction of I-485. This existing noise mitigation is expected to provide essentially the same noise reduction as with the initial construction of I-485, therefore no noise evaluations were conducted for receptors in the vicinity of these existing noise mitigation devices. Industrial and commercial land uses were also not evaluated for noise mitigation because these types of land uses usually prefer visibility and accessibility from the highway rather than noise abatement. Only three groups of development were identified that warranted traffic noise analysis. The Leq traffic noise exposures associated for this project are listed in Table C-4 of Appendix D. Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each. 37

5. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours

A land use is considered impacted by highway traffic noise when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or when predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy defines a traffic noise impact occurs 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 C-2 (see Appendix D) value, or

(b) Substantially exceed the existing noise levels as shown in the lower portion of Table C- 2

Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors that fall in either category.

The number of receptors in each activity category, for each section, that are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise are shown in Table C-5 of Appendix D. These receptors are noted in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Based on this analysis and under Title 23 CFR Part 772, eighteen residences and two businesses are predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area.

Table C-6 of Appendix D exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors by three groups. There are no substantial noise level impacts anticipated due to this project. The predicted noise level increases for this project range up to +7 dBA. The amount of substantial noise level impacts for each roadway section can also be found in Table C-6. When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10-dBA change is judges by most as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.

In accordance with the NCDOT 2004 Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, Federal and State governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development where building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the “Date of Public Knowledge”. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of the final environmental document. For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to ensure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.

With the proper information on future traffic noise contours and predicted noise levels, the local authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway. The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise level contour, measured from the center of the proposed roadways, is two hundred and ninety two feet (292 feet). The maximum extent of the 67-dBA noise level contour, measured from the center of the proposed roadways is four hundred and twenty-seven feet (427 feet). Contour information and predicted future noise levels are shown by roadway section in Table C-7 of Appendix D. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction.

38 6. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures

If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. The following discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed project. There are twenty (20) potential traffic noise impact areas indentified due to highway traffic noise in the project area.

a. Highway Alignment Selection

Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement on this project.

b. 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 of the proposed facility.

Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10 mph would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2 dBA. Because most people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA, and because reducing the speed limit would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a viable noise abatement measure. This and other traffic system management measures, including the prohibition of truck operations, are not considered to be consistent with the project's objective of providing a high-speed, limited-access facility.

c. Noise Barriers

Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are often applied with a measurable degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the receptors to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.

However, these mitigating measures may not be feasible or reasonable in all cases, particularly for receptors that front a primary or secondary roadway in the project area. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the barrier length) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA. Consequently, this type of control of access effectively eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise mitigation measures.

Additionally, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.

A preliminary noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project to consider areas of potential areas of impacts that could be mitigated by the placement of a noise wall. This qualitative barrier evaluation was performed for each impacted receptor that considered each receptor’s FHWA NAC activity category, source-receptor relationships, impacted site densities, and the ability to have continuous barriers.

Based on this preliminary evaluation, eighteen (18) residences and two (2) businesses are predicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project area. All of these noise impacts are contained in one area. This area is located along the north side of I-485 and just west of the South Boulevard interchange.

Based on these preliminary evaluation to date, it is recommended that all mitigation measures be reevaluated during the final design phase of the project to determine more accurately the noise impacts and appropriate mitigation measures.

d. Other Measures

The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not considered a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the allowed abatement cost of $35,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use control.

The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for this project, due to the substantial amount of right-of-way necessary to provide effective vegetative barriers. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier must be approximately one hundred feet (100 feet) wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a 5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of-way are required. The cost of the additional right-of-way and to plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the abatement cost of $35,000 allowed per benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public or non-profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this project.

7. No Build Alternative

The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build" alternative was also considered. Since the existing conditions of the roadway facility is operating at or near capacity, future no-build noise levels would be approximately the same as the existing noise levels. Hence if the proposed widening does not occur, approximately thirteen (13) residences and two (2) businesses are anticipated to approach or exceed the FHWA NAC. No receptors are anticipated to experience a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.

8. 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

40 for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected, particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise, 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.

9. Summary

Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects, especially in developed urban areas. All traffic noise impacts identified in this analysis were considered for noise mitigation. Based on this analysis and in accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, traffic noise impacts were identified at only one location. This group of impacted receptors is located along the north side of I-485 and just west of the South Boulevard interchange. Based on these preliminary studies to date, it is recommended that all mitigation measures should be reevaluated during the final design phase of the project to determine more accurately the noise impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772.

K. Air Quality Analysis

1. Introduction

Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic patterns are a primary concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO 2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).

2. Attainment Status

The project is located in Mecklenburg County, which is within the Metrolina nonattainment are for ozone (0 3) and the Charlotte nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate nonattainment for area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as maintenance for CO on September 18, 1995. This area was designated moderate nonattainment for 0 3 under the eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Mecklenburg County. The Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination of both the LRTP and the TIP on June 29, 2007. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the project’s design or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.

3. Carbon Monoxide

Automobiles are considered the major source of CO in the project area. In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 400 feet) of the receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as “the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources.”

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 concentrations near sensitive receptors.

Inputs into the mathematical model used to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based in the annual average daily traffic (AADT) projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for years 2010, 2015, and 2030 using the EPA publication “Mobile Source Emission Factors”, and the MOBILE 6 mobile source emissions computer model.

The background CO concentration for the project was estimated to be 1.8 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 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban and rural areas.

The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the I-485 and NC 51 interchange. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2010, 2015, and 2030 are 6.50, 5.70, and 5.50 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; maximum permitted for 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables A1 through A3 in Appendix E for input and output data.

4. Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide

Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone (0 3), and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2). Automotive emissions of HC and NO 2 are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements may be offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.

The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur ten to twenty 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 in the atmosphere, and, in the presence of sunlight, this mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen

42 dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is the smog that forms in Los Angeles, California.

5. Particulate Matter and Sulfur

Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2). Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven percent of the particulate matter emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominately the result of non-highway sources (e.g. industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles is very low, there is no reason to suspect traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to exceed the NAAQS.

6. Lead

Automobiles without catalytic convertor can burn regular gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions. Also, the EPA has required a reduction in the lead content of regular gasoline. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was approximately 0.53 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.003 grams per liter. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 made 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.

7. Mobile Source Air Toxics

In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.

The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the graph on the following page:

U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020

Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2- generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns.

As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(l) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21 and the primary six MSATs.

Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis

This CE includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this CE. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:

Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete

Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.

44 • Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis.

These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.

• Dispersion: The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-specific MSAT background concentrations.

• Exposure Levels and Health Effects: Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about project- specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative analysis.

45 Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs

Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses.

Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.

The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.

• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen. • The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure. • Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals. • 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. • Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure. • Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. • Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies.

There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary of the series is not expected for several years.

Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems 1. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.

Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community

Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant adverse impacts on the human environment."

This document provides a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the various alternatives and acknowledges that some of the project alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from these emissions cannot be estimated.

As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. However, even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate health effects of MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions-if any-from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives , found at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm .

1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-II (2000); Highway Health Hazards, The Sierra Club (2004) summarizing 24 Studies on the relationship between health and air quality); NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein.

47 For each recommended alternative in this CE, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. The increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.

Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.

The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore; under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the new alignment segments and along the sides of existing roadways where symmetrical widening occurs. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result, moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.

L. Hazardous Materials

[The following is an abridged version of the Hazardous Materials Evaluation Report. A copy of the unabridged version can be reviewed in the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Room 447 (Library), Raleigh, N.C.]

1. Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to identify properties within the project study area that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project costs and future liability if acquired by the NCDOT. Geo-environmental impacts may include, but are not limited to; active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites. Table 13 shows the potential hazardous sites on the project and any impacts brought on by its construction.

2. Summary

Geographical Information System (GIS) technology was utilized to identify known sites with environmental impacts. Due to the proposed widening of this project within existing right of way, a field reconnaissance was not conducted. One possible UST site, four manufacturing facilities, an asphalt plant, and a dry cleaning facility were identified within the project study area. One manufacturing facility, the General Tire and Rubber plant, has been identified as an inactive Superfund site. All of these sites are anticipated to result in non-existent monetary and scheduling impacts.

The Geo-environmental Section observed no additional contaminated properties during the GIS records search. If any USTs or any potential source of contamination is discovered during construction activities, NCDOT should be notified of their presence immediately upon discovery. An assessment must be conducted to determine the extent of any contamination and identify the potential impacts. This assessment will also serve to estimate the associated clean up costs and allow the Geo-environmental Section to make recommendations prior to further actions.

Table 13 Potential Geo-environmental Impact Sites

Facility Name and Location Type Anticipated Anticipated Impacts Severity McAlpine Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant UST Petroleum Low 12701 Lancaster Highway Hearts Dry Cleaners Dry Cleaner Solvents Low 9101 Pineville-Matthews Road Swift Adhesives (Bjorn Industries) Solvents, Industrial Low 9724 Industrial Drive Acids Colonial Marble Company Industrial Solvents Low 9943 Packard Street Rutland Plastic Technology Industrial Solvents Low 10021 Rodney Street APAC Carolina Asphalt Solvent Low 9803 Old Nations Ford Road Plant General Tire and Rubber Company Industrial Solvents Low Granite and Continental Streets

M. Construction Impacts

To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of the proposed project, the following measures, along with those previously stated, will be enforced during the construction phase:

• All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any materials to and from construction sites along the project, and that any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.

• Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering the safety and general welfare of the public and to prevent diminishing the value, utility, or appearance of any public or private properties.

49 • The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees, including those of the N.C. State Board of Health, regarding the disposal of solid waste. All solid waste will be disposed of in accordance with the Standard Specifications of the Division of Highways. These specifications have been reviewed and approved by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of Health Services, N. C. Department of Human Resources.

• Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way and provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive siltation or pollution.

• The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the contractor, pertinent local officials and the Division of Highways will be held to discuss various construction procedures, including a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time of construction that will minimize interruption of service.

• Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this work will be made at that time.

• During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for Air Quality. 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.

• The contractor will devise an erosion control schedule before work is started. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases of the work that must be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe construction practices and temporary erosion control measures that will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those provisions of the plans and specifications that pertain to erosion and siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance with the strict federal erosion control measures. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.

• Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the state 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.

• Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to brief disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both during and after construction.

50 VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

A. Public Involvement

A local officials meeting and a Citizens Informational Workshop (CIW) for the project were held on June 19, 2007 in the Town of Pineville meeting facility.

NCDOT engineers presented the project to The Ballantyne Breakfast Club meeting held February 2, 2008 at the Ballantyne Golf Resort located adjacent to I-485 /Johnston Road interchange. The meeting was open to the public.

The meeting, workshop, and Ballantyne presentation are described below.

1. Local Officials Meeting

A local officials meeting was held prior to the CIW. Meeting participants included elected officials and staff from the City of Charlotte, Town of Pineville, representatives from the Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), NCDOT staff from Division 10, Roadway Design Unit, the Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, and the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch.

Aerial photographs of the project study area were displayed at several locations in the meeting room, and participants were able to review them prior to the meeting. The aerial photographs showed the project study area, the project terminals, and other major points of interest.

NCDOT representatives presented a summary of the information included in the CIW packet and a description of the proposed project as shown on the photos. The following questions and comments were received from meeting attendees:

• It was suggested NCDOT should accelerate the project schedule. • It was questioned whether additional funding could accelerate the project schedule. • Would all travel lanes be open during construction? • What is the schedule of the remainder of the I-485 loop? • It was noted congestion and resulting backups on northbound Johnston Road (US 521) accessing westbound I-485 on ramp. Currently there is a single left turn lane controlled by a flashing light. During peak rush times it is difficult without the benefit of a signal for traffic control. • Noted that traffic backs up on EB I-485 from exit ramp near the Carolina Place Mall. • It was questioned whether HOV lanes will be included on this project. • Noted traffic volumes suggest more than one additional lane is needed and questioned why proposed improvements do not include more lanes.

2. Citizens Informational Workshop

A citizens informational workshop was held between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00p.m. Approximately 40 citizens, media representatives, and NCDOT representatives from Division 10, the Roadway Design Unit, the Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch, the Right of Way Branch, the Locations and Surveys Unit, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch were in attendance. Media representatives from local television affiliate WNCN and The Charlotte Observer were present. A copy of the news release for the workshop is included in Appendix F.

51 A project information packet (see Appendix F) was given to each workshop attendee. Aerial photographs of the project study area were displayed at several locations in the room. The aerial mosaics showed the project study area, the project terminals, and landmarks within the study area. A map showing other nearby proposed NCDOT projects was also displayed.

The majority of citizens in attendance voiced support for the project and their main concern was why more lanes are not planned and could the project be completed sooner than currently scheduled. In addition, many residents of Park Crossing subdivision bordering I-485 noted excessive traffic noise from I-485 and requested noise walls similar to the exiting walls for neighborhoods near Park Road and Carmel Road. Many citizens were concerned about how the proposed improvements would effect or add to the congestion on the existing roads in the vicinity of the interchanges. Many citizens also inquired if any changes were planned for the existing ramps because currently ramp back ups extend onto I-485 at NC 51, South Boulevard, and US 521 (Johnston Road).

3. Ballantyne Breakfast Club Meeting Presentation

NCDOT engineers were invited to give a presentation and discuss the project to The Ballantyne Breakfast Club meeting held February 2, 2008 at the Ballantyne Golf Resort located adjacent to I-485/Johnston Road interchange. The meeting was open to the public. Approximately 200 local citizens, local officials, local government staff, a newspaper reporter ( The Charlotte Observer ), and NCDOT representatives (Division 10 Office and Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch) were present at this meeting. A copy of the newspaper article published following the workshop is included in Appendix F.

A project information packet (see Appendix F) was given to each meeting attendee. Aerial photographs of the project study area were displayed at several locations in the room. The aerial mosaics showed the project study area, the project terminals, and landmarks within the study area. A brief Power point presentation showing an overview of the project was shown and after NCDOT representatives conducted a two hour Q&A session taking questions and listening to suggestions from those in attendance.

The comments, suggestions, and questions received during the meeting were extremely similar to those raised at the Citizens Informational Workshop discussed in the previous section and the most prevalent questions are summarized below:

• Project schedule should be accelerated. • Noise walls are needed for Park Crossing neighborhood. • Should add more than one additional lane in each direction. • Why is Community House Road bridge over I-485 not included in this project? • What is the status of the shoulder study to determine shoulder usage during peak hours?

B. Public Hearing

A public hearing will take place after the publication and distribution of this document. At the hearing citizens will be given the chance to learn about all of the project’s design features and comment on the project. Although LEP (limited English proficiency) groups do not exceed the Department of Justice’s Safe Harbor threshold, NCDOT will include notice of Right of Language Access for future meetings for this project.

52 C. NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process

Merger is a process to streamline the project development and permitting processes, agreed to by the USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, FHWA, and NCDOT and supported by other stakeholder agencies and local units of government. To this effect, the Merger process provides a forum for appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA/SEPA decision- making phase of transportation projects.

The impacts from the proposed project are anticipated to be minimal. The proposed project was screened by NCDOT, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), USACE and FHWA. It was agreed that this project would not follow the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process.

D. Additional Agency Coordination

Letters were sent to the following federal and state environmental agencies and regional and local Governments at the beginning of project studies:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey N.C. Department of Administration, State Publications Clearinghouse N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission N.C. Department of Public Instruction Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners Mayors of Pineville and Charlotte

The following agencies and governments provided written comments on the project and are included in Appendix F of this document.

N.C. Department of Administration, State Publications Clearinghouse N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency (LUESA)

VIII. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated that this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes in route classification and land use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been reviewed by state and local agencies and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the project were voiced at the citizens informational workshop held on June 19, 2007. For these reasons, it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable to this project.