I-77 high occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes from I-277 (Brookshire Freeway) to West Catawba Avenue (Exit 28), Mecklenburg County, federal aid project no. NHF-077-1(209)9, WBS no. 45454.1.1, STIP project no. I-5405 : administrative action, categorical exclusion

              The following special commitments have been agreed to by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT).
NCDOT HYDRAULICS UNIT:
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine status
of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
NCDOT TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM MANAGMENT COMMITMENTS:
This environmental document includes the reconstruction of the Hambright Road and Westmoreland
Road bridges over I‐77. Replacement of these bridges is expected to occur within the existing right of
way. Future design and or construction contracts will specify that any additional bridge reconstruction
or expansion of the two bridges beyond the right‐of‐way would be evaluated in compliance with NEPA
before they could be approved.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
i
Table of Contents
1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project History .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Applicability of a Categorical Exclusion ......................................................................................... 2
1.4 Project Funding ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Need for Action ............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Growth Trends .............................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Regional and Local Plans ............................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Strategic Highway Corridor ........................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Existing (2010) and Future (2015) No-Build Traffic Conditions .................................................... 6
3.4.1 Peak Hour Travel Demand .................................................................................................... 6
3.4.2 Peak Hour Traffic Operations ................................................................................................ 7
4.1 No-Build Alternative..................................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Build Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Traffic Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 9
5.1 Preferred Alternative Description ............................................................................................... 11
5.2 Typical Sections ........................................................................................................................... 11
5.3 Structures and Drainage Requirements ...................................................................................... 12
5.4 Preliminary Cost Estimates and Project Schedule ...................................................................... 12
6.1 Human Environment ................................................................................................................... 13
6.1.1 Project Setting ..................................................................................................................... 14
6.1.2 Community Characteristics ................................................................................................. 14
6.1.3 Community Resources and Services ................................................................................... 17
6.2 Land Use and Transportation Plans ............................................................................................ 19
6.3 Physical Environment .................................................................................................................. 20
6.3.1 Floodplains and Floodways ................................................................................................. 20
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
ii
6.3.2 Utilities ............................................................................................................................... 20
6.3.3 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................... 20
6.3.4 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 21
6.3.5 Noise .................................................................................................................................. 21
6.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 22
6.5 Natural Environment................................................................................................................... 22
6.5.1 Physiology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 22
6.5.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 22
6.5.3 Biotic Resources .................................................................................................................. 23
6.5.4 Protected Species ................................................................................................................ 24
7.1 Human Environment ................................................................................................................... 25
7.2 Economic .................................................................................................................................... 25
7.3 Community Resources and Services ........................................................................................... 26
7.4 Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources. ........................................................................................................ 26
7.5 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................. 26
7.6 Floodplains and Floodways ......................................................................................................... 28
7.7 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 28
7.8 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................. 29
7.9 Noise Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 31
7.10 Natural Environment................................................................................................................... 32
7.10.1 Water Resources ................................................................................................................. 32
7.10.2 Jurisdictional Topics ............................................................................................................ 32
7.10.3 Biotic Resources ................................................................................................................. 34
7.10.4 Protected Species ................................................................................................................ 34
7.11 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................... 35
7.12 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 35
7.13 Temporary Construction Impacts ............................................................................................... 37
8.1 Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................... 38
8.2 Public Involvement..................................................................................................................... 39
8.2.1 Citizens Information Workshop .......................................................................................... 39
I‐77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I‐5405
iii
8.3 Statute of Limitation ................................................................................................................... 40
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Regional and Local Planning Documents 5
Table 2 – Existing (2010) and 2015 No‐Build Peak Hour Analysis Results 7
Table 3 – 2015 No‐Build and Build Alternatives AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison 10
Table 4 – I‐5405 Preliminary Cost Estimate 13
Table 5 – Demographic Study Area 13
Table 6 – Future Population Estimates 14
Table 7 – Household Income and Poverty Status 15
Table 8 – Limited English Proficiency (LEP 17
Table 9 – Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams 33
Table 10 – Federally Protected Species Listed for Mecklenburg County 35
Table 11 – Summary of Scoping Comments 39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Project Vicinity
Figure 2 – 2010 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
Figure 3 – Alternative 1 Typical Sections
Figure 4 – Alternative 2 Typical Sections
Figure 5 – Proposed Bridge Replacements Typical Section
Figure 6 – Demographic Study Area with Notable Population Groups
APPENDICES
Appendix A Preferred Alternative Design and Notable Features
Appendix B Agency Correspondence
Appendix C Agency Scoping Comments
Appendix D Public Involvement Materials
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
1
1 INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the proposed action, project history and the applicability of a Categorical
Exclusion.
1.1 Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), proposes to improve 17 miles of I-77 from I-277 (Brookshire Freeway) to West
Catawba Avenue (Exit 28) in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The limits of the project are shown in
Figure 1. The project consists of the conversion of the existing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to
High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes as well as the extension of the HOT lanes in each direction from I-485
to West Catawba Avenue.
1What is a HOT Lane? HOT lanes are limited-access lanes reserved for buses and other high
occupancy vehicles but also open to single occupant (or non-HOV) vehicles upon payment of a
toll. The number of cars using the reserved lanes can be managed through variable pricing (via
electronic toll collection) so as to maintain free-flowing traffic at all times, even during the
height of rush hours. The occupancy rate for free (100 percent discounted) or discounted
passage varies by project, a minimum of either 2 (HOV+2) or 3 (HOV+3) passengers per vehicle
may ride for free, while others are free only to super-high occupancy vehicles like vanpools and
buses.
What is variable pricing? With variable pricing, the price to use the lanes changes to keep
traffic moving at the maximum speed limit, even during rush hours. As demand increases, the
tolls rise to ensure the ideal numbers of cars are moving through the lanes. At off-peak times,
the tolls drop.
The project is included in NCDOT’s current 2012-2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
as STIP I-5405. All improvements will occur within the existing right of way.
1.2 Project History
The majority of the I-77 corridor through Charlotte was constructed during the mid 1970s. In 2001,
NCDOT began widening I-77 from I-85 north to the Charlotte Outer Loop (I-485). STIP Project I-3311A
widened the existing four-lane interstate facility to an eight-lane freeway. Subsequent activities for the
I-77 corridor leading up to the addition of I-5405 to the STIP are as follows:
(www.ncdot.gov/projects/hov and www.ncdot.gov/projects/i77Improvements)
 December 2001 – NCDOT completed the I-77 Sub-Area Study, which analyzed the feasibility of
incorporating HOV lanes as the inside (median) lanes of project I-3311A; resulting in three
general-purpose lanes plus one HOV lane in each direction from I-85 to I-485.
 July 2002 – Impacts of adding HOV lanes as part of the I-3311A project were documented in a
Categorical Exclusion and approved by FHWA. This Categorical Exclusion included the addition
of an HOV lane between I-85 and I-485 in the northbound direction and an HOV lane from I-277
to I-485 in the southbound direction. To accommodate the southbound HOV lanes from I-277
to I-85, existing pavement was used, which reduced the existing inside shoulder width and
narrowed the three existing general purpose lanes. FHWA approved these design exceptions
1 Reason Foundation - http://reason.org/files/6196f532a4d75327fb15c8a9785edceb.pdf
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
2
with the understanding that the lanes and shoulders would be restored to standard widths in
the future.
 December 2004 – In 2003, NCDOT approved HOV lane construction as an addition to the I-77
widening work already underway. I-77 HOV facility opened to traffic in December 2004.
 2007-2009 – The Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study was conducted to analyze 12 corridors in
the 10-county region for managed lanes feasibility. Phase 1 involved a screening process to
identify the most promising corridors. Phase 2 involved detailed evaluations of managed lanes
along the most promising corridors. The I-77 North corridor, which includes the I-5405 project
area, was carried forward into the Phase 2 evaluation and found to be among the best
corridors in travel time savings per mile and recommended for more detailed corridor-level
study.
 March 2010 – NCDOT completed a feasibility study (FS-0810B), which recommended
converting the HOV facility to HOT and extending the lanes northward to West Catawba
Avenue (Exit28).
 June 2010 – NCDOT completed a feasibility study (FS-0510A) that evaluated the widening of I-
77 from just south of I-277 (Brookshire Freeway) to I-85. The purpose of this study was to
expand the existing HOV system for this portion of I-77, ultimately creating a continuous 10-
mile segment from Fifth Street northward to I-485. This project also proposed widening the
southbound lane and shoulder widths which were reduced as part of I-3311A. FS-0510A
included the northern extension of the HOV lanes proposed in FS-0810B. The feasibility study
addressed widening the HOV facility from one to two lanes per direction or converting to a
two-lane, reversible facility.
 June 2011 – The Categorical Exclusion for NCDOT STIP I-3311E was approved. The purpose of
this project is to widen the existing travel lanes and shoulders on the southbound lanes of I-77
between Brookshire Freeway and I-85. NCDOT designated an existing general purpose lane as a
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on I-77 under the previously completed TIP Project I-
3311A. NCDOT made a commitment to the FHWA as part of I-3311A to return the lane widths
and shoulders to standard widths as part of I-3311E.
 July 2011 – I-5405 (with one HOT lane in each direction) was added to the MUMPO 2035 Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the MUMPO 2012-2018 TIP, and the STIP. The MUMPO
LRTP and TIP were approved by FHWA on December 16, 2011.
 June 2012 – MUMPO amended its LRTP in June 2012 to include I-5405 with two HOT lanes
HOV+3 in each direction.
 July 2012 – FHWA approved the conformity determination on July 6, 2012.
1.3 Applicability of a Categorical Exclusion
Pursuant to the 23 CFR §771.117(a), Categorical Exclusions are defined as actions which: do not induce
significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; do not require the relocation of
significant numbers of people; do not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational,
historic or other resource; do not involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; do not have
significant impacts on travel patterns; or do not otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any
significant environmental impacts.
The proposed project meets the federal Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR
1508.4) for a Categorical Exclusion. The regulations identify a Categorical Exclusion as a project or
action “which does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
3
environment.” The proposed project would add capacity to an existing facility and all improvements
would occur within the existing right of way. Due to a lack of significant environmental impacts and a
lack of significant impacts to planned growth or land use in the project area, the proposed project is
classified as a Categorical Exclusion.
According to 23 CFR §771.117(d), actions that meet the criteria for a Categorical Exclusion in the CEQ
regulations and 23 CFR §771.117(a) may be designated as a Categorical Exclusion only after FHWA
approval. Based on the small number of resources indentified in the project’s construction area during
scoping, the level of impacts disclosed in this document and previous experience with similar projects,
this project falls into this category of action and must receive FHWA approval.
1.4 Project Funding
According to the Draft North Carolina Statewide Transportation Plan (2040 Plan) prepared in April 2012 ,
NCDOT will need to invest at least $86.3 billion (in 2011 dollars) just to maintain existing Level of Service
(LOS) C conditions and between $114.1 billion and $148.2 billion to improve the transportation
network’s performance and capacity. To maintain existing conditions, the State will need to find new
revenue sources to generate $32.3 billion in additional funding. Improving the system would require
revenue generation between $60.1 billion and $94.2 billion. The Plan notes that NCDOT should discern
the timing of when to implement new revenue streams into the mix and if the increase in transportation
funding is used for particular projects or specific improvements or simply used for maintenance
activities statewide.
Due to traditional funding limitations and recognized financial constraints, alternative project financing
options are being considered for this project-particularly a Public-Private Partnership (P3) and a
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan. As a result, these financing
options were considered in the selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Public-Private Partnerships. FHWA encourages the consideration of P3’s in the development of
transportation improvements. FHWA defines a P3 as a contractual agreement between a public agency
and a private sector entity. This type of contractual agreement allows for greater private sector
participation in the delivery and financing of transportation projects. Additional information on P3’s can
be found on FHWA’s website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/index.htm.
TIFIA Loan. The TIFIA loan program provides Federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan
guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects of national and
regional significance. A TIFIA project must pledge repayment in whole or in part with dedicated revenue
sources such as tolls, user fees, special assessments (taxes), or other non-Federal sources. TIFIA credit
assistance enables these projects to obtain financing in the private market. Additional information on
the TIFIA loan program can be found on FHWA’s website: www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tifia.
2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
The purpose and need was developed using input from previous studies and technical analyses
conducted along I-77.
2.1 Need for Action
I-77 is a critical, north-south transportation corridor for the Charlotte-metro region and beyond,
connecting the Charlotte metropolitan area with Columbia, South Carolina to the south, and to the
states of Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio to the north. Within the immediate study area for this
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
4
project, I-77 links the major employment center of downtown Charlotte, known locally as Uptown, with
the rapidly growing residential communities of northern Mecklenburg and southern Iredell counties. I-
77 serves traffic demands and travel patterns for commuters and other travelers within and outside of
the project study area, and is a vital route for regional commerce. The roadway network includes a
system of primary state routes surrounding and connecting with several local routes. Currently, heavy
traffic occurs during peak periods within the project limits, resulting in frequent congestion and delays,
as described in Section 3.1.4.
I-77 corridor improvements face physical, environmental, and financial constraints. The MUMPO
Congestion Management Process (2009) documented limitations for widening improvements to the
corridor, including right-of-way impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and the causeways at Lake
Norman, and limited queue spacing at on-ramps at exits 23, 25 and 28. Congestion mitigation was
previously implemented along the corridor with the addition of HOV lanes in 2004, including a 10-mile
southbound section from I-277 (Brookshire Freeway) to I-485 and a 5-mile section for northbound traffic
from I-85 to I-485.
On a statewide level, transportation project needs far exceed available funding. NCDOT’s 10-year
Program and Resource Plan, which is part of From Policies to Projects (NCDOT, July 2011), identified
state highway capital needs for the 2015-2020 time period of more than $45.2 billion. Over the same
period, NCDOT’s projected budget for these programs is approximately $8.8 billion. Financial
constraints were acknowledged when MUMPO included I-5405 as a HOT lanes project in the LRTP and
TIP.
Due to traditional funding limitations and recognized financial constraints, alternative project financing
options are being considered for this project, particularly a Public-Private Partnership (P3) and a
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan.
2.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The study area has grown faster than the resources available to complete long-term transportation
improvements. Existing traffic congestion within the I-77 corridor results in unpredictable delays, as
well as excessive travel times for commuters and travelers. Predicted growth in the northern
communities of Mecklenburg County will increase these delays and travel times.
The purpose of the proposed action is to provide immediate relief by improving travel time reliability
within the study area by the project’s 2015 opening and design year. To achieve this, it is proposed to
incorporate managed lanes with value pricing within the project corridor. Vehicles meeting HOV
requirements will be permitted to use the HOT lanes free of charge (100 percent discounted). Non-HOV
vehicles choosing to use the lanes would be assessed a variable fee based on maintaining a minimum
speed in the HOT lanes. This approach will address travel delays and congestion by providing a
transportation option that results in more reliable local trip times and improves overall network
efficiency. In addition, the extension of managed lanes will further MUMPO’s goal to establish programs
and incentives that encourage ridesharing, as stated in the LRTP, by offering more reliable travel times
for HOVs in combination with existing park-and-ride lots along the corridor.
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section of the report provides an overview of recent growth trends, regional and local land use
plans, I-77’s designation as a strategic highway corridor, and traffic conditions in the project corridor.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
5
3.1 Growth Trends
Regional Growth. According to the US Census Bureau, the population of Mecklenburg County grew
32 percent, from 695,454 in 2000 to 919,628 in 2010. Much of this population growth and associated
residential development was, and continues to be, concentrated in northern Mecklenburg County (the
towns of Huntersville, Cornelius, and Davidson) and southern Iredell County (Town of Mooresville). The
combined population of Huntersville, Cornelius, and Davidson grew 87 percent, from 44,068 in 2000 to
82,583 in 2010. This population growth accounted for 17 percent of Mecklenburg County’s population
growth during this decade. The Town of Mooresville is located outside of the I-5405 project study area
in Iredell County. The population growth for this community is notable and relevant to the project
corridor due to its proximity. The population of Mooresville grew nearly 74 percent during this period,
from 18,823 to 32,711.
Housing Trends. According to the 2035 LRTP (March 2010), the housing boom in the north can be
attributed to the attraction of Lake Norman; the “small town” attractiveness of the northern towns of
Davidson, Cornelius, and Huntersville; and the large amount of available vacant land. The 2035 LRTP
further states that the overall growth in northern Mecklenburg County is also related to the relatively
recent widening of I-77, which has made the area more attractive to developers and residents.
3.2 Regional and Local Plans
Various regional agency and municipal plans developed to guide land use and transportation planning
decisions emphasize the importance of the I-77 corridor for local and regional auto and transit travel.
Furthermore, with I-77 connecting and providing access to major arterials within local municipalities, the
interstate’s influence on land use and transportation recommendations is apparent in municipal small
area plans. Table 1 identifies regional and local plans in the study area.
Table 1: Regional and Local Planning Documents
Charlotte-Mecklenburg/City of Charlotte
Generalized Adopted Land Use Plan (July 19, 2006)
Centers, Corridors, and Wedges Growth Framework (August 23, 2010)
Central District Adopted Future Land Use (July 11, 2007)
Northeast District Adopted Future Land Use (July 5, 2007)
Northwest District Adopted Future Land Use (July 10, 2007)
MUMPO
2012-2018 Transportation Improvement Plan( July 20, 2011)
2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (May 3, 2010, as amended)
Town of Cornelius
Cornelius Land Development Map (June 10, 2010)
Cornelius Comprehensive Master Plan (2011)
Town of Cornelius Residential Map (2010)
Town of Huntersville
Huntersville Approved Development and Major Features (January 2, 2011)
(JanJanuary 1, 2011January 1, 2011Map
January 1, 2011
Gilead Road/US 21 Transportation and Land Use Vision Small Area (January 2006)
NC 73(Sam Furr Road)/US-21 Transportation and Land Use Vision Small Area Plan (JanJaunaurya r2y0 20060) 6
NC 73 Transportation/Land Use Corridor Plan (July 19, 2004) January 2006
Neighborhood Plan for the Rich Hatchet Road Community (August 17, 1998) July 19, 2004
NCDOT
2012-2018 State Transportation Improvement Program
-
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
6
The 2035 LRTP includes the “Congestion Management Process,” which contains a toolbox of strategies
to alleviate congestion and enhance mobility beyond traditional capacity adding efforts. Congestion
management strategies for freeways included in this toolbox are ridesharing and managed lanes to
reduce regional trips, increase vehicle occupancy, reduce work Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and
improve travel times.
MUMPO’s 2035 LRTP and 2012-2018 TIP initially included I-5405 with conventional funding for one HOT
lane in each direction. In June 2012, MUMPO amended its LRTP to include I-5405 with two HOT lanes in
each direction. A conformity determination was approved by USDOT on July 6, 2012.
3.3 Strategic Highway Corridor
The I-77 corridor is designated as a Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) by the NCDOT. The SHC initiative
confirms NCDOT’s commitment to improve, protect, and better plan for a series of critical highway
facilities in the state. I-77 is identified as Corridor 21 from Rock Hill, SC to Wytheville, VA. The vision for
the corridor is a “Freeway,” which falls under the AASHTO Design Classification of freeway or interstate
and has the functional purpose of high mobility with full control of access
(www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/).
3.4 Existing (2010) and Future (2015) No-Build Traffic Conditions
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (2010) at specific locations along the project corridor ranges from
88,000 – 169,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Existing traffic volumes on I-77 along the project corridor are
shown in Figure 2.
The portion of the I-77 corridor between I-277 in Charlotte and West Catawba Avenue in Cornelius is the
major north-south transportation corridor for Mecklenburg County. This portion of I-77 continues to
carry traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of the facility, contributing to the “stop and go” or “slow
and go” conditions during peak traffic conditions. Congestion often creates problematic traveling
conditions for commuters during morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak periods.
Peak and off-peak direction volumes were evaluated for the project. Peak direction volumes were
compared for specific segments (both Southbound AM and Northbound PM) and for the overall study
corridor and are documented in the I-77 HOV/HOT Conversion (STIP I-5405) Traffic Operations Technical
Memorandum. The summary below mainly highlights existing (2010) and future (2015) no-build traffic
conditions and analysis results for the overall study corridor.
3.4.1 Peak Hour Travel Demand
I-77 southbound is the peak direction during the AM peak hour as commuters travel from north
Charlotte and the Towns of Huntersville, Cornelius, and Davidson to the central business district in
Uptown Charlotte. Existing (2010) peak hour volumes at specific segments along the corridor in the
Southbound AM direction ranges from 4,633 in the segment from Exit 28 to NC 73 (Sam Furr Road, Exit
25) to 8,147 in the segment from Exit 13 to Lasalle Street (Exit 12), and average 6,189 along the corridor.
I-77 northbound is the peak direction during the PM peak hour. Existing (2010) Northbound PM
direction peak hour volumes range from 4,772 in the segment from Exit 25 to West Catawba Avenue
(Exit 28) to 8,877 in the segment from South of I-277 (Exit 11), and average 6,649 along the corridor.
During the AM peak hour, the average growth in traffic for the I-77 study area corridor is expected to be
minor between 2010 and 2015, as most of the corridor is currently at or over capacity during the peak
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
7
hour. The I-77 northbound PM peak hour average corridor traffic growth is expected to be minor, at
around 0.5 percent per year between 2010 and 2015.
3.4.2 Peak Hour Traffic Operations
Measures of effectiveness (MOE) were selected to evaluate the mobility of the I-77 corridor and make
comparisons between the No-Build and Build scenarios. The MOEs used to evaluate the overall corridor
performance during the peak period were vehicle miles traveled (VMT), person trips processed, and
average speed. Section 4.2 provides more detailed descriptions of these measures.
The Year 2010 No-Build scenario, which is summarized in Table 2, was analyzed to provide an
assessment of existing conditions. This scenario assumed no modifications to the existing roadway, and
no tolling of the existing single HOV lane in each direction. Table 2 also includes the Year 2015 No-Build
scenario, which was analyzed to provide an assessment of anticipated conditions in the design year
without modifications to the existing I-77 corridor except for committed STIP projects. The 2015 No-
Build scenario assumed no tolling of the existing single HOV lane in each direction.
Table 2. Existing (2010) and 2015 No-Build Peak Hour Analysis Results
2010
Existing
2015
No-Build
I-77 Southbound AM
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) [mi] 94,584
93,392
Person Trips Processed [passengers] 13,867
14,682
Average Speed [all vehicles] (mph) 40.4
37.9
Average Speed [general purpose vehicles] (mph) 40.2
37.5
Average Speed [HOV/HOT vehicles] (mph) 43.3
41.9
I-77 Northbound PM
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) [mi] 98,362
99,396
Person Trips Processed [passengers] 14,485
16,203
Average Speed [all vehicles] (mph) 27.3
27.6
Average Speed [general purpose vehicles] (mph) 26.8
27.1
Average Speed [HOV/HOT vehicles] (mph) 35.0
35.7
Source: I-77 HOV/HOT Conversion Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum (Atkins, July 2012)
For the Southbound AM, on average for the corridor, 2015 No-Build volumes are expected to be slightly
higher than the year 2010 volumes, which leads to slight increase in congestion as shown by lower
average speeds and less VMT. For the Northbound PM, the 2015 No-Build scenario displays similar
MOEs as 2010 No-Build because the corridor is operating at or above capacity in most locations.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
8
4 ALTERNATIVES
A No-Build and two Build alternatives were evaluated in this Categorical Exclusion.
4.1 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build alternative represents the I-77 corridor without the proposed project. No improvements
would be made to I-77 under the No-Build option, with the exception of other planned improvements in
the regional transportation and transit network. Future planned improvements to I-77 identified in the
2012-2018 STIP include:
 I-3311E – I-77, North of I-277/NC 16 (Brookshire Freeway) to North of I-85. Widen existing
southbound lanes (construction in FY2015).
 I-4733 – I-77/SR 5544 (West Catawba Avenue) in Cornelius. Modify interchange (construction
in FY2013; coordinate with I-4750).
 I-4750 – I-77, SR 5544 (West Catawba Avenue – Exit 28) to I-40. Widen and reconstruct
roadway.
o I-4750A – I-77, SR 5544 (West Catawba Avenue – Exit 28) to US 21 in Iredell County
(Exit 33). Widen and reconstruct roadway (developmental program (NEPA process) in
current STIP; anticipated construction in FY2020).
o I-4750B – I-77, US 21 (Exit 33) to NC 115/US 21 (Exit 42) in Iredell County. Widen and
reconstruct roadway (construction in FY 2030)
o I-4750C – I-77, NC 115/US 21 (Exit 42) to I-40 in Iredell County. Widen and reconstruct
roadway (construction in FY 2030)
Implementation of these planned commitments will not address existing traffic congestion in the project
area by the design year of 2015. I-3311E as currently proposed would only widen the existing
southbound lanes, and would not provide any additional capacity to relieve existing congestion. All
sections of the I-4750 project are proposed north of the I-5405 project area and are not scheduled for
construction until 2020 and 2030.
As stated in Section 2.2, the purpose of the proposed project is to relieve existing congestion in the
project area. While the project has independent utility and will function as a stand-alone project to
address existing congestion, additional improvements, including the projects in the bulleted list above,
will be necessary to address future congestion. However, these projects cannot be completed within a
timeframe that meets the existing need.
4.2 Build Alternatives
The proposed project consists of providing HOT lanes along I-77 from I-277 (Brookshire Freeway) to
West Catawba Avenue (Exit 28). Two build alternatives, as described below and shown on Figures 3 and
4, are considered. Improvements for both alternatives are within the existing I-77 right of way.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 is comprised of two components:
a. Conversion of the existing I-77 HOV lanes to HOT lanes (southbound between I-277 [Brookshire
Freeway] and Hambright Road, and northbound from I-85 to I-485).
b. Extension of northbound and southbound HOT lanes from the terminus of conversion
northward to West Catawba Avenue (Exit 28).
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
9
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1 with the addition of a second HOT lane in each direction
between I-85 and West Catawba Avenue (Exit 28).
For purposes of operational comparison, both of the build alternatives were evaluated under HOT2+ and
HOT3+ occupancy requirements.
Bridge Reconstruction
Both alternatives would also require the replacement in kind of the bridges located at Hambright Road
and Westmoreland Road.
The proposed action includes the reconstruction of two bridges, located at Hambright Road (State Road
2117) and at Westmoreland Road (State Route 2147). As currently planned, the existing bridges would
be reconstructed to the same capacity, but sidewalks and bikeways would be added on the side of each
bridge. Typical cross sections for these bridges are shown on Figure 5.
Although the bridge decks will be somewhat wider, it is anticipated that both reconstructed bridges will
occupy the same footprint as the current bridges and no additional right-of-way will be required.
Because the capacity of each bridge will remain the same, there will be no increase in traffic capacity.
The design-build contractor will have the option to propose alternative bridge designs for these and
other bridges along the proposed action. For example, the contractor may decide to provide for the
possibility of future slip ramps to the proposed HOV/HOT lanes on I-77. This could require a wider,
stronger design outside of the existing right-of-way, and could change traffic patterns on the bridges.
This environmental document is based on reconstruction of the two bridges within the current right-of-way.
The contract will specify that any additional bridge reconstruction or expansion of the two bridges
beyond the right-of-way would be evaluated in compliance with NEPA before they could be approved.
Because the footprint of the reconstructed bridges will not change, the capacity of the reconstructed
bridges will be the same as the current bridges. There will be no impacts outside of the right-of-way,
and no significant impacts associated with the reconstruction of these bridges. Should design changes
or construction impacts differ from those currently anticipated, it may be necessary to undertake
further analysis before the reconstruction of these bridges can commence.
4.3 Traffic Analysis
Table 3 summarizes the comparison results of the I-77 Southbound AM and Northbound PM peak hour
network measures of effectiveness (MOE) for the 2015 No-Build and 2015 Build scenarios.
MOEs used to evaluate the overall corridor performance during the peak hour were vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), person trips processed, and average speed. Descriptions of the MOEs are provided
below:
 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – Represents the total distance traveled in miles during peak hour
by all active and arrived vehicles. Scenarios with higher VMT represent a benefit to mobility as
more vehicles are able to travel greater distances.
 Completed Person Trips – Represents the total number of passengers who reach their
destination during the peak hour. Scenarios with higher person trips processed represent a
benefit to mobility as more passengers are able to reach their destination.
 Average Speed – Represents the total distance traveled (VMT) divided by the total travel time
vehicle hours traveled (VHT) in miles per hour (mph) for vehicles from all origins to all
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
10
destinations in the network. Scenarios with a higher average speed represent a benefit to
mobility as vehicles are able to get to their destination in less time. Average speed is shown for
all vehicles, general purpose vehicles, and HOV / HOT vehicles.
As seen in Table 3, all of the Build scenarios are expected to provide mobility benefits during peak hour
by increasing VMT, processing more person trips, and increasing the average speeds for all vehicles.
Generally, the 2-HOT Build scenarios (2+ and 3+) result in greater benefits than the 1-HOT (2+ and 3+)
scenarios. Between the 2+ occupancy and 3+ occupancy scenarios, there was no discernable difference
in operational benefits. Overall, the HOT lane(s) would provide commuters the option for a reliable
travel time.
Table 3. 2015 No-Build and Build Alternatives AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison
2015
No-Build
2015
1-HOT
2+
2015
1-HOT
3+
2015
2-HOT
2+
2015
2-HOT
3+
I-77 Southbound AM
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) [mi] 93,392 108,749
(16.4)
109,581
(17.3)
116,681
(24.9)
115,915
(24.1)
Person Trips Processed [passengers] 14,682 15,537
(5.8)
15,739
(7.2)
15,976
(8.8)
15,902
(8.3)
Average Speed [all vehicles] (mph) 37.9 38.2
(1.0)
42.7
(12.7)
42.4
(12.1)
44.1
(16.4)
Average Speed [general purpose vehicles] (mph) 37.5 35.1
(-6.5)
39.9
(6.2)
37.8
(0.7)
39.9
(6.3)
Average Speed [HOV/HOT vehicles] (mph) 41.9 54.9
(31.3)
56.1
(33.9)
58.5
(39.7)
58.6
(40.0)
I-77 Northbound PM
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) [mi] 99,396 107,934
(8.6)
110,763
(11.4)
118,509
(19.2)
116,606
(17.3)
Person Trips Processed [passengers] 16,203 16,380
(1.1)
16,527
(2.0)
16,763
(3.5)
16,742
(3.3)
Average Speed [all vehicles] (mph) 27.6 30.8
(11.6)
28.1
(1.8)
29.4
(6.6)
29.5
(6.8)
Average Speed [general purpose vehicles] (mph) 27.1 29.6
(9.3)
26.1
(-3.8)
26.9
(-0.6)
26.8
(-1.3)
Average Speed [HOV/HOT vehicles] (mph) 35.7 41.2
(15.3)
40.6
(13.6)
38.0
(6.4)
39.9
(11.7)
Source: I-77 HOV/HOT Conversion Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum (Atkins, July 2012)
Note: (X) are percentage change compared with the 2015 No-Build scenario.
5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
All Build Alternatives would provide mobility benefits compared to the No-Build scenario. The Build
Alternatives would offer commuters and travelers moving within and through the study area the option
to circumvent the daily congestion and unpredictable delay conditions and experience a more reliable
trip time during peak periods.
The Build Alternatives improve conditions during the peak travel period in the study area and improve
the overall efficiency of the network by providing:
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
11
 Increased capacity and ability of the I-77 corridor in the study area to carry more passenger
trips
 Increased average speeds (minor for PM northbound and moderate for AM southbound) for all
vehicles
 For HOV/HOT vehicles, increased average speeds that are closer to freeway speeds (as much as
40 percent over the No-Build)
 Immediate value pricing options for more reliable trip times
 Programs and incentives that encourage ridesharing, in furtherance of MUMPO’S goals
described in Section 3.1.2.
The 2-HOT scenarios will further provide improved operational benefits over the 1-HOT scenarios. The
2-HOT scenario will provide for additional person trips as well as generally higher average travel speeds
as compared to the 1-HOT scenario. Furthermore, a second HOT lane will provide a relief in the event of
a breakdown or accident in the HOT lane. In comparison of the HOT2+ versus HOT3+ occupancy rates,
projected toll revenues associated with the HOT3+ are approximately 20-30 percent higher than the
HOT2+ option, thus minimizing NCDOT’s financial contribution and making it the more financially viable
option.
Based on this option’s ability to provide the benefits stated above, as well as the additional financial
feasibility associated with it compared to the other Build scenarios, Alternative 2 (2-HOT 3+) is the
recommended alternative.
5.1 Preferred Alternative Description
Alternative 2 (two HOT lanes in each direction) with an HOV 3+ designation has been selected as the
Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative design is shown in Appendix A and consists of the
following actions:
1) Conversion of the existing I-77 HOV lanes to HOT lanes (southbound between I-277 [Brookshire
Freeway] and Hambright Road and northbound from I-85 to I-485)
2) Extension of northbound and southbound HOT lanes from I-485 to West Catawba Avenue (Exit
28)
3) Inclusion of a second HOT lane in each direction from I-85 to West Catawba Avenue (Exit 28)
4) Designation of HOT lanes as HOT 3+
5.2 Typical Sections
The existing I-77 right of way through the project area varies between 350 feet and 625 feet. Although
there are variations throughout the corridor, for the purposes of describing the existing and proposed
typical sections, the corridor is divided into three sections as follows:
 Section A generally includes I-77 between I-277 and just north of I-85
 Section B generally includes I-77 between just north of I-85 and Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road
 Section C generally includes I-77 between Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road and W. Catawba Avenue
Existing and proposed typical sections for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are shown in Figures 3 and 4,
respectively. The current lane configuration in Section A includes four 12-foot lanes in the northbound
direction with a 10-foot paved outside shoulder and a 15-foot paved inside shoulder against a concrete
median barrier. The southbound direction includes four 11-foot general purpose lanes and one 11-foot
HOV lane with a 10-foot paved outside shoulder and a 6-foot (varies) paved inside shoulder against the
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
12
concrete median barrier. There are no proposed modifications to the lane configuration in Section A,
with the exception of converting the existing southbound HOV lane to a HOT lane.
The current lane configuration in Section B includes three 12-foot general purpose lanes and one 12-
foot HOV lane in each direction with 10-foot paved outside shoulders and 10-foot paved inside
shoulders divided by a grass median. Under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), the existing HOV
lane in each direction would be converted to a HOT lane and a 4-foot paved buffer would be added to
separate the HOT lanes from the general purpose lanes. An additional 12-foot HOT lane would be
added inside the converted HOT lane in each direction for a total of two HOT lanes in each direction.
Ten-foot paved inside and outside shoulders would still be provided in each direction and a grass
median of variable width would separate the northbound and southbound traffic.
The current lane configuration in Section C includes two 12-foot general purpose lanes in each direction
with 10-foot paved outside shoulders and 10-foot paved inside shoulders divided by a grass median.
Under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), two 12-foot HOT lanes would be added in each direction
inside the existing general purpose lanes and would be separated from the general purpose lanes by a 4-
foot paved buffer. Ten-foot paved inside and outside shoulders would still be provided in each direction
and a grass median of variable width would separate the northbound and southbound traffic.
As part of the project design process, NCDOT will request design exceptions for horizontal clearance
underneath several bridge overpass sites within the project limits. The design exceptions require
approval from FHWA.
5.3 Structures and Drainage Requirements
The Preliminary Hydraulic Technical Memorandum (Atkins, March 2012) evaluated existing drainage
conditions, drainage structure maintenance issues, potential impacts to Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) regulated special flood hazard areas (SFHA), and permitting issues. The
report is incorporated by reference.
The purpose of the preliminary study was to evaluate on-site drainage structures at all major crossings
to determine if the proposed project would adversely impact flood stages upstream of I-77, and if major
hydraulic improvements are needed as part of the proposed project. A major hydraulic structure is a
bridge or a structure that is equivalent to or larger than a 72-inch diameter pipe. Sixty existing
structures were identified, including 5 bridges and 55 culverts/pipes.
The hydraulic analysis revealed that most of the culverts crossing I-77 likely do not meet NCDOT current
desirable design criteria for primary routes. However, NCDOT has no record of receiving reports of
flooding as a result of these culverts. See preliminary hydraulic technical memorandum for the
recommended structure sizes. More detailed studies will be required during final design and portions of
the existing hydraulic systems may be replaced because of insufficient capacity, system integrity or
compatibility with the proposed improvements.
5.4 Preliminary Cost Estimates and Project Schedule
As shown in Table 4, the total estimated cost for the project is $134 million. The cost does not include
right of way (none required), utility relocation, utility construction costs, or tolling equipment. The
proposed date for construction of the I-77 HOT lanes and associated improvements to begin is
December 2012.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
13
Table 4. I-5405 Preliminary Cost Estimate
Section
Length
(mi.)
Preferred
Alternative Cost
I-277 to North of I-85 3.10 $8,000,000
North of I-85 to North of I-485 (Hambright Road) 6.74 $51,000,0001
North of I-485 (Hambright Road) to West Catawba Avenue (Exit 28). 8.51 $75,000,0002
Source: NCDOT 1
10 Lanes;
2
8 Lanes
6 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section summarizes baseline conditions and trends of the human/social, physical, and natural
environments in the area. The identification of the existing affected environment serves as the baseline
from which to determine project impacts.
6.1 Human Environment
The human environment is described in the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) (Atkins, March 2012).
The following sections summarize community characteristics, including updated demographic
information for the study areas defined in the CIA, as well as community resources in the area.
Community Study Areas. A Demographic Study Area (DSA) was defined to determine demographic
characteristics for the community surrounding the project. It is the smallest statistical area of the 2010
Census that includes the project study area. The DSA for this project is comprised of 25 block groups
within Mecklenburg County, as shown on Figure 6 and listed in Table 5.
Table 5. Demographic Study Area
Census Tract Block Group(s)
5 2
47 1
48 1, 2, 3
49 1
50 1, 2
51 1
54.01 1, 3
55.08 1
61.06 2
61.07 2
61.09 1
62.03 3
62.08 1
62.09 1, 3
62.11 1
62.12 1, 2
62.15 1
64.05 1
64.06 1
Source: 2010 US Census
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
14
6.1.1 Project Setting
The project study area is bound by uptown Charlotte to the south and Lake Norman to the north. The I-
77 corridor in this part of the county is heavily used by regional commuters. Existing land use consists of
various densities of office, commercial, and industrial type land uses surrounding interchanges with
various levels of single and multifamily developments located between interchanges and adjacent to the
corridor. There are dense business, industrial, and residential sites within the city limits of Charlotte and
the towns of Huntersville, Cornelius, and Davidson. In the northern portions of the project study area,
there are pockets of undeveloped land of various sizes.
6.1.2 Community Characteristics
Population Trends. As noted in Section 3.1.1, the population of Mecklenburg County grew 32 percent
from 2000 to 2010. The growth has primarily occurred in areas to the north, south, and east of
Charlotte. North Mecklenburg County accounted for approximately 17 percent of the county’s growth
during this decade. The combined population of Huntersville, Cornelius, and Davidson grew 87 percent
from 44,068 in 2000 to 82,583 in 2010, spurring residential development in these areas. Residential
growth also has been occurring at the southern end of the project area around the Johnson and Wales
University campus and the NC Music Factory.
There are also block groups within the DSA that experienced decreases in population between 2000 and
2010. These block groups are all located south of I-85 and include older urban neighborhoods. The
largest decrease (45 percent) occurred in the combined block groups in Census Tract 50, primarily due to
razing of the Double Oaks Apartments. This area is planned for redevelopment by the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Housing Partnership.
Future population estimates obtained from the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management
for Mecklenburg County and the State are shown in Table 6. Future growth rates for the County and
State are projected to be lower than the growth rates observed between 2000 and 2010. It is
anticipated that growth rates in the DSA will continue to be higher than the State and County rates due
to historical trends, the availability of vacant land, and planned growth as noted in local land use plans.
Table 6. Future Population Estimates
Population Trends
2010
Census
July 2020 July 2030
Actual Estimate
% Change
2010-2020
Estimate
% Change
2020-2030
Mecklenburg County 919,628 1,097,084 19.3% 1,270,222 15.8%
North Carolina 9,535,483 11,039,342 15.8% 12,463,244 12.9%
Source: US Census 2010 and NC Office of State Budget and Management
Race/Ethnicity. Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics are the three largest racial/ethnic groups
within the DSA. The DSA is slightly more non-white than Mecklenburg County overall. Nearly 48
percent of the DSA’s residents are white, 42 percent African American, and 8 percent Hispanic or Latino.
Other racial groups comprising the remaining 10 percent of the DSA population include Asians,
American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Other.
The percentage of African Americans in the DSA (42 percent) is higher than that of Mecklenburg County
(30.8 percent). The DSA has 11 block groups with African American population concentrations of 70
percent or more. The majority of these block groups are located south of I-85, as seen on Figure 6.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
15
The population of Hispanic or Latinos in the DSA is nearly 8 percent, which is slightly less than the
Mecklenburg County total of about 12 percent. However, one block group located near the Hambright
Road crossing has a notably high concentration of Hispanic or Latinos, as shown on Figure 6.
Income/Poverty Status. According to the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimate (2006-
2010) data, the median household income for Mecklenburg County was $55,294. Slightly more than
half (14) of the 25 block groups in the DSA have median household incomes below the county level. The
location of these block groups is shown on Figure 6. Table 7 provides additional detail regarding median
household incomes for the census block groups in the DSA and Mecklenburg County.
Based on American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2006-2010), the percentage of residents in the
DSA living below the poverty level in 2010 (13.8 percent) was slightly higher than the county (12.5
percent). The data revealed the presence of some areas in the DSA with populations having notably
higher concentrations of persons living below the poverty level as compared to the county. The areas in
the DSA with the highest percentages of residents living below the poverty level are located south of I-
85. Two block groups in the DSA, in Huntersville, reported no residents living below the poverty level.
Table 7. Household Income and Poverty Status
Geography Total Population
Below Poverty Level
Very Poor:
Under 50% of
Poverty Level
Median
Household
Income1
# % # %
Mecklenburg County 867,122 108,296 12.5% 47,546 5.5% $55,294
CT 5, BG 2 1,134 128 11.3% 73 6.4% $75,641
CT 47, BG 1 1,095 439 40.1% 113 10.3% $18,810
CT 48, BG 1 976 225 23.1% 76 7.8% $21,989
CT 48, BG 2 980 277 28.3% 150 15.3% $26,181
CT 48, BG 3 1,231 363 29.5% 101 8.2% $27,525
CT 49, BG 1 739 143 19.4% 64 8.7% $39,226
CT 50, BG 1 1,243 446 35.9% 211 17.0% $25,435
CT 50, BG 2 154 42 27.3% 11 7.1% $12,148
CT 51, BG 1 1,068 675 63.2% 365 34.2% $14,080
CT 54.01, BG 1 2,187 127 5.8% 98 4.5% $44,893
CT 54.01, BG 3 1,439 531 36.9% 272 18.9% $30,615
CT 55.08, BG 1 2,252 73 3.2% 25 1.1% $88,266
CT 61.06, BG 2 1,098 10 0.9% 10 0.9% $60,893
CT 61.07, BG 2 613 113 18.4% 30 4.9% $63,676
CT 61.09, BG 1 3,296 320 9.7% 75 2.3% $51,189
CT 62.03, BG 3 1,917 143 7.5% 0 0.0% $77,168
CT 62.08, BG 1 2,024 65 3.2% 53 2.6% $70,473
CT 62.09, BG 1 189 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $47,917
CT 62.09, BG 3 2,220 227 10.2% 75 3.4% $82,563
CT 62.11, BG 1 3,244 187 5.8% 101 3.1% $91,563
CT 62.12, BG 1 1,635 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $76,580
CT 62.12, BG 2 1,036 18 1.7% 18 1.7% $65,293
CT 62.15, BG 1 1,440 286 19.9% 232 16.1% $36,917
CT 64.05, BG 1 1,795 57 3.2% 57 3.2% $62,770
CT 64.06, BG 1 1,893 192 10.1% 135 7.1% $45,568
DSA 36,898 5,087 13.8% 2,345 6.4% NA
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS 5-Year Estimates (2006-2010), Tables B19013, C17002
1Median household income in the past 12 months (in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars)
(Shaded cells indicate Block Groups where low-income % exceeds county average by more than ten percentage points)
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
16
Limited English Proficiency. Executive Order 13166 "Improving Access to Services for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency" (LEP) 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).
The DSA meets the US DOJ’s Safe Harbor threshold requirement for presence of a LEP population, as
identified in USDOT’s Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English
Proficient Persons (2005). This guidance defines the threshold as either five percent of the total DSA
adult population or 1,000 adult persons within a particular language group who speak English less than
“Very Well.” Data was used from the ACS 5-Year Estimates (2006-2010) to identify adults aged 18 or
older who speak English less than “Very Well” by language group.
Results of the LEP analysis are shown in Table 8. The Census data indicate the presence of a Spanish
language group that exceeds the Safe Harbor threshold. In accordance with the Safe Harbor provisions,
written translations of vital documents may be provided for the LEP language group in addition to other
measures assuring meaningful access. These other measures include notice of Right of Language Access
for future meetings for this project and use of interpreters when deemed warranted to assist with public
participation. These measures comply with Executive Order 13166.
Business/Employment. According to the MUMPO 2035 LRTP, the eleven county MUMPO planning area
accounted for an estimated 65 percent of the Piedmont region of south central North Carolina’s jobs in
2005. Mecklenburg County, including the city of Charlotte, contains over 93 percent of the total jobs in
the MUMPO planning area. Charlotte is the economic engine of the MUMPO planning area, as well as
the broader region. Mecklenburg County will continue to be the dominant employment center of the
region, as well as in the MUMPO planning area. Employment in Mecklenburg County is projected to
grow substantially, from roughly 610,000 jobs estimated in 2005 to roughly 1.1 million jobs in 2035, a 74
percent increase (MUMPO, 2010).
According to MUMPO, areas in and near the northern towns, (particularly along I-77 and I-485) are
expected to show significant employment increases, and at some of those locations this will result in
relatively high employment densities by 2035. Huntersville, Davidson and Cornelius are each projected
to at least double their employment by 2035 (MUMPO, 2010).
The I-77 corridor is, and will remain, critical for regional commerce and commuters to/from places of
work, with the personal automobile the primary mode for commuters. According to the US Census
(2010), approximately 81 percent of the total county population drove alone to work via car, truck, or
van, and approximately 13 percent carpooled. Approximately 75 percent of the DSA population drove
alone to work and 15 percent carpooled.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
17
6.1.3 Community Resources and Services
Community resources located near the project study area are shown in Appendix A (Sheets A-O).
Community resources were obtained from Mecklenburg County, NCDOT and ESRI GIS, NCONEMAP, and
field reviews. As expected, the numbers of community facilities decrease outward from uptown
Charlotte and other urban centers. Community facilities shown include:
 Churches/Cemeteries
 Schools and Colleges
 Parks/Greenways and Recreation Areas
 Libraries/Community Centers
 Hospitals and Medical Facilities/Health Centers
Table 8: Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
Geography
Total Adult
Population
Primary Language Group of Persons Who Speak English Less than
Very Well
Spanish
Other Indo-
Euro
Asian/Pacific Other
# % # % # % # %
Mecklenburg
County
657,257 41,625 6.3% 7,909 1.2% 10,824 1.6% 2,174 0.3%
CT 5, BG 2 1,080 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18 1.7% 0 0.0%
CT 47, BG 1 2,099 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 48, BG 1 797 42 5.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 48, BG 2 743 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 48, BG 3 816 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 49, BG 1 614 0 0.0% 10 1.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 50, BG 1 853 43 5.0% 18 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 50, BG 2 144 61 42.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 51, BG 1 711 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19 2.7%
CT 54.01, BG 1 1,619 261 16.1% 16 1.0% 22 1.4% 0 0.0%
CT 54.01, BG 3 875 101 11.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 55.08, BG 1 1,729 77 4.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 61.06, BG 2 879 24 2.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 61.07, BG 2 613 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 32 5.2% 0 0.0%
CT 61.09, BG 1 3,820 491 12.9% 0 0.0% 4 0.1% 0 0.0%
CT 62.03, BG 3 1,600 0 0.0% 15 0.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 62.08, BG 1 1,848 452 24.5% 10 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 62.09, BG 1 189 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 62.09, BG 3 1,861 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 30 1.6% 0 0.0%
CT 62.11, BG 1 2,168 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 62.12, BG 1 1,153 10 0.9% 0 0.0% 60 5.2% 0 0.0%
CT 62.12, BG 2 740 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 62.15, BG 1 1,082 161 14.9% 15 1.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 64.05, BG 1 1,482 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
CT 64.06, BG 1 1,463 79 5.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
DSA 30,978 1,802 5.8% 84 0.3% 166 0.5% 19 0.1%
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
18
 Fire/Medic/Police Stations
The following lists describe specific community facilities located adjacent to I-77.
Churches and Cemeteries
 Elmwood Cemetery is located in the Third Ward neighborhood and North Pinewood Cemetery
is in the Biddleville neighborhood. These cemeteries are adjacent to one another and are
located southeast and southwest, respectively, of the I-77 interchange with I-277 (Brookshire
Freeway).
 Oaklawn Cemetery is located west of I-77 and north of Oaklawn Avenue.
 There are several neighborhood churches adjacent to the corridor including New Life
Fellowship Center in the Double Oaks neighborhood; Kingdom Builders Church in the J.T.
Williams neighborhood; Cosmopolitan Community Church and Memorial Presbyterian Church
in the Lincoln Heights neighborhood; Victory Church, Williams Memorial Presbyterian Church,
and Wilson Church in the Slater Road/Hamilton Circle neighborhood; and Grace Covenant
Church in the Town of Cornelius.
Schools and Colleges
 Irwin Academic Center was formerly known as the Villa Heights School and is located in the
Third Ward neighborhood. Former Lincoln Heights Elementary School is located on Newland
Road and currently operates as a testing center. The former JT Williams Middle School located
at 2400 Carmine Street is now operating as an alternative school. Statesville Road Elementary
School is located in the Slater Road/Hamilton Circle neighborhood.
 Strayer University is an accredited private university in Huntersville that offers undergraduate
and graduate course work.
Parks/Greenways and Recreation
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation operate parks in the project vicinity, including:
 Biddleville Park is a 3.2 acre park, located at 500 Andrill Terrace in the McCrorey Heights
neighborhood, and includes a softball field and half-court basketball court.
 Anita Stroud Neighborhood Park is a 7-acre park located at 2215 Double Oaks Road in the
Double Oaks neighborhood and includes two half court basketball courts, picnic shelters,
playground units, and a walking trail.
 Double Oaks Park is a 16-acre park located at 2605 Double Oaks Road in the Double Oaks
neighborhood that includes a full basketball court and an outdoor swimming pool. The park
also includes a small playground at the end of Newland Road. South of the playground is a
large undeveloped area of the park with no existing park uses.
 Irwin Creek Greenway, which is located east of I-77 and south of I-277, does not cross I-77.
 Six proposed greenways on the Mecklenburg County greenway map would cross I-77 in the
project area. None of the proposed greenways are included in current financially-constrained
plans.
Hospitals and Medical Facilities/Health Centers
Presbyterian Hospital Huntersville is located west of I-77 at 10030 Gilead Road and provides a full range
of medical services from outpatient radiology and laboratory tests to emergency surgery and maternity
services. The 50-bed facility opened in October 2004 and includes an emergency department, five
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
19
operating rooms, 36 medical-surgical beds, four intensive care unit beds, eight labor-delivery-postpartum
beds and two nursery beds.
A private medical office, Charlotte Obstetric and Gynecologic Associates Huntersville facility, is located
at 16455 Statesville Road.
Fire/Medic/Police
The Mecklenburg County Jail North is located at 5235 Spector Drive, adjacent to I-77. The facility
opened in 1994 and has capacity to house 614 inmates. Inmates at the facility are classified as minimum
to medium security risk.
Public Transit Routes
There are numerous transit routes operating in the project study corridor. Six Charlotte Area Transit
System (CATS) express routes operate on I-77 within all, or a portion of, the project limits. These include
the North Mecklenburg Express (77x), Huntersville Express (48x), Northlake Express (53x), University
Research Park Express (54x), Concord Express (80x), and Concord Mills Express (79x). These express
routes currently use the existing HOV lanes on I-77. All express routes are weekday routes, with the
exception of the Concord Mills Express, which operates on Saturday only. Park and ride lots for the
express bus service near the Direct Community Impact AREA (DCIA) are located at Northlake Mall,
Northcross Shopping Center, and on Gilead Road near I-77 (Huntersville-Gateway).
CATS also operates six local routes and two neighborhood routes within the project area. These routes
do not operate on I-77, but on neighborhood streets within the DCIA on either side of I-77 and on
bridges across I-77.
6.2 Land Use and Transportation Plans
I-77 has influenced growth and land use patterns in the region since its construction in the 1970s.
Development pressure has expanded north from Center City Charlotte into the Town of Huntersville and
Town of Cornelius. General development trends along the I-77 project corridor consist of various
densities of office, commercial, and industrial type land uses surrounding interchanges with various
levels of single and multifamily developments located between interchanges and adjacent to the
corridor. Table 1 in Section 3.1.2 provides a summary of local and regional plans influencing growth
and land use in the project corridor.
In June 2012, MUMPO amended its 2035 LRTP and 2012-2018 TIP to update the I-5405 project to
include two HOT lanes in each direction, and USDOT conformity determination was received July 6,
2012.
Municipalities traversed by the I-77 corridor, including Charlotte, Huntersville, and Cornelius, have
developed policy, district, and/or area plans to guide and manage growth in their respective planning
areas, recognizing the importance of I-77 in land use and transportation planning. For example, the
Town of Huntersville has undertaken land use/transportation small area plans for interchanges at I-77,
including NC-73 (Sam Furr Road)(2006) and Gilead Road (2006). The purpose of these plans is to provide
transportation infrastructure and land redevelopment recommendations that area mutually supportive,
and in alignment with the community’s vision for its future.
The development of land use plans and small area plans by the municipalities in the project area
demonstrates their commitment to managing and regulating growth within their jurisdictions. The
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
20
regulation of growth in these areas will continue in accordance with adopted plans following
construction of the proposed improvements to I-77.
6.3 Physical Environment
6.3.1 Floodplains and Floodways
Floodplain and floodway protection is required under several federal, state, and local laws, including
Executive Order 11988, entitled “Floodplain Management,” which requires federal agencies to avoid
making modifications to and supporting development in floodplains wherever practical. Mecklenburg
County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA.
There are 10 locations north of I-85 where I-77 crosses a stream located within a FEMA regulated special
flood hazard area (SFHA), as shown in Appendix A. Potential impacts to floodplains and floodways are
discussed in Section 7.6.
6.3.2 Utilities
Information about existing utilities was obtained through field review and data available from the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County GIS department. Identified utility services along the project corridor
include power lines, gas pipelines, phone lines, and petroleum/gas pipelines.
Thirteen utility corridors were identified that cross I-77 in the project study area. These utility corridors
include eight power lines, three phone lines, one petroleum pipeline, and one gas pipeline. Utility data
will be supplemented and field-verified prior to final design. Underground utilities such as water and
sewer are likely to have crossings at I-77. These utilities were not identified during the field review or
review of available GIS information.
6.3.3 Hazardous Materials
A limited environmental screening was conducted by Atkins in February 2012 to identify the potential
presence of contaminated properties within the project study corridor. Sites that may have an impact
on each proposed alignment have been identified by completing a regulatory database search. The
database search included federal, state, and local environmental records that were used to identify sites
with potential environmental conditions located within a one-mile radius of the centerline of the project
study corridor. As the proposed construction of HOT lanes will be entirely within the existing I-77 right
of way, regulatory database records of sites having a direct impact within the right of way were
evaluated. The HazMat Review Project Memo (February 2012) concluded:
 There are no Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information
System (CERCLA) or associated National Priorities List (NPL) sites identified within the NCDOT
right of way for the project study area.
 There are no Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) generators located within a one-mile
radius of the centerline of the project study corridor. There were no RCRA generator
facilities identified within the NCDOT right of way for the project study area.
 One EPA Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) site was identified within the NCDOT
right of way for the project study area. The exact location is not known, but the approximate
location was described as the intersection of I-77 and I-85. This ERNS site involved a release of
approximately 50 gallons of diesel fuel on December 3, 1997 from a 1993 Volvo Semi that was
run off the road and bobtailed, rupturing a fuel line. The local fire department responded and
Hepeco conducted the cleanup of the spill.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
21
 The NCDENR Underground Storage Tank (UST) database did not identify any existing USTs
within the proposed project area. UST facilities were identified on parcels adjacent to the
NCDOT right of way, but would not pose a likely environmental threat to the proposed project.
 NCDENR’s leaking underground storage tank (LUST) listing revealed one LUST facility within the
NCDOT right of way for the proposed project area. This site was identified as the former Dick
Property located at 10301 Puckett Road in Huntersville, North Carolina. Petroleum-contaminated
soil was identified during the removal of a 550-gallon UST in October 2003.
Contaminated soil was excavated from the site and over-excavation soil samples indicated the
site was cleaned to below regulatory standards. The LUST case file for this site was closed by
NCDENR.
 The State Hazardous Waste Sites (SHWS) records did not identify any state hazardous waste
sites within the right of way for the proposed project area.
 The Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) list, also known as Responsible Party Voluntary Action
Sites (from the NCDENR) revealed that there are four VCP sites within the searched area. There
were no VCP sites identified within the right of way for the proposed project area.
 The NCDENR-maintained Incident Management Database (IMD) list of groundwater and/or soil
contamination incidents indicated one site located within the right of way of the proposed
project area. This site was identified as Statesville Road and Alexanderana Road. The incident
was described as a used oil pit discovered in April 2004 during construction of I-485.
Contaminated soil was removed from the site and confirmation samples indicated that the site
was cleaned to state standards. The case file for this incident was closed by NCDENR.
6.3.4 Air Quality
The project is located in Mecklenburg County, which is within the Metrolina nonattainment area for
ozone (O3) 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 area for CO.
However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was re-designated as maintenance for CO on
September 18, 1995. This area was designated moderate nonattainment for O3 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 MUMPO 2035 LRTP and 2012-2018 TIP
conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination on the LRTP and the
TIP on July 6, 2012. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule
found in 40 CFR Parts 51and 93. There are no significant changes in the project’s design concept or
scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
Air quality impacts are analyzed in the Microscale Carbon Monoxide and Mobile Source Air Toxics Air
Quality Analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates, May 2012), the results of which are summarized in
Section 7.8.
6.3.5 Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many natural and man-made sources.
Highway traffic noise is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
22
Traffic noise and temporary construction noise can be a consequence of transportation projects,
especially in areas near high-volume and high-speed existing steady-state traffic noise sources. The
Design Noise Report (Atkins, June 2012) utilized computer models created with the FHWA Traffic Noise
Model software (TNM 2.5), validated to field-collected traffic noise monitoring data, to predict future
noise levels and define impacted receptors along the proposed highway project. According to the
report, existing traffic noise impacts 345 receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project. The results of
the noise analysis are included in the Design Noise Report (Atkins, June 2012), which is incorporated by
reference, and summarized in Section 7.9.
6.4 Cultural Resources
In December 2011, the NCDOT Archaeology and Historic Architecture Group conducted a review of the
Historic Preservation Office quad maps, relevant background reports, historic designations roster, and
indexes for the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). No existing cultural resources (historic
architecture or archaeological resources) were identified in the APE, which generally includes the
existing I-77 right of way between I-277 (Brookshire Freeway) and West Catawba Avenue (Exit 28). The
review further found that the APE has “an extremely low potential for containing intact archaeological
materials” and did not recommend any additional study.
Additionally, a review of Mecklenburg County Tax Data and the Historic Preservation Office’s Web GIS
Service identified no structures eligible for the National Register listing. These resources are considered
valid by the NCDOT Archaeology and Historic Architecture Group in determining the likelihood of
historic resources being present. As a result, the project qualified for a “No Survey Required” under the
2007 Programmatic Agreement and no coordination is required with the State Historic Preservation
Office.
6.5 Natural Environment
Natural systems were inventoried in the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) (Atkins, February
2012), which is incorporated by reference. The NRTR documents the assessment of biological features
within the project study area, including descriptions of wildlife, vegetation, protected species, water
quality and wetlands; and documents preliminary determination of permit requirements. A summary of
the findings from the study are included in the following sections.
6.5.1 Physiology and Soils
The study area lies in the piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina. Topography in the project
vicinity is comprised of gently rolling hills with narrow, level floodplains along streams. Elevations in the
study area range from 680 to 820 feet above sea level. The Mecklenburg County Soil Survey identifies
24 soil types within the study area. The majority of these soils are non-hydric and well-drained. The
characteristics of these soils and their location along the corridor are described in more detail in the
NRTR.
6.5.2 Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the Catawba River basin (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]
Hydrologic Units 03050101 and 03050103). The study area was investigated October 18-21, October 31,
and November 1-4, 2011. A total of 57 streams were identified in the study area. Six open water areas
or ponds are located within the study area. These features typically consist of artificially excavated pits
that are sustained by high groundwater levels. Approximately 0.98 acres of pond or other open water
are located in the study area. One open water area with a surface water connection to jurisdictional
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
23
stream features is located in the study area. The location of each water resource is shown in Appendix
A (Sheets A-O).
A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) from the USACE was requested on April 5, 2012, and written
verification from the USACE on final jurisdictional determination was received on June 15, 2012 and is
included in Appendix B.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), designated anadromous fish waters, or Primary Nursery Areas
(PNA) are present within one mile downstream of the study area. There are no designated High Quality
Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within one mile downstream of the study
area. There are no benthic or fish monitoring sampling stations within 1.0 mile of the study area. The
North Carolina 2010 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies Long Creek and Irwin Creek, both of
which are within the study area, as impaired due to excessive turbidity.
Point source discharges in North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). All dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. As of April 2, 2012 there are 13
permitted discharge points into streams that run through the Project Study area. The NPDES permits in
the Project Study Area allow for discharges into Irwin Creek, Long Creek, and McDowell Creek
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ps/npdes).
6.5.3 Biotic Resources
Terrestrial Communities. Three terrestrial communities were identified in the study area:
maintained/disturbed, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype).
Detailed descriptions of these communities can be found in the Natural Resources Technical Report
(Atkins, February 2012).
Maintained/Disturbed - Maintained/Disturbed areas consist largely of the paved surface and right-of-way
of the existing I-77. Other examples are scattered throughout the study area in places where the
vegetation is periodically mowed or maintained, such as roadside shoulders, residential lawns, industrial
and commercial areas, and utility right-of-ways. The vegetation in this community is comprised of
grasses, herbs, and vines, adventitious shrubs, tree saplings, and planted trees. Within this community,
several Headwater Forest North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) wetlands were
identified.
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest - The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest community occurs in uplands,
generally over the more acidic soils of the study area. Within the study area, this community occurs in
strips along the edges of the I-77 right-of-way. Although this community type is typically not associated
with wetlands, several wetlands classified as Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh and Headwater Forest,
according to NCWAM, were identified within this community.
Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype) - With the transition from Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest to Basic
Mesic Forest, an increase in soil moisture is accompanied by a decrease in acidity, resulting in rich
bottomlands along stream courses. According to Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, this vegetation type occurs on lower slopes, north-facing slopes, ravines, and small stream
bottoms. Included within this community are wetlands classified by the NCWAM as Headwater Forest
and Floodplain Pool.
Fauna. Terrestrial communities in the study area are mainly comprised of highly disturbed habitats,
with small pockets (from a few acres to 50 acres) of forested habitat adjoining the corridor. Habitat for
small or disturbance-adapted species exists in grassy or wooded areas. The NRTR includes a complete
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
24
list of species that may be found in the project study area. Species that were actually observed within
the study area include:
 Mammals - white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail, and coyote
 Birds - Carolina chickadee, brown thrasher, mourning dove, American crow, blue jay, American
goldfinch, Carolina wren, northern mockingbird, American robin, and red-shouldered hawk
 Reptiles - black rat snake
Aquatic Communities. Aquatic communities in the study area consist of both perennial and
intermittent piedmont streams. These streams are often channelized and/or inundated with sediment
from adjacent runoff, offering less than optimal habitat for many species. However, perennial streams
in the study area could support various mussels, snakes, and fish. Perennial and intermittent streams
may provide habitat for crayfish and benthic macroinvertebrates.
6.5.4 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) or Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A]) are protected under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
As of September 22, 2010 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four federally protected species
in Mecklenburg County, as follows:
 Carolina heelsplitter (Lasigmona decorata) – In North Carolina, this freshwater mussel is known
to exist in a handful of streams in the Rocky and Catawba River systems. The species exists in
very low abundances, usually within six feet of shorelines. The general habitat requirements
for the Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed
into clay banks between the root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with moderate
current.
 Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) – This plant species is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and
lower Piedmont in North Carolina, growing in sand or rocky, open, upland woods on well-drained
sands or sandy loam soils. The plant is shade intolerant and therefore grows best
where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
 Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) – This perennial herb is found along roadside
rights of way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings, and other sunny or semi-sunny
habitats where disturbances help create open or partially open areas for sunlight.
 Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) – This perennial herb is typically found in meadows,
open woodlands, clear cuts, and utility and roadside rights of way. It grows best where there is
abundant sunlight, little competition, and periodic disturbances.
Candidate Species. Candidate (C) species are taxons under consideration for which there is insufficient
information to support a listing. Candidate species are afforded no federal protection under the ESA. As
of September 22, 2010, the USFWS lists one Candidate species for Mecklenburg County, Georgia aster
(Symphyotrichum georgianum). A review of the NCNHP records, updated October 2011, indicates no
known occurrences of Georgia aster within one mile of the study area.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature
forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for
nesting sites, typically within one mile of open water.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
25
Water bodies within the study area and a 660-foot buffer were reviewed for bald eagle nests and
habitat by biologists during field surveys. Existing disturbance in the area of I-77 would exclude bald
eagles from using any marginal stream or pond habitat within this 660-foot buffer. Forested riparian
buffers are narrow and fragmented in this area, and are immediately adjacent to major commercial and
industrial areas and large residential developments. The noise, movement, and human presence
associated with I-77 itself are deterrents to the use of this area by eagles. No bald eagle nests or bald
eagles were found during the field studies.
7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section identifies the consequences of implementing the Preferred Alternative to the human and
natural environments. Potential impacts associated with the No-Build Alternative are included for
comparison purposes, as appropriate.
7.1 Human Environment
Impacts to the human environment are described in the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) (Atkins,
March 2012) and are summarized below.
Community/Neighborhood Stability and/or Cohesion. The proposed project will not displace any
neighborhoods, relocate homes on the edge of any neighborhood, or relocate any homes in the midst of
any neighborhood. As such, the proposed project is not expected to negatively affect community
stability or neighborhood cohesion within any neighborhoods in the project area.
Mobility and Access. While no new access points to I-77 are proposed, the project will positively affect
regional accessibility to local and regional business and employment centers, public services, and other
facilities in North Mecklenburg County through enhanced mobility. The project would enhance overall
mobility along the corridor through the provision of HOT lanes, providing an option for reliable travel
times.
The project is not anticipated to negatively impact traffic operations in the study area. Based on the
current traffic operations on I-77 and the 2015 traffic forecast, the vast majority of traffic using the HOT
lanes will be entering and exiting I-77 from I-485 or exits north of I-485. NCDOT recently completed STIP
R-2632A at Exit 25 (NC 73), which improved the off ramp capacity, and STIP I-4733 is scheduled for
completion by 2014 and will improve the interchange at Exit 28 (W. Catawba Avenue).
Farmland. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the United
States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). Adherence to
the FPPA is required unless certain conditions are met, one of which is that the project is within an
urban area as defined by the US Census. The entire project study area is recognized by the US Census
Bureau as an urban area and therefore not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
Relocations. All improvements proposed by the project alternatives would occur within the existing
right of way. No relocations are anticipated.
7.2 Economic
The project would have an immediate benefit to the economy during the construction phase. This
effect from construction would be temporary. Temporary short term construction impacts to adjacent
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
26
establishments in the area are anticipated. Following completion of the overall project, the proposed
project would provide long-term benefits to the local and regional transportation network.
The I-77 corridor is, and will remain, critical for regional commerce as well as commuters traveling to
and from work, with the personal automobile the primary mode for commuters. Improvements to the
corridor will provide needed mobility, enhancing the function of a critical north-south freeway in the
Charlotte metro area. The proposed project would enhance mobility on I-77 by providing an option for
reliable travel times, which would result in economic benefits such as reduced fuel costs. The benefits
of reliable travel times would also apply to travelers using connecting interstates of I-85 and I-485.
7.3 Community Resources and Services
Since all improvements will occur within the existing right of way, no direct impacts to any community
resources would occur as a result of the project. It is anticipated that the extent of impacts to public
services as a result of the proposed project will be minimal and short-term. The CATS bus routes that
operate on I-77 may be temporarily affected by construction activities; however, transit users will
benefit from the travel time reliability offered by the HOT lanes. CATS express routes currently use the
existing HOV lanes and it is assumed the express bus routes will use the HOT lanes. Transit vehicles
would not be charged a toll to use the HOT lanes.
It is anticipated that the project may temporarily impact emergency services during construction.
Maintenance of traffic along the corridor will be important during construction, and coordination with
emergency management services is necessary to minimize impacts to emergency response times.
7.4 Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources.
All improvements proposed by the project alternatives would occur within the existing right of way. The
project would not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land or resource protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, including any significant publicly
owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge or any land from an historic site of
national, state or local significance.
There are no known historic architectural or archaeological resources in the existing right of way.
Correspondence from the Department of Cultural Resources documenting that there are no known
resources is included in Appendix B. There are four publicly owned parks or recreational areas adjacent
to the study corridor. No acquisition of land from any these resources would be required by either of
the project alternatives. Therefore, there is no use of Section 4(f) resources.
There are no properties or resources in the project study corridor that have received grant money from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be considered a Section 6(f) resource. Therefore, the project
will have no effect on Section 6(f) resources.
7.5 Environmental Justice
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination on the grounds of race,
age, color, religion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” provides that each
Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects
on minority and low-income populations. Special populations may include the elderly, children, the
disabled, low-income areas, Native Americans and other minority groups. Executive Order 12898
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
27
requires that environmental justice principles be incorporated into all transportation studies, programs,
policies and activities. The three environmental justice principles are:
1) To ensure the full and fair participation of all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process;
2) To avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority or low-income
populations; and
3) To fully evaluate the benefits and burdens of transportation programs, policies, and
activities, upon low-income and minority populations.
Based on a review of census data and project construction limits, no disproportionately high and
adverse impacts to low-income and/or minority populations would occur as a result of implementing
this project. No relocations would be required since all construction will occur within the existing I-77
right of way. As such, direct impacts to environmental justice (EJ) populations as a result of project
construction are not anticipated.
Since this project involves managed lanes (tolling), the potential impacts of tolling on EJ populations also
must be considered. According to FHWA’s Environmental Justice Emerging Trends and Best Practices
Guidebook (November 2011), potential impacts to EJ populations from road pricing projects should be
considered for three areas:
 Income equity – relates to the disproportionate impacts of road pricing on low-income
populations
 Modal equity – relates to disproportionate road pricing impacts based on travel modes,
typically between transit users and auto users
 Equity in participation – relates to the extent to which all groups can participate and have their
interests considered in the planning and project implementation process
Income Equity. Studies of other HOT lanes projects around the US have found that a broad spectrum of
income groups express approval of the projects because they are given the option of using the tolled
route when reliable travel times are important (e.g., to get to work on time or to pick up a child a
daycare on time to avoid late charges), but are also provided a free route (general purpose lanes) if they
don’t want to pay the toll (Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing, FHWA). In addition to
the general purpose lanes, Statesville Road provides an alternate free route on the east side of I-77
through the project area. Another equity concern arises when congestion pricing relies on electronic
cashless technology. Households that do not have credit cards or bank accounts may be unable to set
up toll accounts, which may limit their use of toll facilities. Consideration may be given to providing
facilities that allow easy and convenient access to equipment required to use HOT lanes and other toll
facilities across the state. This may include consideration of providing transponders at low or no cost to
low-income commuters, and allowing cash payments for people who do not have debit or credit cards.
Modal Equity. The proposed project would not affect transit or HOV vehicles, which would not be
charged a toll and would continue to have priority for use of HOT lanes. Transit service would actually
be enhanced by the extension of HOT lanes since transit vehicles would have priority along additional
lane miles. Non high occupancy vehicles (NHOV) would only be allowed to use the HOT lanes when they
are willing to pay the variable toll and can do so without causing congestion in the HOT lanes. In
addition, general purpose lanes may benefit from capacity that becomes available as NHOVs choose to
pay the toll and move to the HOT lanes, so even people who do not use the HOT lanes may benefit from
them.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
28
Equity in Participation. All communities and stakeholders potentially affected by the project are invited
to participate in the project development process. Public involvement is discussed in Section 8.2. In
addition, MUMPO is in the final stages of adopting a Title VI Expansion for its Public Involvement Plan,
which is tentatively scheduled for final action on July 18, 2012. The plan includes strategies for
enhanced involvement of minority and low-income communities based on community input.
Monitoring programs on existing HOT lane facilities in the US have not demonstrated that low-income
populations experienced disproportionately high and adverse effects (SR 167 HOT Lanes Social Economic
and Environmental Justice Report, WSDOT, January 2007). The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
Interstate 85 (I-85) HOV to HOT Conversion Project (GDOT, approved by FHWA in March 2010) looked at
seven similar HOT lane conversion projects around the US and found that no information from those
projects indicated equity-based impacts to low-income populations. The FHWA primer Income-Based
Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing found that approximately half of HOT lane users used the lanes
once a week or less, and suggested that HOT lane use is not necessarily related to income, but to travel
time.
Based on these findings from FHWA reports and other HOT lanes projects, as well as the considerations
presented above, the tolling aspect of this project is not expected to have disproportionately high and
adverse effects on minority or low-income populations.
7.6 Floodplains and Floodways
The Preliminary Hydraulic Technical Memorandum (Atkins, March 2012) concluded that adding
additional lanes within the median of I-77 will require FEMA coordination at one major drainage
crossing where the stream daylights within the median of I-77. Widening to the outside will require
additional FEMA coordination at locations where culverts have to be extended within a FEMA regulated
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). This coordination will occur under the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between NCDOT and the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, which has been delegated
by FEMA to maintain current Flood Insurance Rate Maps and handle map revisions or obtain a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR). Based on the Preliminary Hydraulic Technical
Memorandum (Atkins, March 2012), there are no major drainage/hydraulic issues that would prevent
the project from moving forward as a Categorical Exclusion.
The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with FEMA and local authorities to ensure compliance with
applicable floodplain management ordinances.
The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR).
7.7 Utilities
The impacts to utilities that will result from construction of any alternative will be temporary in nature.
During constriction, the affected utilities will be protected, interrupted, and/or relocated as necessary.
Wherever possible, effects to utilities will be avoided through close coordination with municipalities and
utility companies during design and construction. Where effects cannot be avoided, this coordination
will serve to mitigate the effects. Mitigation measures that will be used include:
 Conduct early coordination with utility owners to modify design to avoid/minimize conflicts.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
29
 Conduct early coordination with utility owners and operators to identify construction
requirements and financial responsibility for relocations based upon easements, license
agreements, ownership, or other existing agreements covering the use of affected utilities.
7.8 Air Quality
Based on a microscale CO analysis, the proposed project has been found not to exceed the 1-hour or 8-
hour standards for this pollutant. In addition, a quantitative MSAT analysis for this project indicates a
significant decrease in pollutant levels by the design year 2015, consistent with what is being modeled
and observed at the national level. Therefore, I-5405 is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on
the air quality of the Mecklenburg County nonattainment and maintenance areas, thereby complying
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Detailed information is presented in the Microscale
Carbon Monoxide and Mobile Source Air Toxics Air Quality Analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates, May
2012).
The air quality analysis includes a basic analysis of the likely Mobile Source Air Toxic (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 evaluated in this
Categorical Exclusion. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22) regarding incomplete or unavailable information.
Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis2
In FHWA's view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health
impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The
outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty
introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into
the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for protecting the public health and
welfare from any known or anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for
administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect
to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health
effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), which is "a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the
environment and their potential to cause human health effects" (EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html). Each report contains assessments of noncancerous and
cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral
and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude.
Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSAT,
including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in
Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA
Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are cancer
in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including
the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at
current environmental concentrations (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282) or in the
future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=306).
2 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/index.htm
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
30
The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling;
exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts - each step in the process building
on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings
or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a
set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments,
particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel
patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such
information is unavailable. The results produced by the EPA's MOBILE6.2 model, the California EPA's
Emfac2007 model, and the EPA's DraftMOVES2009 model in forecasting MSAT emissions are highly
inconsistent. Indications from the development of the MOVES model are that MOBILE6.2 significantly
underestimates diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions and significantly overestimates benzene
emissions.
Regarding air dispersion modeling, an extensive evaluation of EPA's guideline CAL3QHC model was
conducted in an NCHRP study (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_alt.htm#hyroad), which
documents poor model performance at ten sites across the country - three where intensive monitoring
was conducted plus an additional seven with less intensive monitoring. The study indicates a bias of the
CAL3QHC model to overestimate concentrations near highly congested intersections and underestimate
concentrations near uncongested intersections. The consequence of this is a tendency to overstate the
air quality benefits of mitigating congestion at intersections. Such poor model performance is less
difficult to manage for demonstrating compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
relatively short time frames than it is for forecasting individual exposure over an entire lifetime,
especially given that some information needed for estimating 70-year lifetime exposure is unavailable. It
is particularly difficult to reliably forecast MSAT exposure near roadways, and to determine the portion
of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location.
There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various
MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data
to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI
(http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282 ). As a result, there is no national consensus on air
dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in
particular for diesel PM. The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/risk/basicinformation.htm#g) and the HEI
(http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=395) have not established a basis for quantitative risk
assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.
There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the
process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls
are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an
adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control
technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries.
The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine a "safe" or
"acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than
approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is
to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The
results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics
are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum
individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's approach to addressing risk in its
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
31
two step decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest
of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than safe or acceptable.
Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted
difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties
associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be
useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as
reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response,
that are better suited for quantitative analysis.
Burning of Debris
Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. The Mecklenburg County Air
Pollution Control Ordinance (MCAPCO) prohibits open burning and dust and related material discharges.
Open burning is allowed under extenuating circumstances and requires a special permit.
Construction Air Quality
Construction activity may generate a temporary increase in MSAT emissions. Project-level assessments
that render a decision to pursue construction emission mitigation will benefit from a number of
technologies and operational practices that should help lower short-term MSAT. In addition, the
SAFETEA-LU has emphasized a host of diesel retrofit technologies in the Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program provisions - technologies that are designed to lessen a number of
MSATs.
Construction mitigation includes strategies that reduce engine activity or reduce emissions per unit of
operating time, such as reducing the numbers of trips and extended idling. Operational agreements that
reduce or redirect work or shift times to avoid community exposures can have positive benefits when
sites are near populated areas. For example, agreements that stress work activity outside normal hours
of an adjacent school campus would be operations-oriented mitigation. Verified emissions control
technology retrofits or fleet modernization of engines for construction equipment could be appropriate
mitigation strategies. Technology retrofits could include particulate matter traps, oxidation catalysts,
and other devices that provide an after-treatment of exhaust emissions. Implementing maintenance
programs per manufacturers' specifications to ensure engines perform at EPA certification levels, as
applicable, and to ensure retrofit technologies perform at verified standards, as applicable, could also be
deemed appropriate. The use of clean fuels, such as ultra-low sulfur diesel, biodiesel, or natural gas also
can be a very cost-beneficial strategy.
The EPA has listed a number of approved diesel retrofit technologies; many of these can be deployed as
emissions mitigation measures for equipment used in construction. This listing can be found at:
www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/index.htm.
7.9 Noise Impacts
As described in Section 6.3.5, existing traffic noise impacts 345 receptors in the vicinity of the proposed
I-77 HOT lanes project. For Design Year 2015 traffic volumes, the No-Build condition is predicted to have
345 traffic noise impacts, and the Build-condition also is predicted to have 345 traffic noise impacts. All
345 traffic noise impacts are due to predicted design year 2015 noise levels that will approach or exceed
FHWA noise abatement criteria. No impacts are predicted to occur as a result of substantial design year
2015 build-condition noise level increases over ambient noise levels.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
32
Consideration for noise abatement measures was given to all impacted receptors. Traffic noise
abatement measures are recommended as feasible and reasonable in fifteen locations (as shown in
Appendix A) for the benefit of predicted traffic noise impacts in the vicinity of the project, based on
available information. Furthermore, construction noise impacts may occur due to the proximity of
numerous noise-sensitive receptors to project construction activities. Additional information and
mapping are provided in the Design Noise Report (Atkins, 2012), incorporated by reference.
In accordance with the 2011 NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the fifteen recommended noise
barriers meet feasibility and reasonableness requirements based on available information; and,
subsequent to completion of the project design and the public involvement process, they are
recommended for construction. Refinements to the precise location and wall height may occur as more
detailed information on mapping and final design becomes available. Any changes in noise abatement
measures as detailed in Design Noise Report must be approved by the FHWA prior to implementation.
Construction Noise
The predominant construction activities associated with this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. Temporary and localized construction noise impacts will likely occur as a
result of these activities. Generally, low-cost and easily implemented construction noise control
measures should be incorporated into the project plans and specifications to the extent possible. These
measures include, but are not limited to, work-hour limits, equipment exhaust muffler requirements,
haul-road locations, elimination of “tail gate banging”, ambient-sensitive backup alarms, construction
noise complaint mechanisms, and consistent and transparent community communication.
7.10 Natural Environment
7.10.1 Water Resources
Construction activities will include lengthening existing drainage structures in stream channels. The
construction activities will follow the NCDOT’s BMPs for Construction and Maintenance Activities and
Protection of Surface Waters. Sedimentation control guidelines will be strictly enforced during
construction activities.
Table 9 identifies the preliminary impacts to potential jurisdictional wetlands and streams for the
Preferred Alternative. These preliminary impact estimates were calculated using a 20-foot buffer of the
conceptual design slope stakes (March 2012). No impacts to water resources under I-5405 would occur
south of I-85 where there will be no change in the physical footprint of I-77, only an operational change
of the southbound HOV lane to a HOT lane.
7.10.2 Jurisdictional Topics
As shown in Table 9, the project has the potential to impact 0.007 acres of wetlands, 0.16 acres of
ponds, and 1,012 linear feet of jurisdictional streams. Impacts were calculated from design slope stake
lines plus 20 feet.
Permits
The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
construction. All permit options (Regional General Permit, Nationwide Permit, and an Individual Permit)
are being evaluated and will be coordinated with the appropriate agencies.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
33
Mitigation
The USEPA and USACE regulations governing wetlands mitigation embrace a policy of “no net loss of
wetlands” and sequential consideration of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.
Three general types of wetland and stream mitigation include avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation typically consists of the restoration of existing
degraded wetlands or waters, or the creation of waters of the US of equal or greater value than the
waters to be impacted. This type of mitigation is only undertaken after avoidance and minimization
Table 9. Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams
Resource
Area Impacted
Acres Linear Feet
Wetland Communities
W13 .007 -
TOTAL .007 -
Open Water (Ponds)
OW11 .013 -
OW12 .003 -
TOTAL .016 -
Jurisdictional Streams
Caldwell Station Creek - 91.24
Dillions Twins Lakes - 467.46
S17 - 55.86
S20 - 76.67
S22 - 33.81
S25 - 30.67
S36 - 29.42
S38 - 27.90
S40 - 69.86
S45 - 1.54
S46 - 12.25
S52 - 39.58
S60 - 76.24
TOTAL - 1,012.49
Source: Natural Resources Technical Report (Atkins, February 2012)
actions are exhausted and should be undertaken, when practicable, in areas near the impact site (i.e.,
on-site compensatory mitigation).
The NCDOT will begin investigating potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities after
approval of this Categorical Exclusion. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP).
A final determination regarding mitigation to the waters of the US rests with the USACE and the
NCDWQ, and compensatory mitigation for impacts will be resolved during the permitting phase.
I-77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I-5405
34
7.10.3 Biotic Resources
Biotic communities are described in Section 6.5.3. There are no anticipated impacts to these
communities. Project-related impacts to vegetative communities will be largely restricted to the
disturbed (maintained) areas along existing right of way.
7.10.4 Protected Species
A brief description of physical characteristics and a summary of habitat preferences and findings for the
protected species discussed in Section 6.5.4 are provided below:
Carolina heelsplitter - The study area contains numerous streams with various substrates, most of
which are moderately to severely degraded. The presence of pollutants and sediment from overland
runoff likely precludes the establishment of Carolina Heelsplitter in these reaches. No populations of
the mussel have been found within the stream drainages associated with the project corridor. The
closest existing occurrence known in the Catawba River system is near the South Carolina state line in
southern Union County. A recent review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database was conducted (January 19, 2012) to determine if there were any records of rare mussels
within the proposed project study area or receiving waters. This review indicated that there are no
known occurrences of the federally protected Carolina heelsplitter within the project area. The closest
population is in Waxhaw Creek (Catawba subbasin HUC 03050103), which is over 25 miles away from
this project. There is lack of suitable habitat and data indicating that there are no known occurrences of
Carolina Heelsplitter in the project area (memo dated January 12, 2012, NCDOT Natural Environment
Section) (see Appendix B).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Michaux’s sumac - The study area contains approximately 15 to 20 acres of suitable habitat for
Michaux’s sumac. Roadway shoulders, utility right-of-ways, and mowed forest edges provide exposed
situations and are frequently encountered. Detailed surveys for Michaux’s sumac were performed by
Atkins biologists on October 17-21, 2011. All areas of suitable habitat were systematically walked and
visually surveyed. In areas where large blocks of habitat occurred, overlapping transects were employed
to ensure coverage of all habitat. No occurrences of Michaux’s sumac were found. A review of NCNHP
records, updated October 2011, indicates no known Michaux’s sumac occurrence within 1.0 mile of the
study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Schweinitz’s sunflower - The study area contains approximately 15 to 20 acres of suitable habitat for
Schweinitz’s sunflower. Roadway shoulders, utility right-of-ways, and mowed forest edges provide
exposed situations and are frequently encountered. Detailed surveys for Schweinitz’s sunflower were
performed by Atkins biologists on October 17-21, 2011. All areas of suitable habitat were systematically
walked and visually surveyed. In areas where large blocks of habitat occurred, overlapping transects
were employed to ensure coverage of all habitat. No occurrences of Schweinitz’s sunflower were found.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Smooth coneflower -Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower in the study area occurs in areas along
stream drainages. In these areas, Enon, Mecklenburg, Monacan, and Wilkes soils, derived from gabbro,
diabase, and other mafic parent materials, provide neutral to basic soils. Detailed surveys for smooth
coneflower were performed by Atkins biologists on October 17-21, 2011. All areas of suitable open
habitat were surveyed, with particular attention being paid to areas of neutral to basic soils. Habitat
I‐77 High Occupancy/Toll Lanes Categorical Exclusion STIP I‐5405
35
was systematically walked and visually surveyed, and overlapping transects were employed to ensure
coverage of all habitat. No occurrences of coneflower were found. A review of NCNHP records,
updated October 2011, indicates no known smooth coneflower occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study
area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review
area, a detailed survey of the project study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was
not conducted. A review of the NCNHP database dated October 2011 revealed no known occurrences
of bald eagles within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The closest bald eagle record is in the Catawba
River approximately 6 miles west of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences,
disturbed nature of the project corridor, it has been determined that this project will not affect this
species.
Table 10 summarizes the federally protected species in Mecklenburg County and the biological
conclusions for potential impacts to these species as a result of the project.
Table 10. Federally Protected Species ‐ Mecklenburg County
Species Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Scientific Name Common Name Conclusion
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E No No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E Yes No Effect
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower E Yes No Effect
Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower E Yes No Effect
Source: Natural Resources Technical Report (Atkins, February 2012); Protected Species Report for I‐5405 (NCDOT, January 20,
2012)
E ‐ Endangered
7.11 Hazardous Materials
As summarized in Section 6.3.3, a review of the regulatory database search findings did not reveal any
sites that would likely pose a significant environmental threat to the proposed project. Regulatory
records for past environmental incidents at various sites within I‐77 right of way were identified, but
these incidents have been closed by NCDENR and are not likely to pose a negative environmental threat.
If any UST or other 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.
7.12 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The I‐5405 project has been evaluated through application of the Indirect and Cumulative Impact (ICI)
Pre‐Screening Procedure as set forth in the North Carolina Department of Transportation/North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Guidance for Assessing the Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina – Volume II: Practitioner’s Handbook (Section II: Pre‐
Screening Projects for Applying Indirect & Cumulative Impact Assessment) – the ICI Guidance. Based on
the ICI Pre‐Screening applied specifically to this project, it is concluded that the project does not have
the potential to result in significant indirect and cumulative impacts as defined by the National
En