U2507

Project U-2508
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road
Mecklenburg County
Presented By:
Ted Devens, P.E.
June 17, 1993
Presentation Outline:
Project Location
Section 4(f) - A brief description
Existing project conditions
Proposed Alternatives
Handout Contents
Location Map
Project Description
Section 4(f) extract
Alternative cross-sections
2713
2665

KLE?'BURG COUNTY
MEC
/
/
2470 /
.?. .04 294 ,
oa /
ry ]681, / /
• M lldrd ? t 4
Z' Creek
Ch.
.27
7 ?B
SR////// 2472 2679
PROJECT 4`? Mallard \ 1

/.2.31SR 2833
4ei
\ x600
°! bL \1
00 7
O?
ie)l .04 S f\ ^y
2834 633
+ \ 01 el
Z? iat4 J ?.
pb
l?
ROJ 1'?
U.N.C. W CHARLOTTE
•o?
2873 l °\J NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
2012
0'
p IA N ';Al
0 o
11 21167
)029 a ° 3027
° Ob • .19
e 4Si2 lose"
? "ibe9 .rJ .o> 4:360, ?
U'
4641,
4e)s.
- •o
!640
4616 ° QS
pa6{ 4631
4653 .14
46M ?Q
4626 22 4611 -11
146]7 ,J1 4620 .04 m
p1 -_4613 p !01 ` 11
.11 !46) ° °
/S 0 .0> ? 046q O !e 14
2e
L622. 1 O 0629 4627
1.1b J m 46x8
O O?
4510. )Q it 4eis
h 0S 4616
Ieoo
4619 pb
4618
4.617
\Q
r^NW^Y
S6
Back Creek Ch.
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONbIENTAL
BRANCH
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
SR 2472 FROM SR 2681 TO US 29
AND
SR 2833 FROM US 29 TO NC 49
T. I. P. NUMBER U-2508
FIG. 1
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road (SR's 2472 and 2833)
from Interstate 85 to NC 49
Mecklenburg County
State Project No. 8.2672601
TIP NO. U-2508, Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(72)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1993-1999 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
calls for upgrading the existing two-lane road to a multi-
lane facility with a posted 45 mph speed limit.
Two alternatives are being considered (See attached
figures). Both alternatives are a four-lane highway which is
divided by a 16-foot raised median with inside curbs. One
alternative has shoulders on the outside of the highway,
while the second alternative utilizes curb and gutter.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
The project is planned in two phases:
From I-85 to US 29, right-of-way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1994, and construction is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1996.
From US 29 to NC 49, right-of-way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997, and construction is
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1998.
These schedules are subject to the availability of
sufficient highway funds.
EXISTING FACILITY
Length 2.2 miles
Pavement Width 20-24 feet
Shoulder Width 6 feet
Right-of-way Width 60 feet (approximate)
Curves:
Several curves are considered unsafe for the projected
45 mph posted speed limit. To meet design standards, the new
multi-lane road will require some construction on new
alignment to the inside of these substandard curves. This
"flattens" the sharp curves to acceptable standards.
Vertical grades approach 5% in areas.
Terrain: Rolling
Access Control: None
Speed Limit: Varies from 35 - 45 mph
Traffic Volumes: 1995: 14,600 vehicles per day
2015: 28,600 vehicles per day
Bridges:
Bridge Number 84 carries Mallard Creek Church Road
across Mallard Creek, just southeast of US 29. This bridge
requires a replacement structure, possibly incorporating a
greenway underpass.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Right-of-way $ 1,570,000
Construction 4,050,000
Total Estimated Cost 5,620,000
These costs should be regarded as preliminary only and are
subject to revision in the later stages of planning.
PROBLEM AREAS
The Alexander house is a property of historic
significance, which presents a Section 4(f) and Section 106
situation. The property is located in the northwest quadrant
of the intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek Church Road.
NCDOT must show that there is no prudent and feasible
alternative to using this land.
Mecklenburg County owns land in both the northeast and
southeast quadrants of the intersection of US 29 and Mallard
Creek Church Road.
The northeast quadrant is being utilized as public
soccer fields (parkland), and qualifies for Section 4(f)
protection. The county owns land on both sides of Mallard
Creek, as well. This land has the potential for use as
wetland mitigation and future soccer fields.
The southeast quadrant is being utilized by NCDOT as
wetland mitigation area for the Charlotte outer loop project.
An agreement has been reached between NCDOT and Mecklenburg
County. For the use of the mitigation land, NCDOT has agreed
to construct a boardwalk in this area and a bicycle underpass
to travel under the bridge over Mallard Creek.
A Citgo gasoline station is located in the northeast
quadrant of the US 29 intersection.
The Alexander Glen Apartments are located adjacent to
Mallard Creek Church Road, just on the east side of Mallard
Creek.
Section 4(f) extract from "Predominant Legislation Protecting Historic Sites"
SECTION 4(f) - with regard to historic and architecturally significant
properties only. See CFR 771.135 for guidance.
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 applies
to all agencies under the jurisdiction of the USDOT. In 1983, Section
4(f) was amended and codified in 49 USC, Section 303. However, because
thousands of state and federal personnel are familiar with the name
Section 4(f), the FHWA continues to refer to the requirements as Section
4(f). Section 4(f) specifically addresses the taking of lands from
certain qualified properties:
It is the policy of the United States Government
that special effort be made to preserve the natural
beauty of the countryside and public park and
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
historic sites.
The Secretary of Transportation shall cooperate
and consult with the Secretaries of the Interior,
Housing and Urban Development and Agriculture, 'and with
the States, in developing transportation plans and
programs that include measures to maintain or enhance
the natural beauty of lands crossed by transportation
activities of facilities.
The Secretary may approve a transportation program
or project requiring the use of publicly owned land of
a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of
national, State, or local significance (as determined
by the Federal, State, or local officials having
jurisdiction over the park recreation area, refuge, or
site) only if-
1) There i?,,no prudent and feasible alternative
using that d;
2) They program or project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation
area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic
site resulting from the use.
In regard to historic architectural properties, Section 4(f) applies
only to properties which are listed in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
SECTION 4(F) CONSTRUCTIVE USE
Recent legislation has added an additional term to Section 4(f)
involvement: Constructive Use.
The Section 4(f) Policy Paper states:
A constructive use of a Section 4(f) site can
occur when the capability to perform any of the
site's vital functions is substantially impaired
by the proximity impacts from a transportation
project. Such substantial impairment would occur
when the proximity impacts to Section 4(f) lands
are sufficiently serious that the value of the site
in terms of its prior significance and enjoyment are
substantially impaired.
An example of such impact is excessive noise near
an amphitheater.
Common reasons for a "constructive taking" are audible and visual
impacts, access restriction, and vibrations. The definition of
"Constructive Use" is still evolving as the FHWA adopts policy decisions
based on project-by-project analysis (Similar to the "What is a Wetland?"
issue). Only FHWA can make the final determination. Because the policy
on Constructive Use alludes to the "effect" of a project on a Section 4(f)
site, note that roperty boundaries are not necessarily a factor.
Sinc "effect' is an issue under Section 4(f) Constructive Use, a
distinctio e made between Constructive Use and Section 106
involvement, which deals solely with effect:
The substantial impairment of Section 4(f) is currently viewed as a more
profound effect than the significant effect of Section 106.

FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY WITH
CURB AND GUTTER, DIVIDED
BY A 16-FOOT RAISED MEDIAN
,
/ I
? I
? I
CURBS
CURBS
241-281 16, 241-28'
UP TO 100 FEET, PLUS CUT AND FILL
* SIDEWALKS ARE NOT SHOWN, BUT MAY BE RECOMMENDED.
BICYCLE LANES ARE ALSO A POSSIBILITY, AND IF
RECOMMENDED, WILL INCREASE PAVEMENT WIDTH TO 28 FEET
ON EACH SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY.
r
FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY WITH
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS, DIVIDED
BY A 16-FOOT RAISED MEDIAN

CURBS

ooo
oll

r
241-281 16' 241-281
UP TO 150 FEET
k SIDEWALKS ARE NOT SHOWN, BUT MAY BE RECOMMENDED.
BICYCLE LANES ARE ALSO A POSSIBILITY, AND IF
RECOMMENDED, WILL INCREASE PAVEMENT WIDTH TO 28 FEET
ON EACH SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY.
23-Jun-93
MEMORANDUM
To: Boyd DeVane
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: DEM's Processing Time for CAMA Permits in 1992 and 1993
Per your request, I have determine the processing time that DEM has taken for CAMA permits. Please note that I have segregated
the processing time to routine vs. needing more Information from the applicant.
Table 1: Percent Issuance for CAMA Permits that are Routine vs. Needing More Information
1992 1993 .
% Issued within Routine More Info. Routine More Info.
20 days 36 4 19 0
30 days 66 18 63 40
average (days) 29 90 28 39
The overall processing time for CAMA permits was 39 days In 1992 and has dropped to 28 days for 1993.
Should you need additional Information, please advise.
cc: John Domey
boyd.cam
V 4 ?r .l
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary June 3, 1992 Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn.' p
From: Eric Galamb C
()
Subject: FONSI for Mallard Creek Road between Sugar Creek Road and Mallard
Creek Church Road
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 9.8100316, TIP #U-2507
EHNR # 92-0896, DEM WQ # 5810
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the FONSI prepared for
this project which will impact 0.18 acres of wetlands.
1. Will temporary sediment and erosion control measures be placed in wetlands?
If so, have the control measures been included in the total for wetland impacts?
2. Will borrow pits be located in wetlands?
3. The Charlotte Department of Transportation states, "Based on current projected
traffic volumes, there appears to be little justification for this project at this time.
North of Harris Boulevard there appears to be no need for the project through
2010."
4. Endorsement of the FONSI by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
?a1V
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural R:isources
Division of Planning and Assessment ?. ? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone
? Asheville
? Fayetteville
Regional Office Area
-House Review
?All R/O Areas G-,- ?Marine Fisheries
VAir ?? Water Planning

Mooresville Water
Groundwater
? Raleigh YLand Quality Engineer
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant

? Wilmington ? Coastal Management Consultant
?Others
? Winston-Salem

?1UN
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date:

Response (check all applicable)
?? ? Environmental Health
?Solid Waste Management
V ?tQ ? Radiation Protection
? David Foster
and Recreation ? Other (specify)
Environmental Management
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
in-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
KrIUKN IU:
Melba McGee
PS-104
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

S /?-/9z
ate
?v
57 s, J z
K Date f G?
MALLARD CREEK ROAD (SR 2467)
BETWEEN SUGAR CREEK ROAD AND
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8100316
T.I.P. U-2507
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
0 L. Gfaf, P. E.
n Administrator, FHWA

r

Ci

MALLARD CREEK ROAD (SR 2467)
BETWEEN SUGAR CREEK ROAD AND
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8100316
T.I.P. U-2507
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
MAY 1992
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC.
C A RO` ",
Kenneth P. Smith, P.E. i 12693 i
Project Director
FOR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
cy? A?
L. G it rimes, P. , Unit Head
Consultant Engin ring Unit

usan M. Violette, P.E.
Project Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. TYPE OF ACTION
2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
3. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
5. WETLANDS FINDINGS
6. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
7. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
8. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLIC
HEARING
9. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
APPENDIX A COMMENTS RECEIVED
APPENDIX B CORRECTED FIGURE 6B
1
1
2
2
3
4
5
16
19
21
A-1 to A-19
B-1

L?

u

Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action, Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the human or
natural environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on the Environmental
Assessment (EA) prepared for the widening and improvement of the Mallard Creek Road between
Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek Church Road, approved March 5, 1992. This EA has been
independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the
environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. Further, it provides sufficient evidence
and analysis for determining that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not
required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve Mallard Creek Road in
northeast Mecklenburg County between Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek Church Road. A
four-lane divided, curb and gutter roadway with a 20-foot raised median is proposed on new
alignment from the Sugar Creek Road/Graham Street intersection to the existing Mallard Creek
Road alignment near the Garrison Avenue intersection. The remainder of the project involves
widening existing Mallard Creek Road from a two-lane roadway to a five-lane undivided, curb and
gutter facility. The total project length is 4.19 miles. Improvements will be made to the existing
roadway alignment to satisfy current AASHTO horizontal curvature and vertical sight distance
criteria. A new bridge will be required over Mallard Creek to accommodate the proposed five-lane
facility. See Figure 1 for the project location.
This project is included in the 1992-1998 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program as
T.I.P. No. U-2507, with right-of-way acquisition scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)
1

1992 and construction scheduled to begin FFY 1993. The estimated cost of the project is
$10,671,500; estimated construction costs are $7,500,000 and right-of-way costs are $3,171,500.
3. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is a combination of a 'four-lane divided section with a 20-foot wide
raised median and a five-lane undivided section. From the Sugar Creek Road/Graham Street
intersection north to existing Mallard Creek Road south of Garrison Avenue, the roadway will be a
four-lane divided, curb and gutter facility on new alignment. From Garrison Avenue to the end of
the project at Mallard Creek Church Road, the existing roadway will be widened to a five-lane
undivided, curb and gutter roadway.
The recommended alternative will provide sufficient capacity to meet increased travel demand
safely. The alignment of the existing roadway will be improved to meet current AASHTO design
criteria for horizontal curvature and stopping sight distance. A new bridge, spanning Mallard Creek,
will be required to accommodate the proposed five-lane facility. The new bridge will be constructed
in stages along the existing Mallard Creek Road alignment so traffic can be maintained during
construction.
Additional right-of-way will be needed throughout the project. The existing right-of-way along
Mallard Creek Road is 60 feet. The total proposed right-of-way width is a minimum of 100 feet for
the four-lane divided section on new alignment and 90 feet for the five-lane undivided section on
existing alignment.
4. Environmental Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide a facility that will more efficiently and safely accommodate
both existing and projected traffic volumes. The proposed improvements will also provide a
continuous multi-lane facility from Sugar Creek Road to Mallard Creek Church Road.
Approximately 27 acres of additional right-of-way will be required to accommodate the proposed
improvements, of which les's than, one acre is;'wetfand§. The remaining acreage is primarily upland
forested areas, residential lawns and properties, commercial properties, and open and cultivated
fields. Temporary construction easements will be required along the project.
2
?51s ? R R V ,
1 Si
MN
?e Q
S7' 0
0 29 N
'' W * E
2459 24" ` 7"5
i- \ .7 _ c am/ S C O V N T Y
1,0 2461 V _ \ 1Q
p / M. ! ,. ,\ e l9
601 1.2 f
7159
~ 2474 fs
2.7s a <J
2-R n 26S'
?f
.v 24" 2476 01
y _L470
JM7
24
END PROJECT \?
,., 2473. 7473 / • 705 nil
2440 ^ .. _ '•? 74 :80. ?.
9 7{T 2"o ck
1 t. /
65 T?
x n I 1A1 7t?3 07
t'S 49 293?
?O? f? ?t?j1 s \ ???,, V/
L I /
Wit. ?z ? ..
• X21.
?f Croft
\ 49. y 71!60 ©f
501
rockMb ??m"° _ .•.iLcc.f'?..:y:.. ILI,2
Airport BEGIN PROJEC r - /
• ' Fw ? ? -
f,? ® Y _7519 \ l ? ) ? 712Q `
*3 C
2110\ iO ppE r ?• '? ms / •• ?H?I91 ??,? - £V?•b'•?.+
104 •j 19 t 9a ,? I I'•i7?+?? '. 2480
2549 FA
3126 too-
2971
• ?' tf,l)
201v ?20
? 7074
??. f ? • Atq[4411dM4 :;?.w; lam.
je. o ti f \ / Sler? Y .. a; 49
121
27s `:
•y ?• o 27• 11?
s?f
3.2
19
\.S fV
214f
12 77 f?f ? \ rnu 44oac m 3.6
r'W loa
S{sR p 1 s A 6°
\
?_ 4rrjp60 _ ?`\ • •?? ?\ \ / :.? 4'"140
• ry. ?\
29
1
6. tAu 27 fAU .7 qU 7116 2.3 ' 6 MALLARD CREEK ROAD
-54 ? Cs? <• g c+
cHa,QLOrre PROJECT LOCATION MAP
?$ ror. 715A77
160
641 j 1`? ;? FIGURE 1
ty la
?' 992
321
12 NTS
i
• 191 Air0er9 ..;f ?,T119 r:• •a+' :4r?.% ??
.:off 1 tb o ?? \ ?

' The proposed improvements will provide a new bridge across Mallard Creek with clearances
sufficient to accommodate the proposed Mallard Creek Greenway. The appropriate clearances have
' been coordinated with the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. There are no known
historical architectural properties in the corridor that are on, or proposed for listing on, the National
Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred that no
historic properties will be affected by the proposed project.
' There are no floodplains significantly impacted by construction, no known threatened or
endangered species, and no known hazardous waste sites in the project right-of-way. There will be
less than one acre of wetlands impacted by the construction limits. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be utilized to minimize water quality impacts The proposed action will comply
y,ith the `401 Water Quality Certification Program:
' Noise levels by the year 2010 are projected to approach or exceed the FHWA criteria at 15
receptors for the Build Alternative. No traffic noise abatement is considered reasonable or feasible
along this project and therefore none is recommended. There are no Carbon Monoxide
' concentrations exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Utilizing the existing corridor minimizes socioeconomic impacts. Therefore, no disruption or division
of neighborhood cohesion occurs. However, it is anticipated that two non-profit organizations will
be relocated as a result of this project.
5. Wetlands Findings
If the recommended alternative results in impacts to wetlands, Executive Order 11990 requires a
finding that there are no practicable alternatives to construction in wetlands. Approximately 0:
18
:
;taeres of wetlands`', will be' impacted by the construction of the proposed =projee't. This project
includes a crossing of Mallard Creek and four small tributaries to Mallard Creek. A Section 404
Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be required for the proposed taking
of wetlands.
IFnpacts to wetland areas were avoided and minimized by widening along the existing facility4or a
mnijoeity' of the proposed project. It is not possible to avoid impacting wetlands where Mallard

Creek Road crosses Mallard Creek because of construction of a new bridge. However, the
proposed alignment for the new location Segment A was selected to avoid impacting a 3/4-acre
pond near the end of Hunter Avenue. This shift also results in reduced impacts to the upland
fringes of the pond on IBM property.
The scope of this project is predominantly widening of the existing roadway, with construction on
new alignment between the Sugar Creek Road/Graham Street intersection and Garrison Avenue.
No reasonable alternatives avoid the wetland area near Mallard Creek, as documented in the
programmatic 4(0 circulated with the EA. The potential impacts to wetlands are similar among all
alternatives. Vetlantl mitigation will ybe accornplishesd through the use of •Best*'Mtiagem`en
Practices'
Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there are no practicable alternatives to
the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practical
measures to minimize harm to wetlands.
6. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment (EA)
The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following federal, state, and local
agencies:
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
* Division of Land Resources
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), District Engineer - Wilmington
* Mecklenburg County Engineering Department
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
* Division of Environmental Management
* Mooresville Regional office
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
* Charlotte Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV - Atlanta, GA
NC Department of Administration
NC Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR)
NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT):
Statewide Planning
4

t

f

Hydrographics
Bicycle Coordinator
Landscape
Division Engineer, Div. 8
Traffic Engineering
Geotechnical
Right of Way
Location and Surveys
Division of Aeronautics
Board Members
U.S. DOI - Fish and Wildlife Services, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement - Raleigh
NC Department of Human Resources
NC Department of Public Instruction
U.S. Geological Survey, District Chief - Raleigh
Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh
Centralina Council of Governments
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
Charlotte City Council
City Engineer, City of Charlotte
County Engineer, Mecklenburg County
Mayor of Charlotte
Mecklenburg County Manager
City Manager of Charlotte
Agencies that submitted comments on EA.
7. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
The following comments were received from federal, state, and local agencies in response to the
circulation of the Environmental Assessment:
5
a. NCDEHNR - Division of Land Resources (p.A-1)
1. Comment: 'This project will impact five geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic Survey
should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC
27611, [phone].-
Response: The N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction of this
project to ensure that geodetic: markers located along the project corridor
will be protected.
2. Comment: 'If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part of the
erosion and sedimentation control plan.'
Response: The Environmental Assessment will be submitted as part of the erosion and
sedimentation control plan.
3. Comment: 'if any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water Zone
(HOW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.'
Response: There are no High Quality Water Zones in the project area.
4. Comment: The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project should
be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the erosion control
program delegation to the Division of Highways from the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission.'
Response: The project will be consistent with the North Carolina Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973. Temporary and permanent erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be utilized throughout the project to
prevent off site sedimentation of adjacent streams and properties.
6

1

b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) District Engineer - Wilmington (P.A-3)
1. Comment: 'In Section 10, 'Hydrology and Floodplain Involvement', on page 41 of the
Environmental Assessment, the following statement is made: 'Presently no
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood studies are available
for the study area of Mallard Creek Road Improvements.' According to the
December 1980 Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Study Report and
June 1981 Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Mallard
Creek has been studied in detail in this area and has a delineated
floodway.'
Response: When this study was conducted, no Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) maps for this area were in print. The mapping provided in
the Environmental Assessment (Figure 10) is from the Mecklenburg County
Engineering Department. These maps are the Mecklenburg County Official
Flood Area Maps, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in conjunction
with development of FEMA mapping, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners, Mecklenburg County, October 8, 1979.
2. Comment: ?he proposed widened roadway and new bridge structure should be
designed so as not to cause a significant increase in the upstream flooding
' and no more than a one-foot floodway surcharge above the natural 100-
year flood elevation.'
t

Response: The proposed widened roadway and new bridge structures are designed to
minimize upstream flooding and will not create greater than a one-foot
floodway surcharge.
c. Mecklenburg County Engineering Department (p.A-9)
1. Comment: '...We recommend that the cross-section should be built as a 4-lane median
divided facility with appropriate turn lanes.'
7

Response: Due to the high number of residential driveways along this portion of the
project, a continuous two-way left-turn lane is needed. Also, the right-of-way
required for a five-lane section is approximately 10 feet less than that
required for a four-lane divided section, therefore right-of-way impacts are
minimized.
2. Comment: '...We recommend strongly that sidewalks should be constructed along both
sides of Mallard Creek Road, including all bridges.'
Response: NCDOT policy does not provide for the construction of sidewalks if they do
not already exist along the facility proposed for widening.
d. NCDEHNR - Division of Environmental Management (p.A-10)
1. Comment: 'Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for
this project. Application requesting coverage under our General Certification
14 will require written concurrence.'
Response: NCDOT will comply with the .401 Water Quality Certification Program and
General Certification 14 guidelines during design and construction of the
project.
2. Comment: 'Please address the measures that will be taken to attenuate the impact of
stormwater runoff and spills on surface waters (and wetlands) after project
completion. Who will maintain the special holding basins?'
Response: NCDOT will employ 'Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters' to minimize impacts from stormwater runoff. Roadway
runoff will be collected in a closed drainage system and every attempt will
be made to maintain existing drainage patterns, where practicable. The
proposed improvements to Mallard Creek Road will improve safety on the
facility, This will, in turn, decrease the probability of a hazardous material
spill on the highway, and of hazardous material reaching any of the
8

streams. A Hazardous Response Team, headquartered at Fire District
Station #13, is available, as are other local fire stations, to respond to
' potential hazardous material spills along this facility. The response time of
the Hazardous Response Team will be reduced because of the improved
' facility. A shorter response time would likely reduce the potential impact of
a spill.
3. Comment: 'NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact additional wetland
areas due to the disposal of excavated spoil materials, as a source of
borrow material or other construction related activities.'
Response: Construction staging areas, equipment, or material storage will not be
allowed near existing wetlands where accidents or spills could destroy
wetland vegetation or pollute wetland water resources. Construction activi-
ties will be managed to avoid additional impacts to wetland areas.
4. Comment: 'Every effort should be made to avoid interrupting the water and sanitary
sewer lines.'
Response: The contractor will take appropriate precautions to avoid existing water and
sanitary sewer lines. The Division of Highways will hold a preconstruction
conference between representatives of the NCDOT, the contractor, the
involved utility companies, and pertinent local officials. Methods to coordi-
nate utility adjustments and to minimize damage or disruption of existing
services will be discussed at this conference.
5. Comment: 'Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.'
Response: No response required.

9

e. NCWRC (p.A-15,A-16)
1. Comment: 'There was no consideration given to widening the road entirely along the
existing alignment. All three build alternatives utilize the new portion,
Segment A.'
Response: The Mecklenburg County Thoroughfare Plan (November 30, 1988) did not
include widening Mallard Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road to Garrison
Avenue. To widen the existing facility to accommodate the projected traffic,
widening would have to begin at the intersection of Sugar Creek/Graham
Street, continue to Mallard Creek Road, and extend along Mallard Creek
Road. A substantial segment of the Derita Community, including the Derita
Elementary School, is located along Sugar Creek Road to the north of
Sugar Creek Road and the Southern Railroad runs parallel to Sugar Creek
Road along the south of the road. Therefore, all widening would have to
take place north of Sugar Creek Road. Widening to the north of Sugar
Creek Road would result in a substantial number of residential and
business relocations and would' severely fragment the Derita community
A pond and wetland area (Lac:ustrine/Littoral/Aquatic Bed/Rooted Vascular:
L2AB3) of potential high diversity has been identified at the intersection of
Sugar Creek and Mallard Creek Road. This area could be affected if the
entire existing facility were widened.
The State Historic Preservation Office has identified the Flow House, located
0.2 miles northeast of the Sugar Creek intersection along existing Mallard
Creek Road, as being potentially eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places. Widening the existing roadway in the vicinity of
the Flow House could have an adverse effect on this potentially historic
structure.
To minimize impacts to wetlands along the new location segment, the
alignment was shifted from 'Alignment D' to 'Alignment D/A' thereby
avoiding a 3/4-acre pond near the end of Hunter Avenue. This shift also
resulted in reduced impacts -to the upland fringes of the pond on IBM
10

1

property.
Finally, a major portion of the property along the new location segment is
owned by IBM Corporation. Access from the new location segment will be
partially controlled. Substantial development along this segment of the
project is therefore not anticipated.
Efforts were made to minimize impacts to wetlands along the entire project.
Because of the reasons listed above, widening the existing facility along
Sugar Creek Road and the southern end of Mallard Creek Road is not
considered a reasonable and feasible alternative.
2. Comment: 'The only mention of mitigation in the EA is that 'Best Management
' Practices' will be employed. There was no discussion of attempts to avoid
wetland impacts or compensation for wetland losses.'
' Response: See Wetlands Findings, this document and response to NCWRC, Comment
' 1.
f. Charlotte Department of Transportation (p. A-17 thru p. A-24)
1. Comment: 46ased on current;:and projected traffic volumes; ttiete appears<to tse">tittte
?? ustification for this project at this time 0 North of Harris Boulevard there
' appears to be no need for this project through 2010.'
Response: The proposed widening of Mallard Creek Road is needed to accommodate
the tremendous development expected in the area. Expected deterioration
in the level of service of intersections along Mallard Creek Road will
continue to reduce the level of service along the entire facility. The
increased capacity of the facility, the addition of turn lanes, and the
improvements to vertical and horizontal alignment will also improve the
safety of the roadway.

2. Comment: 'Local staff recommends a four-lane median divided facility throughout the
length of this project. A landscaped median with left-turn bays would create
t 11

a safer, and more attractive roadway than the proposed five lane cross-
section.
Left-turn lanes and median breaks should be provided at the following
locations: Hubbard Road, Mason Drive, IBM Access Road, Kettering Drive
(Harris Hill Apartments), Mallard Creek Center, Jim Hunt Road, Silver Birch
Road, Mallard Creek Elementary, and Alexander Road. There does not
appear to be any other intersections which need a separate left-turn lane.'
Response: Due to the high number of residential driveways along the project, a
continuous two-way left-turn lane is needed. Also, the right-of-way required
for a five-lane section is approximately 10 feet less than that required for a
four-lane divided section; therefore, right-of-way impacts are minimized.
3. Comment: 'Regardless of which cross-section is constructed, medians should be
installed at the W. T. Harris Boulevard intersection. This would reduce
accident potential created by vehicles turning left on to Mallard Creek Road
from driveways or side streets which are too close to W. T. Harris
Boulevard.'
Response: The NCDOT has acquired full control of access at the W. T. Harris
Boulevard/Mallard Creek Road intersection. No driveways in the immediate
vicinity of the intersection are existing or proposed. In addition, low traffic
volumes do not appear to justify construction of medians at this intersec-
tion. This request will, however, be given consideration during final design.
4. Comment: 'Sidewalks should be provided throughout the entire project. It is a local
policy to provide sidewalks along both sides of major thoroughfares. These
sidewalks should be four feet wide and a minimum of six feet from the back
of the curb. Sidewalks should also be constructed as part of the bridge
over Mallard Creek.
The Mallard Creek Road corridor is currently in the process of urbanization.
There are two schools and numerous subdivisions located along the
subject portion of Mallard Creek Road. As this area becomes more urban,
12

r the number of pedestrians along Mallard Creek Road will steadily increase!
Response: Current NCDOT policy does not provide for the construction of sidewalks if
they do not already exist along the facility proposed for widening. This
policy is currently being reviewed, however, because new Federal funding
sources may become available for enhancement type projects such as
' sidewalk construction. The berm behind the curb of eight (8) feet is wide
enough to accommodate future construction of sidewalks.
5. Comment: 'The phasing of the project should be reversed. The portion of the project
which extends from W. Sugar Creek Road to Harris Boulevard should be
' the first phase constructed. The segment of this project should of W. T.
Harris Boulevard has higher current traffic volumes and is projected to have
' higher future traffic volumes.'
Response: Projects are scheduled for construction in the NC Transportation Improve-
' ment Program (TIP) and priorities are established within each division by
the Board of Transportation. The current TIP has the segment from Harris
Boulevard to Mallard Creek Church Road scheduled for construction in
Federal Fiscal Year 1993, while the segment from Sugar Creek to Garrison
Avenue is not scheduled for construction until post years. Any changes in
this schedule would require approval by the Board of Transportation.
' '
Previous local planning has showed existing Mallard Creek Road as a cul-
6. Comment:
t de-sac extending from West Sugar Creek instead of tying into the new
t
Th
t
h
i
th
E
i
t
l A
ll
d C
k C
M
nv
ronmen
ssessmen
.
e
onnec
or as s
own
n
e
a
ar
ree
a
extension of Nevin Road across West Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek
Road and intersecting the new Mallard Creek Connector is shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan. Local staff urges that Nevin Road Extension be
1 constructed as part of this project between existing Mallard Creek Road
and the new alignment of the Mallard Creek Connector.1

Response: A connection between existing Mallard Creek Road and the Mallard Creek
1 Road Connector has been proposed to provide access to residents on
Mallard Creek Road and is not proposed as a substitute for the future
13

extension of Nevin Road. Construction of the Nevin Road Extension is
beyond the scope of this project.
7. Comment: 'As a clarification, Mallard Creek Road is still a major thoroughfare on the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan. The reclassification of Mallard
Creek Road to an Urban Minix Arterial was done only for state funding
purposes and does not have any effect on the Thoroughfare Plan
classification.
Response: No response required.
8. Comment: 'Standard right-of-way for a major thoroughfare in Mecklenburg County is
100 feet. The right-of-way for this project should be 100 feet throughout the
entire project, except at W. T. Harris Boulevard where more right-of-way will
be needed.
Response: A 90-foot right-of-way width is sufficient to accommodate the improvements
associated with the proposed five-lane curb and gutter section. Impacts to
residences along the existing roadway are minimized as a result of the
reduction in right-of-way.
9. Comment: 'The Mineral Springs Road/Graham Street Extension intersection should
have full access until the N.C. 49/Graham Street Connector is built. The
need for full access is documented by recent volume counts (April 9 & 10,
1992) of over 4,000 vehicles/day on Mineral Springs Road.
Response: Existing Mineral Springs Road will be terminated with a cul-de-sac on the
east side of the Mallard Creek Road Connector. A new connection from
Mineral Springs Road will intersect Mallard Creek Road Connector. The
Mineral Springs Road connection will be a two-lane, two-way facility
permitting right turns into and out of the intersection. A median crossover
will be provided at this intersection to allow left-out turns from Mineral
Springs Road onto the Mallard Creek Road Connector.
10. Comment: 'A rate of super elevation of no more than .04 is preferable.'
14

t

u

Response: AASHTO standards recommend a maximum superelevation rate of 0.06 ft/ft
for the recommended design speed of 50 mph.
11. Comment: 'Due to the funded construction of a bikeway along Mallard Creek, and the
proximity of a nearby park and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
we recommend that Mallard Creek Road be designed for bicycle use by
having 11 foot inside lanes and 15 foot outside lanes. These outside lanes
should be sufficient for accommodating both vehicles and cyclists.'
Response: Mallard Creek Road is not proposed as a bicycle route. Access to the
bikeway/greenway along Mallard Creek Road will be provided by the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department on property adja-
cent to the Mallard Creek Elementary School.
12. Comment: 'From figures 6C and 6D, left-turn volumes from EB Harris Boulevard to NB
Mallard Creek Road do not appear to justify dual left-turn lanes. Peak hour
volumes are projected to be 30 and 35 vehicles per hour respectively.'
Response: The lane configuration at W. T. Harris Boulevard, as shown in Figure 6B, is
incorrect in the EA. Dual left-turn lanes should be proposed for westbound
W. T. Harris Boulevard to southbound Mallard Creek Road and a single left-
turn lane proposed for eastbound Harris Boulevard to northbound Mallard
Creek Road (see Appendix B for corrected Figure 6B).
13. Comment: 'The third through lane along Graham Street and the Mallard Creek
Connector should not be constructed as a part of this project. Instead, the
third lane should be added when the Graham Street/NC 49 Connector is
constructed.'
Response: Additional lanes are necessary at the Graham Street/Mallard Creek Road
Connector/Sugar Creek Road intersection to handle projected turn traffic
volumes. This will require reconstruction of curb and gutter along Graham
Street and Sugar Creek Road. In order to avoid future removal and
reconstruction of curb and gutter within the intersection, the third through
15

lanes have been proposed as part of this project.
14. Comment: 'Utilities should be located on one side of the road.'
Response: The Division of Highways will hold a preconstruction conference between
representatives of NCDOT, the contractor, the involved utility companies,
and pertinent local officials. Methods to coordinate utility adjustments and to
minimize damage or disruption of existing service will be discussed at this
conference.
15. Comment: 'Landscaping should be provided along both sides of Mallard Creek Road
as well as in the median.'
Response: A landscape plan will be developed for Mallard Creek Road during the
design phase of the project.
8. Comments Received During and Subsequent to the Public Hearing
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a combined corridor/design public hearing
was held on April 7, 1992, at the Derita Elementary School. Approximately 125 people attended the
public hearing and a number of those had questions or comments. Many of the questions and
comments were related to the impacts to individual properties. Primary questions and concerns
were as follows:
Question: Does the project conform to the Derita Small Area Plan?
Response: The Derita Small Area Plan, adopted in March 1985, focuses on neighborhood
preservation and enhancement, promotion of new residential development, concentration of
retail and business activity, and limiting industrial expansion. The plan does not address the
proposed Mallard Creek Road Improvements. The Derita Small Area Plan was superseded by
the Northeast District Plan adopted by the Charlotte City Council in June 1990 and by the
Mecklenburg Board of County Commissions in July 1990. The Northeast District Plan
includes road improvements to Mallard Creek Road similar to those proposed by this project.
16

I':
1

f',
Question: How will access be maintained to Mineral Springs Road?
Response: Existing Mineral Springs Road will be terminated with a cul-de-sac on the east
side of the Mallard Creek Road Connector. A new connection from Mineral Springs Road will
intersect the Mallard Creek Road Connector. The Mineral Springs Road connection will be a
two-lane, two-way facility permitting right turns into and out of the intersection. A median
crossover will be provided at this intersection to allow left-out turns from Mineral Springs
Road onto the Mallard Creek Road Connector.
Question: How will access be maintained to the section of Mallard Creek Road that is not
included in this project (from Sugar Creek Road to before Garrison Avenue)?
Response: Access will still be provided to the section of Mallard Creek Road south of
Garrison Avenue. A cul-de-sac will be constructed on Mallard Creek Road just south of
Garrison Avenue and a new connector will be constructed to form a 'T'-intersection with the
Mallard Creek Road Connector. The cul-de-sac and new connection is necessary to provide
a safe connection to the Mallard Creek Road Connector and to the segment of Mallard
Creek Road planned to be widened.
Question: Since widening of Mallard Creek Road is taking place only to the east near the
Montessori School, will safety at the school be affected?
Response: Guardrails will be provided on both approaches to the bridge over Mallard
Creek, just south of the school. Guardrail will be extended along Mallard Creek Road from
the new bridge over Mallard Creek to the Montessori School property as an additional safety
measure.
Question: Will sidewalks be provided along the proposed project? How can neighbors cross
the road?
17

Response: NCDOT policy does not provide for the construction of sidewalks if they do not
already exist along the facility proposed for widening. Crosswalks and signals will be
considered for any locations where pedestrian traffic warrants special considerations.
Question: Why is proposed widening of the roadway on the east side toward the Montessori
School?
Response: Currently, an eight-degree curve exists in the vicinity of the Montessori School.
The eight-degree curve is greater than the maximum horizontal curvature (six degree-45
minute) allowed for the proposed design speed of 50-mph. Therefore, to flatten the curve,
widening was proposed to the east of the existing roadway. Widening to the east also
minimizes impacts to the greenway proposed along Mallard Creek.
Question: Are there plans to widen Mallard Creek Road north of Mallard Creek Church
Road?
Response: According to the 1992-1998 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan, there are no plans for widening Mallard
Creek Road north of Mallard Creek Church Road.
Question: Why was a five-lane section chosen along existing Mallard Creek Road?
Response: Due to the high number of residential driveways along this portion of the project,
a continuous two-way left-turn lane is needed. Also, the right-of-way required for a five-lane
section is approximately 10 feet less than that required for a four-lane divided section,
therefore right-of-way impacts are minimized.
Question: Why is the project needed?
Response: The project is needed to provide acceptable levels of service for both current
and future traffic demands and to improve local access to development along the route.
18
i
i
i

Question: Will increased traffic due to the proposed Graham Street Connector be
considered?
Response: Projected traffic volumes on the proposed Graham Street Connector have been
accounted for in the analysis for this project.
Question: Has the number of trucks using Mallard Creek Road been studied?
Response: Truck traffic on Mallard Creek Road is not expected to increase due to this
' project. Current projections indicate that two percent of the traffic will be heavy trucks and
three percent will be medium trucks.
Question: Will there be any coordination for the greenway?
Response: Coordination with the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department
' was accomplished during development of, and as documented in, the EA.
Question: What can be done to reduce the number of accidents at Hubbard Road?

Response: The existing curve on Mallard Creek Road at Hubbard Road is three degrees-45
minutes, well below the six degree-45 minute maximum curve allowed for a 50-mph design
speed. The addition of a second travel lane, as well as curb and gutter, should reduce the
number of vehicles leaving the roadway at this curve.
9. Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon a study of the proposed project, as documented in the Environmental Assessment,
and upon comments received from federal, state, and local agencies and the public, it is the
finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the project will not have a
19

significant impact upon the human and natural environment. Therefore, an environmental impact '
statement or further environmental analysis will not be required. '
20

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
a. Any open burning associated with the project will be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
b. Demolition or renovations of structures containing asbestos material will be in compliance
' with NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal prior to demolition.
C. All waterwells impacted by the project will be abandoned in accordance with NCAC rdle 15
' 2C and all underground fuel storage tanks will be abandoned in accordance with NCAC Title
15 2N.
d. An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared by the Department of
' Transportation under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways
from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
' e. Adequate right-of-way will be obtained to allow for proper sizing and placement of sediment
and erosion control devices that can adequately contain sediment for required design
storms.
f. Before construction is started, a preconstruction conference involving the contractor, local
officials, utility companies, and the Division of Highways will be held to discuss various
' construction procedures. It will include a discussion of precautionary steps to be taken
during the time of construction to minimize interruption of utility services.
g. Waste or debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of the right-of-way and
provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or
unless disposal within the right-of-way is permitted by the responsible engineer.
h. Any borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
i. If any structures are to be removed or demolished, an extensive rodent control program will
be implemented to prevent the migration of rodents into surrounding areas.
21

j. Precautions will be taken to prevent contamination of any watersheds or streams by oil or
other harmful substances.
k. The NC Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction of this project to ensure that
geodetic markers located along the project corridor will be protected.
1. Impacts to wetlands will be minimized in accordance with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's 'Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters'.
m. NCDOT will comply with the executive order on Uniform Floodplain Management Policy.
n. Disposition of hazardous, contaminated and/or toxic material will be made in accordance
with the requirements and regulations of the Department of Human Resources and the
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
o. A landscape plan for Mallard Creek Road will be developed during the design phase of the
project.
p. Sufficient bridge clearances will be provided to accommodate a bicycle path proposed as
part of the Mallard Creek Greenway, when the bridge over Mallard Creek is replaced. These
clearances will be coordinated with the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation
Department.
22

r?
?J

I

11

1

APPENDIX A
COMMENTS RECEIVED

APR 992
f
State of North Carolir ?a
Department of Environment, Health, and\Natural Resour es
Division of Land Resources
es G. Martin. Govemor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
Jlmiul am W. Cobey jr., Secretary Director
' PL-0jec` :nher. C1 ?0 3 (? Count`yn:
1 ?? `L.l C Cl, (l? ?.J?1??-? 1- l.. !Lt ?L ?. `.? i? v?? V' ?' 1?3C.?..??.:?:.r_ r'\ ?..:1'C ? `J?+-?? 1?•? ?'r? ??'.?11L
Project : , a m e : D% l' NQ O Ci l> C ?U
Geodetic Survey
? "his project will impact ___Z__ geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic a.I
' -_
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27697, p.6
?aleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Inter.tiona= destruction of a

' monu::e:•z .s a -.._a of N.C. Cen=L-a: Statute
This project will have no impact or. geodetic survey markers.
' Other (comments attached;

vey office at [phone].
information contact the Geodetic Su
For more
r

Reviewe Date
' EEros_on-and Sedimentation Ccntro'_
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
' than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
Yl =f an environmental document is required to satisfy Envircanme-:ta1 e.2
' Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part p 6
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water 8.3
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
p.6
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project 8.4
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the p•6
' North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
tion at
733-4574
S
919
lit
b
d
h
.
(
)
y
ec
an
Qua
e
For more information contact t
;56? 3-17- 92
Reviewer Date
A-1
Box 2768' Ralegh. N` 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
p
P
.
.
4^ r u.! O?.?or-.:?:,r? ?r',rr,:.cr.-• ,:,?r.^?,: =.:-i?!rn'cr
LITTLE
9SLOOP
t G= _ 2-166
-03 co
2_6- LODGE
?? 61 2464 r
b 85 i
2462 WALOME \ i
2601 7 J 54.?
?459 0# 246
2160 _ :92463 ? ? 2467 N!S3 WOODY-
2,d ri HILLSIDE
~ 75 2478 ?._ /'•
8 v 4? T11ErITY "MEDIAN }
2601 2657_?
?• -1_? DROP
Asbury i? 2477 2800
Ch. ?• .? cr) 2652 R MP
-2477 2476 OLD ROAD
-7 JS 64 I
INE,7JS5
a 7 J2S 63,A N
2459 2_6.49 72470 C.
S?L`r
?2 `? 7 2467 Op ??' ?? I
.? I
.(9
9 m RANSON RAY
Q?-r 472 7JSSi 2833 d G
16 _2479 2475 FAS ALrARO® 7 JS • 1 1. \ X 23 I
\
0 2480 •8 TTt7 Iv 7 JS 52 1(3 JASA.
-
2459 2480 SCHOLAR TANI'
WOLFE
467, I\??7JS5J' MAT
57 PRISON 2 2 ? ®R?
7 JS 4 PA
2481 7 ,IS
50 UNITED q- A
e 2458 A A,
CHESiRE
'P Croft
/ tea]. 1 A NEWK I R {v?' LJ Jam: ?? 4 9 \
248 6 YAM -/tee DIVISIO ° f2P c
IL - ?p SHOMARS
L RAC{ g J? WC!y i ?. QQ?? JAS
- / CUTA Q ROCKY' '
4 - ' C.? ?-9IcIE'248_0 2494 GAR 7JS6 ?. epuNOx
I of R . 3Q w I
is 3? gk?LCh?T IN,?? ?, 284 JUNCI
THOUGH IE?? \ 7 498 FA R I
` 7JS 61 \ I.b
TRIAr
2 8rockenbrou h !? YE 250
Airport / TUCKE'Y
)RTHDAL K // MINI ERITA AZ ar/ ME 22 y ?(
NE?1\ ~• A 115 JJDERITA 2 7 JS 59 Q ?
= H 41 81E RESErRV 111 INACK(0) 7JS60 ISt AND WENS ,
-) ME 21 2548 ?P
® I
pIX1E? ?FRIENOLY251.9 \--? `? ANE
?UG 1 C
$ ?RAGI Rw..,tNEWELL A? W1
ROADWAY 44 FOX, 30 JS Z tiO 523 ORR
r - / / \ _ T •' ?'? ?1,_ ?,. ?? ? -
2 1 10 N A VINSON \ cDn ONID<- A Z•MK
30 JS'I G - -
PITCH `•
2 0:_ BURMITH ?9ERMAIy i ?
(USG HYD ME 20X
A /.TODD 100 421 E pP ?nCRAVEN (DI 2480 2940
DANE 0
SMITH. FREDRBERT INr Q 2580 I 2540
\ E 16
2019 I BELK ?
SINGER SIDNEY ALHOBBS 2975
,&BAKER 2074 HOWA 0 ti' I ME 15
85 G 41
NC 309
A-2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
J WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
-?? WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 1, 1992
Planning Division
Q-? C E J ?c?
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager O
' Planning and Environmental Branch
AFR
Division of Highways ? 4 1992
North Carolina Department
of Transportation << OF vs
Post Office Box 25201 WAYS
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 ?'''cSEARGN?/
I Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of March 10, 1992, requesting comments
' on the "Environmental Assessment for Mallard Creek Road (SR 2467), between
Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek Church Road, Mecklenburg County, State
Project No. 9.8100316, TIP No. U-2507" and offer the following comments.
In Section 10, Hydrology and Floodplain Involvement, on page 41 of the
Environmental Assessment, the following statement is made: "Presently no
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood studies are available for
' the study area of Mallard Creek Road improvements." According to the
December 1980 Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Study Report and June 1981
Mecklenburg County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Mallard Creek has been
studied in detail in this area and has a delineated floodway. Photocopies
of the pertinent portions of the flood profiles and floodway data table
from the report and portion of the FIRM are enclosed. The proposed widened
roadway and new bridge structure should be designed so as not to cause a
' significant increase in the upstream flooding and no more than a 1.0-foot
floodway surcharge above the natural 100-year flood elevation. Executive
Order 11988 should be reviewed and complied with. -
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project, including disposal
of construction debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands
should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
' or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed,
including the extent and location of any work within waters of the United
States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity
to review these plans for a project-specific determination of Department of
the Army permit requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact
Mr. Steve Lund of our Regulatory Branch, Asheville, North Carolina, at _
' [phone].
A-3
b.1
p.7
b.2
p.7

-2-
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W Sa nders
Chief, Plan ' Division
Enclosures
A-4
1
iFLOOD
IISTUDY ,
I MECKLENBURG COUNTY,
I NORTH CAROLINA
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
i
y?
1
1
1
1
DECEMBER 1, 1980
federal emergency management agency
federal insurance administration
COMMUNY NUMBER NUMBER • 370158
w
t!]

p 0 G? O O ?O O O GO 0? O 'O r O O r O co .
-I O O r r{ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri 0 0- -1 0 r1 O "'1
U
Z
H
Z
O

Q >
3
o O r O N io 0 Ln r-1 N o m M V, r- Ln W Ln ? Lo
..-. H [- r-1 Q' Ln r N O -4 .-I M Ln N O .--I t0 ? N '
o O ri .-1 -4 N M M Q
w 3 O -4 -4 N N N N M d Ln l0 O t
0 ,oko?,o .o r-rL?c?r rr ?- Y
W
g w
z Q W
a w 0 DC
w a F
Q W
O r1 Ln O N O O d' r-1 a' r-I M W r` Ln r1 Ln co to
Q v
Q
W
LO 3 -4 O N d' N (T O to LD Lo r•1 Ln
o r, (n r-1 .-1 r 1 N M M
0 O N
O
\ ?.
CA H O
O N N M d U) l0
-
-
?o ?o ?o o ?o ?o Lo ?o Lo ?o ?o L,o r- r r- r r r 0 Q
cz H
3
a ?o ?o C
f 0 Q
xt J
3 LA-
O a
Ln
r, w r Ln r-i Ln W
C' . . . . . . . . . .
C) r1 n O N
E . . .
O O M C' r N O H O N?- m O' -i - ? ry M M r-4 I
?0 l0
L
0
'

0 1 jo
.
r r r r`
.-1 r-I N N N N M C
?
0?0?00??0?0 0 ? ? r r
U

?, rZ
?''
H a p
Mrnrr?na'a'MM,-?r+a?o
T co m rn M Ln r c) Ln r- -1 0 -+
I
r?
p
Q
r L
)
N r r-I M M G" co L- M l0 M N N
w W Ln

(b C M M O G, Ln .-I r-I O aS .-I M M O ?' O tb
co 0',
W M r M r1 V' r- M O O M M co l0
M O
^
:3: ? a<
yj
41 ?
0 0
G'1
H
O N L - N !? N (b W p N M l0 N N r1
co
O
O 41
0 ?"
E1
Q Lo L '? •"L rl
N y
W
D4

F E-
i a r M o 0" O M O Ln n N Ln -o O OD 0 0 0

0D o ON r
L-- Cr [? N ?0 rl 0 m 'D -' Ln r-
N H
- }
U

Z
G w ?
' Ln
N GT 6
- r M .-I .--I ri N N .-I ' LU V

H rw
3 .,
Q _
c
Z .0
ra

w

Ln O Ln 0 o Ln o Ln ,n m Ln Ln o 0 0 0 Ln Ln o Ln
Ln d'r r1r
-1
(71
MLn N
w

w?

,
=1
U
Z Ly
r1a o a ?oo
M
n
Lb L
M m O 0 N 0 Ln Ln o -o O Z3,
L c
Q
E, "T r -1
p N M Ln l0 ?U CO O H N M '?' Ln r Ol r I N N
n Ln !P ?n Ln In l.n In l0 Z E I
?' In I Q Q
w
U H
o

c
c
CJO

,C

U Ci

.'
c°n Z x o w CIO
2 ° a w
o w ??aaaa ca??dZ aCL, °taLo a
? o ?o
LL
O ?
a -1 L?

LO
ro cc
O -1 41
U £ G L
?
TABLE
i
A-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
D
D
3
O
D
2
n
Z
H I
D ?
o f
s
0
1
= f
0
a
w
a
m

m
r
ELEVATION (FEET NGVDI
4kp N ?
A-7
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Federal Inwrome Aaminirtrm.
F l000 PROFILES
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NC
)UNINCORPORATED AREAS) MAI I ARIL rRFFK
9 '
5}
?
W
S e e

r c ? r
q s V g i
°
C

f Eeg 6

?p
o Q
? M
2
d
63 W
t

a
O
z
C z
c7 a o 9
=
z z p O F CD
o H V 4 O x

i =
C E C
v u2 `o

0
o
cm

? z
VpCCz

W O O z

?
i

?c ?+ W m
a u
m t 0
Z m W w
H Z C
L"
G co
^ E
?
d ?
W E

Z
C

O ?

`r
A

e
a u? a ?e W ? W

\ ?O
[ W? 7,a
Z p W U
W
t ° S E e
a°
° °- z w N v
? Q
"?
NO
_ m_ E y a Z
C

> ° [
40
.4 Or
v ° V 5 n 4 ?
W
W
a
i= E earr 5 °? p
N N O/
Z
gO

°
o S ° t
a
m p
, r-
Z W
.
i y t
E c
e
' \ d C
S C' .f- ..2 +., ?N Q iii
8 E 4 e Y n ° E ? B?? F E?
F? O W Lt9
?o 8u
c \

O g z
R; f6 b
i ? e d

n e w r O
co
N
m a 2

°SD W
2
2
W N U
W
e ? N N O: 2

a a a a c c

_ W
2
N 2

N /h

/' Z Im b
/ W
40

tD W
2
W SCB O

m ????
-
N
OrOtl
LL)
?/.
6,0
!'

m O
N
?9
N co Oy
r"

rh.
W
2

N

a• h
D u

A ??
G
m

W

Z

?
?- ,

Oro d

N O
p
td N

_ _ ... ?
YB9
D^
_
_
•

'SB9 m ?.0 co
W
m W
2 133tl15
•tl
b F. 3
N
2
O
W O
N
Z W
641 N
i T
N 2
N O
N
m N

?lg
m O?

\ .
w

2
O
N

W
2
O

'
? ?r
s\ ,
N C
11 11 LL.

A-8

?i J • ? lR
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Engineering Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jerry Fox es
Bobbie Shields
FROM:
RE: STATE APPLICATION #92-0693
April 2, 1992
We have reviewed the information pertaining to this project c,1
and recommend that it should be constructed. Also, we recommend p.7-8
that the cross-section should be built as a 4 lane median divided
facility with appropriate turn lanes.
There are schools, residential areas and parks (Mallard Creek
Greenway and a Park at Mallard Creek Elementary School) adjacent c.2
to Mallard Creek Road. Therefore: we recommend strongly, p.8
that sidewalks should be constructed along both sides of Mallard
Creek Road, including all bridges.
BS/ed
enclosure
R
7 00 North Trvon Street •
A-9
Charlorte, North Carouna 28202
PQ?
G?\
0 [phone]
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
' Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street Rdlelgh, North Carolina 27
U mes G. Martin, Governor
illiam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 3, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
' From:
Subject

I1
Eric Galamb
APR
O[L1Le-S ;rc
George T Everert, Ph.D.
Director
EA for Mallard Creek Road between Sugar Creek Road and Mallard
Creek Church Road
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 9.8100316, TIP #U-2507
EHNR # 92-0693, DEM WQ # 5021
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA prepared for this
project which will impact 0.18 acres of wetlands.
' 1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this d.1
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 p,8
' will require written concurrence.
2. Please address the measures that will be taken to attenuate the impact of d.2
stormwater runoff and spills on surface waters (and wetlands) after project p.8-9
' completion. Who will maintain the special holding basins?
3. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact additional wetland areas d.3
' due to the disposal of excavated spoil material, as a source of borrow material p.9
or other construction related activities.
' 4. Every effort should be made to avoid interrupting the water and sanitary sew d.4
lines. p.9
5. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 d.5
' Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and p•9
t REGIONAL OFFICES
Wieville Fayetteville MoorcwIlle Rale `- h \Vashington Wilmington Winston-Salem
W251-6205 919'486.1 1 704 'C,t,=-!6q) 919'57;-4700 919K)46-6481 919/395-3900 91918967007
A-10
Pollution Prevention Pays
PU Bu, 21; Ralc_k 'onh Carolina 2762()-0535 TelepNmc 919733 70!,
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. dP•• 9
J
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Eric Galamb in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch. -
cc-. Eric Galamb
APR 1992
N1
r
SECRETARY'S OFFICE
0-A
lid -6,_
A-11
' State of North Carolina Reviewing OfficeD
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Project Number: Due Gzte:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review o' this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be Cb;z:nec in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
' All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
(sta!utory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQWREMENTS limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 3C days
facilities, sewer system extensions, b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application (00 days)
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
' discharging into state surface waters.
Application 180 clays before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
90-120 days
(NIA)
D Water Use Permit
D well Construction Permit
7.1 Dredge and Fill Permit
r Perrr t io construct 8 operate Air Pollution Adatement
.
LJ facilities and/or Emission Sources as per t5A NCAC 21H
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
WA lyIj.'Q%
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520. 1992 i?
t 11
' Demol Uon or renovations of structures containing S _
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A?ly
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA??
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919733.0820
?i
Comple>, Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800 (±y },?
Tne Sec meniation. Pollution Coniro! Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sed mental o
control plan will be requireC if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect ) at least 30
' oavs before bete-,i1ne aciivitF 4. lee of $30 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan Tne Sedimentation Poliation Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
oI Mining Permit
' D North Carolina Burning permit
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
Ell counties in coastal N.C with organic soils
?I Oil Refining Facilities

?I Dam Safety Permit
1
1 '1_5
On-site inspection usual. Surely bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued.
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit
exceeds 4 days
On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned
NIA
30 days
(NIA)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
60 Cays
(90 days)
60 Gays
(90 days)
20 days
130 days)
30 days)
30 days
t6o days)
1 day
(NiA)
I day
(NiA)
9C .20 clays
(NiA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 oars
inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neces
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac.
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
A-12 Continued or reverse
PERMITS
j1 Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
F -
F? I Geophysical Exploration Permit
of State Lakes Construction Permit
01 401 Water Quality Certification
F?I CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
o1 CAMA Permit for MINOR development
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REQUIREMENTS
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
Conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall,. upon
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations
Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application form.
Application tee based on structure size is charged. Must include
descriptions d drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership
of riparian property.
N/A
$250.00 fee must accompany application
$50.00 fee must accompany application
DI Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify.
N.C Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
No
l(statutory
limit)
10 clay
(NIA) I
10 day
(N/A)
1520 day
(N/A) 1
60 days
(130 day
55 days
(150 days.
22 days
(25 days
tN oandonment of any welts. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
otification Of the :Oper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered tluring any excavation operation.
om pliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required 45 days
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority): (N/A)
L -- ye,-Y?o?r T?'o,JQ (_ 40o','>--c: 7r r?H??r ?r??- , Qom!
G?C(?9zA?t.`?•cc,? ..c^'vv? ?7T? /?'r-? llr ,? C. (7?O o ? ??t? 3/yD/? Z-
U Q _ A) '- L
Ly c G-
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the R
i
eg
onal
? A
sheville Regional Offi Office marked below.
ce W
59
e
Place ? Fayetteville Regional Office
'
ill
,
A
Asheville,
28801 Suite 714 Wachovia Building
(704)
251-6208 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(919) 486.15-01
oororth a Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Ralei g
? h Regional Office
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone] 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh- NC 27609

(9 19) 73
3.2314
El Washington Regional Offi '
ce
1424 Carolina Avenue ? Wilmington Regional Office
Washington, NC 27889 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
[phone] Wilmington, NC 28405

? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Bl '
(919) 3953900
vd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106

(919) 8%-7007 A-1 3 '
?d< i 1{
?li?
lr I .c..
L '
Y
T
:. J
Oi

' North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Marlin, Governor
' Patric Dorsey, Secretary
April 7, 1992
' Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Mallard Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road
to Mallard Creek Church Road, Mecklenburg
County, U-2507, 9.8100316, CH 92-E-4220-0693
' (90-E-4220-0908)
Dear Mr. Graf:
' We have received the Environmental Assessment for the above project from
the State Clearinghouse. We feel that the document adequately addresses
our comments regarding archaeological and historic architectural resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
' Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 9191733-4763.
S? erely,
4b-
Davi Brook 17,E ?I
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer c 9is
DB:slw HPR ?g92 ??
cc: L. J. Whurch
ard F
p?
tate Clearinghouse
' 109 East ones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-14

North Carolina ' 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager L
Habitat Conservation Program /
' DATE: April 9, 1992
' SUBJECT: Review of Administrative Action Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluation and Approval, Mallard Creek Road (SR 2467)
between Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek Church Road,
Mecklenburg County, State Clearinghouse Project No. 92-
0693.
The subject document has been reviewed by biologists on the
Wildlife Resources Commission staff. A site inspection was
conducted on 27 March 1992. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the N.C. Environmental
Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC-25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation plans to
" widen Mallard Creek Road from the existing two lane road to 4 or
5 lanes for a distance' of 4.19 miles. A portion of the road,
(1.34 miles), would be constructed on new location (Segment A).
' The majority of the new section would be built through land that
is currently forested and undeveloped. Three alternatives plus
the no-build alternative are discussed in the document. The
preferred DOT alternative (#3) would be 4 lanes with a raised
median along the new section and five undivided lanes along the
remainder of the project.
' Apparently, there was no consideration given to widening the
road entirely along its existing alignment. All three build
alternatives utilize the new portion, Segment A. We feel this is
' a major shortcoming in the document and that widening the 0.1
existing alignment should be given serious consideration and .10-11
discussion.- We are concerned with Segment A and the secondary
' development that is likely to occur in that area. That segment
of the project area is currently heavily forested and largely
undeveloped. If Segment A is utilized, upland forested habitat
' A-15

Memo Page 2 April 9, 1992
will be seriously degraded and fragmented. We cannot concur with
construction activities for the purpose of increasing
development. _
Five hydrologic crossings totaling 0.18 ac. of wetlands
would be required with any of the three build alternatives. Two
of these crossings could be avoided by building on the existing
location. It is the policy of the N.C. Wildlife Resources e.2
Commission that impacts to wetlands be avoided, minimized, and/or p.11
compensated. The only mention of mitigation in the EA is that
"Best Management Practices" will be employed. There was no
discussion of attempts to avoid wetland impacts or compensate for
wetland losses.
NCWRC will reevaluate our comments when an analysis of
widening the existing alignment is presented and when mitigation
efforts are discussed in greater detail.. Thank you for the
opportunity to review and comment on this EA and Section 4 (f)
Evaluation. If we can be of further assistance please advise.
DLS/lp
cc: Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Steve A. Pozzanghera, Piedmont Region Habitat Biologist

A-16

1

n

1
i
V
C.u 'all_ ?TT£
April 20, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
le. VQ
APR 221992
? n1ViSif?N Oar ?
i, HIGHWAYS X
? RESEA?'
Subject: Local Staff Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment for
Mallard Creek Road Improvements (Project U-2507)
Dear Mr. Ward:
The following are comments made by local planning staff regarding the
Environmental Assessment for the widening of Mallard Creek Road. These
comments are a collective effort of the Charlotte Department of
Transportation, Charlotte Engineering Department, Mecklenburg County
' Engineering Department, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning
Commission. Please take these comments into consideration upon
designing and constructing this project.
• Based on current and projected traffic volumes, there appears to
be little justification for this project at this time. North of
Harris Boulevard there appears to be no need for this project
through 2010.
• Local staff recommends a four-lane median divided facility
' throughout the length of this project. A landscaped median with
left-run bays would create a safer, and more attractive roadway
than the proposed five lane cross-section.

Left-turn lanes and median breaks should be provided at the
following locations: Hubbard Road, Mason Drive, IBM Access Road,
Kettering Drive (Harris Hill Apartments), Mallard Creek Center,
Jim Hunt Road, Silver Birch Road, Mallard Creek Elementary, and
Alexander Road. There does not appear to be any other
intersections which need a separate left-turn lane.
f.1
P.1 1
f.2
p.11-12
• Regardless of which cross-section is constructed, medians should J f.3
be installed at the W. T. Harris Boulevard intersection. This p.12
would reduce accident potential created by vehicles turning left
Department of Transportation
600 East Fourth Street Charlotte, NC 28202-2858 704/336-2261
A-17
Mr. L. J. Ward
April 20, 1992
Page 2
f.3
on to Mallard Creek Road from driveways or side streets which are P.12
too close to W.T. Harris Boulevard.
• Sidewalks should be provided throughout the entire project. It is
a local policy to provide sidewalks along both sides of major
thoroughfares. These sidewalks should be four feet wide and a
minimum of six feet from the back of the curb. Sidewalks should
also be constructed as part of the bridge over Mallard Creek. f.4
P.12-13
The Mallard Creek Road corridor is currently in the process of
urbanization. There are two schools and numerous subdivisions
located along the subject portion of Mallard Creek Road. As this
area becomes more urban, the number of pedestrians along Mallard
Creek Road will steadily increase.
• The phasing of the project should be reversed. The portion of the
project which extends from W. Sugar Creek Road to Harris Boulevard f.5
should be the first phase constructed. The segment of this
project south of W.T. Harris Boulevard has higher current traffic P.13
volumes and is projected to have higher future traffic volumes.
• Previous local planning has showed existing Mallard Creek Road as
a cul-de-sac extending from West Sugar Creek instead of tying into
the new Mallard Creek Connector as shown in the Environmental
Assessment. The extension of Nevin Road across West Sugar Creek f.8
Road and Mallard Creek Road and intersecting the new Mallard Creek P.13
Connector is shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. Local staff urges
that Nevin Road Extension be constructed as part of this project
between existing Mallard Creek Road and the new alignment of the
Mallard Creek Connector.
• As a clarification, Mallard Creek Road is still a major
thoroughfare on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan. The
reclassification of Mallard Creek Road to an Urban Minor Arterial f.7
was done only for state funding purposes and does not have any P.14
effect on the Thoroughfare Plan classification. (see attached MPO
minutes).
• Standard right-of-way for a major thoroughfare in Mecklenburg
County is 100 feet. The right-of-way for this project should be f.8
100 feet throughout the entire project, except at W.T. Harris p.14
Boulevard where more right-of-way will be needed.
• The Mineral Springs Road/Graham Street Extension intersection
should have full access until the N.C. 49/Graham Street Connector f.9
is built. The need for full access is documented by recent volume p.14
counts (April 9 & 10, 1992) of over 4,000 vehicles/day on Mineral
Springs Road.
f.10
• A rate of super elevation of no more than .04 is preferable.1 p.14 -
- 15
• Due to the funded construction of a bikeway along Mallard Creek, f.1 1
and the proximity of a nearby park and the University of Nor h p.15
A-18

0

April 20, 1992
Page 3
Carolina at Charlotte, we recommend that Mallard Creek Road be f.11
designed for bicycle use by having 11 foot inside lanes and 15
foot outsides lanes. These outside lanes should be sufficient for PAS
accommodating both vehicles and cyclists.
• From figures 6C and 6D, left-turn volumes from FB Harris Boulevard f.12
to NB Mallard Creek Road do not appear to justify dual left-turn
lanes. Peak hour volumes are projected to be 30 and 35 vehicles P.15
per hour respectively.
• The third through lane along Graham Street and the Mallard Cree
In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project
and hope that our comments will be taken into consideration. If you
have any questions, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
R. N. Pressley, Jr.,
TCC Chairman
RNPjr/TMN:sls
1 .1
A-19
Connector should not be constructed as a part of this project. f.13
Instead, the third lane should be added when the Graham P.15 -
Street/N.C. 49 Connector is constructed. 16
f.14
• Utilities should be located on one side of the road. P.16
• Landscaping should be provided along both sides of Mallard Creec f.15
Road as well as in the median. _ P.16

1

CI

C

1

APPENDIX B
CORRECTED FIGURE 6B

V 7..0
J
7/t5 i
' e
a
7..o
va`
C a
Ir
7/
m -

9
OZGp
1! 7706 = Ov W-
.090
272Q ]72t Q
L4? \?
Cot, 4AO gLEXANDER\
p?k,y qD. 7.7s
'o
? 2779
t
7167
`o
2276
SILVER JIM .ao
IRCH DR. yG
]zr2 .07 14 .oe 7Z1! y?
.04 )71s C '?J ^ 7Q/ A
T727 -
o ., ..16 -2 • ` ISL
Mallard 777 L24 PARK C 1
+F OLD e MALLARy
CREEK RD. O . 7699
'soy e?G? a y
OiQ oA1 C5 .I
o ''19?G?, ??r{{ zz ¢?
7/95 _ry 7/96
? 264
r
,r r A ?
?e IBM
t ?? 7aso ACCESS RD.
i '
_ sV
2443

1
1
1
., Connector
INERAL SPRIN gg
OAD CONNEC OR
rrA SCALE
W\
H,?RR?S

Rp, •',J Q
21772 y?'?ey Moue
Z' Cr*
2212_
.;
74.62
LEGEND
EXISTM LADS - -
PROPOSED LANES --11111-
FUTURE LANES --Now
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY . N.C.
OU" ALTERNATIVES
INTERSECTION
LANE CONFIGURATIONS
WITH
IM TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE

1 0 1 WILE
13 26
--
I8
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary April 3, 1992 Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John DorneW-V
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Mallard Creek Road between Sugar Creek Road and Mallard
Creek Church Road
Mecklenburg County
State Project DOT No. 9.8100316, TIP #U-2507
EHNR # 92-0693, DEM WO # 5021
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the skate including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the EA prepared for this
project which will impact 0.18 acres of wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14
will require written concurrence.
2. Please address the measures that will be taken to attenuate the impact of
stormwater runoff and spills on surface waters (and wetlands) after project
completion. Who will maintain the special holding basins?
3. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact additional wetland areas
due to the disposal of excavated spoil material, as a source of borrow material
or other construction related activities.
4. Every effort should be made to avoid interrupting the water and sanitary sewer
lines.
5. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401
Certification upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Eric Galamb in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
cc: Eric Galamb

Department of Environment, Health, and Natur>!. Re!!:-.aces
Division of Planning and Assessment ? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
0, C4,
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville it ? Coastal Management 'Water Planning

Mooresville ater ?•Water Resources Environmental Health
roundwater Wildlife SOlld Waste Management
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster

? Wilmington ?Coastal Management Consultant arks and Recreation ?Other (specify)

? Wi ?Others
Environmental Management
nston-Salem T -
f z.
!"
r
13 1992
Manager Sign-Off/Region:

QUALIT'
WATER Date:
it
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
SECTION

Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
-n" IV:
Melba McGee
PS-104
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1

MALLARD CREEK ROAD (SR 2467)
BETWEEN SUGAR CREEK ROAD AND
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8100316
T.I.P. U-2507
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
Dat

L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
S
A- ?-- z e- a Nic s L. Graf, P.E.
fob Division Administrator, FHWA
1

C

MALLARD CREEK ROAD (SR 2467)
BETWEEN SUGAR CREEK ROAD AND
MALLARD:CREEK CHURCH ROAD
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8100316
T.I.P. U-2507
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(17 EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
MARCH 1992
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED BY WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC.' 'k
K nneth P. Smith, P.E. 3,
Project Director.:,
SEAL
12693
FOR NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP95TATION
•` ?N CARp '•°
,•.•••••
*arimes, .E., Unit Head
L.SEAConEngi eering Unit a 14496 =
°
'Susan M. Violette, P.E. 3?s'.L ?;.••DEESStp*!.9
Project Manager of % 's
' SEAL ?
i 11106
10
r r..
'?° M. V 14 ••

1

SUMMARY
1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
' proposes to improve Mallard Creek Road in northeast Mecklenburg County
between Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek Church Road, a distance of 4.19
miles (Figure 1A). A four-lane divided, curb and gutter roadway with 20-foot raised
median on new alignment is proposed from the Sugar Creek Road/Graham Street
intersection to the existing Mallard Creek Road alignment near Garrison Avenue.
' The remainder of the project involves widening the existing two-lane roadway to a
five-lane undivided, curb and gutter facility.
' This project is included in the 1992-1998 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) and is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition in Federal Fiscal Year I(FFY) 1992
and for construction in FFY 1993. The total estimated cost of the project is
$10,671,500, including $3,171,500 for right-of-way and $7,500,000 for construction.
The total estimated cost in the TIP is $10,755,000.
2. VIABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
' Three construction alternatives and the "no-build" alternative were considered
for this project. The construction alternatives consist of various cross-sections
' (partially on new alignment and partially on existing alignment), described as
follows:
' ? Alternative 1: a four-lane divided, curb and gutter roadway with a 20-foot wide
raised median and separate left-turn lanes at intersections.
1
? Alternative 2: a five-lane undivided, curb and gutter roadway with the center
lane serving as a left-turn-only lane at intersections and as a two-way left-turn
lane between intersections.
Alternative 3: a combination of -Alternatives 1 and 2; a four-lane divided, curb
and gutter roadway with a 20-fo6t wide raised median and separate left-turn
lanes at intersections on new alignment from Sugar Creek Road/Graham
Street Road intersection north to existing Mallard Creek Road south of
Garrison Avenue; and a five-lane undivided, curb and gutter roadway with a
center left-turn lane on existing location from Garrison Avenue to Mallard
Creek Church Road.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project will improve the safety of Mallard Creek Road by
increasing roadway capacity and partially controlling left=turn movements across
opposing traffic. Proposed intersection improvements will also reduce the accident
potential involving rear-end and angle-type collisions for vehicles making both left
and right turns. The improved facility will decrease travel times in the area and
provide improved linkage with Graham Street, Sugar Creek Road, :Harris Boulevard,
i. .
and Mallard Creek Church Road.
Approximately 24.35 acres of ` additional right-of-way will be required to
accommodate the proposed improvements, Since -i _0 the loss of wetlands is less than one acre, a nationwide permit will be required. The
remaining acreage to be acquired is primarily maintained areas (residential and
industrial lawns), upland forested areas, commercial properties, open fields, and
cultivated and abandoned fields. Construction easements will be required along the
project.
No properties in the proposed corridor are currently listed, or eligible for
inclusion, on the National Register of Historic Properties. Although there are four
historic properties in the corridor, they would not be impacted by the proposed
action. ' No archaeological sites of potential significance occur along the corridor.
ii

' SHPO has concurred with these findings.
' A new proposed greenway is planned for development within the study area.
A Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation has been prepared to evaluate the impacts
of the proposed action on one parcel of land owned by Mecklenburg County for
future development of the greenway. The construction improvements to Mallard
' Creek Road would require approximately 0.013 acres of this parcel of land.
No significant floodway modifications or impacts are anticipated. No known
protected species and no known hazardous waste sites are located in the study `
corridor. Three new hydraulic structures will be needed at new crossings of minor
tributaries of Mallard Creek. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be

1
17
L.J

utilized to minimize water quality impacts.
Predicted noise levels for the year 2010 build alternative range from 56.3 dBA
to 69.8 dBA. Fifteen (15) of the fifty-one (51) receptors analyzed either approached
or exceeded the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria and six (6) receptors sustained
substantial increases according to NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines. Noise
abatement is not considered reasonable or feasible at any of these locations due to
either the high cost or lack of access control. Therefore noise abatement is not
recommended for this project.
Air quality for. the year 2010 build alternative will comply with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide
' Utilizing primarily the existing corridor minimizes socioeconomic impacts.
Therefore, limited disruption or division of neighborhood cohesion is expected. It is
anticipated that two non-profit organizations will be relocated as a result of this
' project.
' iii

4. COORDINATION
Federal, State, regional, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. In addition to agency responses,
local residents offered comments at a citizen's informational workshop and
throughout the environmental assessment: process. The following agencies were
asked to comment on the project. An asterisk (*) denotes a response was received
from the agency.
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
* U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Asheville
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U.S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh
N.C. Department of Transportation
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
5 N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
* N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
* N.C. Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Centralina Council of Governments
* Mecklenburg County - Parks and Recreation Department
* City of Charlotte
5. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
Based on information currently available, a Section 404 Nationwide permit from
Oe U.S., Army Corps of Engineers will be required for the proposed crossing of
Mallard Creek.
IV
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. General Description
B. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. Cross-Section Descriptions
2. Right-of-Way
3. Sidewalks
4. Bicycle Facilities
5. Curvature
6. Sight Distance
7. Intersections and Access Control
8. Speed Limit
9. Drainage Structures
10. Geodetic Markers
11. Public Utilities
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Thoroughfare Plan and Route Function
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
C. Accident Record
D. Benefits to the State, Region and Community
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. 'No-Build' Alternative
B. Public Transportarion Alternative
Paae
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4:-
6
6
6
8
8
10
10

10
Table of Contents (cont.)
C. Study Segments
1. Segment A
2. Segments Band C
D. Build Alternatives
1. Alternative 1
2. Alternative 2
3. Alternative 3 (Preferred)
3.1 Length of Project
3.2 Cross-Section
3.3 Right-of-Way
3.4 Access Control
3.5 Intersection Treatment and Level of Service
3.6 Design. Speed
3.7 Speed Limit
3.8 Curvature
3.9 Railroad Work Required
3.10 Bridge Work Required
3.11 Parking
3.12 Sidewalks
3.13 Bicycle Facilities
3.14 Greenways
4. Cost Estimates

IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT AND
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED .ACTION
A. Social Impacts
1. Neighborhood Analysis
2. Relocation
3. Public Facilities and Services
B. Cultural Resources
1. Architectural and Historical
2. Archaeological
C. Land Characteristics
1. Scope and Status of Planning
2. Existing Land-Use
3. Existing Zoning
4. Proposed Land-Use
D Economic Impacts
Page
11
11
13
13
14
14
14
15
16
16
16
16
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
23
23
23
23
26
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
32
32

Table of Contents (cont.)
E. Environmental Impacts
1. Plant Communities
2. Animal Species
3. Protected Species
4. Soils
5. Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands
6. Mineral Resources
7. Wetlands
8. Water Quality
9. Rare and Unique Natural Areas
10. Hydrology and Floodplain Involvement
11. Hazardous Waste Sites
12. Traffic Noise Analysis
12.1 Overview
12.2 Fundamentals of Noise
12.3 Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
12.4 Ambient Noise Levels
12.5 Noise Predictions
12.6 Analysis
12.7 Schools and Churches
12.8 Noise Abatement
12.9 Future Land Uses and Activities
13. Air Quality Analysis
14. Visual Impacts
15. Construction Impacts
16. Permits
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Government Response
B. Public Response
Page
33
33
34
36
37
38
38
38
39
40
41
42
43
43
43
44
45
45
46
47
47
48
48
53
53
55
56
56
56
x

Table of Contents (cont.)
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
FIGURE 1A -PROJECT VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1 B - PROJECT AREA MAP
FIGURE 1C - PROJECT CORRIDOR - MALLARD CREEK ROAD
FIGURE 2 - AERIAL MOSAIC SHOWING PROPOSED ALIGNMENT (ALTERNATIVE 3)
FIGURE 3 - TYPICAL SECTIONS
FIGURE 4 . - ROADWAY DESIGN CRITERIA
FIGURE 5 - CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG THOROUGHFARE PLAN
FIGURE 6 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 6A - NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS
WITH 1990 AND 2010 TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE
FIGURE 6B - BUILD ALTERNATIVES INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS
WITH 1990 TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE
FIGURE 6C: - BUILD ALTERNATIVES 2010 DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES
AND LEVELS OF SERVICE (AM)
FIGURE 6D BUILD ALTERNATIVES 2010 DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES
AND LEVELS OF SERVICE (PM)
FIGURE 7 - STUDY SEGMENTS
FIGURE 7A - SEGMENT 'A STUDY ALIGNMENTS
FIGURE 8 - EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
FIGURE 9 - WETLANDS
FIGURE 10 - HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE LOCATIONS AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINS
FIGURE 11 - LOCATION OF AMBIENT NOISE READINGS
FIGURE 12 - NOISE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
FIGURE 13 - AIR QUALITY RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
APPENDIX B - TABLES
TABLE 1 - APPROXIMATE NOISE LEVELS OF TYPICAL ACTIVITIES
TABLE 2 - NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
TABLE 3 - AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AND LOCATIONS
TABLE 4 - RECEPTOR INFORMATION -
TABLE 5 - TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
TABLE 6 - FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
TABLE 7 - MAXIMUM WORST CASE 1-HOUR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
TABLE 8 - MAXIMUM WORST CASE &HOUR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
TABLE 9 - MAXIMUM WORST CASE AMBIENT CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)

APPENDIX C - PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION -
APPROVAL AND DOCUMENTATION
APPENDIX D - WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM GOVERNMENTS
APPENDIX E - RELOCATION REPORTS AND FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT
RATING

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
r A. General Description
L This assessment presents the results of a study of roadway improvements to
Mallard Creek Road (SR 2467). The 4.19-mile roadway section under study begins at
the existing Sugar Creek Road/Graham Street intersection in Charlotte and termi-:
nates at Mallard Creek Church Road in northeast Mecklenburg County (Figures 1A,
1B and 11C). The project involves construction of a four-lane divided, curb and gutter
d
i
h
f
i
d
`
roa
way w
t
a 20-
oot ra
se
median, on
new alignment, from the Sugar Creek
Road/Graham Street intersection to the existing Mallard Creek Road alignment near
' Garrison Avenue, and the widening of the existing roadway, from Garrison Avenue to
Mallard Creek Church Road, to a five-lane undivided, curb and gutter facility (Figure
2). Proposed typical sections and design criteria for the improvements are shown in
Figures 3 and 4, respectively. .
hi
Wi
h
t
n t
e project limits, Mallard Creek Road was classified as a major
thoroughfare on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan adopted March 8,
1984, by the N.C. Board of Transportation (Figure 5). On November 28, 1990, the
roadway was reclassified as an urban minor arterial by the N.C. Department of
Transportation. The project is included in the 1992-1998 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as Project U-2507. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled
to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1992 and construction to begin in IFFY 1993.
The total estimated cost in the TIP is $10,755,000. The estimated cost for right-of-way
and construction is $10,671,500, with $3,171,500 for right-of-way and $7,590,000 for
construction.

i '
i

B. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. Cross-Section Descriotions
Mallard Creek Road is generally a two-lane, 24-foot wide roadway with 6-foot
wide usable shoulders. The pavement has been widened to provide a left-turn lane in
front of the Mallard Creek Elementary School. The intersections with Harris Boulevard
and the IBM Access Road, south of Harris Boulevard, were also widened to provide
separate left turn and right turn lanes.
2. Right-of-Way
Existing right-of-way is 60 feet wide and is symmetrical about the highway
centerline.
3. Sidewalks
...'.No sidewalks exist within the project area.
4. Bicycle Facilities
No bicycle paths exist within the project area, although bicycle traffic will be
provided for as part of the proposed Mallard Creek Greenway.
5. Curvature
Based on 1990 American Association of State. Highway and Transportation
'Officials (AASHTO) design criteria using a maximum superelevation rate of 0.06 ft./ft.,
the maximum degree of curve for a 50-mph design speed is 6 degrees-45 minutes.
All of the curves along the existing alignment of Mallard Creek Road satisfy this
criteria,, with one exception.

it

E

In the vicinity of Jim Hunt Road, there currently exists an eight-degree curve.
This curve will satisfy a design speed of 46 mph based on 1990 AASHTO design
criteria.
6. Sight Distance
Vertical sight distances on the approaches to the Mallard Creek bridge are.
inadequate to satisfy the current posted 45-mph speed limit, based on 1990
AASHTO design criteria.
7. Intersections and Access Control
All intersections are at grade. The intersections at Harris Boulevard, Mallard
Creek Church Road, and the existing Graham Street/Sugar Creek Road intersection
are controlled by traffic signals. All other intersections have stop-sign control.
8. Speed Limit
Mallard Creek Road is currently posted for a 45-mph speed limit. During
school days, between the hours of 7:15 to 8:15 a.m. and 1:30 to 2:30 p.m., 'the
speed limit near the Mallard Creek Elementary School is reduced to 35 mph.
9. Drainage Structures
There is one existing bridge in the project corridor. The bridge over Mallard
Creek, built in 1972, has a sufficiency rating of 67.6, and an estimated rem ning life
of 38 years, according to the 1991 NCDOT bridge inspection report. T "bridge
superstructure consists of precast prestressed concrete cored slabs on Precast
prestressed concrete cap with a steel H-pile substructure. There are five spans
ranging from 30 feet to 40 feet for a total length of 160 feet. The bridge carries two
lanes of traffic and has a clear roadway width of 29.3 feet.
Storm water runoff drains directly into Mallard Creek from the surrounding
area. No other major drainage structures are located along the project corridor.
3

10. Geodetic Markers
Nine geodetic survey markers are located within the project corridor.
11. Public Utilities
? Sanitary sewer service within the area is provided by the Charlotte-Mecklen-
burg Utility Department (CMUD). The project corridor crosses a 36-inch
sanitary sewer main, located on the north side of Mallard Creek. An
abandoned sewer treatment plant (STP) for the Derita Elementary School lies
approximately 700 feet north of Rumple Road outside of the proposed project
right-df-.way. The STP went off-line in August 1989. Sewage disposal for the
school is now provided by CMUD.
? Water service to and within the area is provided by CMUD. A 12-inch water '
main is located on the west side of existing Mallard Creek Road.
? .-Telephone service to and within the area is provided by the Southern Bell
Telephone Company. Aerial and underground cables exist from the Mallard
Creek Road/Sugar Creek Road intersection along the east side of existing
Mallard Creek Road to north of Old Mallard Creek Road. Aerial cables
continue on the east side of existing Mallard Creek Road from Old Mallard
Creek Road north of Harris Boulevard and cross near Jim Hunt Road, then
continue north on the west side of existing Mallard Creek Road to the end of
the project. Buried cables are located along the west side of existing Mallard
Creek Road from Harris Boulevard to the end of the project. A buried cable
crosses Mallard Creek Road at Jim Hunt Road.
? Electrical power to and within the area is provided by Duke Power Company.
A 100-KV line crosses the corridor south of Mallard Creek and serves the
Derita Retail Substation located west of Mallard Creek Road behind Mallard
Creek Elementary School
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
? Natural Gas within the area is provided by Piedmont Natural Gas Company.
There are no known natural gas transmission mains in the study area.
Distribution lines are located along the west side of existing Mallard Creek
Road from Sugar Creek Road north to Hubbard Road. Natural gas ;service
resumes at Harris Boulevard on the east side of existing Mallard Creek Road
and continues to the northern project terminus.

5
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Thoroughfare Plan and Route Function
Mallard Creek Road (SR 2467) was designated a major thoroughfare on the
1988 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan, adopted March 8, 1984, by the
North Carolina Board of Transportation. On November 28, 1990, at a meeting of the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Metropolitan Planning Organization, the roadway was reclassi-
fied as an urban minor arterial. Based on year 2010 traffic projections by NCDOT,
the classification as a minor thoroughfare is appropriate. Figure 5 shows the project
corridor as depicted on the latest Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan, dated
November 30;1988. This" plan does not reflect the reclassification of Mallard Creek
Road to an urban minor arterial.
B. Traffic Volumes and CaQacity Analvsis
The assigned 1990 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along the existing
alignment vary between 6800 vehicles per day, for the northern portion of the
project, and 11,700 vehicles per day, for the section just south of the IBM access
road. The 2010 ADT volumes along the existing facility are projected to range from
9900 vehicles per day to 21,000 vehicles per day (See Figure 6).
The assigned 1990 ADT on the Mallard Creek Road Connector varies from
7700 vehicles per day (VPD) north of the proposed Graham Street/NC 49 Connector
to 21,400 VPD between the Graham Street/NC 49 Connector and Sugar Creek Road.
The projected 2010 ADT volumes for these sections of the road are 14,000 VPD and
39,800 VPD, respectively. These traffic volumes, and the proposed construction of
the Mallard Creek Road Connector, both reflect the heavy traffic volumes anticipated
on the proposed Graham Street/NC 49 Connector.
Mallard Creek Road is located in an area which is rapidly growing and taking
on a suburban character. Existing and proposed traffic signals along this facility are
located at relatively close intervals. The traffic carrying capacity of this type of facility
6

irk

Ll

1

is generally determined by the ability of the signalized intersections to handle traffic
volumes. Those portions of Mallard Creek Road between the signalized intersections
operate under free-flow conditions and will not significantly influence the capacity of
the facility.
The ability of a facility to carry traffic is described by the level of service (LOS)
it provides. LOS A, the highest level of service, is characterized by free flowing
conditions in which no approach signal phase is fully utilized. Typically, drivers are
unrestricted and turns are easily made. In LOS B, traffic operation is stable.
Occasionally a phase is fully utilized and many are approaching full use. LOS C is
characterized by stable operation with drivers occasionally having to wait through
more than one red indication. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. LOS D is
approaching unstable flow. Delays to approaching vehicles' may be substantial during
short periods of the peak hour. LOS E represents the theoretical capacity of the
facility and LOS F represents forced flow with extremely unstable conditions.
The 2010 traffic, for the No-Build Alternative, would operate at levels of service
ranging from LOS B at the IBM access road to LOS F at the Sugar Creek Road,
Harris Boulevard, and Mallard Creek Church Road intersections (see Figure 6A). As
illustrated on Figure 6A, the levels of service at the Mallard Creek Church Road
intersection would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F. Levels of service at the IBM
access road will remain at LOS B. Levels of service at the other two intersections, W.
T. Harris Boulevard and Sugar Creek Road, are currently at LOS F and would
deteriorate further. Although levels 'of service at these intersections would remain at
LOS F, which is the worst possible condition, traffic volumes are expected to
increase, thereby making existing conditions even worse if the No-Build alter tive is
selected as the recommended alternative.
T
Major intersections along Mallard Creek Road which require signallza?ion to
handle heavy turning movements are discussed in Section III.D.3.5. Figure 6B
represents lane configurations relative to the build alternative and the levels of service
using 1990 traffic volumes. This figure shows that the levels of service would improve
at several intersections if the build alternative was currently in place. Figures 6C and
6D illustrate year 2010 levels of service and traffic volumes associated with AM and
PM peak hour traffic, respectively.
7

C. Accident Record
An accident summary for the existing roadway was compiled for the three-year
period from January 1, 1987, to May 31, 1990.
The accident analysis reveals for the three year, five month period, a total of
66 accidents occurred along existing Mallard Creek Road. This number includes that
portion of Mallard Creek Road between Garrison Avenue and Sugar Creek Road
which will be relocated as a part of the proposed project.
Along the portion of Mallard Creek Road within the limits of the project, a total
of 43 accidents occurred. Of the 43 accidents, 23 (53%) resulted in injuries and 20
(47%) resulted in property damage. There were no fatal accidents. Single moving
vehicle accidents, automobiles leaving the roadway, made up 37.8 percent of the
total. Accidents involving rear-end type collisions accounted for 9.1 percent of the
total. The remaining accidents consisted of various types of collisions involving
Stopped vehicles, turning vehicles, backing-up vehicles, side-swipe vehicles and
others.
The total accident rate for Mallard Creek Road was 394.27 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (ACC/100 MVM). This rate may be more accurately evaluated by
comparing it to statewide averages for urban routes. This accident rate is
substantially higher than the statewide average rate of 276.6 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles for urban North Carolina routes during the same time period.
It is anticipated that the increase in capacity, provided for by the addition of
through lanes and turn lanes from pavement widening and improvement in both
vertical and horizontal alignment, will improve the safety of the roadway.
D. Benefits to the State. Region and Communi
The area around Mallard Creek Road is growing rapidly; development is a
combination of residential, commercial, and industrial type uses. This project will
improve local access to development along the route.
8
The proposed widening of Mallard Creek Road will provide improved levels of
service for both current and future traffic demands. The project will reduce both
travel time and accident potential and will provide a savings in operating cost to the
wr
•
?w
9
III. ALTERNATIVES
`A. "No-Build" Alternative
Future traffic demands cannot adequately be accommodated on the existing
facility. The lack of available capacity will create congestion on the existing roadway
and increase the potential for accidents if improvements are not made.
The "no-build" alternative will avoid some negative impacts of the proposed
project such as the acquisition of additional land for highway purposes and
construction erosion/siltation. However, positive benefits of the project, such as a
reduction in congestion, accidents, travel delays, operating costs, and fuel
consumption, would not be realized with the "no-build" alternative. The long-term
advantages of the new facility will more than compensate for the disadvantages
associated with building this project. Consequently, the "no-build" alternative is not
recommended.
B. Public Transportation Alternative
At present, there is no transit service provided by the Charlotte Transit
.System (CTS) along Mallard Creek Road. The nearest public bus service is the #13
Nevins Road Route. This route proceeds north on Graham Street to Sugar Creek
Road and then west along Sugar Creek Road to Gibbon Road. The "end-of-line"
4AL turnaround is routed along Gibbon Road, Nevins Road and Sugar Creek Road
back to the Gibbon Road/Sugar Creek Road intersection, passing through the
existing Sugar Creek Road/Graham Street Road intersection. An average of 31.75
t passengers per hour use the #13 Nevins Road Route.
The CTS does not include service into the study corridor, except for the
Sugar Creek Road/Graham Street Road intersection, and has no plans for
extending service along, Mallard Creek Road. The use of public transportation is
101 therefore not considered 'a feasible,alternative to the proposed improvements.
1 O

Ll

1
E
1

1
I?

u
1

1

C. Study Segments
Three build alternatives, consisting of different alignments, cross-sections and
widening concepts, were developed for detailed study. Preliminary studies were
conducted in the project area to determine the appropriate cross section for the
project. The project was then divided into three study segments, A, B, and C, to
provide flexibility in utilizing combinations of different typical cross-sections on both
existing and new alignments (see Figure 7).
Segment A, designated the Mallard Creek Road Connector, begins at the
existing Graham Street/Sugar Creek Road intersection and extends on new location
to the existing Mallard Creek Road intersection with Garrison Avenue, a distance of
1.34 miles. Segment B begins at the Garrison Avenue intersection and extends
along the existing alignment for 1.94 miles to the Jim Hunt Road intersection.
Segment C, also along the existing alignment, begins at the Jim Hunt Road
intersection and extends to the Mallard Creek Church Road intersection, a distance
of 0.91 miles.
1. Segment A
Three different preliminary alignments were studied for Segment A, the
section of the project on new location. These three alignments, labeled A, D and
D/A, extend southerly from a common point at the Mallard Creek Road/Garrison
Avenue intersection and terminate at the Graham Street/Sugar Creek/Mineral
Springs Road intersection (see Figure 7A). Of these three alignments, is
preferred because it Js the best alignment of the three. Descriptions ., e
preliminary alignments and reasons for selection of D/A as the preferred alig , ent
are given below. k
? Alignment A was established to provide a 'T' intersection with the proposed
Alternate Graham Street Connector, shown in Figure 7A, when the Transpor-
tation Improvement Program (TIP) scheduled, the construction of the Graham
Street/NC 49 Connector (R-2420) prior to Ahe construction of the Mallard-,
11
11
Creek Road project (U-2507). The traffic volumes and the project scheduling
warranted making the Graham Street/NC 49 Connector the through move-
ment and the Mallard Creek Road Connector the secondary movement. The
Mallard Creek Road project is now scheduled for construction ahead of the
Graham Street/NC 49 Connector project, thus reversing the warrant for
"through movement" at the intersection of the two projects. The south end of
Alignment A is therefore no longer a viable alignment. The southern terminus
of the project has been relocated from the Graham Street/NC 49 Connector
to the Graham Street/Sugar Creek Road intersection.
A variation of Alignment A (not shown on Figure 7A) tied the south end of
the alignment into the Graham Street/NC 49 Connector project approximately
1000 feet east of the Alignment A terminus shown. This variation was shown
as a possible corridor location in Issue No. 1 of the Mallard Creek Newsletter
in October 1990. This variation proved less viable than Alignment A and was
removed from further consideration before the project limits were revised.
The northern end of Alignment A was established to minimize damage to
developed property, and to avoid disturbing a small pond near the IBM spur
track. However, this portion of the alignment was not the most direct route
available. Therefore, Alignment A was eliminated from further consideration.
? Alignment D was studied at the request of the City of Charlotte (see
Appendix D, letter dated May 23,.1990). In the spirit of cooperation, the IBM
Corporation had indicated their willingness to dedicate the required right-of-
way through their large undeveloped tract if the project could be located
along the line (Alignment D) indicated on the attachment to the Charlotte
letter. The proposed alignment severed the access to two residences and
passed directly through the center of a 3/4-acre pond near the end of Hunter
Avenue. It also passed through the upland region of another pond adjacent
to the IBM spur railroad track, thereby increasing wetland disturbance.
Alignment D was greater in length than other reasonable alignments, would
be more costly to' construct, more detrimental to the environment, and would
12

iJ

t

[.1
E

require more relocations. Alignment D was therefore eliminated from further
consideration as a reasonable and feasible alignment.
? Alignment D/A was established as the most direct route for the Mallard Creek
Road Connector. From the extension of the existing curve on Mallard Creek
Road north of Garrison Avenue, Alignment D/A follows a straight line south to
the curve circumventing Derita Elementary School, and then directly into the
Graham Street alignment at the Sugar Creek Road intersection. Upon being
presented with Alignment D/A, the IBM Corporation agreed to continue their
cooperative policy of right-of-way dedication (see Appendix D, letter dated
April 23, 1991).
2. Segments B and C
The alignment through Segments B and C generally follows that of the
existing roadway (see Figures 2 and 7). The curve at Prosperity Church Road is
proposed to be flattened slightly, with a resultant eastward shift in the alignment to
avoid taking a building in the southwest quadrant of that intersection. The curve at
Jim Hunt Road is also proposed to be flattened slightly, and shifted westward, to
meet minimum curvature criteria.
The centerline of the proposed section across Mallard Creek is proposed to
be shifted 22 feet east of and parallel to the existing centerline. This centerline shift
will allow the existing bridge over Mallard Creek to be used to carry traffic during
stage construction of the proposed bridge.
D. Build Alternatives
Preliminary studies were conducted in the project area to determine the
appropriate cross section for the project. Potential impacts of each of three
alternatives were evaluated. Preliminary studies considered utilities, roadway capac-
ity and traffic demand, safety, and the cost-effectiveness of the alternatives in
relation to human and environmental issues such as neighborhood disruption,
13

proximity to schools, relocation of families; and businesses, and effects on natural
resources. The following is a discussion of each alternative:
1. Alternative 1
Alternative 1 consists of constructing a four-lane divided, curb and gutter
section with a 20-foot raised median utilizing a closed drainage system along the
entire length of the project (See Figure 3). This alternative begins at the existing at-
grade intersection of Sugar Creek Road and Graham Street, southeast of the
present intersection of Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek Road. The road
progresses north on new alignment, with partially-controlled access, and ties into
the existing Mallard Creek Road near Garrison Avenue (Segment A). From this
point to Jim Hunt Road (Segment B), existing Mallard Creek Road would be
widened along the south side to provide the raised median and additional two
travel lanes. Adjustments to the vertical alignment would be required at the Mallard
Creek crossing to satisfy a 50-mph design speed. From Jim Hunt Road to the
intersection at Mallard Creek Church Road (project north terminus, Segment C) the
roadway would generally follow the existing alignment. Minor adjustments to the
horizontal and vertical alignment would tie necessary to meet a 50-mph design
speed and to avoid the taking of residences. No change in access control is
proposed north of Garrison Avenue. Currently, access. is by permit only.
2. Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of constructing a five-lane, 64-foot face-to-face, curb
and gutter, undivided section, utilizing a closed drainage system along the entire
length of the project. This alternative follows the same alignment as Alternative 1.
3. Alternative 3 (Preferred)
The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternatives 1 and 2. The
roadway would consist of a four-lane divided, curb and gutter section with a 20-foot
raised median from the, existing Sugar Creek Road/Graham Street intersection,
north to existing Mallard Creek Road south of Garrison Avenue (Segment A). From
14
1
south of Garrison Avenue to the intersection at Mallard Creek Church Road,
' Segments B and C, the road would be a five-lane 64-foot face-to-face, undivided,
curb and gutter section.
Once all improvements are in place, this alternative would provide a level of
service ranging from B to C. Refer to Section II.B. for a detailed discussion on
levels of service for the No-Build and Build Alternatives.
From both visual and safety standpoints, a four-lane divided section with
raised median is preferable to a five-lane section. However, due to the high
incidence of residential access between Garrison Avenue and Baucom Road and
Silver Birch Road and Prosperity Church Road, a raised median section would
cause indirect/adverse travel, increased travel time and cost, and would require an
inordinate number of median crossovers and/or U-turns. This would nullify the
expected safety improvement of a divided roadway; thus, through Segments B and
C, a five-lane section with a continuous two-way left-turn lane is recommended, with
short one-way left-turn sections at intersections. The reduced right-of-way
requirement, approximately 10 feet less than for the four-lane divided section, will
minimize impacts to the human and natural environment.
The proposed improvement (Alternative 3) is comprised of the following:
1 3.1 Length of Project
Segment A: 1.34 miles Mallard Creek Road Connector - From the exist-
ing Graham Street/Sugar Creek Road inters ion
to the existing Mallard Creek Road inte n
with Garrison Avenue. (4-lane divided, ng ` a-
tion)
Segment B: 1.94 miles From the Garrison Avenue intersection to the Jim
Hunt Road intersection. (5-lane undivided, exist- L
ing alignment)
Segment C: 0.91 miles From the Jim Hunt Road intersection to the
Mallard Creek Church Road intersection. (5-lane
undivided,, existing alignment)
15
n
3.2 Cross-Section
Segment A:
Segments B and C
3.3 Right-of-Way
Segment A:
Segment B:
Segment C:
3.4 Access Control

Segment A:
Segment B:
Segment C:
Four-lane divided roadway with curb and gutter
and a 20-foot wide raised median. The cross
section provides two 12-foot lanes in each
direction with provision for a left-turn lane in the
median where required.
Five-lane, 64-foot curb and gutter, undivided
section. The cross section provides five 12-foot
lanes, with the center lane serving as a two-way
turn lane, except at intersections where the left
turns will be defined.
100 feet minimum
90 feet minimum
90 feet minimum
Access by permit
Access by permit
Access by permit
3.5 Intersection Treatment and Level of Service
All existing and newly constructed intersections along the proposed
project will be at-grade intersections. Modification of existing traffic signal
installations will be required to accommodate changes in traffic volumes and
additional travel lanes.
Lane treatment and traffic control, to obtain a LOS C, for intersections
along the Mallard Creek Road project are outlined below. Additional lanes are
required on connecting roads at some intersections to accommodate move-
ments necessary toy provide a LOS C. These lanes are indicated on Figure 6B
16

F11

hi

1

1

1
LJ
1
1
as Future Lanes. The functional lane treatments necessary to provide a LOS
C, based on design year traffic, for the signalized intersections are shown on
Figure 6B. Recommended intersection lane improvements for the Mallard
Creek project are shown on Figure 6B as proposed lanes.
? Sugar Creek Road - This major intersection will remain signalized. The
Mallard Creek Road Connector will replace existing Mineral Springs
Road at this intersection. Design year traffic will require additional traffic
lanes on all four approaches. The intersection approach for southeast
bound Sugar Creek Road traffic will have dual left-turn lanes, two
through lanes and a separate right-turn lane. The northwest bound
Sugar Creek Road approach will have two through lanes, a single left-
turn lane and a separate right-turn lane. The northeast bound Graham
Street approach will have three through lanes, with the right lane
serving both through and right-turn traffic, and dual left-turn lanes. The
southwest bound Mallard Creek Road Connector approach will have
three through lanes, a separate right-turn lane, and dual left-turn lanes.
The additional southwest bound lane on Graham Street leaving the
intersection will merge into the existing lanes approximately 700 feet
south of the intersection.
? Mineral Springs Road Connection - Existing Mineral Springs Road will
be terminated. with a cul-de-sac on the east side of the Mallard Creek
Road Connector. A new connection from Mineral Springs Road will form
a 'T' intersection with the Mallard Creek Road Connector approxi tely
900 feet northeast of the Sugar Creek Road intersection. The F ral
Springs Road connection will be a two-lane, two-way facility, per R ing
right turns into and out of the intersection. There will be no m`eaian
break and, therefore, no direct connection to the southwest bound
lanes of the Mallard Creek Road Connector. The Mineral SlIrings
Connection will be stop-sign controlled.
w
? Proposed Graham Street/NC 49 Connector - This intersection will be
a 'T' intersection. with the Mallard` Creek Road Connector the through
17

movement and with the Graham Street/NC 49 Connector intersecting
from the east. Mallard Creek Road will have two through lanes and a
dual left-turn lane for southbound traffic. Northbound Mallard Creek
Road will have two through lanes and dual right-turn lanes.
The Graham Street/NC 49 Connector will provide three lanes with dual
left-turn lanes and a single right-turn lane on the westbound approach,
and will provide for two eastbound lanes. The intersection will be
constructed and signalized as part of the Graham Street/NC 49
Connector project. Future lanes on Mallard Creek Road Connector,
indicated on Figure 613, between Sugar Creek Road and this intersec-
tion will also be constructed as part of the Graham Street/NC 49
Connector project.
? Rumple Road - It is recommended that a cul-de-sac be constructed on
Rumple Road to the west side of Mallard Creek Road. Rumple Road on
the east side of Mallard Creek Road will be a single stop-sign controlled
'T' intersection until the Graham Street/NC 49 Connector is constructed.
Rumple Road will then be constructed as a cul-de-sac on the east side
of Mallard Creek Road. Access for Rumple Road traffic will be provided
via the Graham Street/NC 49 Connector project.
? Existing Mallard Creek Road - This intersection will be a 'T'
intersection, with the Mallard Creek Road Connector being the through
movement and existing Mallard Creek Road intersecting from the
southwest. Existing Mallard Creek Road will have two lanes approaching
the intersection, with the right lane serving right-turns-only and the left
lane serving left-turns-only. There will be one lane southwest bound on
:. existing Mallard Creek Road away from the intersection. The north-
bound approach on the Mallard Creek Road Connector will have two
through lanes and a left-turn lane to serve southwest bound traffic on
existing Mallard Creek Road. The southbound approach on the Mallard
Creek Road Connector will have two through lanes and a separate
right-turn lane for traffic turning right to existing Mallard Creek Road.
18

L.I

e

1

The intersection will initially have stop sign control for the existing
Mallard Creek Road. Design year traffic will require traffic signal control.
? IBM access road - The IBM access road is on the east side of Mallard
Creek Road, 400 feet south of Baucom Road. This will be a 'T'
intersection. The IBM access is a four lane divided facility with the
exiting right lane serving right-turns-only and the exiting left lane serving
left-turns-only. This road will retain the median island separating the
ingress/egress lanes. The northbound approach on Mallard Creek Road
will have two through lanes with the right lane serving both through
traffic and right turns. The southbound approach will have two through
lanes and a separate left-turn lane. The intersection will initially have
stop sign control for the IBM access road. Design year (2010) traffic
volumes will require traffic signal control.
? Harris Boulevard - This major intersection will remain traffic-signal
controlled. Northbound and southbound Mallard Creek Road ap-
proaches will have two through lanes with the right lane serving both
through traffic and right turns. Separate left-turn lanes will be provided.
The Harris Boulevard westbound approach will have three through
lanes, a separate right-turn lane, and dual left-turn lanes. The eastbound
approach will have three through lanes, a separate right-turn lane, and
a single left-turn lane.
? Mallard Creek Church Road - This major intersection with traffic-s' nal
control has been constructed under a separate project. Northft nd
Mallard Creek Road will have one through-lane, one right-turn-onlylip e,
and a separate left-turn lane. The southbound approach will have, two
through lanes, a separate right-turn lane, and dual left-turn lanes. On
Mallard Creek Church Road, the westbound approach will continue to
have a separate right-turn lane, two through lanes, and a separate-_left-
turn lane. The eastbound approach will continue to have two through
lanes, with the right lane also for right-turn traffic, and a separate left-
turn lane.
19

? Other Secondary Roads - The intersections of Mallard Creek Road
with Garrison Avenue (SR 2640), Hubbard Road (SR 2494), Penniger
Circle (SR 2650), Mason Drive (SR 2495), Baucom Road (SR 2618),
Keaton Avenue, Old Mallard Creek Road (SR 2708), Island Park Circle
(SR 2474), Jim Hunt Road (SR 2725), Silver Birch Road (SR 2728),
Colvard Parkway, Alexander Road (SR 2635), and Prosperity Church
Road (SR 2475) will all be 'T' intersections. Each of these intersections
will be controlled with stop signs on the approaches to Mallard Creek
Road.
3.6 Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 50-mph. Grade adjustments will be
required at the existing approaches to the Mallard Creek bridge in order to
meet criteria for a 50-mph design speed.
3.7 Speed Limit
The existing posted speed limit of 45-mph will be retained upon
completion of the project.
3.8 Curvature
The maximum allowable degree of curvature for a 50-mph design speed
and a superelevation rate of 0.06 ft./ft.' is six degrees-45 minutes. An existing
eight degree curve in the vicinity of Jim Hunt Road will require adjustment to
meet the design criteria.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
3.9 Railroad Work Required
Near the south end of the project, the proposed Mallard Creek Road
Connector will cross a private railroad spur track belonging to IBM. An at-
grade crossing of this spur track is recommended. The spur is used only as
an emergency freight access to the IBM Harris Boulevard facility. The spur is
typically used once a year when it is tested. Railroad signals will not be
required at this crossing. The owner/users of the spur track should provide
flagmen for traffic control on those occasions when the track is in use.
3.10 Bridge Work Required
A new bridge on Mallard Creek Road, spanning Mallard Creek, will be
required to accommodate the proposed five lane facility. The new bridge will
be constructed in stages along the existing Mallard Creek Road alignment.
Traffic will be maintained during construction. (See Section IV.E.10. for a list of
minor structures along the proposed project.)
3.11 Parkinq

Parking is presently prohibited on Mallard Creek Road and will be
prohibited in the future.
3.12 Sidewalks
Because of the suburban location of the project and lack of ped ian
traffic, sidewalks are not proposed.
3.13 Bicycle Facilities
No bicycle facilities are planned along Mallard Creek Road.
21

1
G
4
3.
reenwa s
A greenway is planned along Mallard Creek as part of the Mecklenburg
County Parks and Recreation Department's greenway system.

A bicycle path is planned to parallel Mallard Creek as part of the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department's greenway system.
The proposed path would pass below Mallard Creek Road under the existing
bridge. The proposed project would provide a new bridge across Mallard
Creek with clearances sufficient to accommodate a new bicycle path beneath
the structure, as recommended by AASHTO. The appropriate clearances will
be coordinated with Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department.
4. Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of each alternative is given below.
Combination
4-1-ane Divided (A)
5-1-ane 5-Lane Curb
4-1-ane Divided Curb and Gutter and Gutter (B,C)
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3
(Preferred)
SEGMENT Construction Right-of-way Construction Right-of-Way Construction Right-of-Wav
A
f, (Line D/A) 2,750,000 1,689,000 2,850,000 1,550,000 2,750,000 1,689,000
B 3,400,000 650,000 3,450,000 665,000 3,450,000 665,000
C 1,400,000 865,000 1,300,000 817,500 1,300,000 817,500
TOTALS 7,550,000 3,204,000 , 7,600,000 3,032,500 7,500,000 3,171,500
GRAND TOTAL 10.754.00 10.632.500 19sal500
4

22

I
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT AND
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION
I A. Social Impacts
Construction of the Mallard Creek Road project will have an overall positive
socio-economic impact. The proposed widening and alignment improvements to the
roadway will decrease travel time, reduce traffic accident potential, and increase
accessibility to adjacent business properties.
1. Neighborhood Analysis
The major social impact of the proposed action will be caused by acquisition
of property for right-of-way along existing Mallard Creek Road. Widening the existing
roadway to a five-lane undivided facility along existing Mallard Creek Road will
require approximately 30 additional feet of right-of-way. However, the proposed
improvements will not adversely affect any existing neighborhoods, isolate any ethnic
or minority group, or destroy community cohesiveness in the project area. A 100-foot
width of right-of-way will be required for the relocated segment. However, because a
substantial portion of this segment is on property to be donated by IBM, few private
residences will be affected.

2. Relocation

The recommended alternative will require the displacement of 'two non-ofit
organizations.

It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing
bl
i
t
t
ti
f
t
t
d f
d
ll
i
t
d
t
ill b
il
e pr
or
o cons
ruc
on o
s
a
e an
e
era
y ass
s
e
projec
s.
w
e ava
a
Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
? Relocation Assistance,
23

? Relocation Moving Payments, and
? Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistant Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of
homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent, and financing or other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for
payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement
will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a
favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to
owners who are eligible and qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible
and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to
provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in which
to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each highway
project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will so schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
• negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacements are given at least a 90-day written notice after
N.CDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices or replacement housing offered will be within the
financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and be reasonably
accessible to their ;.places;;. of employment. The relocation officer will also assist
24

t

1
1

owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in
searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive
an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement
housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving
existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer
will also supply information concerning other state or federal programs offering
assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed
in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys,
appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-
occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and
incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except
under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive payment, not to exceed $5,250,
to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including .incidal
expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based
upon what the state determines is required when the rent supplement 'exceeds
$5,250.
t
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted, construct ion projects unless and until comp arable or
adequate replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee
within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment
received will be considered as inco me for the purposes of the Internal Revenue
25

Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility
of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial
means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The
purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It
is not felt that this program will be necessary since it is used, as the name implies,
only as a "last resort" and there appears to be adequate opportunities for relocation
within the area. However, it will be available if necessary.
3. Public Facilities and Services
There are two public schools near the proposed study corridor, Mallard Creek
Elementary School and Derita Elementary School. Derita Elementary School is
located on Sugar Creek Road between Rumple Road and Mineral Springs Road.
Mallard Creek Elementary School is located on the west side of Mallard Creek Road
near the northern terminus of the project. The area of school bus service is rapidly
expanding; school buses are currently routed along Mallard Creek Road. Traffic will
be maintained during construction so access to these facilities will not be affected.
Fire service within the corridor is provided by both the City of Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County. The City of Charlotte Fire District Station #22 serves Mallard
Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road to near Hubbard Road. The Derita Fire District
serves Mallard Creek Road from Hubbard Road to Mallard Creek. North of Mallard
Creek, fire service is provided by the Mallard Creek Fire Department. Fire service will
not :be affected during construction of the roadway because traffic will be maintained
at all times. Widening of Mallard Creek Road will facilitate prompt service along the
roadway for emergency vehicles.
Two existing recreational facilities lie within the study corridor. A playground
belonging to Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation is located adjacent to
Mallard Creek Road at the Mallard Creek Elementary School. Although this is an
26

important recreational resource to the community, it is not considered significant for
purposes of Section 4(f) evaluation. Concurrence from the Mecklenburg County
Parks and Recreation Department can be found in Appendix D.
The proposed Mallard Creek Greenway (see Appendix C) will lie within the
study corridor where Mallard Creek Road bridges Mallard Creek. Two parcels of land
acquired by the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department for future
development of the Mallard Creek Greenway are situated on either side of the
existing bridge over Mallard Creek. The Mallard Creek Greenway is proposed to
pass under Mallard Creek Road. It is anticipated that a small right-of-way taking of
0.013 acres from the parcel east of the existing roadway will be required to construct
the replacement structure. This right-of-way is needed to meet the current standards
and specifications set forth by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for widening the existing facility to a five-lane curb
and gutter facility.

f]
11
t
1
,d
Because this project proposes to use a minor amount of land from park
property (Mallard Creek Greenway) adjacent to the existing roadway, a programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f) since: (1) the project
involves widening an existing highway; (2) the greenway property involved is located
adjacent to the existing roadway; (3) the project does not require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings or structures, and does not require the disturbance or
removal of archaeological resources that are important to preserve in ' Qlace rather
than to recover for archaeological research; (4) the impact of the Section 4(f) site
resulting from the use of the land is considered minor and will not impair the usof
the remaining section 4(f) property for its intended purpose; (5) the, local agency
having jurisdiction over the property has agreed, in writing, with the assessment of
the impacts to the proposed project and with the proposed mitigation for. the
property; and (6) this project is being processed as an Environmental Assessment
(no EIS is being prepared for this project).
The following alternatives, which avoid any use of the greenway property, have
been fully evaluated:
¦

27

(1) "No-Build" Alternative: The "No-Build" Alternative is not feasible and prudent
because the facility would not operate at an acceptable level of service. The
resulting congestion would cause motorists to experience travel delays and
increased operating costs, and would probably result in an increase in
accident rate. Therefore, the "No-Build" Alternative is not considered feasible
and prudent.

A
1
(2) Improvement without using the adjacent Section 4(f) lands: The proposed
scope of the project is to widen the present roadway along its existing
alignment. To completely avoid the Section 4(f) parcel of land east of the
bridge, the design would have to be shifted to the west. A second parcel of
land on the west side of the existing facility would be impacted by shifting to
the west (see Appendix C for parcel location). As can be seen on the figure,
because of the shapes of the two parcels, there is less impact to greenway
property by widening to the east of the existing bridge over Mallard Creek.
Because the impacts would be greater if widening were shifted to the west,
widening to the west is not considered feasible and prudent.
A second alternative to avoid the greenway property would require following
an indirect route of approximately 5.7 miles compared to less than one mile on
Mallard Creek Road between Harris Boulevard and Jim Hunt Road. This alternative
route would not improve traveling conditions on Mallard Creek Road and would be
circuitous, therefore it is not considered feasible and prudent.
(3) Alternatives on new location: Because the proposed project is widening on
essentially the existing alignment, any alternative on new location would result
in environmental impacts of greater magnitude than those associated with the
project as proposed. In addition, given the urban setting of the project, it
would be difficult to construct a facility on new location without impacting a
greater number of residences and without substantially increasing the cost of
the project. For all these reasons, construction on new location is not
considered feasible and prudent.
28

All
ibl
l
i
i
poss
e p
ann
ng to m
nimize harm to the greenway has been accom-
plished as part of this roadway widening project. The project has been coordinated
with the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department, and their comments
are included in Appendix C. The Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation
Department has concurred that this project, as proposed, will not adversely affect the
greenway property. Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) by the FHWA
Administrator is included in Appendix C of this document.
Mitigation will be accomplished through construction of the bridge over Mallard
Creek to AASHTO standards for vertical and horizontal clearances necessary for new F
bicycle facilities. This mitigation has been coordinated with the Mecklenburg County
Park and Recreation De
artment
p
.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Architectural and Historical

In conjunction with the preparation of this document, a cultural resource
f
d f
th
d
Th
l
survey was per
orme
or
e propose
project.
e resu
ts of this survey indicated
there were no historic architectural sites in the study corridor potentially eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. One property, the Flow House, located 0.2
miles northeast of the intersection of Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek Road
was recorded during a survey of Mecklenburg County and is potentially. eligible for
the National Register; however, it is not within the Area of Potential, Effect of the
project. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred with, the a*e
findings and the concurrence letter is included in Appendix D.

2. Archaeological
y
In their letter of June 13, 1990, located in Appendix D, the State Historic
Preservation Office determined that, because of the project location and topographic
situation, no archaeological survey will be performed for the project.
29
C. Land Characteristics
1. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed project lies within the planning and zoning jurisdiction of
Mecklenburg County. The Charlotte City Council and Mecklenburg Board of County
Commissioners have formulated a comprehensive Land-Use Plan projected for the
year 2005 which includes northeastern Mecklenburg County. The Mecklenburg
County Parks and Recreation Department has prepared Mallard Creek Greenway. A
Master Plan. 1988, which details the proposed location and development of the
greenway.
2. Existing Land-use
The land use adjacent to the proposed realignment of Mallard Creek Road is
rural/residential. Where the alignment follows existing Mallard Creek Road, between
Garrison Avenue and Harris Boulevard, land-use is predominately single-family
residential. Most properties have brick ranch style homes.
Land-use is both commercial and multi-family residential near the intersection
of Mallard Creek Road and Harris Boulevard. Located near this intersection are the
IBM Research Campus, a B. B. & T. bank facility,. Harris Hill Condominiums, and the
Mallard Creek Center Park which is currently under construction.
Land-use north of Harris Boulevard is primarily single-family residential. The
Montesorri School and Mallard Creek Elementary School are adjacent to the existing
roadvpy.. Also, two housing developments, Mallard Trace and Colonial Park, are
under, construction near the Mallard Creek. Elementary School
Jim Hunt Road, which intersects Mallard Creek Road, serves as an entrance
to an industrial research park. Mallard Creek Grocery Store lies to the west of
Mallard Creek Road and is situated just north of Mallard Creek.

30

Right-of-way impacts will be primarily to single-family homes along Mallard
Creek Road, although no homes will be acquired. Generally, fifteen to twenty feet of
new right-of-way will be required on each side of the existing road. Where the new
alignment departs from the existing Mallard Creek Road to proceed south toward the
I Graham Street Connector, wooded and open fields will be affected.
The generalized existing development pattern is shown in Figure 8.
3. Existing Zoning
The existing zoning along the proposed project is a mixture of residential,
research, industrial and commercial. Beginning at the Sugar Creek/Graham Street
intersection and proceeding north on new alignment to Garrison Avenue, zoning
consists of multi-family and single-family residential on the west and research district
on the east along the proposed roadway.

Zoning from Garrison Avenue northward is multi-family and single-family
residential along both sides of the existing Mallard Creek Road to the intersection
i
h H
i
B
l
d
N
h
w
t
arr
s
ou
evar
.
ear this intersection, zoning varies and includes researc
(IBM Facility), single-family residential, multi-family residential, neighborhood/business,
and office district. The property along Mallard Creek Road, north of the Harris
Boulevard and Mallard Creek Road intersection, is zoned a research district. The
Mallard Creek Center Park and a bank are located at the Mallard Creek Road/Harris
Boulevard intersection. This property is zoned neighborhood/business! Zoning on
Mallard Creek Road, north to Mallard Creek Church Road, is a mixture of.multi-farhily
residential, single-family residential, and neighborhood/business. A large research
district is located to the east of the proposed project, off Jim Hun Road. Property
across the street, west of Island Park Circle, is zoned for multi-family;, residential and
certain public uses. Additional zoning at the Mallard Creek Road/Mallard Creek

?. Church Road intersection includes multi -family residential and neighborhood/ ,
business.

31

4. Proposed Land-Use
According to Mecklenburg County's Generalized Land Plan 2005 (1985),
widening Mallard Creek Road is a mid-range plan (1991-1995) for the northeast
region of Mecklenburg County. Along Mallard Creek Road, this generalized plan
shows improvements to water and sewer service and is within a Development
Enterprise Area (DEA). A DEA is planned "to use public actions as leverage or to
stimulate additional private investment in areas which have the potential of becoming
new growth areas for residential and non-residential uses - and thus advancing the
objective of redirecting growth." The proposed project is compatible with the goals of
the 2005 plan to redirect growth to this area. An improved highway facility will
improve traffic operations and should encourage new residential and business
development along Mallard Creek Road.
It is anticipated that the land-use in the vicinity of the project will continue to
develop as currently used and zoned. The dominant land-use along Mallard Creek
Road will continue to be residential. Single-family homes are anticipated to remain
along the roadway. Two new residential subdivisions, Mallard Trace and Colonial
Park, are located on the west side of Mallard Creek near Mallard Creek Elementary
School. The area abutting Harris Boulevard, east of Mallard Creek Road, is IBM
property. IBM plans to develop this area for industrial use. Industrial use is also
planned north of Harris Boulevard across from the IBM property, namely the Mallard
Creek Center Park. A developing research park is connected to Mallard Creek Road
via' Jim. Hunt Road.
,..
D. Economic Impacts
The primary economic gain which would result from the proposed widening of
Mallard Creek Road is improved accessibility. Reductions in travel time and operating
4
co
Js, are direct benefits of improved accessibility. Another economic gain is a cost
savings due to a reduction in accidents. The benefits of improved accessibility to
motorists :would mean more time available
for work or other activities and reduced
vehicle operating cost. Improving accessibility may encourage economic development
in the area. Transportation oriented businesses, i.e., service stations, restaurants,
:32

LI

u

r

r

motels, etc., generally seek land with good access to major highways. Businesses
which basically serve the needs of local residents, such as grocery stores,
pharmacies, and restaurants, could realize an increase in business because of
reduced congestion on the existing roadway. Housing developments are also
typically located to take advantage of easy access to jobs, shopping, and recreation.
E. Environmental Impacts
The study corridor is an area that is undergoing commercial and residential
development. There are both old and new homes in the area, but much of the land
surrounding Mallard Creek Road is forested. Mallard Creek flows within the study
area and a number of small streams are near the project, including Doby Creek,
Clarks Creek, and many unnamed tributaries to these creeks.
1. Plant Communities
Agricultural lands are mostly used as pastureland or are abandoned with
overgrowth of pasture grasses of fescue Festuca spp.), rye grass Lolium spp.)
brome grass Bromus spp.), bluegrass (Poa spp.), crabgrass Di itaria spp.), broom-
straw (Andropogon spp.), and others. Older pasturelands are dominated by a wide
range of species including horseweed Con za canadensis), aster Aster spp.),
bitterweed Helenium amarum), and small pines Pinus echinata.
The forest areas are predominantly mixed hardwood standst?, "' ' ominated by
oaks Quercus spp.), red maple Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidam6ar s raci Ida ,
hickory Ca a, spp.), sycamore Platanus occidentalis), river birch Betula ni ra ,
American elm Ulmus americana), and ash Fraxinus americana)- Shortleaf • pine
Pinus echinata) also occurs throughout the area, usually mixed in with hardwood
species but in some areas as monotypic stands. Understory species found in the
area include sassafras Sassafras albidum), dogwood Cornus flori and hazel "
r X' 6
alder Alnus serrulata . Honeysuckle Lonicera 'a onica , poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans , grape itis rotundifoliaand blackberry Rubus ar atus are also common
throughout the project area.
33 .

The relative abundance of each species varies somewhat from site to site,
depending primarily on the moisture content of the soil. Species such as sycamore,
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuli ifera , and red maple tend to be more common in the
lower elevations adjacent to Mallard Creek. Relocating Mallard Creek Road between
Sugar Creek Road and Garrison Avenue will require the taking of 10.18 acres of
mixed pine and hardwood forest. No forest land would be lost along the widening
portion of the project. Agricultural losses of 2.18 acres would also occur only along
the relocated portions of the project. The loss of maintained land, residential and
commercial property, existing roads and areas occupied by power line right-of-way,
is the greatest along the existing roadway.

SUMMARY OF BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
WITHIN THE ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS
THAT WOULD BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED
BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MALLARD CREEK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
_ BIOTIC COMMUNITIES (acres)
Agricultural Maintained Mixed Pine &
Segment Lands _ Land Hardwood Forest Wetlands
New Alignment (A) 2.18 2.05 10.18 0.09
Widening (B, C) 0.00 9.57 0.00 0.09
Total 2.18 11.62 10.18 0.18
2. Animal Species
The wildlife populations in this area are typical of those found within or near
developed areas. Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), opossum (Didelphis
Virginian a , and raccoon (Procyon lotor are present in the area. Small mammals,
including the meadow vole Microtus penns Ivanicus , least shrew C totis arua ,
houge.-, ouse Mus musculus , and eastern mole Scalo us a uaticus , are probably
preser t"In the area. Larger mammals, including gray fox roc on cinereoar4enteus)
and" white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianu ), are also probably present.
A few of the bird species known to breed, migrate through, or winter in
Mecklenburg County include the northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus), killdeer
34

(Charadrius vociferus , common snipe (Capella allina o , mourning dove Zenaida
macroura , common barn owl (j oo alba), and house sparrow Passer domesticus).
Reptile species include the eastern box turtle erra ene caroling), eastern
hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), and corn snake Ela he uttata.
1, Habitat loss and degradation and obstruction of migration paths would be
greatest where no roadway currently occurs. The fate of displaced species would
depend on their ability to locate suitable habitat. Survival of displaced animals should
be relatively high because of nearby foraging habitat. There will be competition for
resources with established individuals, but this is not likely to have severe impacts on
the survival of displaced individuals. Obstruction of natural migration or movement
paths of wildlife may occur. Relocating a portion of the roadway will convert an area
of woodlands and agricultural lands to highway use. Deer and other mammals are
probably present in the area and the number of vehicular collisions with wildlife may
increase as a result of the proposed relocation.
Nevertheless, many of these wildlife species will utilize man-dominated..
habitats, especially residential areas where they can find a reliable source of foo
often provided specifically to attract wildlife, as well as water and shelter. The
proximity of residential areas to forested land probably results in relatively large
populations of passerine birds and other animals that are tolerant of humans.
A few fish species observed in Piedmont streams surrounding the. study area
include the following: minnows [golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) and creek
chub Semotilus atromaculatus)], catfish [brown catfish (Ictalurus nebulosus)], and
sunfishes [bluegill Le omis macrochirusl and large - mouth bass Micro erus
salmoides ]. Fish species present in Mallard Creek might be affected by tsiltetion
caused by widening of the existing bridge to accommodate additional lanes, roadway.
.:.
construction and associated land-clearing activities. Although Pibdrxtort streams, and
rivers typically carry a relatively high suspended sediment load, coris'trwction activities
tl?er " can, result in'' intolerable levels of:-sedimentation: This. can' result in
smothering eggs of fish and other aquatic organisms, choking filter-feeders, -and,
35
,a
interfering with the vision of raptorial predators such as large-mouth bass and other
sunfishes.
All appropriate measures will be taken to control erosion of newly graded
soils, including use of filter fences, hay bales, temporary silt fences, slope check
ditches, and silt ditches to trap soils, and seeding or sodding finished slopes as
soon as possible.
3. Protected Species
Information from the National Heritage Program of North Carolina and the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service indicates there are no records of federally-
listed or proposed endangered plant or animal species in the vicinity of the project
(see Agency letter). Since publication of this letter, however, one species has been
listed as an an endangered species, the Schweinitz sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). Also, one candidate 2 plant species, Nestronia Nestronia umbellula ,
may occur in the project area. The National Heritage Program has no records of
' either species in the project area.
Schweinitz sunflower is a perennial sunflower with a tuberous root system
which inhabits moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy-clay loams, often with a
high gravel content or rock outcroppings. It usually occurs in full sun or the light
shade of open stands of oak-pine-hickory. Flowering is from September to frost.
Even though sandy-clay loams and adequate light habitats occur within the corridor,
soils:; with high gravel or rock outcropping does not occur. Field surveys were
conducted during April 1990 and October 1991. Transects in the corridor (approxi-
•• mately _100 to 150 feet long) were walked in areas which had sandy-clay loam soils.
J Schweinitz sunflower was not observed during field investigations, therefore the
project will not impact the species.
Nestronia, a semiparasitic upland shrub, inhabits acidic, sandy soils under
open canopies of either pine or oak-hickory. Stands are found in sandhills ecotones
to shrubbog and are under various species of pine, oak, and hickory. Nestronia
flowers in April and May, with fruit production occurring in July. Although suitable
1
36

1

?J

habitat for Nestronia occurs in the corridor, it was not observed during the field
observations, therefore the species will not be impacted.
4. Soils
The soil type from Sugar Creek Road to near the crossing of Mallard Creek is
Cecil sandy clay loam. This soil is a well drained soil found on broad, smooth ridges
of uplands. The upper part is red clay while underlying material is red to yellow loam.
Adjacent to Mallard Creek, the soil type is Mecklenburg fine sandy loam. This sandy
loam is also a well drained soil found on side slopes of uplands. The surface layer is
dark reddish brown, fine sandy loam and underlying material is yellowish-red.
Along the Mallard Creek stream bed, soil type is Monacan sandy loam.
Monacan sandy loam is one of two hydric soils found in the study area. It is
characterized as a poorly drained soil of moderate permeability formed in recent '
alluvium. The soil is generally found on floodplains adjacent to streams.
Soil type. rising to the crest of the hill near Jim Hunt Road is Enon sandy, u
loam. This well drained soil is found on broad ridges of the uplands. The surface
layer is brown sandy loam and the lower depths, at 60 inches, are olive brown clay
loam and sandy loam. From the crest of the hill to the Mallard Creek Elementary
School, soil type is Mecklenburg fine sandy loam. From this area to near the
terminus of the project, soil types are either Iredell fine sandy loam or Wilkes. lredell
fine sandy loam is a moderately well drained hydric soil found on broad ridges with
one to eight percent slopes and on gently sloping uplands. The surface layer is olive
brown fine sandy loam, the subsoil is light olive brown clay and the deep lying soil is
olive brown loam and olive loam. Wilkes is a well drained soil found orb marrow
ridges and the side slopes of uplands with eight to fifteen percent slopes. 'The
surface layer is dark grayish brown loam about four inches thick. The subsurface
layer is brown loam about three inches thick. The subsoil is eight inches thick and
composed of brown clay and the lower part brown clay loam.
37
1

5. Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands
Under the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act, the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) was contacted to determine the presence of prime
farmland and statewide and locally important farmland within the study corridor.
According to information provided by the SCS, farmland along existing Mallard Creek
Road would not be affected by the proposed widening of the road. However,
farmland between the existing roadway and the proposed Graham Street Connector
intersection would be impacted.
r The SCS estimated affected acreage along relocated Mallard Creek Road
project to be 31.82 acres of prime farmland and 1.72 acres of State and locally
important farmland (see Appendix Q. However, in reviewing recent aerial photogra-
phy, it was noted that much of the farmland in the area has been developed.
Therefore, only 2.18 acres of agricultural land (approximately 2.07 acres prime
farmland and 0.11 acres state and locally important farmland) will be affected by the
project.
6. Mineral Resources
No mines, quarries or mineral pits are known to exist within the corridor.
7. Wetlands
• A number of small wetland areas were identified along Mallard Creek Road, all
of which are associated with streams in the project area. Both perennial and
intermittent streams were encountered. All of the wetlands identified are palustrine
forested wetlands. None of the wetlands are very large. Each forms a narrow band
through the area adjacent to the streams; that is prone to periodic flooding. The
dominant plant species found in these areas include the facultative species
ipWeetgum, tulip poplar, red maple, and sycamore. Wetland function and value were
fopnd to be generally low to moderate at locations examined.
361

Due to the extensive disturbance that has already occurred along Mallard
' Creek Road, there are few natural, undisturbed areas remaining. A total of 0.18 acres
of wetlands will be disturbed by crossing five small wetland areas by the preferred
action (see Figure 9). These areas and the anticipated impacts are:
Stream Acres Impacted
Site 1 Tributary to Mallard Creek 0.05
Site 2 Tributary to Mallard Creek 0.02
Site 3 Tributary to Mallard Creek 0.02
Site 4 Tributary to Mallard Creek 0.05
Site 5 Mallard Creek 0.04

Wetland mitigation will be accomplished through the use of 'Best Management s.
Practices.
The NCDOT will employ "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters" to prevent siltation into Mallard Creek and other affected streams and to `
implement an effective erosion and sedimentation control program, approved by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation, to control runoff and to minimize; water
quality degradation at the site and downstream.

t

1
8. Water Quality

Improvements to Mallard Creek Road will include replacement Hof the existing
bridge structure across Mallard Creek. Mallard Creek has a Class C water quality
rating indicating suitability for fishing, fish propagation, or other uses. requiring water
of low quality. Mallard Creek was observed at the Mallard Creek' Road- crossing.
Bottom material was primarily rip-rap of boulders with pool areas of sand. The
channel width was approximately 30 feet and water depth varied from 0.5-;feet to 2.0
feet. The bank height was approximately five feet. The water was tud?id and the
current moderate. No odor was detected in the creek water. No vegetation was
observed in the water. Doby Creek, Clarks Creek, and unnamed tributaries to these
39

creeks drain portions of land along Mallard Creek Road. Construction activities are
not likely to have long-term impacts on the water quality of these creeks. y
runoff from ,M' `d 'Greek Roads. 4 vhigh
system,. would not biwidi!§charged directly, into t s.
An effective Erosion Control Management and Maintenance Plan, as stipulated
in "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters", will be implemented
during construction to minimize sedimentation impacts to receiving waters. Control
measures will comply with N.C. Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. These
control measures include:
? Minimizing the area of exposed earth;
? Providing temporary and permanent seeding and landscaping as soon as
possible;
? Providing silt fencing at the base of all fill slopes;
? Providing storm drain inlet protection at all catch basins or other areas where
sediment may enter storm drainage systems;
? Providing rock silt check dams and/or sediment basins on the downstream
side of all stream crossings and at large cross drain locations;
? Minimizing stream bed relocations and channel changes;
? Providing check dams in roadway ditches;
? Installing temporary slope drains to protect cut and fill slopes;
? Providing for and implementing an effective Erosion Control Management and
Maintenance Plan;
? Staging construction;
? Providing for temporary and permanent slope and ditch protection using
geotextiles, velocity dissipators and other similar soil stabilizing materials;
? Providing coverage of hauled materials; and,
? Providing designated and controlled wash down areas for construction
equipment.
9. Rare and Unique Natural Areas
No rare, unique or scenic resources occur ie ck
Creek Swamp is a unique bottomland hard' V% eWl
corn
40

fi Fames southeast of the project` corridorr]t is one of the best examples of
bcti :hardwood/floodplaih °A-forest remaining in Mecklenburg County. The
im?ravemmts -will have na`effect upon the Back Creek Swamp area,
10. Hydrology and Floodplain Involvement
The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County are participants in the National"
Flood Insurance Regular Program. Presently no Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) flood studies are available for the study area of the Mallard Creek
' Road improvements. The approximate 100-year floodplain limit for Mallard Creek, as
obtained from USGS Fooodway Boundary Maps, is shown on Figure 10. Floodplain
encroachment resulting from bridge and roadway construction at the existing Mallard
Creek crossing would be minimal. No significant floodway modification or impacts to
Mallard Creek are anticipated as a result of the improvements. : ;
Design of hydraulic structures will provide discharge of runoff sufficient to
maintain headwater depths within acceptable levels. Any rise in water surface
elevations resulting from the roadway improvements will not cause any appreciable
damage to adjacent properties.
Fire hydraulic structures will be required: three at new crossings of .minor
unnamed tributaries to Doby Creek, one at an existing crossing of a minor unnamed
tributary to Mallard Creek, and one at Mallard Creek. Site locations of recommended
hydraulic structures are indicated in Figure 10. Structures recommended for the
proposed improvements are as follows: ..

Site Location Drainage Area Estimated Structure
1 Tributary to Doby Creek 92 Acres 6' X 6' RCBC
2 Tributary to Doby Creek 57 Acres 604 RCP
3 Tributary to Doby Creek 22 Acres 42" RCP
4 Tributary to Mallard Creek 13.5 Acres 36` RCP
5 Mallard Creek 12 square miles 160'± Bridge

41

11. Hazardous Waste Sites
Hazardous waste sites are regulated by the Resource Conservation Recovery
LL Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). The following agencies and lists were consulted for
Mecklenburg County:
? EPA Wasteland (Superfund) List,
? N.C. Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch - Solid Waste Facilities
(Landfills),
? N.C. National Priorities List,
? 'North Carolina - Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Environmental Management (N.C.-DBHNR-DEM), Petroleum Under-
" ' ground Storage Tank System List, and
? Pollution Incident Management Reports.
Also, a field reconnaissance was conducted and aerial photographs and
topographic maps were examined.
One site on the U.S. EPA Wasteland (Superfund) list is located within the
study corridor. The IBM facility at 1001 W. T. Harris Boulevard has had two
hazardous waste incidents since the early 1980's. A leaking underground storage
tank (LUST) containing fuel oil was removed in 1987 from property purchased by
IBM on Mallard Creek Road. Laboratory reports showed no hydrocarbon contami-
nation from a well drilled nearby the LUST. The N.C.-DEHNR-DEM (formerly the
_ Department of Natural Resources and Community Development), in a letter dated
June 15, 1987, stated they were "hereby closing out the incident."
" Another incident occurred on August 2, 1983, when two contract construction
workers apparently discovered two badly deteriorated, 55-gallon drums while
excavating a new parking lot on the IBM property. One worker complained of
headaches and, ` nausea, and blood analysis from this individual revealed the
presence of the pesticide dieldrin. The drums and contaminated soil were
apparently removed from the parking lot to a berm area approximately 50 feet from
42

the proposed Mallard Creek Road right-of-way near the IBM Mallard Creek service
road. Analysis of soil samples taken from the area where the drums were first
discovered revealed the presence of methylene chloride. No other contaminants
were found. A magnetometer survey to discover the location of the moved drums
did not show the presence of subsurface metallic features. In a letter dated
February 5, 1990, the NC.-DEHNR-Division of Solid Waste Management stated that
the site is to be placed in a "no future action" category because "no other
releases" were indicated at the site.
No sites on the landfills or national priority lists were identified within the study
corridor.
One facility was located within the corridor which has ' underground storage
' tanks (UST's). The Mallard ' Creek General Grocery on Mallard Creek Road, north of
Mallard Creek (see Figure 1 B), has surface concrete pads for UST's, but the pumps
have been removed. The N.C.-DEHNR-DEM Petroleum UST System reported
closure of two 4,00.0-gallon gasoline tanks from this site in November 1984.
12. Traffic Noise Analysis
' 12.1 Overview
' A noise analysis was performed to determine the traffic noise impact of
the proposed Mallard Creek Road improvement on noise sensitive land-use
' activities in the project area. These land-uses include residences, schools,
churches, and various public facilities. Study procedures used in this.analysis
are specified in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772. A
' Technical Memorandum on Noise Analysis providing a detailed examination of
traffic noise impacts is on file with the State. `
12.2 Fundamentals of Noise
r
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many
sources including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and
43
highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of
noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used i
to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usual the decibel
(dB). Sound pressures described in dedibels are called sound pressure levels '
and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).

The "A-weighted" system favors the mid-range frequencies since human
hearing is less sensitive to low and very high frequencies than it is to the mid-
range frequencies. Increases in noise levels produce varying effects. A one '
dBA increase, except in carefully controlled laboratory conditions, cannot be
perceived. A three (3) dBA increase is considered barely noticeable in exterior '
environments. A five (5) dBA increase is considered noticeable in most exterior
environments. Table 1 in Appendix B lists several examples of typical activities '
along with their relative dBA noise level.
'
Over a period of time, individuals tend to accept the noises which
intrude into their lives, particularly if noises occur at predicted intervals and are
t
d
A
h
b
d
'
expec
e
.
ttempts
ave
een ma
e to regulate many types of noises
including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic
noise. '
12.3 Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) '
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
'
abatement criteria and procedures for use in the planning and design of
' -°=highways. These abatement criteria are set forth in the aforementioned Federal
`references. Table 2 in Appendix B lists noise abatement criteria for various
activity categories..

The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which
in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying
44

i

F

sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
NCDOT guidelines state that noise abatement must be considered
when either of the following conditions exist: 1) the predicted design year
noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (approach
is defined as 1 dBA less than FHWA criteria), or 2) the predicted design year
noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels (greater than or equal to
;a
15 dBA for less than or equal to 50 dBA existing noise levels, or greater than
or equal to 10 dBA for greater than 50 dBA existing noise levels).
12.4 Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise readings were taken at nine (9) . locations shown on
Figure 11 using a Metrosonics dB-308 Sound Level Analyzer. Noise levels
were recorded over 10-minute test periods during peak traffic times. The
locations and measured ambient noise levels are listed in Table 3. Ambient
noise levels for the project area range from 49.6 dBA to 66.2 dBA.
12.5 Noise Predictions
The procedure used to predict future noise levels is the Noise ;Barrier
Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March 1983).
The STAMINA 2.0 program performs the noise level predictions by "construct-
ing" a three-dimensional terrain model encompassing the location' of the.--noise
sources and the receptors. Other input variables include traffic data and
existing barrier data, if applicable. '
The traffic data necessary for model input are peak-hour-traffic ,volumes
and speed of passenger vehicles, medium trucks, and heavy'trueks. Geomet-
ric data for the roadway model input included the horizontal coordinates' and
elevation of points, creating a roadway in continuous segments. Existing noise
barriers and receptor locations are input in three dimensions utilizing the
coordinate system. Elevations of receptors are selected to be five (5) feet
45

above ground to simulate the elevation at which a person would hear the
noise.
-`_ A total of 51 receptors, shown on Figure 12, were analyzed in the
STAMINA 2.0 computer model to be representative of all receptors along the
project. Noise levels were computed for the 1990 no-build condition, 2010 no-
build, and 2010 build alternative. Hourly traffic volumes were based on a 10%
peak-hour factor and a 50/50 directional split. Volumes on all roadways were
derived assuming 2% heavy trucks and 3% medium trucks.
12.:6 Analysis
All receptors studied and their noise predictions are shown in Table 4.
This table includes the following: receptor number, description, near roadway,
distance to near roadway, ambient, no-build, and build noise levels, and
remarks. Table 5 shows a summary of the increase in traffic noise for each
segment. Table 6 is a summary of FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria.
A four-lane divided roadway on new location is proposed to connect
existing Graham Street at Sugar Creek Road with existing Mallard Creek Road.
Twenty-two (22) representative receptors were studied in this area, including
three churches and one school. Year 2010 build alternative noise levels range
from 57.6 dBA to 71.0 dBA for the receptors along this segment. As shown in
Tables 4, 5, and 6, four (4) receptors exceed FHWA NAC and nine (9)
receptors experience substantial increases. Two (2) of these receptors fall into
both categories.
"z
From the connection with the relocated portion of Mallard Creek Road
to' the intersection with Mallard Creek Church Road, it is proposed to widen
"the existing roadway to a five-lane, curb and
gutter facility. This segment
involved analysis of 29 receptors including one school. Year 2010 build noise
levels range from 60.5 dBA to 68.8 dBA. Ten (10) of the receptors in this area
exceed FHWA NAC.
46
0

n

u

11

12.7 Schools and Churches
Schools and churches can be classified as Activity Category E if the
predominant human use occurs indoors. Any type of structure without air-
conditioning can receive an exterior-interior reduction of 10 dBA. A frame or
metal building with air-conditioning can receive a 20-dBA exterior-interior:
reduction while an air-conditioned stone or brick structure can receive a 25
dBA reduction.
Three (3) churches and two (2) schools were analyzed as Activity
Category E. The churches are Derita Presbyterian Church, Bible Presbyteriah
Church, and Derita Church of God. The schools examined are Derita
Elementary School and Montesorri School.
As shown in Table 4, each of these receptors received an exterior-
interior reduction of 20 dBA. These reductions cause the year 2010 noise
levels to fall below the NAC of 52 dBA for Activity Category E. Both the Derita
Presbyterian Church and the Derita Church of God experience substantial
increases.
12.8 Noise Abatement
j
Three isolated receptors near the intersection of Sugar Creek Road
approach or exceed the NAC or have a substantial increase :according to
NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines. Because these three isolated receptors
are elevated above the proposed roadway, a wall at least 10 feet in. height
and 600 feet long would be required just to break the line of site, pt9viding a
noise reduction of only 2 or 3 dBA. The cost of such a wall would 'exceed
$60,000. NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines, II.6.6 state that' "...it is
considered unreasonable to provide abatement for isolaOF residences,
due to the cost of abatement versus the benefits provided." Thus, noise
walls are not considered reasonable in this area. Noise abatement for , the
previously mentioned churches would be unreasonable due to the need to
provide access and visibility.
47

Five receptors in Segment B and five receptors in Segment C have
2010 build noise level which approach or exceed the NAC for Activity
Category B. However, based on NCDOT Noise Abatement Guidelines,
II.B.7,1...it is not considered reasonable to provide noise abatement on
non-access-controlled facilities." Therefore, noise abatement is inappropriate
in this area.
12.9, Future Land Uses and Activities
` .The distance from the various roadways to the NAC Leq noise level of
`67 dBA will vary throughout the project area. The noise levels that could be
expected not only vary with the distance from the roadway, but vary according
to the relative elevations of the receptor and the roadway, amount of traffic,
and grades on the roadway. The distance that any future development should
be from any of the various roadways, therefore, depends on a number of
factors. The information must be site specific to obtain a predicted noise level.
However, as a guide, the distances used to develop the 67 dBA contour line
have been approximated by assuming that the receptor is at the same
elevation as the roadway, and there are no barriers (see Table 6).
13: Air Quality Analysis
The project is located within the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Air Quality
Control Region. This project is in an air quality non-attainment area for ozone which
has transportation control measures in the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
apved by the EPA. The ozone non-attainment is classified as moderate with
attainment scheduled by 1997. In November 1991, Mecklenburg County reached
attainment . for carbon monoxide. The FHWA has determined that both the
Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to
.the SIP. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this project conforms to SIP.
48

' Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and emissions from internal
combustion engines. The impact resulting from the construction of a new highway
or the improvement of an existing highway can range from aggravating existing air
' pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are
known to emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC),
' particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate).

n

P

The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide. Autom
biles are considered to be the major source of CO for this study area. In order to;
determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two,.
concentration components must be used: local and background. The local
component is due to CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near
vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The backgro
component is due to CO emissions from cars operating on streets further from the
receptor location. In this study, the local component was determined using line
source computer modeling and the background component was determined based
on information supplied by the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were deter-
mined separately, then added together to determine the ambient CO concentration
for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as major sources of hydrocarbons (HC)
and nitrogen oxide (NO). HC and NO emitted from cars are carried into the
atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. It is
the ozone and nitrogen dioxide that are of concern and not the precursor HC and
NO. HC and NO emissions from vehicles will decrease in the future due, to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new' cars.
The average daily traffic for the build alternative will be a maxim i of 21,000
vehicles per day to a minimum of 9,000 vehicles per day for the year 2010. This
compares to a maximum of 44,300 vehicles per day and 'a -minimum of 11,800
vehicles per day for the 2010 no-build alternative. The expected decrease in
average daily traffic for the build alternative should result because the Mallard Creek
49
r
Road project is tied directly into the Graham Street Connector project. This factor
should help reduce area-wide HC and NO emissions for the build alternate
compared with the no-build alternate. Therefore, the project should not affect
compliance with the NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and , nitrogen dioxide require
several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10
to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as
a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and
Y highways, The emissions of all sources in an area mix together in the atmosphere
and, in .the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide,
and other, photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is
the smog, which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as major sources of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than seven (7)
percent of particulate matter emissions and less than two (2) percent of sulfur
dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly
the result of non-highway sources (i.e., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Air
quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide are being met in the study
__ - area. Since emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars are very
low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the improved facility could cause
air quality standards for particulate matter or sulfur dioxide to be exceeded. For this
reason, no additional analysis was performed for these pollutants.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing tetraethyl
lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. New
cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions.
Also .the'" EPA has restricted the sale of gasoline that contains lead. Air quality
star ards? for lead are currently being met in the study area. Because of these
rea$.dhs,°lt is not expected that traffic on the proposed Mallard Creek Road will
cause the _ItiAAQS for lead to be exceeded.

50

0

77
L

The computer modeling was performed in accordance with State and EPA
recommendations. In this assessment, the line source computer model, CALINE3,;
was used to predict the local CO concentration components. The CALINE3 model
is a computer program developed by the California Department of Transportation in
cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration. The model is recommended
by the EPA for calculating CO concentrations near highways.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate CO concentrations consisted of
a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle
emission factors, and meteorological parameters. In order to evaluate the maximum
impact of the proposed alternates on ambient CO concentrations, worst case inputs
were used in the modeling including receptor locations at minimur' right-of-way
distances, adverse meteorology, and peak traffic conditions. It is not expected that
the worst case assumption for each of these parameters would occur simul-
neously; however, the objective is to develop a worst case scenario to predict the
highest CO concentrations that could reasonably occur as a result of the proposed
alternates.
Receptor locations were selected where worst case ambient pollutant. concen-
trations are expected to occur. Receptors were located at minimum right=nf-way
distances along the project corridor near crossing arterials. Seventeen (17) no-build`
and twenty-two (22) build receptor locations were selected for the line source
modeling analysis. These receptor locations are shown in Figure 13 and Table 7.
Because receptor locations are selected at minimum right-of-way distances, the
predicted pollutant concentrations should overestimate actual exposure levels to
people since it is unlikely that people would occupy that space for 1=hour or', $-hour
periods. .
The meteorological conditions which produce worst case; local concentra-
tions near a highway include low wind speeds, stable atmospherc ',conditions,
winds near parallel to the highway alignment, and low mixingheight. A wind speed
of 1 m/s and stability class E were used to describe the worst case wind speed
and atmospheric conditions. To determine the worst case 4, ind direction, the
51

CALINE3 model was run by varying the wind direction from 0° to 350° in 10°
increments to find the maximum local CO concentration at each receptor.
Worst case line source CO emission rates were calculated based on the peak
1-hour traffic volume and the worst case CO emission factor. Peak 1-hour traffic
volumes were assumed to be ten percent of the average daily traffic volumes.
Worst case CO emission fact computations were performed using the EPA
x computerized mobile source emission factor program, MOBILE4.
MOBILE4 emission factors were calculated for the calendar years 1990
(existing condition) and 2010 (design year).
Line source computer modeling of the worst case local CO concentrations
was performed for the build and no-build alternates for the calendar years 1990
and 2010. The results are summarized in Table 7. The table gives the maximum
worst case 1-hour average local CO concentrations for each receptor location for
the build _and no-build alternates. These results do not include the worst case 1-
hour average background CO concentration.
The NAAQS are for a 1-hour and an 8-hour averaging time. Methodology
ugg fisted by the North Carolina State Department of Environmental Management
and the EPA was used to convert the concentrations predicted by the CALINE3
model to an 8-hour averaging time. The 8-hour average local CO concentrations
were determined by multiplying the 1-hour average local CO concentrations by a
persistence factor. A factor of 0.61 was used to account for the differences in
emissions and meteorological conditions between the two averaging times.
Given in Table 8 are the maximum worst case 8-hour average local CO
concentrations for each receptor location for the build and no-build alternates for
the.?alendar years 1990 and 2010. Table 9 presents the 1-hour and 8-hour worst
case ambient CO concentrations for the study area. CO concentrations were
greater for the no-build alternative than for the build alternative. Highest ambient CO
concentrations for the build alternate are expected to occur near the intersection of
W. T: Harris Boulevard and Mallard Creek Road. For the 2010 build alternate, the
52

11

1

F

i

highest 1-hour average ambient CO concentration is predicted to be 5.6 ppm and
the highest 8-hour average ambient CO concentration is predicted to be 3.5 ppm.
Ambient 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations near W. T. Harris Boulevard
are predicted to -be higher, :11.2 ppm and 6.9 ppm, respectively, if the proposed
Mallard Creek Road modifications are not built.
Comparing the no-build and build alternatives, the greatest decrease in
ambient CO concentrations are predicted for receptors near the intersection of
.F
Sugar Creek Road and Mallard Creek Road and the intersection of W. T. Harris
Boulevard and Mallard Creek Road. Therefore, there should be an =ambient CO air
quality improvement at these two intersections with the proposed Mallard Creek
Road project.
The results presented in this report should overestimate actual i"ambient CO
concentrations that would occur in the study area. The computer modeling was
performed using worst case inputs for receptor locations, adverse meteorology, and
peak traffic conditions. Actual exposure levels to people are expected to be lower
than the levels presented in this report.
14. Visual Impacts
The improvements to Mallard Creek Road will have minor, visual impacts:
These visual impacts will be limited to the removal of vegetation as required to
construct the additional lanes and median sections. Vegetation will be replaced,
where possible, to minimize these impacts and grasses will be,,planted in the
median and on the shoulders and slopes. Further plantings, such as larger bushes
or trees, will be determined during final design.
15. Construction Impacts
There are a number of environmental impacts normally associated with the
construction of highways. Some of these impacts are discussed below.
53

Traffic along Mallard Creek Road will be maintained during construction
although brief periods of disruption may be experienced.
Water, sewergas, telephone, and electric service lines exist in the study area.

The Division of Highways will hold a pre-construction. conference with representa-
tives of the affected utility companies to discuss methods to coordinate utility
adjustments and to minimize damage or disruption of existing services.

t' Nine geodetic markers would be impacted by the construction of the roadway.
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction to
coordinate the relocation of these markers.

The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in
Artipllq 107-13 of the "Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures", entitled
"Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". The N.C. Division of Highways has also
developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program which has been
approved by the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This program consists of
rigorous' requirements to minimize erosion and sedimentation associated with
highway construction. Precaution will be taken to prevent contamination of any
watersheds by highway runoff or other harmful substances.
i., Waste or debris will be disposed of in areas designated by the contractor,
unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions and in accordance with
the NCDOH Standard Specification for Highways and Bridges.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate
breeding areas for mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing
drainage ditches. If any structures are to be removed or demolished, an extensive
rodent control program will be implemented to prevent the migration of rodents into
surro ndings areas.
54

16. Permits
The project crossing of Mallard Creek will require the replacement of an
existing bridge, -therefore a Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of .?
Engineers will be needed under the provisions of Section ;404 of the Clean Water:
Act Amendments of 1977. A
i
i
55
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Government Response
Comments on the proposed improvements to Mallard Creek Road in
northeastern Mecklenburg County were requested from the following Federal, State
and- local agencies. An asterisk indicates that a written responae was received. The
responses are included in Appendix D.
U.& Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
* U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Asheville
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
f
U.S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh
N.C. Department of Transportation
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
* N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
N.C. Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Centralina Council of Governments
* Mecklenburg County - Parks and Recreation Department
* City of Charlotte
B. Public Response
F? , r
1n addition to the written requests for input from appropriate agencies and
governmental bodies, a citizen's informational workshop was held on June 21,
1990, at the Derita Elementary School to discuss the proposed road improvement
project. Approximately 50 persons attended the meeting including representatives of
the N.C. Department of Transportation and the City of Charlotte. The following
56
t

cross-section alternatives were presented to the public for discussion:
? A four-lane curb and gutter section
f,.
? A four-lane shoulder section
? A five-lane curb and gutter section
The majority, of those individuals who attended the meeting were property
owners living along Mallard Creek Road who wanted to know how their. properties
would be affected by the proposed widening. Several attendees pointed out that
traffic is excessive.,aloong the road and that the existing two-lane road to inadequate
to handle the existing, traffic demand. Most attendees appeared in favor of the
project.
y

57
??:
c
t
APPENDIX A

x
a
w
R.

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
?a
5 RO
417 2A18
e'rT ? a?1e / "
s
y o
"?° RIV_ER~ ?7' q e MALLARD CREEKROA
?. 4Pti q
'"") ti 's1h R R U .
' SUGAR CREEK RD, TO
B 74z4 s MALLARD CREEK CHURCH• RD
7697
lEUUS 2429 2433
/,A40 v 7.76 ""
1 7475 - - > MECKLENBURG COUNTY F N.C
R°mah
Ch.
'33 to b IIS / 176 • • OJW • •V*0
xlxe ``
7.d ?._ )1)) -, 7 1411 7141 \?' \ _- _ 1 1?C 1 2
d ell ? _? J /'r.1+IN s. 7a sv \ Tan.
° 8rod4Crd -
'?,xeo7i a 24e2 24.4
7 ?•
770:. 1 I.0 7401 ;, - MILES ?¢ to
/ It? g6`rl ` - /? 2443
?l / .I 7 1 7112 J 76C 2"q I.a _ y
7701 •)
( ry ??
1141- 7x59 9 '5 467 - V 73 -1 9 ]4a! 7u1 T46J 1460 7 75 - 24 624' a 5
2175 7601/ ]8R$Vlll 711-y 294 Ch. 77 i6 \ 760 ?O:
2.11 t - O 3 / 7445•{ J - \I
21 4.t 7441 S F•' - _ J - 7470
i T 1y v 7a5V ?.. 7649 Taal g a ?NDRY2833
71IO -l: 4. i..%? 7117 - 0 "\ 2477- \ ?? 7477 r 1 BOa
\\-? .9 74]9 \
IIS \ as la,`? .8 ;),' tU' 7474
\ 7170 1 ` P,S 2,658 J ' 7140
?. 1459 7479- 1160 _ _ O \ .4
^ 146] t ` '2821
/ 7 - - - - \ 1
' - 7157 / - 1._I \ r? 45 vl ` \ J: t
200. .. ?
t 7G \ I ? I ? ? ? 7831 ?s7e7a '
as s 10? 1116 6.9 ; PROJECT FPS I f,FU A9-FhV?3 it 807-.
7,36
713. ?Ii4 D7 LIMITS SFAS-_ J o? ;\ ; <;r
i.?r `r ? 1? ell 7ee
171 77 979
2483
? 71 J0 7119 \ I 1 \ 1 ?
s I
:4180 ` \ a 7850 c f'V1.?/W _r' 7e0]
742
\
\ I I
7 a
..7117 7130 VCaa \ 7110 ? :1011 1 7L a }A.?::::'Y .'il' . W„
r ,kouah
Airport F /
)Qom ?_ ((( I G
i fA;07. 1519 `? ?O \ 17893 iis5
701' / 207a INSET
r / 7175 _ ,1•rj I 711]
7075 7110 ti J 7975 '9Y" f,/ ..
SEE FIGURE 113
? . 4r ? 4S•(, / 710P 6P\ /O .9 QP j9!0 ?>? 1 PNO •`?/ .. :::
\I
2510
t 7075 7019 if t • 1 \ f nce
140
?/O(:,\7A/A' ! /' 70.7 ?+?. ,, ? ??, 707. ? y 29 ?•
SLANG 7004 oso,
>`,V f-..f \F, ,9
KE 707) •?? 2ssz / i 'G I::. s', 21 e \ a o 4
f J 4/
x075 11, ?E
73.4 CHARLOTTE '
y 1004 A, / ??? 7006 7?01 v ?''L ?>\O , F ,e
L 1 B 31
),/ pA5 \ a'Q"'..24Y9:., ._ I.] 2.19`•'. C'`•{. _ L.... \ 3700
'? 16 )\,:4;-- A80 I[ 77 f EAU
srs
BAI TO-AD -"5Ee°O 1G 70^ 1.1 '4P'7
1.3
) d 7700 w, P,4 • . U ? / FAU
-
1666_ - _ SiS?FM
1667
29
J '4f J'\,Ii73-:Y :•
Pow Geek.•. _ Eu J; G ; C.
: f G -. 7585
7 qu 3e15
\JC \7;
` a1' \ L¦¦ 27 Pqu r 7616 \1. f„\
641 i
FA 2.8 fA1J- I 1 / / J fPV
if\Fp b
1666 .. `rti j / ° 3600
pP/PF 1 eo9 :. ? i
?° 9 'R 1+
i
i
N
2706
40
2Z4A.
2460
3645-
ycp? PROJE
?ti?? LIMIT

-56
?5 2641
aZ
v`
o

cc
0

m 2494
m

vP9? ?o
?O
ROJECT
LIMITS
--CHARLOTTE
a?
c
CITY LIMITS Gt
094
v.2721 O?? 90
CREEK
MALLARD CREEK E ANDFR R s c'S'G
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: RD, 24as 2172 ?C.
o a ?'
s 12467 A.
O
2L28
ILVER JIM 272
a IRCH OR. ti
c 272 Gi 27
'2713 .07 .14 06 77M&
,
",law
.04 2715 2474 ?O
o ., ^ .08 •Iy s.,
16 L
Mallard 1724 V-24. _? _7_ PA K 01 MALLARD CREEK • MONTESSORI 'tf y"
GENERAL SCHOOL 9?(
„ GROCERY
I' N 0 col .. x: ,?W 'hk$/1
c? ?447.?rvr CRF6 `b ,
9O MALLARD
_ y ..CREEK CENTER' LD MALLARD
CREEK RD. 2699
?G B.B.ST. a .o>,
O ANK•^
O? ?? .05 •1 44 ,r
2701
?O 3Z 4f • as '?
2699
2496 ' x 2665 '4a _• _
IBM PROPERTY hIgRR?? 33 ''
36 - -- SM ACCESS RD. -
2650 .
1 .3? 26¢x. .. ...
45
PENNIGER CIR. s
ssi-
is ProPosed
"•• '•• -CGraham
RUMk `gtreet/NC 49
i250t Connector 2496
-MINERAL SRRITONO,
:•°ROAD Ct?NrIECR
• SRO SCALE
26ee
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
I' SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD..
}r MECKLENBURG COUNTY N.C.
PROJECT AREA MAP
Flp.: IB -
1 0 I/MILE
J
2480 0p0
-+ S1 ?GNO PROJECT
LIMIT
po :. ?? , ys
OGJ 2647 2170
a B -2706 v Ci t•;:•: :'? ?'?
.09
24es j .07 .40 v_z.4. 1L2L CCU }.• •. O QJ?EE
2Z4A .? L
MALLARD CREEK ?X'4lVDER RD. as cy
2-'°£ ELEMENTARY "" n w
SCHOOL ::.' ::: Ro, 2633 2472 G7C
45 2719 , t `' s 03Er
144 N. ? r
,c >
1400 22228; ti' j. •?.- 7 ..
t:t tt
~SY' tF ,-. ,c
ILVER I so
`•' ''a IRCH
?Yh3 .07 .14 .06 7725 2zll -
.ri4 2j 1,3 '0 'ASS
:7311 0 '? ,••..,t•',° • 4 4 ?O ' r r
a $
s ;6 az•? ?: ISL roe o-?rE`
2494 QY: y772/ $7z¢ PA K Cl
MALLARD CRE "MONTESSORI
GENERAL .r' •: SCHOOL '9(
GROCERY
2 ?5 264! O t,+RE. x
7? y `
O MALLARD
I. CREEK
w? yL CENT OLD MALLARD
4 0 t` CREEK RD.
o r t4Oy e9G ?? 2699
m /f' 4 2703 -
T. .:r,,,••' •a•• +663 •4d ?? 2699 ,?rk.• ..
„; :;';:. t IBM PROPERTY y'ggq/S a,
BM ACCESS RD.
PENNIGER CIR.
2.442. M's• • G4?? 1'
2523 •zt:Y. • ?•"Y'••` _ 'Ai?
:••,:•.•
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
Proposed
RU Graham MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
? Street /NC 49
?`!? .{rM: •' Connector 2490
C 2 ;n MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
MINERAL 9PRMQ
PROJECT ROAD CdIMN1ECTOii PROJECT CORRIDOR"
LIMI 8'°RM?N MALLARD CREEK ROAD
ft e
?Q8 4 ?
yam. q?
SCALE Fig. 1 C
? t
2DId o
0.y/.17>V
?r ?r r? it r?¦ r ,r rr it ri. .r .? wr ?r r. r ?¦r w? r?
.r r• ?r
Cl)
m
O
V

R.
D D
• O D C 0 t ??
??.
LI J .
"q

D
m L
v
c n m

?

-o
=
O x?
" d•
4

I
J ? ?,a

f ¦
I - -

Cl)
2
m
m
I
CA)
O
F
M

1
r-
-N l?
6
E.
z
M1
?

'

LL
0
w
w
v'

a } N
3
30.
LL L Q
O
LLJ
O
~ I- o

S OUw
oOF-
w a
Z O cr or
CO
a
w
X
w m0
au.a
0
z
_
-
-
1
1 -

¦

'W
¦
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I 0 0'
8' 24' 2 24' '
2'
GRADE PT. I GRADE PT.
E:\
2'\
2- 6%URB a GUTTER 0-6" CURB S GUTTER 2-G" CURB 9 GUTTER
4 -LANE DIVIDED SECTION
(URBAN)
UiE ON: SEGMENT A
90` R/W MI
` 30 30' t
2 2
I ADE PT. 4:\
2'-6"CURB 9 BUTTER
EXIS. PAVEMENT (TYPICAL)
5 - LANE SECTION
USE ON: tEOMENTS t i C
s'ADDITIONAL wwm MRM GUARDRAIL
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
TYPI CAL SECTIONS
ft.

1
c
o -o
c

c
15 ca
a)
ai
a c'u
a

D o -o
O O N cu
m?cu0-0 Q co
?+•?5 (n 9) E 0
v0a?4- 0
Q U) (°i o .9 c 0
1 iY p U 0a)Coa)
00 O

O
c
U
1 iJ z -0 ?
E 0

Z Q

U
a
iCC
a)
M00?
0
'0
Ca)
mp
2
V .0
};??v)a) 0 NU m
p E
? " 0
' w
O p a)
a 0
UU
ad - a) cC 'a q) 0-
00

Q Z N
II +; CO (D

co O

.O CD O
a)
cm : !A 'O

i

0

p

-

N

E

°

a
? N 0

??
a O
° o
@ a) •.
m i a
a
E '-- o
o
' O
1 U 0 ? '
2 ?
N 0
co-0 '?o?
Ir- U
) 8.c
-0 Ewa

z cc
p
T
g
N
T• ^
p g
ai
U-) L oa)
E c ?- p
:3 E ? ml
c (n
wJ
W
2

C)

Lo

o ?^

co
cu

?..>
0)

E_w= m

mVVe
N W cna
' ?0 Jc .60
13
a= ?0
W W n /
U) /
.U) N (1) c J 2 0 I o
?
U)
U) cc
U M C 70
0Q) C 7C)
o (l)
O N
n 0 C/) CC
Q
cr-
r 0
p
p > > U a)
O Z
O
II II 0 00
Q H
Z °C
g U)0 U)0 ° E a) U?U II YU
c

1
w
2 .•.
O CL a) a) a) a)
C C a)
CD Z
?
V co CZ
0)
Q N 0
° ca
J J J J c N c '
0? c
:3 E
`?
z > N c
n 64 L64
pip
C'3>
w
U
i
O c
r
c
0 CL

Q

Q )
L
> -
2 U C13
w p
Q O
J C °c o
Z
i ?
Z C w Y
w co c
Z
Z Y
W Z cc
U
Z c
o :3
U)

U) 0

E ?.

(D
Q -C c
U Z U E
m Q rn
- a)
o
W
x
co
a
W
U)
a)

c

Q

cn
? g X
L1J m
0 (D
Y c -0
a) E -0
O O
N
U cn

IL

2

O

ILL
l?
N
a)
2
U)
c

U) a)

CL
0
U)

_
-E
> (n
O
U
1
1 Fig. 4
i
F0eRA
4f N
• . FIUCKS
r00
CROFT
two
r f O
%
' N PROJECT
,?_ 9
H LIMITS
tea, f.. ,. ??.. , . ?" ? "" ?' .?y,y . ', ,? _ ?` •
'^y..a. ! ' ?' ti'' ? • '' \I• 1, r J, r:'4,' I ` _
j 1 1/Z 2`? a
_ MILES 9 d ' `~
LEGEND MALLARD CREEK ROAD
EXISTING PROPOSED* SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
FREEWAY-EXPRESSWAY - - MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MECKLENBURG COUNTY N.C.
MINOR THOROUGHFARE - - - - - - THOROUGHFARE PLAN
' INTERCHANGE (PARTIAL)
GRADE SEPARATION NOVEMBER 30, 1988
i
i
118
1S8
148 45
275 ? I
8
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD. 17
30
88
99
258 4
7
'" JI
W.T. HARRIS BLVD. 12 1
31
110
174
I 152
?_78 284
1 22
41
I? 312
? 479
52
O
s
it
W
W
Q
V
O
D:
J
117
210
75
137 1990 ADT IN HUNDREDS
\ 2010 ADT IN HUNDREDS 77 g\ \\41
44
7e \\ 21 11
?-0 - - Ohhom SbvW/NC 49
Connector
sG0?9 214 / l
398
'9p 9 j MALLARD CREEK RD. CONNECTOR
1)
'-'
344 ,c • 7
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
AVERAGE DAL.Y
TRAFM VOLUMES
s

118
1aa
148 8
27b J I
27
(MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD. 17 ?
30
sa
9s
7
20 4J
W.T. HARRIS BLVD. 12?
31
110
174
44
I
152
?78 284
?22
41
312
Z 479
?-W
Y.
W
W
Q
V
O
J
117
210
t 75
137 1900 ADT IN HUNDREDS
\ 2010 AOT IN HUNDREDS 77 2 \\41
44
70 0
Graham 8hN1/NC 49
Connector
398
MALLARD CREEK RD. CONNECTOR
C?
?$.? 8
344 ?• 7
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
AVERAGE DALY
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Ra s
J
1
------------
r
1B ,7706
40
ties j
.07 27Q4
?o
1
?e
4t
0
00
Z
,p0 9 9
,
?O C
2647
.16
y7? Q\? Cl
c04 A`EXANOE
p 'L1 R A
??/ ? 2625
12467 1J
?;72.
SILVER JIM .60
BIRCH DR. 7 tiG i
ns 7271,'
.07 .14 Od 1714 ?
.GI 7715 O CJ ^ . 7474
.u16 7777 ?. ISL
-lallard772A 2776 -?. PARK Cl
90
L.61 141
&/-0 CREEK RD.
u B t 4.'oO,y o'G B
r
\.o 0
/ 0 9
2495 ft?
F ? ?O
F ?? v*
l? .I

09
Ft

n jn
.s'7 19
2496
ooe' ISM ACCESS RD.
?e ENNIGER CIR.
7-0
im
F:a ^7
t r. `f
r r ?
f
2699
2703
?? 16
K=T
h
/RR?S BC
RD\

?ys
I"&
Maill
:4i Cro

MALLARD CREEK ROAD -
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
NO-MMILD ALTERNATIVE
INTER8ECTON LANE CONFIGURATION ;
. WITH
1990 TRAFFIC OF SERVICE SERVICE
2010 TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE
//j,
co
` SCALE
0 1 wtt
IQ? ? o
V / L
t
24854

L6?

a?
2vZ 12&
oc
0
6 2494
m -
co
7

?o

CREEK
RD' ?J Oh,
G
2472 ,9cy MOI?ofC
Creek
, Ch
i

45 _2706 _ 4OY%. ?.16 ll? -9 /`' 9
40 0172Q ?
7 nga CpL AL
2485 AV?RO EXgNDle
kltir/, RD. 2635
00
e
5 ?
12467
fO _
Z28
ILVER JIM -so
'a
. IRCH DR. -77
tiG
_1Z1t.m U Oa ?-? 'L
04 ??1s o kl L23 --6 J72.$L
bfollQrd 272. L14 - . P A K C l
I
OLD MALLARD
4r 'FAO CREEK RD.
` .z>QQ 2690
py G9G y 15
C `h
O? p? J? .05 .11 .44 2703
2495
- 2496 2665 -46
`0 ?1o r ? yARR/S
,1 Q ?a IBM ,?
\01Q` 2650 ACCESS RD, 1 }
'TO, SCALE
/ ;,? za4t
(? y
IQ44
LEGEND
EXISTNG LANES - - ?•
PROPOSED LANES - at-
FUTURE LANES e_w

MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
BUILD ALTERNATIVES
INTERSECTION
LANE CONFIGURATIONS
WrrH
19M TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE ?
1 o t wutE
ay? 2146
.1O
? GA
C0
Zit
J
O ?OZ?9'
'o Z27
?y 2647
as 2706 . Q •i0 1
.090 (`?Q ??• , `?i
2485 t .40 .272Q. _2M
.07 174 ?? CO
<v?qG A`ExgNDE
1\ ' p Pkwy RD. 263\
0
.A5 2729
-2¢e? 'J? ? 12467
2480 X28
ILVER
,yG
JIM IRCH DR. 60
1213 .07 .14 .06 2712 27
y
.01 37-0 C ?LA 2474 Q
A .16 2727 > ISL
1494 17 ard7714 _7-712 P A K C I.
??
e ?5 2e8
? l?' 'yam
vaa C 4p ?0 15 C
170
m 1494 G9 00? '?. ryos ... 41 '!?' `
u0 17 J?
2495 24 PLO MALLAR
?` •? 26" .46
A
C
v
RFFK
?z
Rp, 2472 CyG
qC Mallard
S' Creek
. Ch.
2
CREEK RO. --
_',,.? a W, T h
...........
1 ?0 1 IBM ACCESS RD.
284 ARRAS @`V
D,
?d ENNIGER CIR.
.. • ?• <: ?' SQ PTV : al 122E
" F N
•.... •` ry IS 7
J'
LEAB?
0 AM Off
A 9 LOS : x
tI lore'
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
0 pp SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
C9? ' ?hoposedGr , 96 MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
Conn"W
'"-
MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
%air :•.:r:; 1O"
NERAL SPING
ROAD CONMEC1011 BUILD ALTERNATIVES
' 2010 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
MAN
SCALE 8C
?. 1 0 1 M RI
- 24eo \ Zy0
. 'AO pZ?
?i
A

8 1706 j167
2647
, 6
4 _ ,9
C1v •

24es j .?
J
40 .090 v
.07
4
7 .7720. 1Z21
2
Q COt ?qRG ALEXANpE \
2' ? o PK?yY q p. 2635

4S 3Z2o
1?
12467
.244 •so
2400 2L29
ILVER JIM .Q0
i

.211A .07

.04
IRCH
2723
.14 OdDR, c yeti
2V5
'a
"

2? - 0
te
? 4
247

B o •? .0a

.16
` ISL
2494
.S6 a/(ard2724 3277
_Z724 PA IKRI CItT?
?? /
d?

vaa
i
c
c a
a
m
a 7494
m
co
0
F7
?0+
L4Z 41
.274! ?

Oif' ??0s .1 1 ? .II ? y`
'Q 2z
24 966,3 .,6
- O CREEK RD D ?'T N
'1Q IBM ACCESS RD. ARR/S
?ENNIGER CIR.
/ ?Y
d
c? C
, `
Rp' as cti''•
902 v?C /ACal a
?.' rae
I
I
AM ?
r•OQ
90
CRFF h
?d
2717
2461
LEGEND?i
PM DHV = 002. ?
LOS = X
r
i
,%i -YlNq - SCALE
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
BUILD ALTERNATIVES
2010 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
PU FIE. 8D
1 3 ??. 0 1 MILE
2eia.
241
N

.gp 'a
v
2183 j

246
2 480
5^
2494
.se
?b
?S 2644
:4eo
•JZ
:700 0
CC a
e

in 494
7706
090
.40
j720_ 2721
279!
'2x11. .07 .14 .06
x r;¢
1>u
271.5
04
]72? a
o •? •Og
r .16
?727
Mallard3724 2726
IS L

44Z
W
P OLD MALLARD
CREEK RD.
Oy 15 ?`
748 2699
OJ J`' 11 '44
.O S . _2721
° 2Zo4

-
s B
- 2496
7663 •46
.14
OM ACCESS RD. N
ARR/s
'?a ENNIGE
2650 R CIR.
_2711
c.•
• {?? M
i
-- 1
s •.:: ? -' ?'? pN ? ',?.- H .3 744
s
':;•::•>:•:.. ? 2666
mot
\ r:<?s• ?:• X10 ?:??.:::::?%
0. A
2 23
m
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
y;?i iii:+f ?t`•'v'i:vr ?i'':\
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
Proposed
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
Gralham
? 'Str
RUMk?'•• <.
t/NC 49
?? ?"?••• :•?:;, Streqetj
:49e MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
Connector
:,• .., INERAL SPRING
ROAD CONNECT STUDY SEGMENTS
SCALE
'
e? 1 0 1 mu
A?V ? V/ `?
?y 9?
RD.
?2a
12167
Di r IM s0 'y
G
? y
_ ? Q
LZ
PA K CI
'1J
tip,-,.YO p - as •I ;' a
.. Ea GRROPOSED
AHAM ST. / NC49
i - CONNECTOR
RUMPLE RD.
IOC DERITA ELEM. SCHOOL
??W. _ ??pR,•- :fir
o ' 4W0` 0 1 r0
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
?/ ` Q I/ ?? -.r7'.• NFR'?? `t' ' SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
y Q ?,f? " `? q?N MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
i MECKLENBURG COUNTY N.C.
" C • --l 'r' '?. MINERAL SPRINGS
O ROAD CONNECTOR SEGMENT A
SCALE STUDY ALIGNMENTS
1000 Goo o 1000 2000
FW TA
FEET
NORTHEAST DISTRICT PLAN
EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN
9
Iu'Ilh s
9
CT LIMIT .ey
RESE C P K'd
UNI R IT
01,
: .•.
PRO.lFCT-
C,
.............
...... ? ELL ,'.
Y . HDDEN
W VA LEY
RESIDENTIAL RESEARCKEMPLOYMENT
COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL/EMPLOYMENT
Fl0. 8
v
N
48 2706 ^
_CC
090
2485 .40
.2Z79 _?zu
.07 2794 \3
2485
?0
.;6615
y
Co
N
9a G??p
0
Oy A 2647 .
e
A? `>10 4q0 ALEXA
RD.
a
I TCH DH DR 11 JIM •a0
I TC
y? '? . 272 yG
3LU .07 .14 .06 2214 y
04 ?zts o 'Oa " 24.74 R
1727. _
.0 a 1721 ISL
2491 Mallard???+ _2?2e PA K CI
Site 5 d 'tf„
n 566
T o?
b
w
Geo. %5 2648 0 , 2!47 ' 0
40
a? +
2zsr? 'fs ?O Site 4 V o?
Q 27 1699
Z C? M1
Q 10, °
2491 ? ?? `.OS .I I '44 1707
2z 42
2495 249 .46
?.._
T, y
O CREEKLRD ? W
'? ` ,1a ARR
IRU er_r_GCC on ?S
•'Q SCALE
244.E

09
/Q
IN
RO• '?s 0
2472 ti?g0 ti. Mc
S C

MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY N.C.
WETLANDS
Site 00 WETLAND LOCATIONS
SITE NUMBER
® WETLANDS B
0 1 MILE
m V
48 .3706
4483 j .40
.07 FL4!
• 24es
0
2463
2480
1
.S6
J?
a7sm? e ?
? a ?S1
a
co 2494
-
m
;:;:•$'1 2641
::.:: Oil
1346 O
09
F?
W
Q
?Q
??o
2vn ?:?"?SEd::°' i:? i:. ::EEC"??,'• ?
:::.....
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
:.? ? ....::::.::.. •.:: :::::::s::::..;;:: ?:'EEEE:) SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
f '
a !' ?EEE: 'E
4 Proposed y MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
?:s?,,<a;EEE.••.....' •. ? Graham ?..
RUMP! -^^::••••: Street/NC 49 MECKLENBURG COUNTY„ NORTH CAROLINA
2U 2302;;;;::: .E^ i '•••s Connector 2495 .. • t
::••ryy HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
.:?l MINERAL SPRINGS. AND 100-YEAR FLOODPLAINS
ROAD CONNECTOR
:4 ::.?^ QO HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE LOCATION
,; •• •? FCOODPLAINS Fig. 10
RO SCALE
1 0 1 MILE
NON,
1Z21
4w A4F q,9 ACFx
3229
s0
i 3L28
SILVER
? BIRCH
-3ZIA .07 .14 .06 2716..• DR.
.04 27_ s
2723 o - •08 !y
16 2727
Mallard37.2+ _2726 ,?. -.
.d0
z4z 114
P Ai
O 1.
2699
.OS •11 '?4 2703
'SO tz0
r' 2 96/ 2463. '46
V--° OLD MALLARD W P
1q CREEK RD. H4
,?' IBM ACCESS RD. RR/S
:3a ENNIGER CIR.
2"0
L Mal
Cr
Ali
XW
R
.az> a.
2666

N
s?<
'O 167
Qy 2617
a 7706 = p 6 9
.? -
,40 .090
Zles i ? 1ZZ4 1221 Q`?
.07 Z7-Q4 C
ALEXANDER
• o h'y? j RD. 26]s\
?° ??.
.45 2729.
246 so 1""
24$0 2L2e
ILVER
IRCH DR. JIM2 so ,yG
1zIll .07 .1/ .06 277 '04 lZI 3 ..0 3773. - o - teL P
0 .08
1
6 3722 ISL
2191 Mallard-?721 3714 PA K C I.
„sie O ?
S5 2640 2!4Z' jY
iq Q
.,?;,
#1 v
o`
c 'yT 0 15 '? 2
CC ?O m9 + .7741 2699
< 94 O' O? `.O5 .11 '41 1733
m
m ?? ?O IZ 42
2195
#4 OLD MALLA?D W
,Q
q CREEK RD. r /yAR
3 IBM ACCESS RD. R/s
a AQ,?AL ?1 Js ENNIGER CIR. /
64
ell 2650
A& 40
? • J ...,':'' ? `• ? Proposed
RU -V,?Mt ,Graham
Street INC Connector 2490
y?(ii11NERAL SPRINGS
.: ROAD CONNECTOR
' sAq /NFR
N
.g 48 R? SCALE
RD. Cy
2172 G/QC
f' c,
/ .,? 2.01
55
2eee

MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
ME(;KLE 14130 FIG IN I Y , N.C.
LOCATION OF AMBIENT
NOISE READINGS
#00 LOCATION NO.
Fig. 11
?? • 0 1 MILE
2.B0 .O
N
A
?p ? 467
OOO?
3706 2647
4g = ? t
.? .090 , c
-4 J .07 .40 Z22 ?u Q?2 /?rv
KiV?I `' CR?E
COL vAq? 3 EXAiV D RD.
' 24es P
? •.o K y, RD. 267!
3
51
.A5 + 246 •sa 3 2467
2480 2L28
ILVER 3
5 y
5^ 'a IRCH D IM 2-do
1LLf .07 .14 .06 = 3
04
cc?
.16 SL
.
' 249A Mol/ord37-?4 2224 J PA K Cl
T ?I
90
X5 2648 Q 244z,?? C'
v O
'vaQ + 15
?p9? m9G ?` nit 2699
41
m O9 ?0
204 ? J? A `^, S .11 •?f 2707
Z 6?
2493 • ]691
4 OLD MALLARD W 4d
CREEK RD, h
IBM ACCESS RD.
a? ,,Gq ©,? ?a ENNIGER CIR.
2650
me
t
A
24.44

,lb
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
P•'•Q "?? ::• SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
' C+ MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
?? s a Proposed
GrAham v
¢ RUMPE"? Street/NC 49
MECKLETJBURG COUNTY , N.C.
Connector 249s
4. ' MINERAL SPRING8 NOISE RECEPTOR
3 ROAD CONNECTOR LOCATIONS
g~R? SCALE
0 1 MILE
171
•J
121

1
1
1
1
8 1. 9
0 0
.L
'O 2407
05 26.7.
4B _7706 ? ?? ,6 7
.? .090
2 `Cq9
J O
L i .07 z74. 2`20 27u Q?2 CRFFK
cot VA Al'FkANDE RD. ?s C
7?ss \ 'O P WY O RD. 763¢ 2472
?0 I
2779
.A5
246L r0 ? 11467
7480 2228
ILVER
'a JIM IRCH DR. .40
tiG '2LU
7L-1 .07 .14 06 2za y
772 .04 271.5 O .°J
2 0 .0g
Q
J6 2727 . L r•
Mallard-m2 7710- PA0
K Cl
>OCR EKLRD ?
.
p
2648 ?? 2!41 41 CRFF
Oy P V?
4r, 'A.
2699 ,.
OOy m9G .4! ? b 2713
S p,Q 00? 'J? ~ 5
m 2494 .44
T 2703
.2zQ ??
7495 2699
2494 2663. -46
(9,10 ,10 . IBM ACCESS RD. ARRAS '?
2641, e? VQ
AC4,4- ., O ENNIGER CIR.
©.
..?> P? 12 2670
'?177F 04y P?,`' 'J
t O s
a ti0 7
?i
\ 9 or ?641
/ •. /2"7 O

2666
161
MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
Proposed
raham
?--G
Street/NC 49 MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
r Q Connector 2698
MMIERAL SPRINGS AM QUALITY
ROAD CONNECTOR RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
1 mad qO SCALE
1 0 1 MRE

?t
131

APPENDIX B
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 1
APPROXIMATE NOISE LEVELS OF TYPICAL ACTIVITIES
INDOOR NOISE LEVELS DECIBELS OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS
140 -- THRESHOLD OF PAIN
130 -- Pneumatic riveter
Oxygen Torch 120 --
110 -- Elevated Train
Rock and Roll Band 100 -- Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft.
Farm Tractor
Lawn Mower at 3 Ft.
Boiler Room 90 -- Motorcycle at 25 Ft.
Food Blender at 3 Ft.
Diesel Truck, 40 mph at 300 Ft
Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. 80 -- Lawn Mower at 100 Ft.
Shouting Voice at 6 Ft. 70 -- Car, 50 mph at 50 Ft..
Normal Speech at 3 Ft. 60 -- Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft.
Average Business Office 50--
Average Residence 40 -- Bird Calls
Library 30 -- Quiet Rural Area at Night
Broadcasting Studio 20 -- Rustling Leaves
10 --
0 -- THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Source:
EC1n, bureau
Ilution, 1969.
on Noise and Air

TABLE 2

NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-freighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
` (Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67
(Exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D •- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CRF) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
' in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
' <50 >15
> 50 > 10 I
L
I Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 3
NOISE ANALYSIS/MALLARD CREEK ROAD IMPROVEMENT
.AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AND LOCATIONS
Location No. Ambient Noise Level - 1990 Location Remarks
1 66.2 dBA 50' off Mallard Creek PM Peak
Road/50' off Harris Blvd.
2 63.9 dBA 50' off Mallard Creek Road PM Peak
- North of Harris Blvd.
3 62.3 dBA 50' off Mallard Creek Road PM Peak
- South of IBM entrance
4 63.5 dBA 50' off Mallard Creek Road PM Peak
- between IBM and Harris
Blvd.
5 65.0 dBA 50' off Sugar Creek Road PM Peak
at Derita Elementary School
6 51.0 dBA SE corner of Derita Presby- PM Peak
terian Church/School
7 64.7 dBA 50' off Mineral Springs PM Peak
Road
8 49.6 dBA Derita Church of God
9 52.1 dBA Bible Presbyterian Church - PM Peak
Rumple Road

:l

J
it
l
1
L

U
LJ

TABLE 4
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
EXTERIOR
- NOISE LEVELS MAI
Receptor Description/ Dist. to Ambient No Build Build
Number Activity Category Near Roadway Near Rdwv. 1990 2010 2010 Increase Remarks
1A Residence/B Rumple Rd. 280' 48 49.1 65.6 17.6
2*& Residence/B Mineral Springs 60' 54 62.9 69.3, 15.3
3* Residence/B Mineral Springs 110' 60 67.7 69.8 9.8
40 Church/E Sugar Creek 330' 51 61.4/41.4 62.4/42.4 11.4 Derita Presb. Church
5 School/E Sugar Creek 450' 54 61.4/41.4 60.4/40.4 6.4 Derita Elem School
6 Church/E Rumple Rd. 140' 52 54.4/<40 61.9/41.9 9.9 Bible Presb. Ch/Sch.
7 Residence/B Rumple Rd. 80 53 56.7 59.6 6.6
8 ResidenceB Rumple Rd. 180' 53 56.9 58.8 5.8
9*G Residence/B Rumple Rd. 140' 50 51.1 66.0 16.0
10 ResidenceB Rumple Rd. 60' 48 48.0 56.3 8.3
11A Church/E Rumple Rd. 100' 50 49.4/<40 63.8/43.8 13.8 Derita Ch. of God
12A Residence/B Rumple Rd. 140' 49 48.9 63.8 14.8
13A Residence/B Rumple Rd. W. 48 47.9 60.1 12.1
14& Residence/B Rumple Rd. 60' 48 47.9 58.0 10.0
15 Residence/B Rumple Rd. 90' 48 48.0 572 9.2
16' Residence/ Rumple Rd. 410' 47 49.1 56.8 9.8
17o ResidenceB Hunter Ave. 200' 50 52.8 60.0 10.0
18 Residence/B Mallard Cr. Rd. 570' 52 58.9 59.1 7.1
19 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 120' 58 692 63.1 5.1
20 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 90' 59 71.2 64.7 5.7
21 Residence/B Mallard Cr. Rd. 120' 58 69.8 65.7 7.7
22* Residence/B Mallard Cr. Rd. 110' 58 70.2 67.8 9.8
23* ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 90' 59 70.6 67.8 8.8
24 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 200' 56 66.1 63.4 7.4
25 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 180' 56 66.7 64.0 8.0
26* Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 130' 58 68.8 66.0 8.0
27* Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 9o' 59 71.7 68.6 9.6
28 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 120' 60 68.2 65.4 5.4
29 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 160' 59 66.9 64.1 5.1
30 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 180' 58 66.2 63.5 5.5
31* Residence/B Mallard Cr. Rd. Q. 64 71.5 68.5 4.5
32 School/E Mallard Cr. Rd. 80' 62 69.3/49.3 66.4/46.4 4.4 Montesorri School
33 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 240' 57 63.4 60.5 3.5
34* Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 70' 63 69.2 66.2 3.2
35 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 110' 61 66.6 63.7 2.7
36 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 150' 60 66.1 63.2 3.2
37* Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. W. 62 69.8 66.8 4.8
38 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 80' 62 68.6 65.6 3.6
39 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 140' 60 66.2 63.3 3.3
40* Residence/S Mallard Cr. Rd. W. 62 69.9 66.9 4.9
41 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 110' 61 67.5 64.5 3.5
42* Residence/B Mallard Cr. Rd. 50' 64 71.8 68.8 4.8
43* Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 70' 63 69.6 66.6 3.6
44* ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 70 63 70.1 67.1 4.1
45 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 100' 61 67.6 64.6 3.6
46 ResidenceB Mallard Cr. Rd. 90' 61 68.6 65.6 4.6
47 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 90' 61 6B.4 65.5 4.5
48 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 120' 60 67.3 64.4 4.4
49 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 200' 58 67.9 62.9 4.9
50 Residence/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 130' 60 66,7 64.2 4.2
51 Playground/ Mallard Cr. Rd. 190' 58 67.0 63.2 5.2 Mallard Cr. Elem. Sch.
* - Approaches or exceeds the NAC. a - Substantial increase
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior
t
TABLE 5
NOISE ANALYSIS/MALLARD CREEK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
Substantial
Rece ptor Exterior Noise Level Increases Noise Level
SEGMENT 0 - 5 dBA 5 -10 dBA 10-15 dBA 15-20 dBA Increases
A 0 13 6 3 9
B 6 8 0 0 0
C 14 1 0 0 0
TOTAL 20 22 6 3 9
TABLE 6
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Seament I Location
A / Sugar Creek Road to pro-
posed Graham Street Connector
A / Proposed Graham Street
Connector to Segment B
B / Segment A to Harris Blvd.
B/C / Harris Blvd. to Mallard
Creek Church Road
67 dBA Approximate Distance of Impacted
Contour Receptors According to
Distance Title 23 CFR Part 772
(from near lane) A B C D E

120 ft. 0 2 0 0 0
60 ft. 0 2 0 0 0
75 ft. 0 3 0 0 0
50 ft. 0 7 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 14 0 0 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 7
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS/MALLARD CREEK ROAD IMPROVEMENT
MAXIMUM WORST CASE-1-HOUR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
Receptor
Numberl 1990
No-Build 1990
Build 2010
No-Build 2010
Build
1 6.9 2.2 6.6 2.2
2 8.9 2.3 8.4 2.2
3 5.0 1.3 4.8 1.2
4 1.4 0.3 1.3 0.3
5 2.4 0.5 2.2 0.4
6 NA 1.4 NA 1.3
7 NA 1.6 NA 1.4
8 NA 1.6 NA 1.6
9 NA 0.8 NA 0.8
10 NA 0.6 NA 0.6
11 1.6 0.7 1.5 0.4
12 3.6 1.5 3.3 0.9
13 5.0 2.8 4.5 2.4
14 5.8 3.7 5.2 3.1
15 9.9 3.9 9.3 3.7
16 5.7 3.5 5.1 3.0
17 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.6
18 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.5
19 3.6 2.9 3.5 2.9
20 3.4 2.9 3.3 2.8
21 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5
22 3.6 3.1 3.5 2.9
23 1.8 1.6 3.2 2.9
24 NA 2.2 NA 3.8
25 3.9 1.8 7.2 3.1
26 3.0 1.8 5.4 3.2
27 NA 1.6 NA 2.8
28 NA 2.0 NA 3.6
29 NA 1.9 NA 3.2
30 NA 1.2 NA 2.2
1 - Receptor numbers are keyed to Figure Al.
NA = Not applicable to the no-build case.

TABLE 8
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS/MALLARD CREEK ROAD IMPROVEMENT
MAXIMUM WORST CASE 8-HOUR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
r ..
Receptor 1990 1990
N
b
l 2010 2010
um
er
No-Build Build No-Build Build
1 4.2 1.3
2 5.4 1.4 4.0
5.1 1.3
1
3
3 3.1 0.8 2.9 .
0.7
4 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.2
5 1.5 0.3 1.3 0.2
6 NA 0.9 NA 0.8
7 NA 1.0 NA 0.9
8 NA 1.0
9 NA 0.5 NA
NA 1.0
0
5
.
10 NA 0.4 NA 0.4
11 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.2
12 2.2 0.9 2.0 0.5
13 3.1 1.7 2.7 1.5
14 3.5 2.3 3.2 1.9
is 6.0 2.4 5.7 2.3
16 3.5 2.1 3.1 1.8
17 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4
18 0.5 0.3
19 2.2 1.8 0.5
2
1 0.3
1
8
20 2.1 1.8 .
2.0 .
1.7
21 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5
22 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.8
23 1.1 1.0 2.0 1.8
24 NA 1.3 NA 2.3
25 2.4 1.1 4.4 1.9
26 1.8 1.1 3.3 2.0
27 NA 1.0 NA 1.7
28 NA 1.2
29 NA 1.2 NA
NA 2.2
2.0
30 NA 0.7 NA 1.3
1
R
-
eceptor numbers are keyed to Figure Al.
NA = Not applicable to the no-build case.

1

r

r
TABLE 8
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS/MALLARD CREEK ROAD IMPROVEMENT
MAXIMUM WORST CASE- 8-HOUR AVERAGE CO CONCENTRATIONS (pprr
..
Receptor 1990 1990 2010 2010
Numbers No-Build Build No-Build Build
1 4.2 1.3 4.0 1.3
2 5.4 1.4 5.1 1.3
3 3.1 0.8 2.9 0.7
4 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.2
5 1.5 0.3 1.3 0.2
6 NA 0.9 NA 0.8
7 NA 1.0 NA 0.9
8 NA 1.0
9 NA 0.5 NA
NA 1.0
0.5
10 NA 0.4 NA 0.4
11 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.2
12 2.2 0.9 2.0 0.5
13 3.1 1.7 2.7 1.5
14 3.5 2.3 3.2 1.9
15 6.0 2.4 5.7 2.3
16 3.5 2.1 3.1 1.8
17 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4
18 0.5 0.3
19 2.2 1.8 0.5
2.1 0.3
1.8
20 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.7
21 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5
22 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.8
23 1.1 1.0 2.0 1.8
24 NA 1.3 NA 2.3
25 2.4 1.1 4.4 1.9
26 1.8 1.1 3.3 2.0
27 NA 1.0 NA 1.7
28 NA 1.2
29 NA 1.2 NA
NA 2.2
2.0
30 NA 0.7 NA 1.3
r R
1
b
eceptor num
-
ers are keyed to Figure Al.
NA = Not applicable to the no-build case.
r
r
r
r
PI!nq-ou aol algeo!idde ION = VN
PI!n8 = 8
PI!n8-ON = 8N :a}oN
Z'E VN b'Z VN
5'E 9'9 5'Z 9'£
0'E E'£ l'E 17'£
5'E 6'9 9'E Z'L
Z'Z VN Tel VN
5'Z £'9 9"Z 9'9
Jopauuo0 hails weyea0
peon )laaj0 ae6nS
u011398aa2,ul to
aoIDauuoO peoa 3180aO PaelleW
peoa gomy0 Naaa0 PaelleW
p.ienalno8 s!aJeH
.i0pauu00 p illew
peoa )199a0 je6nS
u0pesaalul to
peoa 3180i0 PaelleW
8 8N 8 8N
OLOZ OIOZ 066L 0661
96eaany moH-8
L'S VN 8'E VN aoPauuo0 199JIS weyea0
L'S l'6 l'b 8'9 peoa Maa.i0 je6nS
u01139saalul to
aoIoauuoO peoa )Iee i0 p.iellow
8'V b'S 0'9 9*9 peoa goany0 Maaa0 PaelleW
9'9 Zll 8'9 8'l L pJen91no8 suaeH
5'E VN 5'E VN .i0loauu00 PaelleW
L'? E'0 l Z'b 8'0 L peoa )laaa0 ae6nS
uoljoas.ialul to
peoa 3198.i0 PaelleW

8 8N 8 8N
OLOZ OLOZ 066L 0661
96eaany moH- L
(wdd ) SNOUVEll.N30N00 00 1N318WV 3SVO- Isum WnwiRdW
1N3W3AOadWI adOa N33HO aadllVW SISAlVNV All'ivno alb
6 31841

r

1

u
1

APPENDIX C

44es i
uo
2494'
S6
5
?yva
a•:.r. S'?
,o
5 2647
2706
.40 i; .\ ry
2Z2Q 004
Q4 \7 1?'•? J
V AkEx
RD. 2635
,? 2zz4
14467
. SILVER
SIRC JIM -do y
_2ZU .07 •11 .ob ?z DR. o jiff Gy
01 ants o ?? '. PARK D a?
3L?? .oa CIR.
16
j / Mr .. ,r..?t• r??1
MallardR44 27??_2
z!4Z , l
?Al
2491
4 V-- A
,qv O CREEK RD.O W, ?' HAA
ISM ACCESS RD. RCS
rCARR? as sas ENNIGER CIR.
•?::>, tie
::.!
/4467
(•}:•{' r''' ::iii::i;j::.?
RD.
Im
CREFKN
c
G

4666
/ TO
Ty ._,.::.
1-4 MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
O•Q ; '"''.. ' Proposed ?°r
' Graham MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
:.
RUMON'`' ' ??`gtreet/NC 49
-:....::., a
Connector „ve MECKLENBURG COUNTY N.C.
• t ':- I1IERAL SPRINGS
1. OAD CONNECTOR PROPOSED GREENWAY
Sp
R/NQS ???:::?•. Q GREENWAYS
V ...t'•..w•1
wy . ` qo SCALE
?@ 1 - 0 1 MILE

11-10

1
A-6-90\
+? c

6?0

LA,
2.7 7.9

MALLARD CREEK ROAD
SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
PARCELS DEDICATED FOR
PROPOSED MALLARD CREEK
GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT

X2

ti?
? .0
0
t ?Q
° R 1
I ?
620
Mq?LARO
1 2.7 2 .9
MALLARD CREEK 'ROAD
$'
? SUGAR CREEK RD. TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH RD.
0.8
"
X/
X2
MECKLENBURG COUNTY , N.C.
PARCELS DEDICATED FOR
PROPOSED MALLARD CREEK
GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT ../
PARCEL II
47/152 /23
OAYNELLE C. PHIFER
DEED 4193-613
Total Area
Area Taken.
Area Remaining

u

t

1

Proposed ROW
Required 0.013 Acres
O
Q`OP/
V?
O

110,1973.F¦2.529Ao. ,
39,687 S.F¦ .911 Ae.
70,510 S.F = 1.618 Act. F,
o - Q
Pad/
N 640-47=00r/Rr? ESL.
.4v/ ,? N 1
10
10.
`g,???b UUy -Douglas M. Phlfer- -Jane P Crook-
0- a
Proposed ROW Lirhit
M
* as Ise, e0'
?Pv JPQ J?. Q- OF CREEK w
s?. ..0*
o<
w
D eta m
`??1K jG DUk? POWER R/
x0 W -
- Queens Propertles, Ina,
This map was «repared for the purpose
of tight of way or easement acquisition \
only, and is not intended to be a bound-.',
r?ry survey of the property shown. NOTEn Property oornera ahowu
airoled were looated by notual
Burrey. Bearings are based on
??,„?+rmrr,r N. C. GRID
BARD
,STF
Cs "? A
F '
SE'tAL .t 74
''???.D NHS
This pW was prepared under my
N. C Reg. Surveyor
............l. LL. c..we'o... ...
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CHARLOTTE
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
nevisoHr PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED FOR ?o¦ Ho.
MALLARD CREEK
GREENWAY IiLE NO.
CH
PROPERTY OF
GAYNELLE C.• PHIFER
DATE 12/29/83 SCALE 1-610
SHEET
II
22

w

t

J

1

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department
May 13, 1991
DPS#8715
A:LSMCG
D: MEMOII

1991
Linwood J. Stone -o ?;;itC3NG5
H1Gt?? AV
N
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environment Branch G$ REST
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Mallard Creek Greenway; Plans for and Relationship to
Mallard Creek Road Improvements
Dear Mr. Stone:
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Greenway System is outlined in a
master plan which was adopted by the Board of County Commis-
sioners in 1980. The purpose of this plan is to preserve
the one hundred year floodplain along sections of more than
twenty-two (22) designated creeks; the objectives of the
plan are to provide open space within this increasingly
urban setting, to reduce damages from flooding, to improve
air and water quality and to develop a system of trails for
walking, jogging and bicycling. Once developed, there will
be more than sixty (60) miles of trails which will comple-
ment other types transportation systems by providing non-
motorized alternatives for short trips between neighbor-
hoods, schools, parks, employment centers, shopping areas,
etc. These trails will also be enjoyed by citizens from
a purely recreational./health/wellness standpoint and will
provide a close-at-hand setting for enjoyment of the natural
environment. (Greenway Master Plan text and map are
enclosed.)
At the outset of the greenway program, the decision was made
to acquire fee simple title to these floodplain areas. To
date Mecklenburg County as secured title to more than four-
teen hundred (1400) acres of floodplain. One of the first
areas of the County where acquisition efforts were concen-
trated was the Mallard Creek/University of North Carolina at
Charlotte area. The plans for that area were to create a
town, center with residential and employment opportunities
easily accessible to the university. This plan has been
successfully realized with the development of University
Place, University Research Park, University Memorial
1200 Blythe Boulevard 0 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203-5892 • [phone]

Stone
May 13, 1991
Page Two
Hospital and a healthy residential component of both single
and multi-family units. These areas are linked by Mallard,
Clarks and Toby Creeks and the greenway has been a part of
the comprehensive plan for this area from the beginning of
the planning process.
In response to your request regarding land ac uisit_L
q ion aaja-
cent to Mallard Creek Road and the impending improvements in
the area of the Mallard Creek bridge, two parcel of flood-
plain were acquired by Mecklenburg County which may/will be
affected by widening and new bridge construction. These are
recorded at Deed Book 4940 Page 0593 (recorded 1/7/84) and
Deed Book 5015 Page 0037 (recorded 5/7/85). Copies of these
deeds and parcel maps of these properties are enclosed.
We had anticipated passing underneath the existing bridge
with a ten (10) foot wide trail built to AASHTO standards
for new bic_rcle facilities. Based on information you have
provided, a second bridge will be constructed parallel to
the existing one on the same side as the Montessori School.
If this bridge accommodates the greenway trail passing under-
neath (using AASHTO standards for vertical and horizontal
clearance), this roadway improvement project would not be
viewed as a negative impact on this segment of greenway. We
had anticipated the future need to improve this roadway due
to the rapid development which has occurred in this area
since we began acquiring greenway property here. (We were,
however, unaware of the problems of acquiring land in the
path of new roadway construction projects during the early
stages of the greenway acquisition program.)
A master site plan was developed for-Mallard Creek Greenway
in 1988 by Edward D. Stone and Associates. The plan calls
for a trail system to be constructed in three phases. Phase
one (1) begins at Dearnon Road and runs downstream to Mal-
lard Creek Road. Phase two (2) begins at Mallard Creek Road
and runs downstream to University Place. Phase three (3)
begins at University Place and passes through the University
of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) campus and ends at the
UNCC District Park located on Mallard Creek Church Road at
Highway 29. (Copy of the Master Site Plan is enclosed.)
The first phase of the project is currently being designed
and should be under construction within 120 days. The
Project includes six (6) hridges a ten (10') foot wide grass
trail. The trail will be covered with grave= in a later
stage.
t

t
t
t
1
Stone
May 13, 1991
Page Three
We anticipate that the Mallard Creek Greenway will be a
model greenway within our system of planned pedestrian/bi-
cycle trails because it has been planned as part of this
community from the beginning and because it will link
schools, neighborhoods, employment and shopping areas just
as the original Mecklenburg Greenway Master Plan intended.
Please advise if I can provide any additional information or
comments.
Very truly yours,
A.
Nancy M. Brunnemer
Chief, Division of Planning Services
Enclosures
Copy To: R. Wayne Weston, Director
Fred H. Gray, Jr., Deputy Director
1
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED PROJECTS WITH
MINOR TAKES OF PUBLIC PARK LAND
F.A. Project Number: N/A
State Project Number: 9.8100316
T . I . P . Number: U-2507
Description: Mallard Creek Road (SR 2467), between Sugar
Creek Road and Mallard Creek Church Road,
Mecklenburg County
YES NO
1. Is the 4(f) site adjacent to

existing highway? _
X
2. Does the amount and location
of the taking impair the use
of the remaining section 4(f) -
lands for its intended purpose? X
3. a. If the total 4(f) site is
less than 10 acres, is the
taking less than 10% of the

total acreage? _
X
b. If the total 4(f) site is
between 10-100 acres, is
the taking less than 1 acre? _

c. If the total 4(f) site is
greater than 100 acres, is
the taking less than 1% of _
the site?
4. Are there any proximity impacts
which would impair the use of
the 4(f) lands for their

intended purpose? _
X
5. Have the officials with
jurisdiction over the property
agreed in writing with the
assessment of impacts and _
proposed mitigation? X
6. Have federal funds been used
in the acquisition or

improvements of the 4(f) site? _
;_; X

YES NO
If yes, has the land conversion/
transfer been coordinated with
the appropriate Federal agency,
_
and are they in agreement?

7. Does the project require the _
preparation of an EIS? X
8. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
a. The do nothing alternative
has been evaluated and is
not considered to be

feasible and prudent _
x

b. An alternative has been
evaluated that improves
the highway without any
4(f) taking and it is
not considered to be

feasible and prudent _
x
c. An alternative on new
location avoiding any 4(f)
taking has been evaluated
and is not considered to

be feasible and prudent _
x
9. MINIMIZATION OF HARM
a. The project includes all
possible planning to

minimize harm _
x
b. Measures to minimize harm
include the following: use of best management practices, design
of bridge to accommodate bike path underneath
10. COORDINATION
a. The proposed project has
been coordinated with the
Federal, State, and/or
local officials having
jurisdiction over the _
4(f) lands x ;_

t
YES NO
b. In the case of non-Federal
4(f) lands, the official
with jurisdiction has been
asked to identify any
Federal encumbrances and _
there are none X
Note: any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
I SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic
4(f) evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the
findings made are clearly applicable to this project.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
and that there assurances that the measures to minimize harm
will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed
with local and state agencies.
Approved:
3 s 9z - '? '...ZZ
to 146 M na er, Planning and nvironmental Branch
NCDOT
/5/ Z G
Date f-?? Div' on Administrator, FHWA

u

r
APPENDIX D

1

C ^? i

t
U

1
1
11
t
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERN AC'E
ASHEVII.LE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
May 3, 1990
Dr. George J. Pesacreta
Environmental Services Manager
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh Building, Suite 910
Raleigh, North Carolina 27002
Dear Dr. Pesacreta:
¦
TARE
PRWCE
AMER;U1 !?

This is in response to your letter of April 2, 1990, received April 5,
1990, requesting a list of endangered and threatened species for the
proposed Graham Street Connector/Mallard Creek Road project in Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina.
Based on our records, there are no federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened plant or animal species in the impact area of the project.
In view of this, we believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) are fulfilled. However, obligations under
Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner which was not considered in this review;
or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
Although our records indicate there are no federally listed or proposed
species within the project vicinity, two species of plants that are
currently under status review by the Service (Schweinitz' sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) and Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula)J may occur in
the impact area of the project. Status review species are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our
response for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These species
may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the
Endangered Species Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might do to avoid impacting these species.

Your concern for endangered and threatened species is sincerely
appreciated. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. John
Fridell of my staff at 704/259-0321. In future correspondence concerning
this project, please reference our log number 4-2-90-054.
Sin erely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
1 Section Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Charles Roe, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant Conservation Program,
P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Field Supervisor, FWS, P.O. Box 33726,.-Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
I
1

1

J
r

TAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
May 11, 1990
'Y `15
>tA of Q
DIVISION OF AVIATION
AVIATION PARKWAY
RACE16H-DURHAM AIRPORT
[phone]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Gail Grimes, Planning and Research Branch c?
?G
FROM: Bruce Matthews, Manager of Aviation Development
SUBJECT: U-2507, Mallard Creek Road in Charlotte
We have reviewed the potential aeronautical impacts of the referenced
project currently under study by the Division of Highways. We are not
aware of any airports or other aviation facilities which would be
impacted by highway construction along the corridor for this project.
If we can provide any further assistance on this project, please do not
hesitate to let us know.
BEM

<- EIVFO
4
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
STATE o
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
West Edenton Street • Education Building
eigh. NC 27603-1712
MEMORANDUM
k
f MAY2 S 1
Bob Etheridge
Superintendent
May 23, 1990
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways "
Highway Building
FROM: Charles H. W a
Assistant St t uperintendent for Auxiliary Services
NC Department of Public Instruction
• 217 W. Jones St., Ed. Annex I
RE. Mallard Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road to Mallard Creek Church Road,
State Project No. 9.8100316, T.I.P. No. U-2507, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina
I Please find attached communication from Charles R. Allison, III, Assistant
Superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment
iJ

t
t
t
an equal opportunity/ajfn»rative action employer
Auxiliary Services
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Post Office Box 30035
Charlotte. North Carolina 28230
Telephone: [phone]
May 21, 1990
Dr Charles H. Weaver
JAssistant State Superintendent
F Auxiliary Services
N.C.Department of Public Instruction
1116 West Edenton Street - Education Bldg.
Raleigh,N.C. 27603-1712
Peter D. Relic
Superintendent
RECEIYE D
Miry 23

SUBJECT: MALLARD CREEK ROAD FROM SUGAR CREEK ROAD TO MALLARD CREEK
CHURCH ROAD, STATE PROJECT NO. 9.8100316, T.I.P. No. U-2507
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I'Dear Dr. Weaver:
In response to your letter of May 14 to Dr. Peter Relic concerning the
subject project, we support alternative 2 and believe the road improvements
under consideration will contribute significantly to the safe movement
of traffic to and from Mallard Creek Elementary School.
J-Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal.
Sincerely yours,
i
lCharles R. Allison III
Assistant Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
LJ

1

Administrative Offices Education Center 701 East Second Street
-? C

f?
CHARLOTTE
May 23, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Planning & Research Branch Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201

Q'N.? d0
N L$4??i BR%
Subject: Mallard Creek Road Widening, Sugar Creek Road
to Mallard Creek Church Road, T.I.P. # U-2507,
Mecklenburg County
Dear Jack:
?\
tn'
v
In response to your May 9, 1990 correspondence regarding the
subject project, we have the following comments:
1) The 1988 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan
indicates that the Graham Street-Mallard Creek Road
radial route be the through movement with the NC 49/
Graham Street Connector "teeing" into it near Rumple Road
(see Enclosure 1).
2) An alignment has been set by local staff for the Graham
Street Extension between Sugar Creek Raod and Mallard
Creek Road.' Part of this rigjit-of-way has been dedicated
through IBM's property. This dedication will be invalid
if the project has not been programmed by either the City
on State by January 1, 1993 (see Enclosures 2 and 3).
3) The 0.5 mile Nevin Road Extension (between Sugar Creek
and Mallard Creek Roads) should be constructed in
conjunction with this project due to the realignment of
Mallard Creek Road at the Graham Street Extension to
provide better thoroughfare network continuity (see
Enclosure 1).
If you have questions concerning our comments, contact
Mr. Timothy Gibbs of my staff at [phone].
3erely,
R. N. Pressley, Jr., P.E.
Director
RNP/TDG/mdp
Enclosures Department of Transportation
600 East Fourth Street Charlotte, NC 28202-2858 7041336.2261
7 -\ NAE?4n Rd. x+. = M Awj
M
• r RCS
ow.
s
• 80
.-R•N.. t r • •?``
61
01000
CINC
t C
.39
? f? f r••= R
I-oft
CHARLOTTE- MECKLENBURG
?1'i?' '??`?° ?`=•`5«?•• .' . •= .;, METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
• •: ENCLOSURE 1
`; ?- •~* .y ": -?'? ` _ 1988
'? '? .•f CHARLOTTE- MECKLENBURG
r• AL i• ox'' ?
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
?Ry. • ??? " . ?? •' ' ADOPTED 30 NOVEMBER 1988
•ti?t rj SCALE: 1'= 4000'
'i ,y f ? ? is .•
FILE NO
ROS PROJECT NO. NO.
'r •? . r 1 c.ww

i
i
i
y
ill
O
2F--Q?h=--Z
ai w
a.

CL - wwJOa J-z
ZJm
~ a
O
OWOwDz -w W o CV
Q-a?=JWO
a _Z Z W
W
U04 U
W
W
ZN o ?
W a a
V /
?
Li
O==
F-3Z
pOgtZ
C 00
¢ = 0
wW
pn 0
QQ?
_
N Z
V
cr)
O
OZ i- 0
J
O O
?Q°?aa?a
OPO
ax o 0 v
t ?•
=)
?OtnOu.ZQw "
v
Y1
U.aD .Ix
d0 F-Wo 7 J
GJWZ_C } H
>
.j=
tj
W U
0
0
Z>
>
w3ZmozJ?
W?!Cr MW
W
a2
=
W
a
m
2
O
=_3c?af-V= 40
o
W
O -off 'e o

It
a-IL 7 W
m?
W = ,
O i
W
N
W N
C.JZ Q
x 3 6
-
=

W N
h
8OI N
6

d

Q
W i
n

O ?

r

/ =O M

2
01
0:? N
t C j 6
y C
a
r p
6 ??2
227 \ ;
e??2.
/
g'16 iO ? .
? N
„ N
z
• a ge ? • ?+

L = i
W /
6 ZO S O
9?
?
41
a: l
W =
> a
J 19
q9
W 60.
b ?yb
i c e d?,
Ow
uo
/ sF•
? M/2:a
W e
ae i?r pO /

v1
.il.

? W
Y
u
d
t
O
v
0
g
N .... W O
?yo N
.
006 00 z
u
v ?
u N
I
ar
m
d
U)
LL N
? r
Q fly b
pO? W
M ~
y a w
O
/ C
6
u z
O
-,.? ?3?
? YI
M ..
HI
O W
h
u
h ?.
l W
? W
W
r
t
4
-1
F
1 W
W
s
0
o? d
od z
- ; z
.I rr
r ? SAN C
f
a ?
N
A w
0
-O
dt

j
t

I
i
4
!ALDI
OVA

' r
u' ? r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James'' Martin, Governor
Wliliam.:W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
' MEMORANDUM

Charies H. Gardner
Director

Date: May 29 , 1990
, ...
1
To: Melba McGe

From: Randy Cotten ('[Ivoe

Thru : Garay Thompson
Subject: MeckIenbui-g C=ounty, Ma IIard
C
k R
d
- Creek ^:rad from :sugar
ree
_,a
?.o Ma.1 1 a:
d- Cr _e Church Road ,
St tc Proiec.t No. L`.-8 1003116, T . I . F . No.
U-2507
.
We have reviewed the above refere
nced project and find
that 9 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should b e contacted at P.O.
Box 276137, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
?onstr
mot' on I t
i
u_ . n entional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
j'
P.O. Box 27687 0 Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 0 Telephone [phone]
' ?? 13141SI6
_'?•' ? Jai
090
r _ :=

.
:%kaGY ,x, i

l1 l
o__ _ Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
1 Charles R. Full wood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee Planning and Assessment
_ Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: W. Don Baker, Program. Manage
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
`i DATE: May 29, 1990
SUBJECT: Mallard Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road to
' Mallard Creek Church Road, Mecklenburg County,
North'Carolina (Project 90-0908).
It
These comments are provided in response to your request
of May 18, 1990, for information for input relating to fish
and wildlife concerns for the proposed subject project.
Wildlife Resources Commission review of the environmental
document would be greatly facilitated if it contained:
1. A description of fishery and wildlife resources,
including habitats, existing within, or impacted
by the project.
2. The quantity of wetlands, streams, lakes, ponds
and other fish or wildlife habitats to be graded,
filled or otherwise disturbed.
3. Stream relocations, crossings or other proposed
construction activity that may impact them.
' 4. Acreage of upland habitat impacted by cover type.
5. Mitigation measures proposed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for fish and wildlife
habitat losses.
' Thank you for the opportunity for input during the
pre-planning stage for this project. We will be happy to
assist in any manner feasible during all phases of the
project.
WDB/lp

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR

Att. HARRINGTON
SECRETARY
STATE PROJECT:
F. A. PROJECT:
COUNTY
DESCR I PT I 014 :

r? I
STATE OF NORTH CARO
DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTA
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611
May 30, 1990
i r ?-, #
JUN 6 1990
L,r
HGr,ri?yS P
P
RFSEARGNO
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
9.8100316 (U-2507)
Mecklenburg
Environmental Assessment for proposed
Improvements to Mallard Creek Road from Sugar
Creek Road to Mallard Creek Church Road, State
Project No: 9.81003169 T.I.P. No:.U-2507,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager, Planning and Research
Branch A
I FROM: J. L. Hearne, Area Highway Geologist,
Geotechnical Unit
SUBJECT: Geological Environmental Impact Assessment
The above project has been reviewed and it is anticipated that
' no significant adverse effects will occur to the geological regime.
Maximum cuts of approximately 7 to 10 feet will be in residual,
red silty clay soils that are well drained. No rock is anticipated
in cuts on the project and the anticipated shallow cuts will not
' affect the groundwater regime.
The relatively narrow floodplain of Mallard Creek will be
crossed principally by bridging. Erosion and silt control measures
will be necessary to protect Mallard Creek and adjacent down slope
properties.
A store, located in the northwest quadrant of Mallard Creek
' Road and Mallard Creek, has gas pump islands present. but the pumps
have been removed. This property has a potential for buried fuel
tanks.

An Equal Opportunity/ Allirmative Action Employer

:.JAMES G. MARTIN
' GOVERNOR

T bMAS J. HARRELSON
1SECRETMBE
I .
R :
COUNTY:
DESCRIPTION:

MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
716 W.
RIGHT Gi:
l?f 4 I?Si3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION fN. W W 1. Main Street, Albemarle, N. C. 28001
Telephone [phone]
June 1, 1990 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
U-2507
MECKLENBURG
MALLARD CREEK ROAD FROM SUGAR CREEK ROAD TO
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
MR. CECIL R. MCLAMB
STATE NEGOTIATOR
MR. J. A. WEST 1``
DIVISION RIGHTjOP WAY AGENT
' In reply to your memorandum of May 16, 1990 concerning Project U-2507 the
writer has inspected this project. It is our recommendation that an
urban typical section (Curb and Gutter Section) be used between Mallard
' Creek Church Road and the W. T. Harris Boulevard by virtue of residential
and commercial development in this community. It is noted that the
Mallard Creek Elementary School is located at 9801 Mallard Creek Church
' Road and further that Country Side Montessoir School is located within
the section recommended for the urban typical section which would lessen
the impact on play areas for each school as well as reduce proximity
damages to the residential structures in this area.
It is noted that the proposed new location between Rumple Road and the
existing Mallard Creek Road will involve a railroad spur line and at
' least one structure, a residential farm dwelling which may have
historical value.
Please advise if we may be of assistance to you concerning this matter.
JAW:pb

r
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
1

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
$HOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
June 5, 1990
? Q
.'JUN 71990
y DIVISION OF 0
22,1, HIGHWAyS ?Q?
cC4
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
I. D. NUMBER: U-2507
' COUNTY: Mecklenburg
DESCRIPTION: Mallard Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road to
Mallard Creek Church Road

MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. L. J. Ward. P. E.
'
FROM: D. M. Sellers
FOR: C. R. McLamb
' SUBJECT: Comments regarding Mallard Creek Road
' As a result of your
Mr. J. A. West, Division recent memorandum,
Right of Way Agent we contacted
in Albemarle,
and asked that he provide us comments in re gard to the above
mentioned project. Mr. West has completed his report, and
' we are submitting a copy of the report for your information.
Please advise if we can be of further assistance in re-
gard to this matter.
DMS:mem
' Attachment

An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

1
1
1
1
Y

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
June 5,
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
.SUBJECT:
Melba McGee
Steve Tedder
1990 ;;c
•r
C,
?.C? r?lll
Project No. 90-0908; Scoping Comments for Proposed
Mallard Creek Road, Mecklenburg County
The following DEM comments address potential impacts to water
quality and wetlands.
Surface Water Quality
There are no special surface-waters of concern within the
project boundaries such as those classified as WS (Water Supply),
HQW (High Quality Waters) or ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters).
However, NCDOT should still strive to minimize the water quality
impacts of the project on even the Class C. waters within the
scope of the project boundaries that can result from highway
construction and use.
Construction impacts can be reduced through strict adherence
to required sediment control measures. Longer term nonpoint
source impacts associated with highway use can-be minimized by
avoiding use of curb and gutter, which traps pollutants on the
road surface and pipes them to receiving waters, and instead
giving consideration to a rural section which features vegetated
filter strips along either side of the road which can remove some
pollutants prior to their reaching a surface water.
Wetlands
The brief project summary provided by NCDOT indicates that
limited wetlands impacts will occur. A Water Quality
Certification will be required if a Section 404 permit is
required by the US Army Corps of Engineers. A prequisite to
issuance of the certification will be assurances that NCDOT has
followed the Clean Water Act's 404(b)(1) guidelines and that
mitigation, if necessary, is appropriate. In this regard, the EA
should clearly delineate the boundaries and provide a description
of the type(s) of wetlands and values that may be impacted by
this project. It should be noted that sediment control and
wetland avoidance do not constitute mitigation for impacted
wetlands.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this
project during the planning phase. Please contact Mr. Alan Clark
if you have any questions. (733-5083)

JAMES.G. MARTIN
" GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY

C'
y
-?3'
HIGHWAYS
GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
In Reply Refer to
File No. 10-90-3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E:
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
Attention: Ms. Gail Grimes, P.E.
,
' FROM: L. T. Williams, P.E.
Area Traffic Engineer
' SUBJECT: Mallard Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road to Mallard
Creek Church Road, State Project Number 9.8100316,
T.I.P No. U-2507 in Mecklenburg County
Per your memorandum dated May 9, "1990, this office has
reviewed the subject project. We are unable to identify any
' environmental aspects that would be of concern to the Traffic
Engineering Branch.
' Alternate 2 is recommended. This Alternate will reduce
congestion, improve safety, and provide a higher level of
service needed for this rapidly developing area of
Mecklenburg County.
Please advise if you desire additional information.
JML/LTW:mis
CC: Mr. N. C. Crowe, Jr., P.E.

1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
June 6, 1990
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

1

F7

IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
June 6, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
?N???d
40
+? ?' r z s?^c l1.
r
7 }>.
r?-
q C q
A CD A'
We have reviewed your letter of May 9, 1990, requesting information
for "Mallard Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road to Mallard Creek Church
Road, State Project No. 9.8100316, T.I.P. No. U-2507, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina" and offer the following comments.
Project effects on flood plains and floodways are being investigated.
The effects should be coordinated with local governments. =.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States
or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project,
including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements
will depend on the final project design, area of waters and/or wetlands
filled, construction methods, etc. Under our mitigation policy, impacts
to wetlands should first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider
compensation or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within waters of
the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the
opportunity to review these plans for a project-specific determination of
Department of the Army permit requirements. Should you have any questions,
please contact Mr. Steve Lund, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
rely,
Lawrence W. Sa#nders
Chief, P anni g Division
11
fs
•? V1rn+p~
•??: vC 1J .i
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development y..y
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
May 29, 1990 : nc.17 ?R ?plAA ``
MEMORANDUM
i
i
y
TO: Melba McGee _
Environmental Assessment Unit
?j?
FROM: Don H. Robbins /J!'?
Staff Forester dt'
.9g
r,
SUBJECT: EA for the Proposed Improvements on Mallard Creek Road from Sugar
Creek Road to Mallard Creek Church Road in Mecklenburg County, N. C.
PROJECT 90-0908
DUE DATE 6-7-90
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed
project, the combined Environmental Assessment Project Planning report should
contain the following information concerning the proposed improvements for the
possible right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
i
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.

P.O Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]

Melba McGee
PROJECT 90-0908
Page 2

' 5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
' phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
We would hope that the improvements would have the least impact to forest
and related resources in that area.
DHR:gm
cc: Fred White
File
r. i

r?

lect' N ame
,? ? ?ggp -PAni}'ZNT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEATH
=NO NATURAL RESOURCES
I V I S I ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Liter-Agency Project Review Response
M- me, .1'? . ? '\
Project Number
County
U
Type of Project
The following are our comments on the above referenced subject.
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements
must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the
initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC 10D .0900 et. seq.). For information, contact
the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
?Several water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project.
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water
system officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful substances.
Additional information is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
Back flow preventors should be installed on all incoming potable,water lines. Additional information
is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must comply with state
z- and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant should
contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone]. '
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of-shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program,
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements
for septic tank installations (as required under 10 NCAC IDA .1900 et. seq. and/or sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable.) For information concerning septic tank and other
on-site waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures,
an extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health
department or the Public Health Pest Management Section [phone].
The spolI disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For informaiton concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact
the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
--C, ??r j c? ! J o
EF,
Reviewer Bran h/Unit late
r
r
t

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
June 7, 1990
T
MEMORANDUM
.r
cc JUN 1990
r? ?I:vit,r 1 -
,r
o 0
John N. Morris
Director
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherlan
i
' SUBJECT: 90-0908, Impro ng Mallard Creek Road in Mecklenburg
County
a
s? We have the following comments on the above project:

1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize bridges whenever
possible to minimize habitat losses and floodplain
encroachment.
2. Minimize the loss of timber and prime farmland.
3. Provide vegetation buffers when highway passes close to
residential areas.
j 4. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
¦ 5. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize the use of
porous pavement and grass swales.
6. Involve local landowners in gathering data on impacts; be
flexible on location of alternatives - adjust them to meet
local concerns.

i
' P.O. Box 27687• Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]

t
z
.T .
3-
71

t
` r.

1
CHARLOTTE
June 7, 1990
:0
r t
L
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Planning and Research Branch Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Mallard Creek Road Widening, Sugar Creek
Road to Mallard Creek Church Road, TIP,
#kU-2507, Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr.-Ward:
In response to your May 9, 1990 correspondence on
the subject project, the Charlotte Department of
Transportation has provided comments to the
Planning and Research Branch for consideration
during the Environmental Assessment process.
I would like to reinforce staff's recommendation
that the project's southern terminus just east of
sugar Creek Road be consistent with the adopted
1988 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan. The
Plan indicates that the Graham Street-Mallard Creek
Road connection is to be the through movement
instead of the NC 49 Connector-Graham Street
connection. Our other concerns were outlined in
Bob Pressley's May 23, 1990 letter.
If you have any questions concerning any of our
comments, please contact Timothy D. Gibbs with our
Department of Transportation at [phone]..
a•
r:
Sue Myrick, Mayor
Office of the Mayor 600 East Fourth Street Charlotte, NC 28202-2839
r.
3
d
sr
r ^ A
r
1
r
r'

n
Mr. L. J. Ward
Page Two
June 7, 1990

Local transportation staff will continue to assist
the consultant and NCDOT on all efforts regarding
this project.
Sinc ely
SUE MYRIC
SM:mdp
cc: Julie Burch, Assistant.City Manager
R. N. Pressley, Jr., Director,
Charlotte Department of Transportation
o"'SUTFv
JUN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
riEAD.Ot:1. ,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
k ?J.AMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'mot" June 8, 1990
THOMAS J. HARRELSON v
SECRETARY, GE E. WELLS, P.E.
STAT AY ADMINISTRATOR
` `??N;
MEMORANDUM T0: Mr. Horace Jernigan C;
State Location and Surveys Engi
ti`?i
FROM: D. P. Wilson, P.E., R.L.S. 41,Q
Area Locating Engineer*
rn
SUBJECT: .. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Mallard Creek Road
Improvement from Sugar Creek Road to Mallard Creek Church
Road; State Project 9.8100316, TIP No. U-2507, Mecklenburg
County
I have reviewed the above project and offer the following comments.
Alternative 1, do nothing, is not feasable. This area is undergoing
rapid development and the additional traffic generated will require an
improved roadway.
Alternative 2: The proposed new alignment between the Graham Street
Connector and Mallard Creek Road would run through relatively undeveloped
land. There appear to be no major problems involved with this section.
From Rockwell Church Road to about 0.3 mile north of W. T. Barris
Boulevard, both horizontal and vertical alignment are good. Symmetric
widening would be appropriate throughout this area. Development is light
and curb and gutter would not be required.
From 0
mile north of W. T. Harris Blvd. to Governor Hunt Road, some
revision in alignment should be considered. By widening on the east side
' through this area, an improved horizontal alignment can be obtained.
From Governor :aunt Road to the end of the project, a curb and gutter
section should be used. Left turn lanes should be provided at the entrance
to Mallard Creek Elementary School and at Colvard Park 'day. Horizontal and
vertical alignment are good through this area.
I An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
A.. RAl(
3
i
? ITt
State of North Carolina
. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
mes G. Martin, Governor
?.
'I-William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
i
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
i
u(C
7090
?i G;t
i
^ ?J
Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
Douglas G. Lrwis
Director
Planning and Assessment
90-0908 - Mallard Creek Road - Mecklenburg County
DATE: June 11, 1990
i

i

The Department of Environment; Health, & Natural Resources
has reviewed the referenced document. Our review efforts raised
some issues that need to be more fully addressed before this
project proceeds into final planning. There is mention of
wetlands being impacted. The Department of Transportation (DOT)
should recognize the importance of these wetland areas and provide
details on how they intend to avoid or minimize the impact to
those areas.
In relation to these and the other concerns mentioned in the
attached comments, this department recommends that DOT fully
address each item and work with our divisions throughout the
planning stages to avoid impacts.
MM: bb
Attachments
011 IL..

i

F
L_
11

1

t

MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
June 11, 1990
L. J. Ward, P.E.
Planning and Research
Curs B. Yates
Bicycle Coordinator
Jack Ward, Manager
Planning and Research
Room 462, Hwy Building

few '? • -• /T?IOMAS J. HARRELSON
?+*»• SECRETARY
r .JAN c.?
`- 199
SUBJECT: Mallard Creek Read from Sugar Creek Road to Mallard Creek
Church Road. State Project No. 9.8100316,171P No. U-2507.
Mecklenburg County. North Carolina
In your memorandum of May 9. 1990, you requested our comments regarding the
proposed improvements to the above mentioned project.
The Mecklenberg County Parks and Recreation Department has plans for a
greenway along Mallard Creek in the vicinity of the above project. In conjunction with
these greenway plans, the State is funding three bicycle/pedestrian underpasses
beneath highway bridges along the creek. One of these proposed underpasses is beneath
the bridge where mallard Creek Road crosses Mallard Creek. According to the
preliminary statement for TIP # U-2507, this bridge is likely to be replaced as part of
the upcoming project. Therefore. we suggest that plans to replace the ridge where
Mallard Creek Road crosses Mallard Creek be coordinated with Mecklenburg County
and the DOT Division 10 office. The Bicycle Program recommends that adequate
vertical and horizontal clearance be maintained for the greenway path to pass beneath
Mallard Creek Road.
It may also be desirable to consider on-road accommodations for bicycles as part of
the Mallard Creek widening, since this road may well be a feeder on-to and off-from the
greenway. We are awaiting information from Mecklenburg County regarding bicyclists'
needs in this area.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above named project. Please feel
free to contact us again regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/jc
An Equaf Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
? - 1,a5Ulgo
rS ?
-
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James G-Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary

yoC.'c 8 ?9a.
urc?o .
and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
June 13, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State ?, ?-???
Historic Preservation Officer C?- V
SUBJECT: Mallard Creek Road from Sugar Creek Road
to Mallard Creek Church Road, U-2507,
9.8100316, Mecklenburg County, CH 90-E-4220-0908
G'
v
rte'
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the
following structures of historical or architectural importance within
the general area of the project:
Flow House. Southeast side of SR 2467, 0.2 mile northeast of the
junction with SR 2480. This house was recorded during the survey
of Mecklenburg County and is potentially eligible for the National
Register.
Bisaner House. Northwest side of SR 2467 at the junction with SR
2494. This property is a common house form and is not eligible for
inclusion in the National Register.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed
project area, it is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will
be affected by the proposed construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
109 East ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

.I Page Two
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Gail Grimes
Barbara Church
State Clearinghouse
1

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department
February 4, 1991

George J. Pesacreta, Ph.D.
' Environmental Services Manager
Wilbur Smith Associates
P.O. Box 2478
Raleigh, NC
FILE#8715
DPS#6
A:PESARETA.JSD
Dear George:
This letter is written in response to our conversation on
February 1, 1991 regarding the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) project: U-2507 (Mallard Creek Road
Widening). As promised, I have enclosed excerpts from the
AASHTO Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities 1981.
I have highlighted those areas directly related to underpass
trail construction and design. As you will note, the AASHTO
Guide recommends a twelve (12') foot wide path with a
minimum two (2') foot clear width on either side for a total
horizontal clear width of fourteen (14') feet. The AASHTO
guide also recommends a vertical clearance of ten (10') feet
to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles.
The typical trail surface we use is a gravel and sand
mixture that is compacted to form an extremely hard and
durable surface under normal flood conditions. Due to the
increased destructive force of water directly beneath a
bridge structure, we substitute portland cement concrete in
those areas. We typically extend the concrete to include
the entire area within the road right-of-way.
The Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department sought
and was awarded $105,000 through the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) for the construction of this
underpass. Enclosed is a copy of the NCDOT TIP listing from
November 1987 describing the project. I am unaware of the
project number assigned by NCDOT. We are awaiting
.correspondence from NCDOT regarding the specific date
construction will begin on this project.

1200 Blythe Boulevard • Charlotte, North Carolina 28203-5892 • [phone]

George J. Pesacreta, Ph.D.
Page two
Please contact me at [phone] should you have any
' questions or comments regarding this matter. Your attention
to this topic is greatly appreciated!
st egJohn S. JSD:mj
Attachment
Copy to: R. Wayne Weston, Director
Frederick H. Gray;-Deputy Director
Nancy M. Brunnemer, Chief,
Division of Planning Services
Curtis B. Yates, NCDOT
s
I
t

11
1

t
?. W
O0 '
loom
is

i?

w Q
• N

a
C -0 r
t O C 't
a i
Z
E

1 _

.77
1111
I_
? ?_.1_ _?? _ ? •. 1
_ .. ?.?' ,. = _ ..
ZI:
73 J.

.; cry l

a itz of J'
0.O f
.n ?
Q>
YI
1•
S

O L v to to C C >` ' n j •C n a J V V=0 _ y
3 G .y a. y ?•? y ` - 3 :J ? J J y 7? 3 .. O_ C L OC C
> m> O ` E L? H v a 3 v n v
•,' ^,J? ? ?^ C ? M =? C a L n y tCJ C in ? ? n s
X 's 7 Q 7 O n L u C) -
LU C O a J
L oD E u c 1 ?" II c eCa Lao y y ` c v
E it
O s O •o a ? .., v n •p ? 3 is - y u G
? u y? d p - .a y v= :n ^ O v? u L O C m v c, v '7 H O C--
v O y v O v v vi _ J v T O > vi 7 7 `- O s? L - 7
? v. .:;e .. ar. G A O C V C y O C C: C 7 C C 7 7 7 ')
2 cc
?? J y V ?'? v7 ? j d ? O 7 Y •y y 7 ?dM L L L n ? O C? t u
q oosv O - u > v C.X,-°s = 3 s us MCC ru- s
IF
'nom v C rCj D!i y O :,. of y yCOS, v Y n a y _- J
Cc v O E y o _y G o O s E y y H a ,-, a '
,_ yCp:.7 .r O u a; .D Gs. N •'? `? N N N T E O> C r. vs;TJ %1 C C O oo -0 C ?, C a
? ? a.°o•= ?•? EE: (iLi ooooc a '- " v v V ? '' ? v no ? ?.` o _
v •'?? C >, L BLS >•, v ` (/1 7 L L_
vi s v U s n ld` C y v L 7 aOi a
y. eo._ L y s a y v .°? :7 O- v" v v o 3 0 3 v
tA 10
;n ej
= `'? E s O¢ O c y o a 3 T y _ x n s u
O` p^ O. C IA
? , C n ,, t a L u ?C 3 y w v v y
C 7 '? L y 7 y > C C J J O 70 L ; G T L
vyi y OD .! ?.. C y >+ ;7 L C ?? 3
L .O C Y q L n L is y p
._ " v ,? a s t c
15
c Y E o W v _ n 3 3 c vi
O y a 00 n G u y 3' C c y v O v v V Sr L 7 u^ y V.
lu caf. c
Li. y •? > G n_ n :C E" L G t 70 .C 7 y m .C ?' O C •,Jj O G 7 n .? ° y
C 7 E G C rJ O > •:n G 3 'C ` O e7 .. 00 •,a 7^ y •7 C
C O y = n 3 v E p v? O ?n O h v 7 C n 0` O E- u C>
N N'" l ehd O a t :j O n '? y G G. ?•3 n G.
1 y y of c.. .J .fl
+ - m V L y
E ?' v c_ ° ° E ?= s u H o c avi > E a u r
- v v ? c ?• y 'Y ? c m cL a. cs
c o °?° G c= E u 3 vn v aci v ; y u y C O y `w ?` v 3 to
u
u 7 u 6) 'O
G G
p E `?° E v v _v cs > v c y?
_ a .. 3 6? t V C° L rte. d E m ,X > O V C C O to V
Gn?j E 3 p y z C of v v: p v O m u rn ca m .,, L
64
? ,.? t V a? v u 3 O ?.
s.E 00m,? ` s.ut ` v = 3 c u U u` v u- 3
m D ,`; > y o G r: v y s E o a s c v
7 N u L ` m rn >? N Y O 6? >. y t 7 ?. >•, d M N C
V 7 7 y 7 ,G m V L `' C ` ?` m u v s Ry u v > vi _
,', Q c 3 m °? °° m cc ° C o a v ° O v" a, a° c
c v w G v s v v, a?i a 3 v °? y m er
O e" cc :PC u H y `O a •.in a c •e- .0 L '_ > u v v v_ E c
U) E- o v a v u v m v o u e
e ° a v v C >,e L d e?Y A as E '^ •'- ?° E u c u
v .E v v o u v y m y ry c v v c v v o X u >
. = c ?? = uss ?='? °' v v u ?.eD ?-.c ? c L a
E r >
Gn W, - :3
s v, m y .y d v v s ' v v cm 0 y L c =' c II m E> 'u c co c3 e E
T s v u In s v. ; c AL > a m v.` p c v
o v;c ruo- o'; Ly E v ?, c?
_ S m° ; .? y C u c .C J s m C E u s 7 y N Q. 0 u y_
v c?.? v s m v._ ?..? E 0.=- •a= E 3
v v •- v E G o v > °° y 'C E W H C G O E -c
E ooc v c- u.=?? c E=sue a a; c v_ a E. c
Y m o o E rp to - E
, .2 E Do
. O v 0 N y y m O 0 u a y > 7? O •p c C L V C 61 ?- .. u C C
v u v c`"
vs_ >•_p a u> _ E =s 3 u N o? v
> o II it II II _• ° m? c
u u 3 E L y a ?' h- m s c EM C*
_ c o c° vac a s E a u`>
>
d$ Ln = y ?n E N E a 3 c s
`o >
CZ 0
- t E m t L m N m .> N C s vOi L L = C .C C C v E
c v a u F' 00 o c °co 's y o •` F- v o 0 3 c c m y
E:, r y 3t G7L? L:., o? L E? E v?
c.E Gu of
EE

L • 7 N? U n L p j V C C E C C C %? O` N= N N q C .. C 7 .. ^ .. N o _C
N •C G t= U _? tn. 7 G 0 C U J C C. N G= L G' :.1 3^ '? 7 N p• ;? 7 C C
y y > n O O G C ` Q: C O E 3 J> 3 O v O y L - E ?= •r, 3 v 'f c
L n C V :/7 C n O• V '7C '7 '`7 .7 •r. N> 7 O N 3 N C V • ? L G. :' , G L C N
N ` "-? ?. n %? C N rn V N 7 Q 3 C ,? •? O y y> a C L C :D 7 ..
y C u E 3 3 0 O •= n vy ?- N >. G X ., 7.
;? ,00 G ?. c_ C G O G y u 0 0 7 N yp ". N n vi '? :7 N F N C 'C = y .'? _ v-fi
T N >, °
y
C L N 'N C N C y .p L C? p V L N E
J U n c N_ L 3 N ? c .- ?' - oo C v N v ?_ - L c
,?.:.... C N C •? O C OD n 0 `n 7 c=s L C O j v d ,C O L O y .V C J N 7 .? N E •= T n
O 7 V 7 y' ?' y a V L N O t n y L L a= L N ;^ •r,
J 7 N 7 C` .D U O C J7 y L O '.,7 N y y ', y N J> >• O> G _C m e C> J :' Z
O E N Q N ° Q ?. L > ?. C 3 N a n ?' of C .O '.?i ,^•„
y y L Jf y` Q U :7 7 LL N N N ma > L O N C N C V C L U j 3 C >+ ;) 7
';? s a L_? ?- 3 c ? L y u c N 0 ?. 7 ,> n 0 J- O 7=_= L
.3 v 73
75 -V > r-
•? N C :' y 3 3 _°i .? j 0 7 C ;? ` L n O ¢ V ?+ 3 v 7 c v w C C y
7 > C - 3 t V ^ n C L N y V u C E L n
75
J Z • ?0 _`o 7 z C _c C rn G _? '.9 +? ?`•' aCi ` L
E raj ' 3 .''_' • ? 70 . _
7 7 CN' .° n
O> O. L N U 6 of L, >. C L Y `N `' 7 3 G V ?. dom. N `' V. c N? ;,' r
y•
;L oc c y c p` cn c to ° -.n V ',?, = c c p
c E
V >. N 7 c O ._ = N> t •? U .? `U tC7 of O V ,= N d N ?'- N t` •> u 7 ri 7 J =
y ''.' ` C
? V 7 N Q c H O L N L 7 O i.. 7 y` r
"F -" °' 3 Z L ° L y Q L G 3> ?. T C C V> J O ` ? y N '!1 ,? 3 C N N
> n L _
O N L a y L?'7j c7 ?" °J U E_ G. C `9 q L_ cE Jf L L :J p n Etj m 7 7 Y C 3
' C C N O O L T ?= O ?` oD ?. p N C '_ ` C C '_ > y y L G n= y C L
_ L
z° a o E 3 a-> N'-° c '-' °° s N O ` °- a c n c a a->' v `u c v
y 3 E L N n :3 0o G y N N c'7 c O N E C 7 U v C ?. n ` n > C .C V L 7= a n
? .N ?•' N^ O 7 c y 7 3 L y 9 L p :? 3> ? rV y '? N H O C N ? 7 C; 'G .. N 7A L
N> G n E T' y •? N ` G y= ._ N N C '.i T N C^ 3
t y :3 t y C 70 E N oD of n` y U N G C n N N :? ;? v V v 7 7 '7 3 c .L O
20 r
C T 7 .7 O y N G [u V L C O C y n• C O u .0 O L C 3 y c oo -' 3 L z E C 'y 'C f J •r
E N L C E .- L L ` E C O a .O n 'y y 7 a c Q O, v? J 7_
y? 0; C j` j• J ? 0; N C ,? j •? •%f G ?_ >> Z 'Q ??`? 7 C° L 7 ?' ?? E 0 C C C¢ L :' L V C
T L L C _y .N c y o ;? C c -j 2 3 p ? y 7 7 c 3 'n E N v y? t' O?? E ? c ? •`... r
v 0 ?- 7 Q p, .. O C O? O tn v n O v
n 3 c 3= v v a .5 E E E u n u L>? u`
G._.f
? _ C ._ C ._ Vf C: ? U y y, ?, p C. _ y •? N N t3 7 U - C F 'r 7 '?'
> c o° -" ° v >` u oi, c c v 3 3 a`' r F E " -'
C C > ?_ u> Y N G y C := C` U C L CU' " y r = V < ci c C C'
y V N ` L of L` Q N y 0 p E E: OD u` V L .v C C L C- 'v: 7
`? s •`c r. .
E y N s 0 c v s E, y` 3 r no
y E o
E yr 7 0 0 7 C L O ° C U -3 C C N . ?n L° a 3 C Q G" y G L L
GJ CZ
v= G° ` e50 U N H N? y_ N >. N ` E .`r y ^_ L y C
-5 06
O U O V; N O N E y L N C u N u a
c a v c ?? c >i a`mi L v
° " .T ?, .°° •`-' O 3 3 v: .? ° G 3 s N
> _ V? 72 n c
> C E .r ° u L 'E >, N `u
U L :! v' C U O to :J C U :J C F >, O° y V p, , C` C L L G
`° G E c a: H p V N _O C` •° E cJ V v' n G es ,y v ?+ U ?. N N
C •p U C L C. .` O U U- % ? - V E •C L c._ ' - C L 7 a O N E c? a C L •• G L •u L
L. $ v`n, = r d y E m y E c 2 ai >> t c. '-°- ' v" J - v t- v - u
C cO ° 3 Z y cz
h c °- N vii L ?' y E - C s r E ?= .? u ?' .: u N
:? C L >+ E y U c C 7 0 0 0 v? y N N E C d U t? :J -• U= L
N ?! •C C OD OD y ._ U y cS N v 'O N .C Q a G G U 7 L v:
to w
C L c` E L :0 eS V .> >' C Y t 7` C t N (U_ X C N y c y > > vUi C C C
10 Ij
N 90 - 0 O C •C 3 C U
.- cJ to 'O y N N '7 cE U •C U G `" u N V
- C N - >
'g N o.m` obr. ;
c?a;5 lul E o?='E r
o y 3 c v r 3" v c `-' 3 yo u c U a c p c > r
E 7 n: y a _m c ou s c' a E c _m " aXi K a`' ° y FU- ? c
y Q C N O L ° -y' 'n v' O C y0 p p L N 0° C y y N y G j C `/• .. U U? N L
te.
d G C C> y y L ,C C y OD H y r V O 7 ?' E L c U 7 OD C Q L c `? C
E v `u n c 'o>-o c r u ai ?, •? E?°„ vi c° 3 c Y= c v c .G `r.
'to
y y N N L y y b O c= c u= ,C c'
c c a°i c y v av ° 3 C a :' v c o to
V :0 .O C C ,p N V: y 7 L ?_ y •> vi p L N E C H °J v m C oo = to -
m
75
v .c ''fl O R >, vi L N L 00 n n N •vf 7 N c 3 .'i v y> Y. y V v, •? ':. f t^ m,
C y u g U O E 72 Q ... 7 L C v7 >, ?. U E 7 J` > G> ^ C :?
Q N 3 d s O O L m OD p OD y U 0 V O o c SP SP O N - V
U y 7 :A C vi cr rr. o0 7 .C O L y L L L rn u O cC v' L C u 3 .E V •E v. ?-
E
N

i .,
1
1
t`
1

f
11
1

F7
Ll

c c`1 u y y u
OD O N .v' U? .` H t
a1 Ev s ? ? °D a
`?>sE•3a1
? ^c, c p c U o u
c c .cs o ; F c
a 'c
EEvo°tEs-tc
E p 0
u ? E a1 ? a1 ?
T. eee ' ` ? O L ? u ?
e y e1 L. `, y T
OU 'C ? u y ? u ,? sn
oo a ? ? p ? o
H to ? ` ? •U > C OD
? c Q? c L .m c
c o ? c
aci ? ? ?,u o ? .oo
eo E 'c 3 .CO 4WD E h
_ d v
_ _ > c
L
.o Q eo in ? ; s° v '?
H` ..?.. C y? d d U
L V Q E °' J CC7
7 e6 ai e1 ? O ? 'C 7
..+ L y 00
7 y '? 7 N C
WS u d _ ?. a1 u a1
c ?
a1 a13° >
r E c w
_1
v'ZC O
a?
a?
wvr-.Cd AC
Z Es eoOF a'°

N
N

?w L
y?? y E U v ed C C m :G N N
a ? u > >. G sa 'se ? e=a L u
L ? c? ? " ?•°? E :o u o
d e? ? sn .e ? p ? sin O C ?N ? C =
u c 5 E s u oo ti a1 p g 3
T O E .O =? Y O C y?? G??
CS .? O(.+ N CL ?•? 0b.eEti pip v:
,a C C y > m .. O? C ,? p W
L _ y
-au E a rr s L
10-
U O .. 3 y 7 7 ?:tE '_ oD
E Q c EEo C E ; c
O `. E O
O C C O : y aui
sa _ _ E
d O to .y g y p .m ? O ? O y
141 00
r y° c c u r t 3« s`o u
z vi u e0 a u `-' ev is V s t
a n e me 4. y a1
to 0
o c c y c c
0-- E i5 L4
s 0 c c E c
c?_ c•p- O 3 a1?L c} O co
O o
C ; nC
O 7
y= W T C $i
L C O r
O •= E O
O O s.. eOD O ?. O Y
3 C O .C o p y ?V'yn' N
m` 3 E y N sn - .y
in 3 C 7= ht s,E
r rj = c
i>- L O ee_o u C> t sa 3
C s o
C. >. OD r p d ? s
v ?. Z ;j Iv
t - 3 0 u t Q E j u
R
h u E o
c io 3 t rcil a ° .: D v 0 c u
c L
U
1,s ?I y css = N -
C '+ L
c. '? Ts °1 a c u > u
V T d y 1V:pppg? N L L .'1 ` C
cc E
3 6>1 E d} L >. U G,% 7
d1v? a=c-oo
'C a w c ; u c c
o p 13
s a1 u 3 O E` v ou >, a s E t
a1 u ai 3 3 ... > 3 ar L u c
3 > > s"o 'gyp v' Cc- aci s c a1 E c`1
L-
3 ` c.0 g ? v:1"a a?i .c r y .u r
- is E .0 3 O 3 g 3 S? ? O. u 3 L v. L E C >+
E °' c o s$ ?; c aci j c L z 's
E y a c .S.. == c su °-1 s u
3 w ra
; C) 2 r .v u
v m
c v c u

C Q C N y ,? 4: D ,O O L
7 ?- y L O
y O V1 y t_ y w .C T7 u
T 0-0 O N
• 0 N B C ,O a) y? ? U C u C?
c u L 7
y on
C, G m r= O O O._N O_ o
?n ° O 0.0 Cya u o y
u...?<0t. w m o c E
?p y G..N b ' E q Oq y
0-0 =
C C._:c b y L L U A y V N
E . •b c ? •o ? ? ?
p > -OQ. y -N O y v 3 `' L .? O
a 0 N`' C O rsi7 OypL N u N
? -, O '- b 'C c .C d C O
E to. C. v7 :J C v N Z 7 'fl
43 0
•?•?'T.N y N N t y cC y
d y t rn a t T 3 ed
? O b? u u 3
c 5." a O y y o.0 c y
E °u' V JC
L L NO_ L t y
Nv S
rn u G
E'> o v O
c
p on
O p C VI ,d C 0 c y q
y> L V c
o C ewe > ?. N N v yj m
a? y
F- o ?t E'er c?
O .'_' 3 v C ai 3 a a 0-0
U- - .- -

Cl

t

N 'n N W N y
00 j y N u c '? V O u •- W
? > ° c b c u.?
.DcA
3" •E d -0 0 It c c 06 4-)
z n ?, ?s c T fl ?° `
b L = y `O 0 U eOC . oo Q> eta
C b •p u N
° m u y 'o c y 0 vN c 3 10
o
_ fJ t N r
u E co `E? o a a`Oi
.M .0 H ?. > > .O A o0 U t `
` N o v E u _c co a y
O O C h u _C d c" .2 y O
N " H 0 ? L h
GO c t E u
v y > eo
?. °
c_ E
L C O c y U N y N C: 'pf r"1
? O .r
06
Vl N
ca. c
.0 CC uv W)
?. N ?..
n O` cd in y .? m h L C O
O
c° u u
Er °' y? c a 0 E
O` O V pOp O V d? >. cd e0
be c b u v u
u
JU c 3 m e c O y
d E t .. 0 ca
> =,n > c L o V •?? V
>cu?vECOG 0yyO`c
Q E .?. L O y y> vl V t/1
r .- y., ;; y N 6! L
C C y T` y O C co
N QJ
° a
y O L T O G ?O "' y C
y 0
0
C L= u 7 fn ° ??
C. `? '? t '? C O L G? d
a N L m D 3 0 O M
p• O N
N.
j N w y -0 d y N O
L n u a O c 'v v ?? L a
N v_ ai c ' - ? E ?
oL?NloLOOEoc? flv
C y `p L `' O y 0> N .D
0 `? oD •00 ? Z p C y ?? E
ief O C C O p• E L C E O
m E a o 9 °°
e v v, t? E `' y= ° a y
• C ?.? C OU ? L L •C ? ?
U t? y C y? ?- N ?. N V)
7 L y L O y
•v ?L 3'o p•?t?s E-o
OD ? Ty ? N a ', y y L 0? O.
c 7 G N y 'J V7 .C 'O ° ?. y
E N o c >1
teo.E o
A C L•- n' u
u m•°_ ooL E °o E o 3 0
C •C C 01-- N O. -j o
z 'O .0
00
o o-- to c o o? u a
fn eY a fl•
C- y y j ` ,- G -' O
3 y o O'? NL'? 3 ,o•av
Go E
r s 3 u u'
L OO 11 C O^ 7 h
? c a? a E 3 a?? ?-, ? c
v ?° a c ° o?? °? T 3 N
u N E p c. h .•'n N y
tr v7 u> d j y O y T C v •v 'C"
E cm
> > L 0 •V y N`? y
° 0 7 N y
y 0.0 n .. C r
O ELi? C07 • ``?' vi y C N
N
G. C C L 7 0
C "yJ 0 ?O s G C '? ?• O c? y y y
v C-Oy y? C 'E ? N t O y 7 3
oc >E wvL
c y L_ E c V y 0.> t v
y > > C v: O. > ,C ,>,. • ONO
L N C •h N
aa'uN'->37-2?`-syyo?
Oo t
v O E OD s E o0 C
c W C j
m u` N ' y n
N Or L C> N H ?' •C
'10 0 6 >1
° a o ° v o _n
0 y L to H >. 4J cO 0
y° p Y oo 0 u ao n
V 0 N 'O c :7
•0 Vf N N .jo 0 '? ? N Cr
?.. E c L C :o a N •> h
`? 00 y 0 MO C O a
? u
y y C y- L
V MO M" u
C, M o
" o ?i E u c c s '3 ro co _o
O ,- u ?+ a?i ° y T L n O
?E°?v= o=0aE
N00 °? a vN u q ? -° E
N L "y y y ca N y a`= o
'O 04 U Y of U C t 'X C 00 y s ., > u o 2 0 CL
a? _a
•ct•_
° E N N '-' ea 'O y? 'O N
c c c°_ .o 0 b >u s 3 y
° u
L n C 0 a: n v ° u
y of >
e3 O c y 0
6. u?,` 3 `r y o
v y v; co `° 3 3
° •?" to H y" pyo U y v a
0
0 c 6l N b o a y
u c aui is ?` H o D >,
ty„ = y O H y c.5 a a •U
C >
y E > ev .. >L 0 ?
C •c .0 pyj _ t N H C 4 7 0 .O 06.0
E u y°°°° o a
•ep t ? •? t D U N N CJ
A ?u .aE Et,o,?E?
V 'v: L - GJ
E c u a a v '? N N
O1 >, C Y ? ? n
u L C t y? L U
it O
>, .? • v 3 _?,. 0o C v', u
u O. '' O C OD
? y E: 3 u y =' `ri ?n t
-.2 Oro C) %D
V O y O
C >' C .y O
?s? 3 ai c >L
y
c N 3 o
C c ys o.
- '- C
o L > y C:
`"' N b0 C y N N O .C .D C7
.? ?••.` to N u C y O v?
Y C vyi
3 3 y? O c? y" L?
N _N L° y O ? L p? H
c 06
V H° .c H Er T
> c? c 0 j
y > o
> N N 0 y vi
> y 3
a o ni y u .0 oo .°- m
C N X bo'C N C
o F- y o u v ?o H? eo y
06 N U N C 'O O 61 y X ?0 .D
O >. .O >. C L y Q
c u 3 a, `o c so E >
0 7E
N t C O y C 3 N C L
y H '_ t0 7 C
Q a`? c, Q h •y v_ o u
?vE.E
.O
N

S
Ar
s`
November 1987
1
1
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1
1
For further information,
r please contact:
AV.
NC DOT Bicycle Program
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]

i
N
U
d
'o
a
c
a?
'C3
a?
CL
a)
E
a?
U
m
co 00 00 co co co 00 00 00
co 00 00 00 00 00 00 co

a O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O. O O O O O O
00 r -I Ln l0. M Ln

t/l C7
Hz
> w
a aW
H a U) u a H v1
A a H z a >
w
00
A R
0z HZ x ?? H
+ a U W £ w
z ?a w zH UA w u
i
w
w a
x z
H 0 a
z
H >z U a 6
40 w
? v
i wz x w
. . H A

wwH 0 bH u Hc7 o w Dw a
az
^Hw rA
w P4
SH Aw wH H > W c
wH win H .a

>
`n
°
a a a4 w a H u w
w --z a cs a H > A w o
HM> AH wA xz a
a
04 •0 4z
? AH Hx cn a wa
ANa 00

Q a U) P' ww A
w -

?
GL C4H H z::) as fn [1 wa c
p
cn ac7 oa HA aH aH cn >a _
'
••H z Oz 94H H$ Hz w aQ

H
En z
H
3
aiH
z
wm
VI ?w
?
aW
x
wz
>
>
WAU W N of U
A
Wix HH
> H WW
a H
WU! A?
a 4uW
0
Z HN
W 08 w z
z c?

Hau
3H
A
O H
4
cn
u a

£
4 aw >+a ?,
a 0 WH a
z %0 ?
U) a =
w c U
)
W4 ? a A Q OH coo o
Wa
W Hz Z
HZZ i
M0H
co W Z ON
N a
i 30 ?C WQ aoW w W CYaH 5

H r
H
ln' P4 H
WU) a H
ux r-I W
-Ia Q
Ln0 V (7 (?
?Q m ,
r-
a(nH r
r-1w
Lnai za
z
?4 m

xcxizAz
'
aw
U1°
a
?
a
w`?' V

v,
i oA o4w v
cn a ww z Ow ?o cnx z
A
UD Q
H o v
W 0 H H
E-4 C9 ,
.? . W
• z
WH •U! •t? koH
o£ •W
wa •0 •a 0W Q

x ?H z Wa x
xzH WE
-H x:D ?Ln xa0 x x M:0 4
aw
o4w94 94z a ?+ a x as 1% C14 004 aA
A> H ::)1-4 D O W4 A w U D O 5
AQcn Az AEI EnN AOcn Ax Acv xa z?
E .?
GNU
Iw
C
Rm-
c?
d?
0
R
V
O
J
c
0
0
a
C
C3
.1 Ln Ln Ln Lr) Ln Ln r-
A
££ w
A ? A A ? Q
? A CA7
O
ri
a
a
x
z
w
a
U
W
z

International Business Machines Corporation 1001 W.T. H
Charlotte, N
704/594-1000
Distribute 6:
Poole__ Vick ? O'Ouin
Dudeck Prevatt n
Bruto
n
d _ E'aott 6hullerApril 23, 1991 cL'? sib

Nedwidek
" s

tl'w
' ? springer--
Newell , Elmore

?- - Grimes ,y s

L. J. Ward, P . E . Manager
a state of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Mallard Creek Road (SR2467), Sugar Creek Road to Mallard Creek
Church Road, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, Al--2507
Reference: Your letter to Robert Miller dated April 11, 1991.
Dear Mr. Ward,
Thank you for keeping us informed regarding your alignment
plans for the extension of Mallard Creek Road to Graham
Street. We support your alternative D/A and will be willing
to dedicate the right of way across IBM property. I would
also remind you that the original dedication agreement ex-
pires on January 1
1993
We trust that our ri
ht
f
,
.
g
o
way
dedication will allow prompt construction of this much
needed roadway.

Sincerely yours,
C l/?l
Robert M. Sim
Manager, Site Facilities
RMS:cie

91113CT40051

11

1

wry ,? swF o
f.
Guw
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
December 4, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
P. d. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report
for Mallard Creek Road Improvement,
Mecklenburg County, Federal-Aid M-5238(1),
State 9.8100316, U-2507, ER 92-7443
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of October 24, 1991, concerning the above
project. We have reviewed the historic structures report by Louis Berger and
Associates, Inc., and offer our comments.
As noted in the report, in association with another Department of
Transportation Qroject we previously determined that the Christensen House
(no. 3) is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties are not eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places for the reasons cited:
Bisaner-Block House (no. 1). The house is not a distinctive
representative of its type.
Chen House (no. 2). The house does not possess distinguishing
qualities of importance in terms of architecture or assocition.
Cochran-Hewitt-Fox-Hartiss-Terry House (no. 4). The house has
undergone numerous character-altering changes.
Garrison-McGee House (no. 5). The house does not possess
distinguishing qualities of importance in terms of architecture or
association.
James House (no. 6). The house is not a distinctive representative
its type. of
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
December 4, 1991, Page 2

B. Z. Penniger House (no. 7). The house is not a distinctive
representative of its type.
Penniger-Warrick House (no. 8). The house h
character-altering changes. as undergone numerous
-n'• ' Piercy House (no. 9). The house is not a distinctiv
its type. a representative of
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary
of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section. 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisor
Co
il
y
unc
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Setion 106, codified ? at 36
CFR Part 800
.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earle
y,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
avid Brook
?eputy State Historic Preservation
Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
0,euis Berger & Associates
1
r
11

1
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
i
1
1
t

Park and Recreation Department Y
February 19, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
FILE:5235
A:MALLARD
D:FHG 92
fly ?r.e ?? , 3 `'? ?''? n
%wj uy ; a
E" 1
;.,,..
I am in receipt of your February 17, 1992 correspondence
regarding the acquisition of necessary right-of-way for the
widening of Mallard Creek Road in front of Mecklenburg 'County
park property. The Park and Recreation Department in no way
wants to impede this project through Section 4(f) or any other
means. Per your request, although the department believes that
the property in question is a valuable recreational resource in
that 1) the playground area serves the Mallard Creek Elementary
School and that 2) future access will be provided to Mallard
Creek Greenway, in comparing the function of this recreational
area with the recreational objectives of the community, the land
in question is not considered "significant" for the purposes of
section 4(f).

This correspondence is written in support of the Mallard Creek
Road widening project (TIP No. U-2507) because the area involved
in the right-of-way acquisition is not used for recreational
purposes now, nor is it slated to be in the future. Any use of
this and adjacent property will not be significantly impaired as
a result of the widening.

The only question that needs further clarification is in regard
to the requested width of the proposed acquisition. The
Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System response letter dated January
31, 1992 from Charles R. Allison, indicates NCDOT requested a
twenty (20) foot right-or-way on the school's property, while
requesting a thirty (30) to forty (40) foot width from
Mecklenburg County. Please provide me an explanation for this
difference at your earliest convenience.
The department also requests the same consideration for
additional landscaping and trees to screen County property from
the road. While the department favors this request, a formal

1 700 N. Tryon Street 9 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 • [phone] • FAX [phone]

I page two
L
process must be adhered to for final approval. This matter can
be submitted for formal approval as early as March 5, 1992 when
the Park and Recreation Commission's Land Acquisition
Sub-committee meets to discuss land matters. This committee would
then forward a recommendation to the full Commission on Tuesday,
March 10, 1992 and finally to the Board of County Commissioners at
their March 16, 1992 meeting for final authorization. Please
contact me should you wish to have a representative attend any of
these meetings to discuss this request..
Thank you for allowing the department to review the plans for
this project. Please contact me at 336-3854 at your earliest
convenience.
Very truly yours,
Nancy M. Brunnemer, Chief
Division of. Planning Services
NMB/jl
Copy to: R. Wayne Weston, Director
Wanda P. Towler, Assistant County Manager - Operations
Ernest Barry, Jr., Board of Transportation
Seddon Goode, Jr.
Susan M. Violette, P.E.

11

I
11

Of 1141,,x U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
kill
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
February 27, 1992
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
;. Manager of Planning and
Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Ward:

In Reply Refer To:
HB-NC
MAR 1992
C)IVIS'a.;B i c) F c
71 HIC.I ; "JI\YS
`? ? RESEP?'`?
Subject: U-2507, State Project No. 9.8100316, Meckl
Mallard Creek Road
Your memorandum of February 20,
correspondence received from the
Recreation Department concerning
property on the subject project.
FHWA concurrence that Section 4(f)
property in question.
ty,
1992 transmitted a copy of
Mecklenburg County Park and
acquisition of some of their
Your memorandum also requested
provisions do not apply to the
We have reviewed the correspondence from the Park and Recreation
Department, the Mecklenburg School System and preliminary plans
indicating the required right of way across -the county property.
The School System states in their correspondence that they fully
support the proposed project due to enhanced safety at the school
and that the right of way acquisition will in no way effect the
school's playground. The Park and Recreation Department indicates
the function of the property owned by them (Parcel 20) is not
significant for purposes of Section 4(f) when compared with the
recreational objectives of the community. The Park Department
further states the right of way acquisition will not significantly
impair any future use of the remaining property.
Based upon our review of your submittal, Section 4(f) regulations
contained in 23 CFR 771.135 and guidance provided in FHWA's Section
4(f) Policy Paper, we have determined that Section 4(f)
requirements are not applicable to the property (Parcel 20) owned
by the Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department.
Sincerely yours,
x4L G
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator

r
1
t

1
1

t
J

r
w

APPENDIX E
t
F2 E 1_ O C 4, T I CJiV lam' E P O R T North Carolina Depar r n o Transportati L
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN 80 Q RELOCATION?ISTANCI

1
PROJECTS 9.8100316
COL?T?TY- _ ??
Mecklenburg 'uQ
? Alternate D/A
I . D. NO.: U-25D7 F . A . PROJECT : !`
N/A '//
' DESCRIPTION (IF PROJECT: Mallard Creek Road Improvement -from Gr•ainam Street Connector to
Mallard Creek Church Road, Charlotte
ESTIMATED DISPLACEE5 INCOME LEVEL
Type of Minor- -?.? ..-•..-._.... _._.___._._____ ___-_,
DispIacee` Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SM 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 f1 --?0 _ 0 0 0 0 0
Fam i I i es 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 _ 0 0 0
FJus i nesses 0 0 -0 ?0 VALUE OF DUELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 ~0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent y
;Non-Profit 7_. 0 2 0 0-20M 0 0-150 CI 0-20M 0 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL GLEST IONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 6 150-250 4
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 57 250-400 11
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 7D-100 51 4110-600 18
services be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 0 600 LIP 0 100 UP 62 600 UP 7
affected by displacement _
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL.. 0 0 176 ?40
be available after project
>( 4. Will any business be dIs-- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed.. If so, Indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. No disruption of business services.
employees, minorities, etc.
X S. Will relocation cause a 4. Two non-profit organizations:
Housing shortage (A) American Legion Post No. 345, approximately
6. Source for available hous- 4000 square feet.
ins (list) (13) Eastern Star, Derita Chapter 324.1, approxi-
X 7. [,Jill additional housing mately 2000 square feet.
programs be needed 6. Realtors, newspaper, and MLS.
X S. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
10. Will public housing be

needed for project gearM r
, ? P
OF
11. Is public housing avail- R" .. i OF WAY BFLA, "ON
able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available 2$ 1991
during relocation period
13. W i l l there be a problem of N
C
DEPT
OF IRANS FORKON
Housing within financial .
.
.
I
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list Source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
- - . \ C"
'cRelocation Agent
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
I
Date Approved ate
Original & 1 Copy: 4tate Relocation Amen
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

1 U.S. Oepartment of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
'PART 1 ITO .7e corrrom!rev by 'eaeml Agency) Cate Qt Land Evaluation Request
1/08/91
Name Of Project Mill lard Creek Road ? Federal Agency Involved
FHWA
Proposes Lana Use County And State
(roadway Mechlenburg, North Carolina
ccoplered by SCSI II Oats Request Recened SV SCS
FART ll (1'o be,
-? - _l -L4-q\ WEL)
as Uze situ contain prime. unique, statewide or local important farmiand7 Yes No
-(/f ,70. the. FPP,A does nor apply - do nor correp/ete additions, parrs of this form). Q
fiMjor Crsofs/ : - Fsrn+ebis Lana In Govt. Jurisdiction
Aires: Z?-rt3 c, -1 % ""I3• `a

New at Land Evacuation System used man" Of Local Site Assessment System
? C??•C h?J v.?w ??C ? O ? °L_ Acres Irrigated Average Form Site
Rome \ 0 -1
Amount Of Fernrano As Defined in PPA
Acres: Z3 O 31-1 % 6'8
.
Oats Land Evacuation Returned By SCS
ART II I (To be conrp/eWd by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Site A
34.11 Sited Site C Site 0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect) --
C- Total Acres In Site 34. i1
ART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information ..
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland \? L
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland ,'1•
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted 060
0. Percentage of Fertncand In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Reletwe Value
ART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sca/eofOto 1000oints)
'110
TART V1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
to Aseesernent CA terin (Thiw eriterfa are explained In 7 CFA 6W.51b) Maximum
Points
I
1. Area In Nonurban Use
Z Perimeter in Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Oistanee From Urban Builtuo Area
0. Oistance To Urban Suaaort Swvicas
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Suooom Services
12 Comcatibiii With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
IRT VII (To be completed try Fedwil Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V)' 100
o ass S its Anre/ ssment (From Parr VI above ora /ool 160
TOTAL POINTS (Tots/ of above 2lines) 260

Selected:
Oats Of Selection Wait A Loot Site Assionment Umdt
Yes ? No ?
Wson rar .?ieveetion: