U2508

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
June 22, 1995
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dor4p
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb7?
Subject: FONSI for Mallard Creek Road
Mecklenburg County
TIP #U-2508
DEHNR # 95-0854, DEM # 10963
A IF
'4q- reeJA
ID F-= F1
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that waters including wetlands will be impacted.
DOT did an excellent job of investigating our concerns expressed as a result of the EA
review. Furthermore, the coordination between DOT and DEM was beneficial to both
parties. DEM appreciates the effort undertaken by DOT for this project.
DEM agrees with the decision to widen existing Mallard Creek Road. DOT is
reminded that endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would 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 (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
mallard.fon
cc: Frank Vick, DOT
Ted Devans, DOT
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
_. 7
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
- ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form 1Q? l0
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: I ?ifPU?}I/JLv ?? • ?g ,3G?
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In ouse Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
tt ? Air ? Coastal management ? Water Planning
ev
aye
e ? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville El Groundwater Wildlife El Solid waste management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer .Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
t
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
ng
on
as ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others Pnvironmental Management RECEIVED
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart JUN 06 soc
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
r'-f a • •nu
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS-104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
,

Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road
SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29,
and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49,
F. A. Project STP - OOOS (72)
State Project 8.2672601
T.I.P. Project U-2508
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
Date -4;f- H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
¢/7, p? Liacl G
Date Fiicho L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
N
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road,
SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29,
and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49,
F. A. Project STP - OOOS (72)
State Project 8.2672601
T.I.P. Project U-2508
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Thomas E. Devens, P.E. ?.••?s?ESS/oN ;f
Project Planning Engineer i 4 SEAL i =
18334
N
N
Z601?11-?qS E. ?E
Robert Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
.0
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road,
SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29,
and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49,
F. A. Project STP - OOOS (72)
State Project 8.2672601
T.I.P. Project U-2508
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the
human or natural environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the
Environmental Assessment for the subject project, which has been independently evaluated by the
FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts
of the proposed project. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the
accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes to
widen Mallard Creek Church Road to a multi-lane cross-section from SR 2681 to NC 49. The
project is located in the northeast Charlotte area in Mecklenburg County (See Figure 1 in the
Environmental Assessment for project location).
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
TIP has allocated $3,060,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $5,100,000 for construction of this
project (U-2508). The project is currently planned for construction in two phases. From
SR 2681 to US 29, right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to commence in Fiscal Year (FY) 1995,
with construction letting scheduled for FY 1996. From US 29 to NC 49, right-of-way acquisition
will begin in FY 1997, with letting scheduled for FY 1998.
This 2.2 mile project has an estimated cost of $8,700,000 (including $5,890,000 for
construction and $2,810,000 for right-of-way).
Mallard Creek Church Road is designated as SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29, and
SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49.
From SR 2681 to US 29, the existing two-lane facility is to be widened to a four-lane
highway with two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction (See Figure 2). Each travel direction will
be divided by a 16-foot raised median. The median will be raised above inside, modified curbs,
and will consist of grass and spaced plantings of small trees which are indigenous to the area. An
2
8-foot shoulder (including 6 feet of pavement and 2 feet of grass) will be constructed adjacent to
the outside edge of pavement. The paved width of this shoulder will accommodate bicycle traffic.
From US 29 to NC 49, a four-lane highway with a 12-foot inside and 14-foot outside travel
lane in each direction is proposed (to accommodate bicycle traffic). See Figure 3. Each travel
direction will be divided by a 16-foot raised median. The median will be raised above inside,
modified curbs, and will consist of grass and spaced plantings of small trees which are indigenous
to the area. Curb and gutter and an 8-foot berm will be utilized adjacent to the outside edge of
pavement. Existing grade of the bridge (and approaches) over Mallard Creek may be raised to
reduce the magnitude of a "sag" vertical curve from US 29 to the bridge to SR 2834.
The roadway will utilize existing alignment to the extent possible between SR 2681 and
SR 2834 (Mary Alexander Road). From Mary Alexander Road to NC 49, a new extension of
Mallard Creek Church Road is recommended (See Figure 4). The extension is proposed on new
location, intersecting NC 49 at its existing intersection with SR 2939 (Old Concord Road).
The "old" section of Mallard Creek Church Road in the vicinity of Mary Alexander Road
will be realigned to "tee" into the new extension of Mallard Creek Church Road (See Figure 4).
Old Concord Road will be realigned to accommodate an improved four-way intersection with
NC 49 and the new Mallard Creek Church Road extension.
Recommended minimum right-of-way width from SR 2681 to US 29 is 120 feet plus any
cut/fill slopes or easements. From US 29 to NC 49, a minimum of 100 feet is proposed. The
realigned sections of Concord Road and "old" Mallard Creek Church Road require a minimum of
60 feet of right-of-way. No control of access is recommended.
III. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts. Impacts will be minimized by utilizing Best Management Practices during
construction. During development of the erosion control plan in the vicinity of the two wetland
mitigation sites, NCDOT will coordinate with the Asheville Regulatory Office of the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be required.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material in "Waters of the United States." It is anticipated that the provisions of
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A) 14 and 26 will apply to this project. Final permit decisions,
however, are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
As mitigation for wetland impacts from the Charlotte Outer Loop (TIP project R-211), two
lowland sites adjacent to Mallard Creek and Mallard Creek Church Road have been converted
into wetlands. It is vitally important that, during the design phase of this project, every effort be
3
taken to avoid impacting these sites. Plans of the mitigation sites are available in the Roadway
Design Branch of NCDOT.
Wetlands serve as a natural buffer between urban runoff and the natural environment.
Therefore, in the vicinity of the two wetland mitigation areas adjacent to Mallard Creek, NCDOT
will make every attempt to divert stormwater from the recommended curb and gutter facility into
the wetlands. This requirement should include stormwater which falls on the proposed highway
from US 29 to approximately SR 2834 (Mary Alexander Road). Stormwater should first run
through the wetlands before entering Mallard Creek. Where grades do not allow diversion of
water to the wetlands, efforts will be made to divert stormwater into grass swales and ditches
before reaching Mallard Creek.
NCDOT will survey a potential area of forested wetlands which is located in the southwest
quadrant of the US 29 intersection with Mallard Creek Church Road, just northwest of Mitigation
Area A. NCDOT will coordinate with the Asheville Field Office of the Corps of Engineers for the
determination and subsequent delineation of any additional jurisdictional wetlands. If any
additional wetlands are found, then suitable permit application will be submitted to the Corps after
final project design.
In order to minimize effect on historic properties, NCDOT has committed to the following
measures:
1. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT will landscape the grassed
median with wax myrtles, forsythia, and/or scotch broom. NCDOT will also plant a screen
of trees and shrubs on the north side of SR 2472 at areas where no landscape buffer
currently exists. Prior to the initiation of construction, NCDOT shall submit the
landscaping plan to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and comment.
2. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT will minimize the clearing of
trees in the right-of-way.
During construction, traffic control measures will be taken to prevent interference with
access to the parking lot of the UNCC District Park, located east of the US 29 intersection with
Mallard Creek Church Road. Any areas of the park that are disturbed by construction will be
restored and landscaped.
As a part of this project, NCDOT plans to incorporate the proposed Mallard Creek
Greenway into the design for the replacement bridge over Mallard Creek. NCDOT is committed
to further coordination with the Mecklenburg Parks and Recreation Department to produce a
bridge design which provides adequate clearances for a bicycle underpass. Cost estimates will not
be finalized until later design phases, at which time cost-sharing can be addressed.
NCDOT will participate with the City of Charlotte on a cost-share basis to provide a
pedestrian facility on Mallard Creek Church Road, from US 29 to NC 49. A sidewalk is
recommended on the southwest side of Mallard Creek Church Road.
4
The replacement bridge for Bridge Number 84 (carrying Mallard Creek Church Road over
Mallard Creek) will have sidewalks constructed on both sides of the bridge deck.
Six geodetic markers are located along the project and will be impacted by the construction.
Prior to construction, NCDOT will contact the North Carolina Geodetic Survey.
A plant screen will be planted along the project, between SR 4671 and SR 2834, to visually
shield homes from the proposed highway.
IV. SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES
This project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land from 1) the UNCC District Park
belonging to the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department, and 2) from the
Alexander property, a property which is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (See Figure 4 in the Environmental Assessment). Both properties are adjacent to the
existing roadway. Since the minor use of this land meets the criteria set forth in the Federal
Register (December 23, 1986), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements
of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluations are provided in Appendix B.
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the park and historic site, have fully been
evaluated:
1) Do Nothing.
2) Widen the highway without using land from the park or the historic site.
3) Build the improved facility on new location without using land from the park or
the historic site.
These alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
Building an improved facility on new location without using land from the park of the
historic site does not satisfy the needs of the project, and introduces significant additional cost. In
addition, the layout of the UNCC District Park and the Alexander property would force a new
location alternative well to the north of the existing project location.
A widening alternative was studied which entirely misses the Alexander property and the
UNCC District Park (See Figure 6 in the Environmental Assessment). The alternative widens
Mallard Creek Church Road to the opposite side from these properties. This alternative was not
found to be feasible and prudent for the following reasons:
1. The alignment results in the removal of several apartments and homes, resulting in the
relocation of 35 additional residences. This is an extraordinary amount of upheaval to a
community.
5
2. The alignment results in the destruction of approximately 0.4 acre of an existing
wetland mitigation area that has been approved by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
recommended alternative does not impact the wetlands.
3. The alignment will remove a pond which is located across Mallard Creek Church
Road from the Alexander property.
4. The avoidance alternative will cost $530,000 more than the recommended alternative.
5. The avoidance alignment causes a curved approach to the US 29 intersection, thereby
increasing the chance for accidents to occur.
6. The recommended alternative would be closer to the remaining homes and apartments
along Mallard Creek Church Road (between Mallard Creek and SR 2834) that it did not
relocate.
All planning to minimize harm to the park and to the historic property has been performed
as an integral part of this project. The officials having jurisdiction over these Section 4(f)
properties have agreed, in writing, with the assessment of impacts resulting from the use of the
properties and with the mitigation measures to be provided.
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO),
whose correspondence is attached to this document. The SHPO has concurred that this project,
as proposed, has no adverse effect on the Alexander property. .
Measures to minimize harm to the Alexander property include the following:
1. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT has agreed to landscape the
grassed median with wax myrtles, forsythia, and/or scotch broom. NCDOT will also plant a
screen of trees and shrubs on the north side of SR 2472 at areas where no landscape buffer
currently exists. Prior to the initiation of construction, NCDOT shall submit the
landscaping plan to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and comment.
2. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT will minimize the clearing of
trees in the right-of-way.
Widening Mallard Creek Church Road will not use land from any area of the UNCC District
Park which is used for activities, ie, the athletic fields or parking. However, access to the park is
still a concern. Therefore, measures to minimize harm include the following:
1. During construction, traffic control measures will be taken to prevent interference
with access to or operations of the soccer fields belonging to the Mecklenburg County
Parks and Recreation Department. Any areas of the park that are disturbed by construction
will be restored and landscaped.
6
The recommended alignment is actually a compromise. It is not the geometrically-preferred
alignment. However, NCDOT discovered the Alexander property and the UNCC District Park
early in the planning process. In an effort to preserve the properties and to minimize damage,
NCDOT shifted its original, preferred alignment to the south, to what is now the recommended
alignment. The recommended alignment cannot be shifted any further to the south for the reasons
stated in evaluating the avoidance alternative. The recommended alignment is estimated to
acquire approximately 0.13 acre of the approximate 1.61 acres of the Alexander property,
representing 7.9% of the area. However, the sliver of land that will be taken does not have
significance in its own right. Rather, the "neck" of land that extends to Mallard Creek Church
Road was included in the boundary description to assure access to the roadway. The loss of a
small portion of land from that access area will not affect the architectural characteristics that
qualify the Alexander House for the National Register of Historic Places, nor will the loss of land
be visible from the house (See Environmental Assessment, Figure 6, and the property boundary
map in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment).
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
An Environmental Assessment was completed for this project on November 29, 1994.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment were sent to the federal, state, and local agencies listed
below. An asterisk (*) denotes those agencies who responded with written comments.
Substantive comments are discussed in the following section, and copies of the agencies' letters
are included in Appendix Aof this document.
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
* N. C. Division of Environmental Management
* N. C. Wildlife. Resources Commission
Mecklenburg County Commissioners
The Mayor of Charlotte
* University of North Carolina, Charlotte
The Environmental Assessment was made available to the public.
Is
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment
A certification would be required indicating that there would be no increase in the 100-year
natural water surface elevation due to the proposed bridge replacement over Mallard Creek. This
is the case since Mallard Creek is a detail study stream, as identified in the flood insurance study.
Response
No increase in the 100-year floodplain is anticipated as a result of this project. Prior to
construction, NCDOT expects to issue a certification that the natural water surface elevation
during the 100-year flood will not increase. This certification will be provided to Mecklenburg
County after further hydrological design.
Comment
The EA indicates that there will be no direct effect from the project on the two wetland
mitigation areas adjacent to Mallard Creek. We are concerned, however, about potential indirect
impacts that could adversely affect these areas..... Stormwater drainage and other construction
activities will have to be carefully managed to avoid adverse effects that could violate the
conditions of ...existing permits. It is recommended that drainage plans be coordinated with the
Asheville Regulatory Field Office.
Response
NCDOT will employ Best Management Practices during construction to minimize any
impacts on the two wetland mitigation areas adjacent to Mallard Creek. In addition, NCDOT will
coordinate with the Asheville Regulatory Office during development of the erosion control plan.
Comment
We are aware of forested wetlands adjacent to Mallard Creek located west of SR 2833 and
north of Mitigation Area A that appear to be within the designated corridor. These wetlands have
not been identified in the EA and would require Department of the Army permit authorization to
fill.....
Response
NCDOT will survey this area further, and will coordinate with the Asheville Field Office of
the Corps of Engineers for the determination and subsequent delineation of any additional
jurisdictional wetlands. If any additional wetlands are found, then suitable permit application will
be submitted to the Corps after final project design.
Comment
Draining and filling of the 0.8-acre farm pond within the designated corridor is authorized
by DA Nationwide Permit 26 as are the crossings of the intermittent channels. Notification to this
office will not be required unless the affected area of waters and wetlands exceeds 1 acre (1/3 acre
for the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management).
Response
Some filling of the pond will occur as a result of this project. If the fill exceeds 1/3 of an
acre, then notification will be made to NCDEM. Coordination with DEM has already
commenced regarding water quality concerns.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Comment
There is an 0.8 acre pond that will be drained and filled as a result of this project. DEM
requested on November 25, 1992 that DOT attempt to avoid impacting this pond. The pond
accumulates sediment and pollutants from the upstream junk yard and therefore they are
prevented from entering Mallard Creek. This pond also probably serves to modify the hydrograph
and prevent flooding of the wetland mitigation site. The mitigation site has been developed with
an expectation of a certain amount of hydrology. DOT should reevaluate the hydrology of the
mitigation site with the knowledge that the pond site will be developed into commercial property
(Crescent Resources, Inc.). Is it possible that the City of Charlotte will require that runoff from
this site not exceed the present runoff? If this is the case, our concerns will be alleviated. DOT
should investigate this matter with the city. If excess water will be directed to the mitigation site,
DOT should ensure that the mitigation area does not have too much water or that flow will
channelize and thereby drain the mitigation site. DOT should adhere to DOT's Stream
relocations/channelization guidelines.
Response
Charlotte ordinances do require that the post-development peak of the hydrograph for a
particular site cannot exceed the pre-development peak. NCDOT has contacted Crescent
Resources, who received zoning approval from Mecklenburg County for a
commercial/professional park in the pond vicinity. The zoning plan shows future removal of the
pond and development of several acres of the southwest quadrant of the intersection of US 29 and
Mallard Creek Church Road. Crescent Resources, however, does not envision developing this
quadrant prior to construction of Mallard Creek Church Road. Therefore, NCDOT is still
concerned with potential impact on the wetland mitigation site. A site visit was conducted in
March, 1995, to look at existing hydrologic features. The pond drains through a 24-inch pipe to a
small creek, which runs for approximately 200 feet before passing through another 24-inch pipe
under US 29. From US 29, water is directed from the pipe into a creek which eventually runs
into the mitigation site.
9
Given that a 24-inch pipe was originally selected for a maximum design flow, and that
NCDOT will not replace this pipe, design flows into the mitigation area cannot substantially
increase, even if the pond were to be totally removed. A 24-inch pipe limits the flow of water.
More than adequate water storage exists should the 24-inch culvert under US 29 cause
water to back-up in the upstream area. US 29 is elevated approximately 12-15 feet above the
culvert invert.
Another consideration is watershed area. Map reconnaissance shows a possible watershed
area of 22 acres flowing into the pond. Hydrologic analysis based on a 22 acre contributing area
estimates that the 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year storms yield only 14 cubic feet per second (cfs), 18
cfs, and 20 cfs of water, respectively, entering the pond from the watershed. That is a very small
flow. Site inspection, however, revealed that only 15 of the 22 acres drain into the pond. Thus
design year flows will be even less.
One final factor is the design of the mitigation area itself. The site has a spillway made of
rip-rap and capped with a concrete weir. This weir regulates the water surface elevation of the
site by allowing excess water to spill into Mallard Creek. Even if large volumes of water enter the
site, the water will spill over the weir into Mallard Creek.
Since the mitigation site is not channelized from the stream entrance to the weir, the flow of
water from the stream dissipates over the site. This characteristic has positive benefits. It better
distributes nutrients to the wetland, and also slows water velocity. Slower velocity prevents
erosion of sediments or the undermining of vegetation.
In summary, NCDOT is satisfied that the design flow into the wetland mitigation area
cannot exceed the amount the 24-inch pipe was designed for, even if the pond were totally
removed. Furthermore, the flows are very small. Therefore, NCDOT feels the wetland mitigation
site is protected. This information was communicated to and accepted by DEM (verbally) as an
adequate conclusion in March, 1995.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment
NCDOT should.... avoid impacts to the two wetland mitigation sites adjacent to the project.
These sites may be useful in treating stormwater runoff from the project; however, this should be
carefully developed to insure this does not interfere with the establishment of wetland vegetation
on these sites.
10
Response
The recommended alignment of Mallard Creek Church Road was finalized only after plan
sheets for the mitigation sites were approved. Therefore any widening will not disturb the sites.
As stated in the environmental commitments, NCDOT will make every attempt to divert
stormwater from the recommended curb and gutter facility into the wetlands. Best Management
Practices will be enforced during construction to trap harmful sedimentation before reaching the
mitigation sites.
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Comment
Our master plan.... recommends a "cut and cover" (i.e. depressed road condition) near the
intersection of Mary Alexander Road which would facilitate pedestrian crossing between
University land to the north and to the south of Mallard Creek Church Road. We request that
your plans incorporate the envisioned "cut and cover" arrangement and that our campus
planners/designers be allowed to work with you to determine the best possible access to
University property now divided by Mallard Creek Church Road.
Response
The existing topography and road design do not lend themselves to this configuration
without substantial additional costs. A depressed road condition would mean increased cuts,
therefore wider right-of-way limits in the cut areas. It will also cause Mary Alexander Road to
have to be depressed to meet a lower Mallard Creek Church Road at grade. Problems with sight-
distance and traffic control will also result from a substantial change in grade.
Comment
We would like sidewalks included on both sides of the Mallard Creek Church Road.
Response
NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy calls for local funding participation in the construction of
sidewalks. Therefore, NCDOT will participate with the City of Charlotte for funding of a
sidewalk on the southwest side of proposed Mallard Creek Church Road from US 29 to NC 49
No requests for additional sidewalks have been received from the City of Charlotte.
The proposed cross-section of Mallard Creek Church Road has curb and gutter with 8-foot
berms on the outside of pavement. Therefore, sidewalks can be constructed along remaining
portions of the roadway at a later date with no additional right-of-way requirements.
11
Comment
The UNCC Master Facilities Plan envisions a significant treescape system on the campus
border which would include an identifying campus tree. Although this tree has not been chosen, it
would be a treescape quality consistent with that of W.T. Harris Boulevard in the vicinity of the
IBM site at University Research Park.
Response
Requests for a particular tree to be used in this project's landscaping should be received by
NCDOT by August 31, 1995.
Comment
We understand that the bridge over Mallard Creek .... will be reconstructed. We would like
the bridge design to be of aesthetic merit (especially the guard rail). Additionally, we would like
the underpass to be as user friendly as possible, include night lighting, and include an emergency
phone. Adequate interior width is necessary to avoid a tunneled appearance and feeling.
Response
Additional aesthetic features beyond standard designs would require local funding. The
bridge itself will have sidewalks on both sides of traffic lanes to accommodate pedestrian traffic.
Bicycle traffic is accommodated via the 14-foot width of outside travel lanes. It is not the policy
of NCDOT to provide interior lighting for underpasses, or emergency telephone service for
localized use. The underpass itself will conform to AASHTO standards.
Comment
[UNCC is] interested in allowing the existing forest cover to be as close to the new road as
possible and that tree saplings be densely planted to make up the gap in areas where trees are to
be removed. This is an important issue in terms of visual appeal and air quality.
Response
. These comments will be considered during development of the landscaping plan for this
project.
C. Public Hearing and Other Comments
A public hearing for this project was held on February 21, 1995. Approximately 35 citizens
attended the hearing.
The following comments and questions are typical of those raised by citizens attending the
public hearing:
12
Comment
....the intersection of this road [Mallard Creek Church Road] with US 29 is a very
dangerous intersection because of the way US 29 dips as you come from Concord and the way
Mallard Creek Church Road dips deserves attention.....
Response
Roadway design engineers conducted a field visit after the public hearing to evaluate this
issue, and concluded that adequate sight distance does exist on approaches to the signalized
intersection at US 29.
Comment
You mentioned the greenway and a path under the [bridge which crosses Mallard Creek].
What kind of access is there going to be to the parkland that's in that area right now?
Res onse
Pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the greenway will have direct access to the Mecklenburg
County Parks and Recreation Department soccer fields, which are located northeast of Mallard
Creek Church Road on the east side of US 29. The greenway and bridge underpass will be
located on the west side of Mallard Creek - the same side as the parkland. Parkland is located
within 100 feet (and at approximately the same elevation) of the proposed greenway.
Comment (Mr. Bill Coxe, Mecklenburg Co. Engineering Dept.)
......across Mallard Creek Church's new alignment from the Old Mallard Creek Church
Road where you hook up at that new intersection, it's fairly likely that we're going to get some
sort of land-use developed over there which is going to want to tie-in across the road. And I
think that looking at the "laneage" that you forecast as being needed there, perhaps you might also
provide for a through lane on the Old Mallard Creek Church [approach] as well as the dedicated
left and right-turn lanes that have been shown in the document.
Response
A three-leg approach configuration is recommended for this proposed intersection.
Although an unsignalized intersection is recommended, signalization requirements will be studied
during the design phase. As traffic volumes increase, a spot improvement will be considered at
this intersection.
The north side of this intersection is undeveloped and no approved site plans have been
prepared for future development. Therefore, a fourth leg to this intersection is not recommended.
13
Comment (Mr. Bill Coxe, Mecklenburg Co. Engineering Dept.)
....perhaps more [important] is the future interchange with NC 49 as we extend this
[Mallard Creek Church Road] on south in some point in the future. Given that you now are going
to have the intersection of two very major thoroughfares there, we would like to have some
assistance with some preliminary design on the interchange so that we can locally protect the
right-of-way for the future interchange......
Response
A future extension of Mallard Creek Church Road to the southeast is proposed as part of
the "Eastern Circumfirential" of Charlotte, and is depicted on the 1988 Thoroughfare Plan. The
Circumfirential utilizes Mallard Creek Church Road from I-85 to NC 49, after which the
Circumfirential crosses NC 49 onto new location. This comment requests the design of a grade
separation over Southern Railroad and a future interchange at the proposed intersection of NC 49
with Mallard Creek Church Road, to aid local officials with right-of-way protection.
Preservation of right-of-way is always an important goal, however any actions for
preservation must be balanced against the likelihood of a facility being built at a known location,
or in the near future. Currently the Eastern Circumfirential is not programmed in the North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Plan. Neither Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, or the
Mecklenburg-Union WO have listed the Circumfirential as a priority project. Because
construction of the Circumfirential is not anticipated in the near term, NCDOT will not study an
interchange design at this time.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
To be added to the Environmental Commitments Section:
1) All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and minimize
environmental impacts. Impacts will be minimized by utilizing Best Management Practices during
construction. During development of the erosion control plan in the vicinity of the two wetland
mitigation sites, NCDOT will coordinate with the Asheville Regulatory Office of the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
2) NCDOT will survey a potential area of forested wetlands which is located in the southwest
quadrant of the US 29 intersection with Mallard Creek Church Road, just northwest of Mitigation
Area A. NCDOT will coordinate with the Asheville Field Office of the Corps of Engineers for the
determination and subsequent delineation of any additional jurisdictional wetlands. If any
additional wetlands are found, then suitable permit application will be submitted to the Corps after
final project design.
14
VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the proposed project 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 and the Federal Highway Administration that
the project will not have a significant impact upon the human or natural environment. Therefore,
and Environmental Impact Statement or further environmental analysis will not be required.
TED/plr

ti
; Q§)? 1z
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
i
i
UN,
I
I
c
ewel1 %
h#bUtte+
• Allen
1
?01t it 8

?i A ,
•
•
•
o •
24 .04 741s •
•
oe ?? ; y

2472 ,Qs A?? ?? e~ 24ll ?? ? •
Ch ??• > •

5°
? 2771
•
•
46 ?
.16 ?1 2698 .J> 7.Q.4Z n
2473
`
• F
• -4M
•
'o .03
SR 2472 ya.,
y
MOuaSd
BEGIN tr
PROJECT
\ .65,
• .479
lp 40-6 1 1411
b20/
11
X
s
`
\ \
/ : `O
`
.17 Ol
°.ei
• O M67 V
/
J J
tr ° 2 -33SR 2833 .011 , .170.0> ? 4eq?0. MI.
21,2 /
•
\ 2600 76 _
4022 O N b27
!Q
7
'
7>

• ?? 4 71
i
•
/
> °D.SZZ \ •
.
-14 ?
2 8
o
4010
461
`
C . s
.11
Wool
4619
•

\
i 0
_ •??
4611
0

•
?v
i\
?
tN?W6r
6
\ / 7ta4 ??- • \ fM 5
\ L - • . \
29
/ ?--
1 0?
2663
\ 1w
,?5 ?
-.
r • 6odc Cr..11 Q1.
]
' j END v ? z
?•'?.70 ? PROJECT ?
I ? /\
74ryi 4{y?_ - -- U.H.C of CHARLOTTE \ w
azsi - i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
* o .05 05 o Swa TRANSPORTATION
?° 2 Sa 7eax '? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
4%2 o • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
$ 2010 ?'OJ 2 v
°
021 +
o ° ?. 9
]072 3{W MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD

'

o - M \
07>
"° .5.1
q6.
6 .?
3067
11
t

SR 2472 FROM SR 2681 TO US 29

p
.
a
027 K.
.° Db .19
AND
742! -q .542 304 /
.0) a:,,o .6!!
SR 2833 FROM US 29 TO NC 49
?? • ?.6.,J°ti
X20 o 4663 q AS I
>y T. I. P. NUMBER U-2508
\ V
-
7069 •:? •= /\•5
49
\ o •OD
aJ
'
??
7
a °
w
0
• 6 FIG. 1
Appendix A
Additional Comments/Coordination
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RO. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO March 1, 1995
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr.-Vick:
-C,Ety\
? o
-? MAR 0 6 1995
DIVISION OF
4 nHIGHWAYS
This is in response to your letter of December 15, 1994,
requesting our comments on the "Federal Environmental Assessment
for Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, Widening of Mallard Creek
Church Road, SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29, and SR 2833 from
US 29 to NC 49, F. A. Project STP - OOOS(72), State Project
8.2672601, T.I.P. Project U-2508" (Regulatory Branch Action
I.D. No. 199301268).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and
jurisdictional resources, including waters, wetlands, and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' projects. The proposed roadway does not
cross any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project.
Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
March 1, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, Widening
of Mallard Creek Church Road, SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29, and SR 2833 from
US 29 to NC 49, F. A. Project STP - OOOS(72), State Project 8.2672601, T.I.P.
Project U-2508" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199301268)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis. Plan Formulation and Flood Plain
Services Branch, at [phone]
Our comments regarding flood plains were provided to your office by our
letter of April 15, 1993, a copy of which is contained in Appendix D of the
Environmental Assessment (EA). In addition to those comments, we would like
to add that a certification would be required indicating that there would be
no increase in the 100-year natural water surface elevation due to the
proposed bridge replacement over Mallard Creek. This is the case since
Mallard Creek is a detail study stream, as identified in the flood insurance
study.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steve Lund. Asheville Field Office. Regulatory
Branch, at [phone]
a. The EA indicates that there will be no direct effect from the project
on the two wetland mitigation areas adjacent to Mallard Creek. We are
concerned, however, about potential indirect impacts that could adversely
affect these areas. Such effects could result from construction activity,
erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater runoff. Mitigation Area A has already
exhibited a propensity toward excessive-ponding. Stormwater drainage and
other construction activities will have to be carefully managed to avoid
adverse effects that could violate the conditions of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's existing permits. It is recommended that
drainage plans be coordinated with the Asheville Regulatory Field Office.
b. We are aware of forested wetlands adjacent to Mallard Creek located
west of SR 2833 and north of Mitigation Area A that appear to be within the
designated corridor. These wetlands have not been identified in the EA and
would require Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization to fill.
Construction of a bridge approach fill through this area could be authorized
by DA General Permit 198200031 with the required submission of project plans
for review.
c. Draining and filling of the 0.8-acre farm pond within the designated
corridor is authorized by DA Nationwide Permit No. 26 as are the crossings of
the intermittent channels. Notification to this office will not be required
unless the affected area of waters and wetlands exceeds 1 acre (1/3 acre for
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management).
d. Questions or comments concerning DA permits may be directed to
Mr. Lund.
ild L D_??
TAKE
United States Department of the Interior 2 o,,?NC
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
January 20, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
l
JAN 2 3 1995
2
22 DIVIS11CWN
C? HIGHL'•rt.. ??
Subject: Federal environmental assessment for proposed widening of
Mallard Creek Church Road (SR 2472), from SR 2661 to NC 49,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2508
In your letter of December 15, 1994, you requested our comments on the
subject document. The following comments are provided in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e),
and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The proposed project involves widening of SR 2472 to a multi-lane
facility from SR 2681 to NC 49 in northeast Charlotte, a distance of
approximately 2.2 miles. The proposed project will involve widening the
existing alignment between SR 2681 and SR 2834 (Mary Alexander Road) to a
four-lane highway with a 20 foot raised median and two 12 foot travel
lanes in each direction. From Mary Alexander Road to NC 49, the project
will involve construction of a similar four-lane roadway on new location.
The existing bridge over Mallard Creek will be replaced with an
approximate 180 foot bridge at the same location. Three intermittent
streams will be crossed by the extension of Mallard Creek Church Road
onto new location. The purpose of the project is to improve the level of
service and safety on SR 2472.
The Service generally prefers alternatives that improve existing roads
versus construction on new alignment and thus, has no major concerns with
the selection of the preferred alternative for the proposed project.
Overall, the Service believes that most environmental issues were
properly highlighted. The Service appreciates the consideration given to
protecting the two wetland mitigation areas that occur within the project
area. We encourage the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
aggressively pursue restoration activities at these sites well in advance
of the proposed time schedule for this project to hopefully provide
additional sedimentation and erosion control associated with construction
activities.
The Service believes that while the direct effects to local natural
resources were adequately addressed, the potential indirect effects to
these resources from likely secondary development were ignored.
Similarly, the cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife resources
resulting from this project and other road improvement projects (e.g.,
North Charlotte Outer Loop, US 29 Connector) in the area also was not
discussed. A thorough analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative
effects of a Federal action is required under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
The Service concurs with the "no effect" determination made regarding
this project and potential impacts to federally listed endangered and
threatened species. In view of this, we believe that requirements of
Section 7(c) of the 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 endangered or
threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls of
our staff at 704/665-1195, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-93-049.
Sincer
Bri P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
t8 NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF-ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
)2-09-95 _ RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-800
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
IAILED TO: FROM:
-C- DEPT• OF TRANSPORTATION MRS- CHRYS BAGGETT
HIT WEBB DIRECTOR
ROGRAM DEVELOPMENT BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
IGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
ROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO-MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
=41R 2472) FROM I-85 TO US 29 (SR 2833) FROM US 29 TO NC 49
E'CKLENBURG COUNTY TIP #U-2508
Al N(3,95E42200452 PROGRAM TITLE - EA
.?E ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
4TERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
SUBMITTED: t ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVEDr'
t X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
OULD YOU HAVE-ANY QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]- t

REGION F
s
LNCCRARLOT-FE _
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, N.C. 28223
Vice Chancellor for
Business Affairs
Telephone 704%547-2234
..March 7, 1995 Fax [phone] ,
Mr. TI. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch A
NCDOT
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
In May 1994,1 wrote Mr. Ted Devens supporting the relocation of Mallard Creek
Church Road from a point near its intersection with Mary Alexander Road to a new
intersection with Highway 49 to the north of its existing intersection with Highway 49. We
are pleased that State Transportation Project (STP) OOOS(72) State Project 8.2672601 TIP
Project U2508 proposes to relocate the relevant portion of Mallard Creek Church Road along
the line suggested in my earlier letter. The project as presented will create a safer
environment for off campus student housing and allow more effective utilization of Univershy
property located north of Mallard Creek Church Road. We are fully supportive of the subject
project as presented in the Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f)
Evaluations and during the February 21 public hearing.
We have studied the Environmental Assessment and offer the following comments:
UNC Charlotte is near completion of a Campus Master Facilities Plan. This plan
addresses on-campus vehicular and pedestrian circulation as well as campus ingress and
egress. The student population is projected to increase by 60% to 25,000 early in the next
century. Our master plan consultants anticipated the design proposed in the Environmental
Assessment and have recommended a "cut and cover" (i.e. depressed road condition) near the
intersection of Mary Alexander Road which would facilitate pedestrian crossing between
University land to the north and to the south-of Mallard Creek Church Road We request that
your plans incorporate the envisioned "cut and cover" arrangement and that our campus
planners/designers be allowed to work with you to determine the best possible access to
University property now divided by Mallard Creek Church Road.
Secondly, we would like sidewalks included on both sides of the Mallard Creek
Church Road. Our understanding is that the cost of sidewalks can be shared between
The University of North Carolina is composed of the sixteen public senior institutions in North Carolina
An Equal OpportunitylA?Irmatire Action Employer
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
. d
March 7, 1995
Page Two
NCDOT and the City of Charlotte. We will continue to pursue the option of sidewalks on
both sides of the Mallard Creek Church Road with the parties involved.
Further, we have the following comments relative to the design of this project:
• The UNC Charlotte Campus Master Facilities Plan envisions a significant treescape
system on the campus border which would include an identifying campus tree.
Although this tree has not been chosen, it would be a treescape quality consistent with
that of W. T. Harris Boulevard in the vicinity of the IBM site at University Research
-Park_
• _ ` We understand that the bridge over,Mallard Creek just to the North of Highway 29
will be reconstructed. We would like the bridge design to be.of aesthetic merit
(especially the guard rail). Additionally, we would like the underpass to be as user
friendly as possible, include night lighting, and include an emergency phone.
Adequate interior width is necessary to avoid a tunneled appearance and feeling.
• Finally, we are interested in allowing the existing forest cover to be as close to the
new road as possible and that tree saplings be densely planted to make up the gap in
areas where trees are to be removed. This is an important issue in terms of visual
appeal and air quality.
`c
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project which is tremendously important to
the UNC Charlotte campus. Further, we sincerely appreciate the favorable response our
previous concerns have received.
Sincerely,
ell?d?
Olen B. S ' , Jr.
Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs
OBS/ls
cc: Mr. Ted Devens
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs + ?•r
. 1 '
book
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ?t&l
???.?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E)EEHNF;Z.
Henry M. Lancaster ll, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys . Haggett-......
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0452 EA for Mallard Creek Road, Mecklenburg County
DATE: February 8, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed project. We concur with the findings of this
document. We ask that careful consideration be given to t-he
suggestions provided by the Division of Environmental Management
and the N.C. Wildlife Resource's-Commission.
Thank you for- the opportunity to respond. Please continue to
coordinate with our divisions as this project progresses.
attachments
EF GY S
:. ; FEB 8 19941

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
r Health and Natural Resources / • •
IF
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary- E H N R
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
February 7, 1995
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
Monica Swih
From: Eric Galamb_,
Subject: EA for Mallard fCreek Road
Mecklenburg County
TIP #U-2508
DEHNR # 95-0452, DEM # 10826
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that waters including wetlands will be impacted.
There is a 0.8 acre pond that will be drained and filled as a result of this project. DEM
requested on November 25, 1992 that DOT attempt to avoid impacting this pond. The
pond accumulates sediment and pollutants from the upstream junk yard and therefore
they are prevented from entering Mallard Creek. This pond also probably serves to
modify the hydrograph and prevent flooding of the wetland mitigation site. The
mitigation site has been developed with an expectation of a certain amount of
hydrology. DOT should reevaluate the hydrology of the mitigation site with the
knowledge that the pond site will be developed into commercial property (Crescent
Resources, Inc.). Is it possible that the City of Charlotte will require that runoff from
this site not exceed the present runoff? If this is the case, our concerns will be
alleviated. DOT should investigate this matter with the city. If excess water will be
directed to the mitigation site, DOT should ensure that the mitigation area does not
have too much water or that flow will channelize and thereby drain the mitigation site.
DOT should adhere to DOT's Stream relocations/ channelization guidelines.
DEM agrees with the decision to widen existing Mallard Creek Road. DOT is
reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would 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 (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
mallard.ea
cc: Asheville COE
Ted Devans, DOT
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LAKE
4 1- .
TEL:[phone]
Feb 01 '95 .16 :13 No. 006 F _ n:?

Noah Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor aator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 1, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Environmental Assessment (EA) for Mallard Creek Church
Road improvements, from SR 2681 to US 29, and SR 2833
from US 29 to NC 49 in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina, TIP No. U-2508, SCH Project No. 95-
0452.
Staff biologists of the'N..-C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the subject EA and are familiar with
habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review
was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))
and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed project involves widening existing Mallard
creek church Road to a multi-lane cross-section from SR 2681. to
NC 49. The design from SR 2681 to US 29 will be a four-lane
shoulder section with a 20 foot raised median. From US 29 to NC
49 the cross-section will be a four-lane, curb and gutter section
with a 20 foot raised median. The roadway will be constructed
mostly on existing alignment with asymmetrical widening. The
project length is approximately 2.2 miles. No wetland impacts
are anticipated. However, approximately 14.2 acres of forested
lands and a small pond will be impacted by the project.
NCWRC appreciates that NCDOT has significantly reduced
impacts to wildlife and fishery resources by the decision to
improve existing facilities rather than construction on a new
Memo Page 2 February 1, 1995
v-
alignment. Improving existing roadways reduces wildlife habitat
fragmentation, lessens impacts from secondary development and
eliminaL•es.new_.stream or wetland crossings.
We feel that the EA adequately addresses our concerns
regarding wildlife and fishery resources in the project area.
Therefore, we will at this time concur with the findings of this
EA and anticipate concurrence with the subsequent Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project. However, we ask
that NCDOT continue efforts to minimize environmental impacts and
use Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to off-site
natural resources.
NCDOT should also avoid impacts to the two wetland
mitigation sites adjacent to the project. These sites may be
useful in treating storm-water runoff from the project; however,
this should be carefully developed to insure this does interfere
with the establishment of wetland vegetation on these sites.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we
can be of any further assistance please call me at (919) 528-
9886.
cc: Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
David Dell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
J 1 11 1 L.. 1 7,o L.:- Ic-rq ,
1
I,ncel •i\gcncy f?;'cljeca' !"?c'? i1??.rr :?;es;?or•s4

F' .
1 tL.•,lllec-
I-xpc 01 Pro'= • WtW The applic.t't1c should 'be. advisad ti::lt alarls tired sp•ecificat ons 'or ail w-nei syste
it17p1'Ouei21e11rS must be apptoved by chc UtVlstOtl Of L!??'i:'Oillllt:lltal -lealtll U:'tCl' l'I tlle•aGV'arC'
'J( a contract of cite In1tlaLlotl of construe-:011 (as required by lSR NI CAC: IS ..03CO tc, Se
For informac1011, collcaCc the Pulblic Supl;ly Se.r:.on, [phone],
?- ^-1 This-Project well be. classifies{ as non-coitimminit'f pu::tr zvuar Sur--,ply arld must comply W*.tl-
?--••--J sr-ue and federal drilllclllE i:1001L01•I11? iN y',l1fCi:1C3::5. Por 1110: a mii`ol"1Y1:1C!Ca CRC ;ppil'c2M
should contact .he Pu!.'ic Water Suhpl}• `z:CC r., (91?'! 7?'_ ': ?2?.
1---- •li this project is constructed as proposed, we recon-mne d closure er' _ Eeec of aajace:,.
L---J waters to the har.es: of shellfish. -For iniorn.ation regarc!tnthe •Sx'lellii5ll S=Aital'tGr: prOC'C
0
M, the app licaric should contact the Shei;f sea Sarlitari lr? Branch ac (9:19) 726-6527.
r--? The spoil disposzl 1rea(s) proposed for this vrojecc n.v: produce ti rllcsqu'.ito breeding pieblez.
?---? For l roramclon, coneernlS1L7 apprOPrla;c mosqUlto ._onucol measures, the app!icaz: sr_•oul
contact the Public Fee-2lth Pesc'rA-a :ag_mz pmc• Seccion [phone].
---, The applicant should be adVIs.°.1 Ch?: Q-IOL' CO :lie or
iC:?17dA er '
t t d n0 1t10R of- al;.apidar._
tr._J structures, an extensive rotlem Concro! orograrn. Z1a'•' be ne-essZ.-y 11 Order tG j?ItivN:1C t!'
ill101'21i0il of CiiC l'/JCIe cS CC ?Clvacen The :Ifo rn^rio?. .CO1iC:C'.i. ?c r t••CSncrc
_G?CC_
.
Concact the •lacai hezkh depa:• rnent or chC PULDiic l =ealcll i'eSC h?nt;u er1:C11C.3.CCiU1'i IC (,C 1
733-6.07.
;---? Vie' applicant should be advis,?d.cc' c;,:lcal.:. chae '!:cal healeh deportlrenr. regardirlq the
er Sec
as CFr`t.l '1 > _Gvv r
I 1 r<:GL11I'e[Y1Cnl'S :OC Se^C'? :-ll{ 'n°''te 'll* 6 ` ' %:!'l l:Z: V: a.
v•..v r.. l.. , .r.•r .. JJ \Ja f. `• t
For l nforrr1:C10.^. CGrICC!'1!1':0 Sr'1ft?' tank ,,Id C:;r•hpr o S,t:P. w- "`1 r,, mot.
'tSti, ..,S^ ,. t;S1t n1N(1u«4-?, «.r., hCt t
'
???i-J ttC ?•'?%??•rr.'-i:'?:?? J.a..•t?: ri ll 1: 19' 7'1,--I-
1-'-1 The a[? (?ltmi si'tould be :,Q•: i:a6 i.,1 dle.. !l cz; i,t a?l,l" c• • > ! ' 'r 1 .rl' $7 l l
.1 lIl ! (.?: ?:i tl tll,. t'C•l?si ,l .1j t _i
MCllltV:s CC.?t,111'!.CI 1'(tl' clltS l71'i?lt; ;t
(- IJ eX15CIlIg `'r/"u". wdl 11 ,r.i:lt:lr@L !.?1:.'lfl?? l??:. {Jllwt,!';7C:i:ti31: i`iaa°i ifJi' t11r. W 1ia?I'
re)ocauorl must be 51:1 111[1:.: :1 .:% Cii1. I ?t• ..ilf? + ,. ., ::?' -i , 1• l? I;t tr ''i , ?.. ,?
Ol' v!i"1:Jlll?i{: t ..f:::.C.,r, ?t. ,i ,•n ?,. „i11:
Section. Mall R.Cvic+v .i1':t':C:!'t, : i ?0- ll. t:r!al'? i ,`,11'lLt.r

: z, _ ,.... Section/Boxnc,h. IJ?te'

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Health
Public Water Supply Section
r
____ _ ._._ . James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor . E H N FI
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0452
Mecklenburg County
January 11, 1994
9. Bicycle Transportation Facilities
10. Pedestrian Facilities
Addressing and accommodating the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians is important and commendable. Marking
the bicycle paths with an appropriate symbol (i.e., a bicycle) would be helpful in educating cyclists, motorists,
and the general public. In addition, in those cases where pedestrians and cyclists are to share the same path,
signs notifying path users of this combined use would be helpfiil and minimize the potential for accidents.
13. Public Transportation Alternative
Public transportation is not the only alternative to highway widening. Car-pooling, van-pooling, and sta6gered
work hours are a few measures that are also used to decrease congestion and reduce the need for highway
widening. These and other similar measures should be examined before determining that highway widening is
the most feasible alternative.
Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer '
Water Quality Compliance Branch
Public Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29536, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0536 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% prut•consumer paper
r ?
?•4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources '
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: ?? - O YS? County: /LJ
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
y This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be•contacted prior*to construction at P.O. Box*27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer ? Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
. • No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to.beginriing any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
.Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources D
Project Number. Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS

After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Duestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process •
Regional Office.
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct 3 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities. sewer system extensions, 3 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct b operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90 days)

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedimen;auo
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect") at least 30 20 days
days before be mnin activity. A fee of 130 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan 30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permiled. The appropriate bond 160 days)
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "If more 1 day
counties in Coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum Is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site Is neces•
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 1200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
ft 105 Continued on reverse
Normal Pr.:cess
Time
L
C

rQ
M

PERMITS `
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill, operator shall. upon (NIA).
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions b drawings of structure b proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Ouality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days) .
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee rftust accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or,destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested If "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
J
6w - ? ?? --?
t Qr
40
JM1n? f7

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
fi
5 ? Fayetteville Regional Office
n Place
9 Wood Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(704) 2516208 [phone]
Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 ? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
(919) 94646481
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27.106
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
Appendix B
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations
1.
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT STP-OOOS(72)
STATE PROJECT 8.2672601
T. I. P. NO. U-2508
- DESCRIPTION: Minor taking of land from W.T. Alexander
historic property, located adjacent to Mal lard
Creek Church Road on the west side of US 2 9.
Mecklenburg County.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of the
existing highway facility on essentially
X ?
the same alignment?
F-1 X
2. Is the project on new location? _
?
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the project?
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings,
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are
important to preserve in place rather
than to recover for archaeological ? `/
X

research? `
,

- 6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f)
site considered minor (i.e. no effect,
X
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the

F X
determination of "no adverse effect"?
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the ? ?
assessment of impacts and the proposed
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation F-1 X
of an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do nothing ' ` El
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create a cost or impact of
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the highway without using the
adiacent historic site
?x
?x
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining walls,
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
?x
F-I

or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
..
3. Build an imUroved facility on new location X
without usinst the historic site.
(a) An alternate on new location would
rasult in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv such impacts, costs,-or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X ?
historic integrity of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed
to, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by ? F-1
the FHWA, the SHPO, and as appropriate,
the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
1. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT
has agreed to landscape the grassed median with wax
myrtles, forsythia, and/or scotch broom. NCDOT will
also plant a screen of trees and shrubs on the north
side of SR 2472 at areas where no landscape buffer
currently exists. Prior to initiation of construction,
NCDOT shall submit the landscaping plan to the State
Historic Preservation Office for review and comment.
2. 'In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT
will minimize the clearing of trees in the right-of-way.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f)
evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a:
c. Property owner x_
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies x_
e. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
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. There
are no feasible and prudent alternatives to-the use of the
historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm,
and the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination.has been successfully completed
with local and state agencies.
Approved:
11-2t-9f
Date

Aot,Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Date
Wifision Administrator, FHWA

r
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL FOR
FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL
REFUGES
F. A. Project STP-OOOS(72)
State Project 8.2672601
T. I. P. No. U-2508
Description: Minor taking of land from lands owned by
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation
Department, located east of US 29 and adjacent
to Mallard Creek Church Road.. Mecklenburg
County.
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on ?(
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located a
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum-to be acquired
less than 10 acres ................10-percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ................ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f) X
land impair the use of such land for its
intended purpose? F
Yes No
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act).,-
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land F? NA
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
7 X
an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED _AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
X
1. Do-nothing:
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
n
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
F
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
X
or (c correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X
impacts of extraordinary measure?
t
F-
2. Improvement of the highway without usin
the adjacent public park, recreational
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community
impact
or ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance,
or safety problems
or iv) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems
which are of extraordinary
magnitude
Yes No
X ?
X ?
T
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible x F 7
planning to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are
appropriate)*
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b>- Replacement of facilities impacted
.by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
i
O Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
O Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to -the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
a Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided
as follows:
During construction, traffic control measures will
be taken to prevent interference with access to or
operations of the athletic fields belonging to the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department. Any
disturbed areas will be restored and landscaped.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional
information prior to approval. Consult Nationwide
4(f) evaluation.

P,
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without usinr the public park ? a
recreational land, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude

COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over x
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies X
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic
4(f) evaluation approved on December 23, 1956.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the
findings made are clearly applicable to this project. There
are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of
the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm,
and there are assurances that the measures to minimize harm
will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
I )-i2-94
Date
Z
Date
1 -/1. to-'W?
f-t; Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
ivision Administrator, FHWA
NCWRC.WCP,FnLLS LnKE TEL=919-525-9439 Jun 21'95 10=49 No.002 P.02
0 North Carolina W' ' e Resources Commission F9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina Z7604-1188,919-7333391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo r
Habitat Conservation Program /; ?-
DATE: June 12, 1995 SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO'1) Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for SR 2472 (Mallard Creek Church Road)
improvements, from SR 2681 to US 29 and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC
49 in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2508,
SCH Project No. 95-0854.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWR Q have
reviewed the subject FONSI and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The
purpose of this review was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our
comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2xe)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-6674).
The proposed pmieet involved widening existing Mallard Crcck Church Road to a
four-lAne.., median divided, facility foom SR 2681 to NC 49. The roadway will have a
sixteen foot, raised median. Project length is approximately 2.2 miles. Wetland impacts
will likely be authorized under nationwide "4W' pt rmtts.
In light of the minimal impacts to wildlife and fishery resources, we will concur
with the FONSI for this project. However, we request that NCDOT continue efforts to
minimize wetland impacts. Also, Best Management Practices and environmental
commitments should be strictly enforced to protect off-site resources. Any stream
channels requiring modification should be coordinated with the appropriate resource
agencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to continent on this FONSI. If we can be of further
assistance please call me at [phone]-
cc: Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Kcn Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongarne/EndangaW Species Program Mgr.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 7, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorndy?
Monica Swih
From: Eric Galamb:,'
Subject. EA for Mallard Creek Road
Mecklenburg County
TIP #U-2508
DEHNR # 95-0452, DEM # 10826
F?XMA F
t*o
ID FE Flt
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The document states that waters including wetlands will be impacted.
There is a 0.8 acre pond that will be drained and filled as a result of this project. DEM
requested on November 25, 1992 that DOT attempt to avoid impacting this pond. The
pond accumulates sediment and pollutants from the upstream junk yard and therefore
they are prevented from entering Mallard Creek. This pond also probably serves to
modify the hydrograph and prevent flooding of the wetland mitigation site. The
mitigation site has been developed with an expectation of a certain amount of
hydrology. DOT should reevaluate the hydrology of the mitigation site with the
knowledge that the pond site will be developed into commercial property (Crescent
Resources, Inc.). Is it possible that the City of Charlotte will require that runoff from
this site not exceed the present runoff? If this is the case, our concerns will be
alleviated. DOT should investigate this matter with the city. If excess water will be
directed to the mitigation site, DOT should ensure that the mitigation area does not
have too much water or that flow will channelize and thereby drain the mitigation site.
DOT should adhere to DOT's Stream relocations/ channelization guidelines.
DEM agrees with the decision to widen existing Mallard Creek Road. DOT is
reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would 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 (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
mallard.ea
cc: Asheville COE
Ted Devans, DOT
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
w - rft"_ RECEIVED
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources!
JAN ' 199 ? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form ft"ft0,VJWQVTAL,9C 16
A
Project Number: County: Date: ?y Date Response Due (firm deadline):
U
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: w ?? ?'OS'34
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office' Area In-H . e Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
t

etteville
El F V Air Management ? Water Planning
coastal
ay Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health

Mooresville Groundwater ildlife ?Solid waste management
Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Resources ? Radiation Protection
Forest

Washington
11 Recreational Consultant I
and Resources ? David Foster
Consultant
? Coastal management arks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ,
? Others nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign=Off/Region: Date: in-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-104

Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road,
,SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29,
and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 499
F. A. Project STP - OOOS (72)
State Project 8.2672601
T.I.P. Project U-2508
h
R
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Environmental Assessment
and
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
Date -,;r H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
1I/ f r
Date ich s Oaf,. P. E.
KDivi ion Administrator, FHWA
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road,
SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 299
and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 499
F. A. Project STP - OOOS (72)
State Project 8.2672601
T.I.P. Project U-2508
Environmental Assessment
and
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
i1/oit f 99y ??•?oR?H CAR
Oz
Thomas E. Devens, P.E. :'*??'.•'?ESSIO•'',y••?q??%
- .??pE 9?•
Project Planning Engineer
SEAL
18334 '
s
ms's f%YG <Q? :' ?
• •S0•. ?N
qS E. Dti
Robert Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT SUMMARY SECTION
Description of Action
Environmental Commitments
Estimated Environmental Impacts
Alternatives Considered
Coordination
Action Required by Other Agencies
PAGE
I. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION ................................. 1
A. Existing Conditions .................................. 1
B. Traffic Volumes ...................................... 4
C. Capacity Analysis ....... 4
D. Transportation Planning .............................. 5
E. Accident Record ...................................... 6
F. Benefits to State, Region, and Community ............. 7
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description .................................. 7
B. Programmed Funding ................................... 8
C. Estimated Cost of Improvements ....................... 8
D. Recommended Improvements ............................. 9
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Other Widening Alternatives .......................... 14
B. Public Transportation Alternatives ................... 15
C. "No Build" Alternative ............................... 15
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use Planning ... .... ....................... 15
B. Social and Economic Environment ...................... 18
C. Section 4(f) Resources ............................... 22
D. Cultural Resources ................................... 24
E. Natural Resources .................................... 26
Y F. Floodplain Involvement ............................... 33
G. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis ....................... 33
H. Air.Quality Analysis ................................. 38
I. Transportation Management ............................ 41
J. Construction Impacts ................................. 43
K. Contaminated Properties .............................. 45
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...................................... 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Recommended Cross-Section A
Figure 3 - Recommended Cross-Section B
Figure 4 - Recommended Alignment
Figure 5 - Traffic Projections
Figure 6 - Alternative which avoids the Alexander Property
Appendix A - Historic Architecture Resources
Appendix B - Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations
Appendix C - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
Appendix D - Additional Comments/Coordination
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road,
SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29,
and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49,
F. A. Project STP - OOOS (72)
State Project 8.2672601
T.I.P. Project U-2508
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen Mallard Creek Church Road to a multi-lane
cross-section from SR 2681 to NC 49. The project is located in the
northeast Charlotte area in Mecklenburg County (See Figure 1 for project
location).
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The TIP has allocated $3,060,000 for right-of-way
acquisition and $5,100,000 for construction of this project (U-2508). The
project is currently planned for construction in two phases. From SR 2681
to US 29, right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to commence in Fiscal Year
(FY) 1995, with construction letting scheduled for FY 1996. From US 29 to
NC 49, right-of-way acquisition will begin in FY 1998, with letting
scheduled for FY 1999.
Mallard Creek Church Road is designated as SR 2472 from SR 2681 to
US 29, and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49.
From SR 2681 to US 29, the existing two-lane facility is to be
widened to a four-lane highway with two 12-foot travel lanes in each
direction (See Figure 2). Each travel direction will be divided by a
20-foot raised median. The median will be raised with 2'-9" curb and
gutter, and will consist of grass and spaced plantings of small trees
which are indigenous to the area. An 8-foot shoulder (including 6 feet of
pavement and 2 feet of grass) will be constructed adjacent to the outside
edge of pavement. The paved width of this shoulder will accommodate
bicycle traffic.
From US 29 to NC 49, a four-lane highway with a 12-foot inside and
14-foot outside travel lane in each direction is proposed (to accommodate
bicycle traffic). See Figure 3. Each travel direction will be divided by
a 20-foot raised median. The median will be raised with 2'-9" curb and
gutter, and will consist of grass and spaced plantings of small trees
which are indigenous to the area. Curb and gutter and an 8-foot berm will
be utilized adjacent to the outside edge of pavement. Existing grade of
the bridge (and approaches) over Mallard Creek may be raised to reduce the
magnitude of a "sag" vertical curve from US 29 to the bridge to SR 2834.
The roadway will utilize existing alignment to the extent possible
between SR 2681 and SR 2834 (Mary Alexander Road). From Mary Alexander
Road to NC 49, a new extension of Mallard Creek Church Road is recommended
(See Figure 4). The extension is proposed on new location, intersecting
NC 49 at its existing intersection with SR 2939 (Old Concord Road).
The "old" section of Mallard Creek Church Road in the vicinity of
Mary Alexander Road will be realigned to "tee" into the new extension of
Mallard Creek Church Road (See Figure 4). Old Concord Road will be
realigned to accommodate an improved four-way intersection with NC 49 and
the new Mallard Creek Church Road extension.
Recommended minimum right-of-way from SR 2681 to US 29 is 120 feet
plus any cut/fill slopes or easements. From US 29 to NC 49, a minimum of
100 feet is proposed. The realigned sections of Concord Road and "old"
Mallard Creek Church Road require a minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way.
No control of access is recommended.
This 2.2 mile project has an estimated cost of $89700,000 (including
$5,890,000 for construction and $2,810,000 for right-of-way).
ii
2. Environmental Commitments
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Impacts will be minimized by utilizing
Best Management Practices during construction.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be required.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the United States Army
Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material in
"Waters of the United States."
The subject project is classified as a Federal Environmental
Assessment. It is anticipated that the provisions of Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5(A) 14 and 26 will apply to this project. Final permit
decisions, however, are left to the discretionary authority of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers.
In order to minimize effect on historic properties, NCDOT has
committed to the following measures:
1. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT has agreed to
landscape the grassed median with wax myrtles, forsythia, and/or
scotch broom. NCDOT will also plant a screen of trees and
shrubs on the north side of SR 2472 at areas where no landscape
buffer currently exists. Prior to the initiation of
construction, NCDOT shall submit the landscaping plan to the
State Historic Preservation Office for review and comment.
2. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT will minimize
the clearing of trees in the right-of-way.
During construction, traffic control measures will be taken to
prevent interference with access to the parking lot of the UNCC District
Park, located east of the US 29 intersection with Mallard Creek Church
Road. Any areas of the park that are disturbed by construction will be
restored and landscaped.
As a part of this project, NCDOT plans to incorporate the proposed
Mallard Creek Greenway into the design for the replacement bridge over
Mallard Creek. NCDOT is committed to further coordination with the
Mecklenburg Parks and Recreation Department to produce a bridge design
which provides adequate clearances for a bicycle underpass. Cost
estimates will not be finalized until later design phases, at which time
cost-sharing can be addressed.
Six geodetic markers are located along the project and will be
impacted by the construction. Prior to construction, NCDOT will contact
the North Carolina Geodetic Survey.
iii
It is recommended that NCDOT participate with the City of Charlotte
on a cost-share basis to provide a pedestrian facility on Mallard Creek
Church Road, from US 29 to NC 49. The sidewalk is recommended on the
southwest side of Mallard Creek Church Road. If additional sidewalk
provisions are desired by the City of Charlotte, then a justification must
be submitted to NCDOT,(in accordance with the 1994 NCDOT Pedestrian
Policy). This justification must be received by February, 1995.
The replacement bridge for Bridge Number 84 (carrying Mallard Creek
Church Road over Mallard Creek) is to have sidewalks constructed on both
sides of the bridge deck.
As mitigation for wetland impacts from the Charlotte Outer Loop (TIP
project R-211), two lowland sites adjacent to Mallard Creek and Mallard
Creek Church Road are presently being converted into wetlands. It is
vitally important that, during the design phase of this project, every
effort be taken to avoid impacting these sites. Plans of the mitigation
sites are available in the Roadway Design Branch of NCDOT.
Wetlands serve as a natural buffer between urban runoff and the
natural environment. Therefore, in the vicinity of the two wetland
mitigation areas adjacent to Mallard Creek, NCDOT will make every attempt
to divert stormwater from the recommended curb and gutter facility into
the wetlands. This requirement should include stormwater which falls on
the proposed highway from US 29 to approximately SR 2834 (Mary Alexander
Road). Stormwater should first run through the wetlands before entering
Mallard Creek. Where grades do not allow diversion of water to the
wetlands, efforts will be made to divert stormwater into grass swales and
ditches before reaching Mallard Creek.
A plant screen will be planted along the project, between SR 4671 and
SR 2834, to visually shield homes from the proposed cross-section.
iv
3. Summarv of Estimated Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the northeast
Charlotte area by providing better access and safer travel between
Interstate 85, US 29, and NC 49. The University of North Carolina,
Charlotte, is located at the east end of the project, therefore
transportation capacity to and from the university will be improved.
Approximately 5 residences and no businesses will be relocated by the
proposed project. It is anticipated that replacement housing will be
available as needed.
There may be some erosion and siltation during construction, however
the effects will be short term in nature and minimized to the extent
possible. No significant effects to plant or animal life are expected.
For TIP Project R-211 (Eastern Charlotte Outer Loop), a municipal
agreement was reached between NCDOT and the Mecklenburg County. NCDOT
desired to use land owned by the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation
Department as wetland mitigation sites (adjacent to Mallard Creek). In
return for the land, NCDOT agreed to build a bicycle "boardwalk" along
Mallard Creek in conjunction with construction for this project. This
agreement will improve the local greenway system.
A small taking of land is required from the W.T. Alexander House, a
property which is considered to be eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. However, this taking is considered to have No Adverse
Effect on the significance and ambiance of the site. A Programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation is attached to this assessment.
Although the project will require the taking of some land from the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department, no impact is
anticipated to recreational soccer fields adjacent to Mallard Creek Church
Road and US 29. This undertaking is consistent with the Parks and
Recreation Department's Master Plan for the area. A Programmatic Section
4(f) evaluation is attached to this assessment.
Several residences or businesses are predicted to experience traffic
noise level increases in excess of the FHWA noise abatement criteria.
However, noise abatement is not considered reasonable or feasible as part
of this project. To improve aesthetic views, a plant screen will be
planted between SR 4671 and SR 2834 to visually shield homes from the
proposed cross-section.
v
4. Alternatives Considered
From SR 2681 to US 29, only one alignment was studied for widening.
Because the existing horizontal and vertical alignment of Mallard Creek
Church Road is substandard for a 50 mph design speed, some realignment of
the existing roadway is necessary to widen according to AASHTO standards.
The recommended alignment "straightened several substandard horizontal
curves on Mallard Creek Church Road.
In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House and Mecklenburg County
soccer fields, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966 required study of an additional alternative which avoids taking any
land from the historic site or the parklands (See Figure 6). This
"avoidance alternative" resulted in impacts of extraordinary magnitude in
terms of cost, relocations, and wetland impact. Therefore, it was not
found to be a feasible and prudent alternative (See Appendices A and B).
Two alternative cross-sections were studied. Both cross-sections
separate travel directions with a 20-foot raised median. The median will
be raised with 2'-9" curb and gutter, and will consist of grass and spaced
plantings of small trees which are indigenous to the area
Cross-section A is a four-lane highway with two 12-foot travel lanes
in each direction, and an 8-foot shoulder (See Figure 2). Minimum
right-of-way is 120 feet.
Cross-section B is a four-lane highway with a 12-foot and a 14-foot
travel lane in each direction, utilizing curb and gutter and an
8-foot berm adjacent to outside lanes (See Figure 3). A minimum of
100 feet of right-of-way is required.
Cross-section A was chosen from SR 2681 to US 29 because of its lower
cost and continuity with Mallard Creek Church Road on the west side of
Interstate 85. Cross-section B was chosen from US 29 to NC 49 because of
lower cost (right-of-way), better layout for sidewalk construction, and
because drainage into the wetland mitigation areas can be controlled
through the stormwater pipe system.
NCDOT also studied the widening of existing Mallard Creek Church Road
from SR 2834 to NC 49. Several factors contributed to the non-selection
of this alternative, including poor alignment, additional relocations,
traffic congestion, bicycle and pedestrian safety, furthering of the
thoroughfare plan, and potential conflict with future UNCC expansion.
The "No Build" alternative was considered and rejected, due to the traffic
and safety benefits provided by the proposed improvements.
vi
S. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were
consulted regarding this project :
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Federal Emergency Management
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Human Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
*N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Centralina Council of Governments
*Mecklenburg County Commissioners
The Mayor of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Transportation Dept.
*Mecklenburg County Planning Dept.
*Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Dept.
*University of North Carolina, Charlotte
*Charlotte/Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written responses were
received. Those comments are included in Appendix D of this report.
vii
6. Action Reauired by Other Agencies
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters
of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344) and are
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Section 404 impacts to surface waters will occur. Construction at
these sites is likely to be authorized by provisions of Nationwide Permit
33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 and 26 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
These permits authorize fills for roads crossing waters of the United
States, however the Corps of Engineers has final discretionary authority.
This project will also require a general 401 Water Quality
Certification from NCDEHNR prior to the COE issuance of a Nationwide 404
permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the
United States.
Since this project will likely be authorized under Nationwide Permit
process, it is likely that no mitigation will be required by the COE. A
final determination regarding mitigation requirements will be made in
coordination with various environmental review agencies during the final
design phase of the project.
7. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting either of the following:
Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone.[phone]
viii
Charlotte, Mecklenburg County
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road,
SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 299
and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 499
F. A. Project STP - OOOS (72)
State Project 8.2672601
T.I.P. Project U-2508
I. BASIS FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A. Existing Conditions
1. Length of Studied Section
The studied portion of Mallard Creek Church Road is 2.2 miles in
length. The section of Old Concord Road to be realigned is 0.2 mile
in length.
2. Functional Classification
Mallard Creek Church Road is designated as SR 2472 from I-85 to
US 29, and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49. It is classified as an Urban
Minor Arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
3. Existing Cross Section
The existing cross-section is consistent for the project length.
Pavement width varies between 22 and 24 feet, with grass shoulders
that average 6 feet in width. Pavement widens only at intersections
with US 29 and NC 49 to accommodate left and right-turn lanes.
Project R-2215 constructed the interchange of Mallard Creek
Church Road with Interstate 85. Project R-2215 improved Mallard
Creek Church Road to a 5-lane curb and gutter section across I-85.
The cross-section is 64 feet from curb-face to curb-face, and ends at
the western terminus of this project, SR 2681.
West of the I-85 interchange, Mallard Creek Church Road is a
four-lane highway with two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction.
Each travel direction is divided by a 20-foot raised median. The
median is raised above inside, modified curbs, and consists of grass
and spaced plantings of small trees which are indigenous to the area.
An 8-foot shoulder (including 6 feet of pavement and 2 feet of grass)
constitutes the outside edge of pavement.
4. Right-of-Way
Existing right-of-way is the maintained road width (approxi-
mately 40 feet) from SR 2681 to US 29. From US 29 to NC 49, existing
right-of-way is 60 feet in width, symmetrical about the centerline of
the existing roadway.
Mecklenburg County has preserved several small dedications
adjacent to Mallard Creek Church Road.
2
5. Alignment
The existing roadway alignment contains several sharp horizontal
curves. Between I-85 and US 29, a sharp reverse curve is caused by
an 8 and a 12 degree curve in opposite directions. The straight
(tangent) section between the curves is very short. Additionally, an
8 degree curve is just west of the US 29 intersection.
Between US 29 and NC 49, a 7.5 degree curve is just east of
SR 2834 (Mary Alexander Road). West of the NC 49 intersection, a
reverse curve is created by two sharp curves (estimated as 12.8
degrees each) in opposite directions. The curves are joined by a very
short tangent section.
Existing vertical alignment 11 is fairly steep at several
locations. Between I-85 and US 29, grades approach 5% in two
sections of SR 2472. Traveling eastward from US 29, SR 2833 has a 4%
decline as the road drops elevation to the bridge crossing Mallard
Creek, with a 4.5% incline as SR 2833 climbs toward SR 2834.
6. Structures
Bridge No. 84 carries Mallard Creek Church Road over Mallard
Creek. The bridge is 161 feet in length, with a 29-foot roadway
width and a sufficiency rating of 72 out of a possible 100.
The existing bridge was designed using a design loading standard
which does not meet the current minimum standards required by North
Carolina policy.
7. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The following roads intersect Mallard Creek Church Road within
the project limits: SR 2681 (John Adams Road), US 29 (N. Tryon
Street), SR 4671 (Alexander Glen Lane), Stone Quarry Road (a private
access road to Martin Marietta quarry and REA Construction Company),
Bonnie Cone Lane (a private subdivision road), SR 2834 (Mary
Alexander Road), University Terrace Drive (private access road to
University Terrace Condominiums), two separate access roads to the
UNCC campus and parking lots, and NC 49 (University City Boulevard).
All of these intersections are at-grade, and all but US 29 and
NC 49 are stop sign controlled. Intersections at US 29 and NC 49 are
signalized.
8. Access Control
No control of access exists, and none is planned for the
project.
9. Utilities
Power lines run parallel to the existing alignment, crossing
Mallard Creek Church Road at various locations. Telephone lines also
run parallel to the studied section. A utility impacts rating of
"medium" has been assigned to this project.
3
10. Geodetic Markers
Six geodetic markers are-located along the project and will be
impacted by the construction. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey
will be contacted prior to construction.
11. Bicycle Facilities
The North Carolina Bicycle Program has determined there is a
need for bicycle facilities on this project.
Existing pavement width does not accommodate bicycle traffic;
however bicycle transportation is recognized as a major mode of
transportation for students attending UNCC. To a lesser degree, some
bicycle traffic is attracted to the Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation Department soccer fields, which are located northeast of
Mallard Creek Road on the east side of US 29 (See Figure 4).
Mecklenburg County plans show a
Mallard Creek. The greenway system
document under "Land Use Planning."
future greenway which parallels
is discussed later in this
12. School Buses
A total of 22 school buses use the studied section of Mallard
Creek Church Road in the morning and afternoon. Bus destinations are
scattered throughout the central and northern Charlotte area.
University Meadows Elementary School has the most busses (6) using
this section. The school is located north of the project on US 29,
off of Harris Houston Road.
The majority of school busses travel on Mallard Creek Church
Road between 6:30 and 8:00 am, and between 2:00 and 5:00 pm. Very
few busses cross Interstate 85. Most busses travel between US 29 and
NC 49.
13. Pedestrian Activities
As the northeast Charlotte area develops, pedestrian traffic
along Mallard Creek Church Road is expected to increase.
Near the UNCC Campus, residential development is growing
rapidly. The University Terrace Condominiums are located across
Mallard Creek Church Road from UNCC. Presently there are additional
condominiums under construction in this area (See Figure 4).
Condominium residents desiring to walk to UNCC must cross Mallard
Creek Church Road. In addition, residents of. Alexander Glen
Apartments and Craven Croft may walk alongside Mallard Creek Church
Road until connecting with Mary Alexander Road, which accesses
campus.
4
B. Traffic Volumes
The estimated traffic volumes in vehicles per day (vpd) for the
studied facility are as follows (see also Figure 5):
SR 2681 to US 29 US 29 to NC 49 1995
Average Daily Traffic => 16,600 vpd 14,600 vpd
2015 Average Daily Traffic => 29,800 vpd 26,200 vpd
Truck traffic as a percentage of average daily traffic (ADT) is as
follows:
Truck Tractor Semi-Trailer (TTST) = 2% of ADT 3% of ADT
Dual Tired Vehicles (Dual) = 3% of ADT 4% of ADT
From I-85 to US 29, the design hourly volume (DHV) is estimated to be
9% of the ADT. From US 29 to NC 49, the design hourly volume is estimated
to be 10% of the ADT. Directional distribution of peak-hour traffic is
expected to be 609% in one direction and 40% in the opposite direction.
C. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service (LOS) is defined as a qualitative
measure describing the operational conditions within a traffic stream and
how. these conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A
level of service definition generally describes conditions in terms of
such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, delay, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of
service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis
procedures are available. They are given letter designations from A to F.
with level of service A representing the best operation conditions and
level of service F representing the worst.
Due to the urban nature of development in the vicinity of this
project, intersection levels of service will control the overall level of
service of the facility. A capacity analysis was performed for the
proposed project to determine the level of service, using the estimated
peak traffic demands for the years 1995 and 2015.
It must be recognized that in the Charlotte area, widening one
roadway only represents improvements to a portion of the overall
transportation system. Other roadways widenings are necessary to maintain
capacity of the entire system. This is the case for Mallard Creek Church
Road. Although the recommended cross-section will readily move 1995 and
2015 traffic projections on Mallard Creek Church Road itself, capacity of
the facility will be dictated by operations at signalized intersections
with other highways - namely US 29 and NC 49. Traffic projections on
US 29 and NC 49 show extremely heavy through-movements, coupled with very
heavy turning movements onto Mallard Creek Church Road. Acceptable design
year LOS results at these intersections are possible only if NC 49 and
US 29 are widened in the future. TIP Project R-2215 already recommends
the phased widening of NC 49 to eight lanes. Although US 29 is not
5
currently programmed for improvements, high traffic volumes will
inevitably warrant future widening. It is the heavy through-movements and
turning movements at intersections with US 29 and NC 49 which severely
inhibit capacity on Mallard Creek Church Road. Therefore, capacity
analyses of these intersections (in the design year) incorporate future
widening of US 29 and NC 49. During the design phase, NCDOT will study
these intersections in greater detail, and may modify the recommendations
in this document.
The intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek Church Road requires
several additional turning lanes to operate at a LOS D in the design year.
East and westbound approaches of Mallard Creek Church Road will require
two dedicated left-turn lanes and one dedicated right-turn lane. North
and southbound US 29 approaches will require one dedicated left-turn lane
and one dedicated right-turn lane. With existing through lanes on US 29,
this configuration will operate at a LOS D in 1995.
The new intersection of NC 49, the Mallard Creek Church Road exten-
sion, and Old Concord Road requires several additional turning lanes to
operate at a LOS E in the design year. The eastbound approach of Mallard
Creek Church Road will require one through lane, two dedicated left-turn
lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane. The westbound approach of Old
Concord Road will require two through lanes, one dedicated left-turn lane,
and one dedicated right-turn lane. The northbound approach of NC 49 will
require two dedicated left-turn lanes and one dedicated right-turn lane.
The southbound approach of NC 49 will require two dedicated left-turn
lanes and one dedicated right-turn lane. To accommodate the two left-turn
lanes from southbound NC 49, eastbound Old Concord Road will be widened to
two through-lanes for a distance of approximately 450 feet, with an addi-
tional taper/merge section of approximately 500 feet. With existing
through lanes on NC 49, this configuration will operate at a LOS D in
1995.
An additional intersection is formed where the "old" section of
Mallard Creek Church Road will be realigned to tee into the extension of
Mallard Creek Church Road. It is recommended that the eastbound approach
of the Mallard Creek Church Road extension include a dedicated right-turn
lane onto "old" Mallard Creek Church Road. Also, a dedicated left-turn
lane and a dedicated right-turn lane are recommended on the northbound
approach of the "old" section of Mallard Creek Church Road. This
intersection can operate unsignalized with an overall LOS D expected in
1995, although a LOS F is anticipated in the design year. Therefore as
traffic volumes increase, a spot improvement should be considered to this
intersection. In future years, a traffic signal and additional turning
lanes will be required. The "old" Mallard Creek Church Road approach will
likely require a double left-turn lane and a dedicated right-turn lane.
Signalization may be required as a result of more detailed study in the
design phase.
D. Transportation Plannin
Mallard Creek Church Road is designated as a Major Thoroughfare on
the 1988 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan. The proposed four-lane
cross section is in conformance with the thoroughfare plan, and
construction of this project will be a step toward implementation of the
thoroughfare plan.
6
The 1988 Thoroughfare plan shows Mallard Creek Church Road as part of
an eventual "Eastern Circumferential" of Charlotte. The proposed
circumferential is located inside the proposed eastern Charlotte Outer
Loop, concentrically paralleling the Outer Loop at an average distance of
1.5 miles. As shown on the thoroughfare plan, the Eastern Circumferential
follows Mallard Creek Church Road from I-85 to SR 2834. However, east of
SR 2834 (Mary Alexander Road), the proposed Circumferential departs on new
location, intersecting NC 49 in the vicinity of SR 2939 (Old Concord
Road). The recommended improvements of this project follow the corridor
shown in the thoroughfare plan, thereby furthering implementation of a
long-range Charlotte-Mecklenburg transportation system.
As Mallard Creek Church Road (the Eastern Circumferential) is
extended east of NC 49 in future years, the extension must cross over the
Southern Railroad (See Figure 4). This presents a vertical alignment
problem, for the railroad is located only 300 feet east of the proposed
intersection of NC 49, Old Concord Road, and the new extension of Mallard
Creek Church Road. A grade separation will be necessary to carry the
future circumferential over Southern Railroad, however 300 feet is
inadequate distance to lower the highway elevation from a grade separation
to an at-grade intersection with NC 49. Therefore, a future interchange
with NC 49 will be necessary to meet grade requirements, and to allow
turning movements between NC 49 and the circumferential: Additionally,
Old Concord Road may /have to be closed-off at its existing intersection
with NC 49, with traffic rerouted to the intersection of NC 49 and
existing Mallard Creek Church Road.
E. Accident Record
A total of 85 accidents were reported on the studied portion of
Mallard Creek Church Road during the period between July 1989 and June
1992. No fatalities occurred.
On SR 2472, 15 accidents were reported, resulting in an accident rate
of 324.4,accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (ACC/100MVM), compared to
a statewide average of 315.9 ACC/100 MVM. Of these accidents, 53% were
vehicles running off of the road, and 20% were rear-end collisions.
In the same time period, 60 accidents were reported on SR 28339
resulting in an accident rate of 708.4 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles (ACC/100MVM). This is a high rate when compared to a statewide
average of 315.9 ACC/100 MVM. Most accidents occurred at intersections of
Mallard Creek Church Road with US 29 and NC 49. Rear-end collisions
comprised 33% of accidents, while angular accidents totaled 29%.
Due to the medium to high density development along Mallard Creek
Church Road, rear-end collisions will continue to be a problem in the
future.
The proposed improvements will reduce the potential for this type of
accident. Dedicated left-turn lanes at median breaks will shelter turning
vehicles from through traffic while waiting for a gap in opposing traffic.
The additional through-lane in each direction will allow drivers to slow
down for a right-turn without slowing all traffic moving in their
direction, as occurs under current conditions.
7
The improved alignment will greatly reduce accidents caused by
running off of the road.
F. Benefits to State, Region, and Communit
Widening Mallard Creek Church Road will improve access and safety to
the area, save automobile operating costs,and reduce commuter travel
times. Overall improvement in the ease and convenience of travel will
benefit the entire northeast Charlotte area.
The widening of Mallard Creek Church Road will provide safer and more
efficient access to UNCC and the northeast Charlotte area. This region of
Charlotte/Mecklenburg County is developing rapidly. The Charlotte campus
of the University of North Carolina is currently devising a master plan
for expansion, and private businesses anticipate development along the
I-85, US 29, and NC 49 corridors. Because Mallard Creek Church Road
connects I-85, US 29, and NC 49, and because UNCC is located adjacent to
this roadway, it is anticipated that Mallard Creek Church Road will
develop quickly.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Descriation
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to widen Mallard Creek Church Road from SR 2681 to NC 49 (See
Figure 1 for project location.)
From SR 2681 to US 29, the existing two-lane facility is to
be widened to a four-lane highway with two 12-foot travel lanes in each
direction (See Figure 2). Each travel direction will be divided by a
20-foot raised median. The median will be raised with 2'-9" curb and
gutter, and will consist of grass and spaced plantings of small trees
which are indigenous to the area. An appropriate landscape plan will be
implemented by the Roadside Environmental Branch. An 8-foot shoulder
(including 6 feet of pavement and 2 feet of grass) will be constructed
adjacent to the outside edge of pavement. The paved width of this
shoulder will accommodate bicycle traffic.
From US 29 to NC 49, a four-lane highway with a 12-foot inside and
14-foot outside travel lane in each direction is recommended (to
accommodate bicycle traffic). See Figure 3. Each travel direction will
be divided by a 20-foot raised median. The median will be raised with
2'-9" curb and gutter, and will consist of grass and spaced plantings of
small trees which are indigenous to the area. An appropriate landscape
plan will be implemented by the Roadside Environmental Branch. Curb and
gutter and an 8-foot berm will be utilized adjacent to the outside edge of
pavement. Existing grade of the bridge (and approaches) over Mallard
Creek may be raised to reduce the magnitude of a "sag" vertical curve from
US 29 to the bridge to SR 2834.
8
The roadway will utilize existing alignment to the extent possible
between SR 2681 and SR 2834 (Mary Alexander Road). From Mary Alexander
Road to NC 49, a new extension of Mallard Creek Church Road is recommended
(See Figure 4). The extension is proposed on new location, intersecting
NC 49 at its existing intersection with SR 2939 (Old Concord Road).
As described in the Transportation Planning section, this extension
on new location furthers the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan. The
new location alignment will also relieve congestion in the UNCC vicinity
by drawing traffic away from the "old" section of Mallard Creek Church
Road (See Figures 4 and 5). Relieved traffic congestion will increase
safety for bicyclists and pedestrians near UNCC, and will decrease traffic
delays in accessing the UNCC campus.
The "old" section of Mallard Creek Church Road in the vicinity of
Mary Alexander Road will be realigned to tee into the new extension of
Mallard Creek Church Road (See Figure 4). Old Concord Road will be
realigned to accommodate an improved four-way intersection with NC 49 and
the new Mallard Creek Church Road extension.
Recommended minimum right-of-way from SR 2681 to US 29 is 120 feet
plus any cut/fill slopes or easements. From US 29 to NC 49, a minimum of
100 feet is proposed. The realigned sections of Concord Road and "old"
Mallard Creek Church Road require a minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way.
No control of access is recommended.
B. Programmed Funding
This project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The TIP has allocated $3,060,000 for right-of-way
acquisition and $5,100,000 for construction of this project (U-2508). The
project is currently planned for construction in two phases. From SR 2681
to US 29, right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to commence in Fiscal Year
(FY) 1995, with construction letting scheduled for FY 1996. From US 29 to
NC 49, right-of-way acquisition will begin in FY 1998, with letting
scheduled for FY 1999.
C. Estimated Cost of Improvements
This 2.2 mile project has an estimated cost of $8,700,000 (including
$5,890,000 for construction and $2,810,000 for right-of-way). The cost
breakdown is:
Section Location Construction R/W Total
"B" SR 2681 to US 29 $197509000 $ 8609000 $296109000
"C" US 29 to NC 49 $4,140,000 $199509000 $690909000
Total Cost $598909000 $298109000 $897009000
9
D. Recommended Improvements
1. Length of Project
The studied portion of Mallard Creek Church Road is 2.2 miles in
length. The section of Old Concord Road to be realigned is 0.2 mile
in length.
2. Project Termini
The project's western terminus is SR 2681 (John Adams Road),
which is adjacent to the Interstate 85 interchange with Mallard Creek
Church Road.
The project's eastern terminus is NC 49 (University City
Boulevard), including a 0.2 mile realignment of Old Concord Road.
3. Proposed Typical Section
From SR 2681 to US 29, the proposed cross-section is a four-lane
highway with two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction (See Figure
2). Each travel direction will be divided by a 20-foot raised
median. An 8-foot shoulder (including 6 feet of pavement and 2 feet
of grass) will be constructed adjacent to the outside edge of
pavement.
From US 29 to NC 49, the proposed cross-section is a four-lane
highway with a 12-foot inside and 14-foot outside travel lane in each
direction (See Figure 3). Each travel direction will be divided by a
20-foot raised median. Curb and gutter and an 8-foot berm will be
utilized adjacent to the outside edge of pavement.
4. Proposed Right-of-Way Width and Access Control
From SR 2681 to US 29, the proposed right-of-way is 120 feet,
plus any additional temporary easements. From US 29 to NC 499 100
feet of right-of-way is required. The realigned sections of Concord
Road and "old" Mallard Creek Church Road require a minimum of 60 feet
of right-of-way.
Widening will not occur symmetrically, due to the existing poor
horizontal alignment of Mallard Creek Church Road. At certain
locations, the proposed cross-section is to be built on new location.
No control of access is recommended.
The Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department has
suggested that right-of-way from the Department's lands adjacent to
Mallard Creek may be dedicated to NCDOT in return for construction of
a bicycle underpass under the replacement bridge which will carry
Mallard Creek Church Road over Mallard Creek. NCDOT is currently
working on a cost estimate for the underpass, however the final cost
may not be available until later in the design phase. Cost-sharing
may be addressed later, at which time any dedicated right-of-way will
be considered.
10
Construction of the bicycle underpass is not to be confused with
the separate construction of a bicycle "boardwalk" and bicycle/
pedestrian bridge over Mallard Creek, in the two wetland mitigation
sites adjacent to Mallard Creek. Per March 3, 1994 Agreement, NCDOT
previously agreed to build a wooden boardwalk for Mecklenburg County
in return for use of those mitigation areas (TIP Project R-211 DA).
5. Required Structures
Existing Bridge No. 84 was designed using a design loading
standard which does not meet the current minimum standards required
by North Carolina policy. Therefore, replacement of the existing
bridge is recommended because it is not feasible to increase the
strength of an existing prestressed concrete cored slab bridge.
Bridge No. 84 is to be replaced with an approximate 180-foot
bridge at the same general location as the existing bridge. The
replacement bridge deck elevation (and approaches) may be raised
above the existing elevation, to reduce the magnitude of a "sag"
vertical curve from US 29 to the bridge to SR 2834. Also, to
accommodate a bicycle underpass, the replacement bridge deck may have
to be 3-4 feet higher than the existing bridge deck. The new bridge
must have adequate roadway clearance to accommodate the proposed
cross-section. Sidewalks are to be installed on both sides of the
bridge.
As a part of this project, NCDOT wishes to incorporate the
proposed Mallard Creek Greenway. The proposed Greenway intersects
Mallard Creek Church Road on the west side of Mallard Creek. NCDOT
is committed to further coordination with the Mecklenburg Parks and
Recreation Department to produce a bridge design which provides
adequate clearances for a bicycle underpass. This underpass will
continue the Mallard Creek Greenway system under Mallard Creek Church
Road. The underpass should meet current AASHTO criteria, with a
minimum pavement width of 10 feet. Desired vertical clearance is 10
feet, to permit passage of maintenance vehicles. Vertical clearance
may be less, however, if the 10-foot requirement causes the bridge
deck elevation to be raised in excess of 4 feet higher than the
existing bridge deck elevation. Cost estimates will not be finalized
until later design phases, at which time cost-sharing can be
addressed. The Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department
would be responsible for maintenance of the underpass area.
6. Design Speed
Recommended design speed for this facility is 50 miles per hour.
This is due to the urban nature of the proposed curb and gutter
section and the rolling terrain along the project. The posted speed
limit is expected to be 45 miles per hour.
11
7. Permits
A predischarge notification is required for the bridge over
Mallard Creek. This will alert the US Army Corps of Engineers so
that they may determine the need for an Individual Section 404 permit
for this structure.
It is anticipated that the Nationwide Section 404 permit
provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (14) are applicable in other areas.
The conditions and best management practices described in the
provisions of 330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
This project will also require a general 401 Water Quality
Certification from NCDEHNR prior to the Corps of Engineers issuance
of a Section 404 permit.
8. Proposed Intersection Treatments
All roadway intersections will be at-grade and stop sign
controlled, with the exception of US 29 and NC 49. The signal
controls and lane configurations at these intersections will be
revised to accommodate new traffic patterns. During the design
phase, NCDOT will study these intersections in greater detail, and
may modify the recommendations presented in this document.
Capacity analysis at the US 29 intersection indicates the need
for several turning lanes in addition to the proposed improvement.
The recommended configuration is: East and westbound approaches of
Mallard Creek Church Road will require two through lanes, two
dedicated left-turn lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane. In
addition to existing through lanes, north and southbound US 29
approaches will require one dedicated left-turn lane and one
dedicated right-turn lane.
At the new NC 49 intersection with Mallard Creek Church Road
extension, capacity analysis indicates the need for several turning
lanes in addition to the proposed improvement. The recommended
configuration is: The eastbound approach of Mallard Creek Church
Road will require one through lane, two dedicated left-turn lanes,
and one dedicated right-turn lane. The westbound approach of Old
Concord Road will require two through lanes, one dedicated left-turn
lane, and one dedicated right-turn lane. In addition to existing
(and proposed) through lanes, the northbound approach of NC 49 will
require two dedicated left-turn lanes and one dedicated right-turn
lane, while the southbound approach of NC 49 will require two
dedicated left-turn lanes and one dedicated right-turn lane. To
accommodate the two left-turn lanes from southbound NC 49, eastbound
Old Concord Road will be widened to two through-lanes for a distance
of approximately 450 feet, with an additional taper/merge section of
approximately 500 feet.
A new intersection is formed where the "old" section of Mallard
Creek Church Road will be realigned to tee into the extension of
Mallard Creek Church Road. At this intersection, a dedicated
right-turn lane is recommended on the westbound approach of the
Mallard Creek Church Road extension. Also, a dedicated left-turn
12
lane and a dedicated right-turn lane are recommended on the
northbound approach of the "old" section of Mallard Creek Church
Road. As traffic volumes increase, a spot improvement should be
considered at this intersection. A traffic signal and additional
turning lanes may be needed. Signalization may be required as a
result of more detailed study during the design phase of this
project.
Improvements to all intersections on NC 49 should be coordinated
with TIP Project R-2215, which addresses the widening of NC 49. This
coordination holds special significance with regard to the existing
intersection of NC 49 and the "old" section of Mallard Creek Church
Road. This intersection may require improvements in conjunction with
project U-2508, or in the future. In particular, a dedicated through
lane, dedicated left-turn lane, and dedicated right-turn lane may be
required on the westbound approach of "old" Mallard Creek Church
Road. It may be possible to coordinate these improvements as part of
the R-2215 widening. At a minimum, the intersection will be studied
further during the design phase.
9. Bicycle Transportation Facilities
Due to project proximity to the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, bicycles are recognized as an important mode of
transportation. From SR 2681 to US 29, the proposed 6-foot paved
width of the roadway shoulder will accommodate bicycle traffic. From
US 29 to NC 49, the recommended 14-foot outside lane in each travel
direction.will accommodate bicycle traffic.
As a result of the wetland impacts of project R-211 DA (the
Southern Charlotte Outer Loop), and per March 2, 1994 Agreement,
NCDOT has negotiated with Mecklenburg County to use two sites
adjacent to Mallard Creek for wetland mitigation (See Figure 4). One
site is located on the southwest side of Mallard Creek Church Road
and to the west of Mallard Creek. The second site is located
northeast of Mallard Creek Church Road and east of Mallard Creek. To
obtain use of these lands, NCDOT committed to construct a wooden
boardwalk facility in the wetland sites. This boardwalk is a
continuation of the Mecklenburg County Greenway System. NCDOT also
committed to construct a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across Mallard
Creek, close to the parking lot for the Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation Department athletic fields. Mecklenburg County is
responsible for maintenance of these facilities.
In addition, NCDOT is presently evaluating cost estimates for a
bicycle underpass which will carry bicycle traffic under the
northwest side of the replacement bridge over Mallard Creek. This
underpass will connect the bicycle boardwalk areas which run parallel
to Mallard Creek. Depending on cost, this underpass may be presented
as a cost-share proposal to the City of Charlotte.
13
10. Pedestrian Facilities
A college campus is expected to generate pedestrian traffic, and
UNCC is no exception. The University Terrace Condominiums are sited
across Mallard Creek Church Road from the UNCC campus. Presently
there are additional condominiums under construction in this area
(See Figure 4). Between UNCC and these condominiums, existing
Mallard Creek Church Road is not recommended for widening.
Therefore, condominium residents desiring to walk to UNCC will cross
the "old" Mallard Creek Church Road, which will remain a two-lane
roadway.
The proposed extension of Mallard Creek Church Road passes on
the north side of University Terrace Condominiums (See Figure 4).
However, future residential development linked to the university will
likely create pedestrian traffic along the new location section of
Mallard Creek Church Road. NCDOT recognizes there are certain
situations in which pedestrian facilities provide significant
benefits to a community. Resultantly, NCDOT sees a strong need for
alternative modes of travel in the UNCC vicinity. This project is
,special with regard-to its proximity to a university campus.
The Charlotte - Mecklenburg Planning Commission has requested
sidewalks for the project (Appendix D). According to the 1994 NCDOT
Pedestrian Policy, NCDOT may share 50% of the cost with a
municipality with a population over 100,000. It is therefore
recommended that NCDOT participate with the City of Charlotte on a
cost-share basis to provide a pedestrian facility on Mallard Creek
Church Road, from US 29 to NC 49: It is recommended this sidewalk be
constructed on the southwest side of Mallard Creek Church Road. The
estimated construction cost of this improvement is $140,000.
Therefore, the cost to the City of Charlotte is estimated at $70,000.
If additional sidewalk provisions are desired by the City of
Charlotte, then a justification must be submitted to NCDOT (in
accordance with the 1994 NCDOT Pedestrian Policy). This
justification must be received by February, 1995. The municipal
agreement for cost-sharing will be executed during later
preconstruction stages in this project. In addition, the replacement
bridge for Bridge Number 84 (carrying Mallard Creek Church Road over
Mallard Creek) is to have sidewalks constructed on both sides of the
bridge deck.
Pedestrians traveling from SR 2681 to US 29 can walk on the
shoulders of the proposed 4-lane shoulder cross-section.
14
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Other Widening Alternatives
1. Alignment to Avoid Use of Section 4(f) Resources
In addition to-the recommended improvements, consideration was
given to an alignment which avoids taking any land from the Alexander
House property and from the UNCC District Park (See Figure 6). As
discussed later in the Cultural Resources section of this document,
the Alexander property is considered eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The Alexander property is located in
the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Mallard Creek Church
Road and US 29, while the UNCC District Park is located in the
northeast quadrant.
To avoid taking lands from these properties, an alignment was
studied which widens asymmetrically to the opposite side of Mallard
Creek Church Road. To accomplish this, the avoidance alternative
veers southward from the recommended alternative. However, the
impacts of this avoidance alternative are considered to be of
extraordinary magnitude.
The Section 4(f) Resources section of this document describes
the factors contributing to the non-selection of the avoidance
alternative.
The avoidance alternative causes the taking of approximately 0.4
acre of land from an existing wetland mitigation area, as opposed to
no taking of land for the recommended alternative. This alternative
would also necessitate the relocation of 35 additional residences,
and would considerably increase right-of-way cost.
2. Widen Existing Mallard Creek Church Road from SR 2834 to NC 49
NCDOT also studied the widening of existing Mallard Creek Church
Road from SR 2834 to NC 49. Several factors contributed to the
non-selection of this alternative.
The existing horizontal curvature is poor, with several reverse
curves. Two sharp, reverse curves, are located between the
University Terrace Condominiums and the entrance'to UNCC. To remedy
this problem, the studied alignment straightened this section of
Mallard Creek Church Road by going on new location. An alignment on
new location caused three relocations, and used a portion of UNCC
lands which may be needed for later expansion (UNCC is currently
developing a university Master Plan). Widening Mallard Creek Church
Road in this section will also pose increased risk to bicyclists and
pedestrians accessing UNCC, and will decrease accessibility to
traffic. In addition, widening this section does not further the
long-range thoroughfare plan.
15
B. Public Transportation Alternative
While a considerable portion of the traffic on Mallard Creek Church
Road is local traffic, residential densities are low enough that providing
some form of public transportation would not be a feasible alternative to
improving the subject roadway. Public transportation is not a viable
substitute for widening this road. Public bus transportation would be a
likely supplement to improving the existing facility, thus extending the
useful life of the upgraded facility.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
If the "no-build" alternative were chosen, it would have a
considerable negative impact on transportation in the northeast Charlotte
area. Mallard Creek Church Road is a highly congested facility at
present, especially during peak periods. With increases in traffic, the
service provided by the existing facility would deteriorate even more.
Increased congestion would lead to higher operating costs and increased
travel times. Motorist safety would also be sacrificed leading to even
greater losses due to accidents and deaths. Therefore, the "no-build"
alternative has been rejected.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Land Use Planning
The proposed improvement is located within both the municipal limits
and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Charlotte. Planning and
zoning functions are administered by the joint Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Planning Commission. The City Council and County Commissioners adopted
the Generalized Land Plan: 2005 in 1985, a strategic plan designed to
influence growth and ed el-opment decisions throughout the county. A
series of more detailed district plans based on the Generalized Land Plan
have also been adopted. These plans direct the zoning an other
regulatory functions of the city and county. The project area is
addressed in the Northeast District Plan, which was adopted in 1990.
Other planning documents effecting the project area include the
Greenwa s Master Plan updated in 1990, the Charlotte-Mecklenbur Parks
Master Pan 1989 , t e Final Report of the Greenwa Site Selection
Commi ttee71980) , and the Ctrl otte Urbanized Area T orough are Pan,
adopted in 1988.
1. Existing Land Use
The project area includes a variety of land uses. The largest
institutional use is the University of North Carolina at Charlotte
(UNCC) campus, located at NC 49 and Mallard Creek Church Road. A
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County District Park is located at the
intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek Church Road. The park is
still being developed, and its current primary use is organized
soccer.
16
Recent residential development has been triggered by the growth
of the UNCC campus. Housing of varying densities is accessible from
Mallard Creek Church Road, and includes the Alexander Glen and
Mallard Green Apartments, and University Terrace condominiums, all
near UNCC. Additional single family homes of varying age front
Mallard Creek Church Road, some associated with small farms.
Commercial development in the project area is limited to service
stations at the intersections of Mallard Creek Church Road and NC 49
and US 29. The only industrial use in the area is a Martin-Marietta
stone quarry. A significant portion of the land in the project
vicinity remains undeveloped.
2. Existing Zoning
Most of the undeveloped land between I-85 and US 29 is zoned for
single family residential development, although at least one
multi-family zoning district is located in the area. The land on
each side of Mallard Creek Church Road from NC 49 to US 29, excluding
existing residential areas, is zoned for institutional uses, and
includes the UNCC campus. However, the Northeast District Plan
(discussed in more detail below) recommends sere eso`„corrective
rezonings" for the north side of Mallard Creek Church Road. The
rezonings would change some of the currently zoned Institutional
Districts to residential districts.
One such rezoning is currently being considered. A rezoning
petition requesting a change from Institutional to R-12MFCD
(multi-family residential) has been proposed near the UNCC campus on
the north side of Mallard Creek Church Road. Several business zoning
districts are located at the intersections of Mallard Creek Church
Road with NC 49 and US 29, as well as some districts permitting
office and institutional development at varying densities.
3. Future Land Use
According to the Northeast District Plan the area roughly
bounded by Cabarrus County, I-17, an P aza Roa to the south, is one
of the fastest growing portions of Mecklenburg County. The plan
states that the district's 1987 population of 42,746 will double by
2005, and employment in the area will increase by 131% from 14,084
(1985) to 32,560 jobs by 2005. Driving forces behind the rapid
growth include UNCC, the University Research Park, University Place,
and the expansion of sewer lines and wastewater treatment facilities
in the district.
The plan recommends that the University Research Park boundaries
be expanded north of Mallard Creek Church Road and east to I-85. The
Research Park is currently a 2,700 acre area zoned for institutional
and research uses.
17
University Place is a large mixed use development located in the
Harris Boulevard vicinity. While University Place is not immediately
located in the project area, its expected employment base, along with
University Research Park, will increase pressure for residential and
supporting commercial development in the Northeast District.
Other proposed land uses in the area include a "neighborhood"
commercial center at the intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek
Church Road and multi-family development in the UNCC vicinity.
Infrastructure improvements for the area include the expansion of the
Mallard Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant and the construction of
sewer lines in the Mallard Creek Basin which will serve most of the
district.
Located on the north side of Mallard Creek Church Road near
UNCC, one of the most important issues facing the district is the
lack of existing roadway capacity to accommodate the rapid growth.
Bicycle traffic is expected to be significant along Mallard Creek
Church Road, due to its proximity to UNCC and the residential
development occurring in the general area.
4. Parks and Greenwavs
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Parks and Recreation Department plans
to expand the UNCC District Park, located at US 29 and Mallard Creek
Church Road, from its current 36 acres to a total of 100 acres. As
with other district parks in Mecklenburg County, the UNCC District
Park will feature active recreational opportunities, such as
playgrounds, basketball courts, picnic facilities and nature trails.
Mallard Creek Church Road crosses the proposed Mallard Creek
Greenway near US 29. The proposed greenway, which will be developed
by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department,
will provide direct access to the UNCC District Park from UNCC and
neighborhoods to the west. The Greenway will connect with the Toby
Creek Greenway to the south. A portion of the Mallard Creek Greenway
has already been developed in the vicinity of Mallard Creek Church
Road. The new structure over Mallard Creek and the greenway should
be designed to AASHTO standards for accommodation of bicycles, both
on the bridge and in the underpass area.
The proposed Mallard Creek Greenway is a separate entity from
the UNCC district park adjacent to Mallard Creek Church Road.
5. Project Consistency with Local Plans
The project is consistent with local development plans for the
general area. The projected rapid growth in both population and.
employment in the Northeast District of Mecklenburg County will
require significant improvements to the existing roadway system. The
County's Generalized Land Plan: 2005 identifies improvements to
Mallard Creek Chu rch Road as a '`iorst-range strategy" for the
Northeast District. The Plan states that improvements to the road are
needed to provide better access to University Place and UNCC.
18
6. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils.
These soils are designated by the US Soil Conservation Service, based
on crop yield and other factors. Land that has been developed, or is
planned for urban development through the local government's planning
and zoning authority is exempt from consideration under the Act. The
project vicinity meets this condition for planned urbanization, as
documented in the Generalized Land Plan: 2005 and the county zoning
ordinance.. Therefore, no urtTer consideration of farmland impacts
is required.
B. Social and Economic Environment
1. Neighborhood Characteristic
The proposed project is located partly within the Charlotte
corporate boundary, and partly in Mecklenburg County. Charlotte is
the county seat for Mecklenburg County, and is currently the largest
metropolitan area in North Carolina. Per the 1990 US Census,
Charlotte has a population of.395,934, and Mecklenburg County has a
population of 511,433.
Proceeding in an easterly direction from Interstate 85 to US 299
Mallard Creek Church Road passes first through a residential section
consisting of several large homes along SR 2681. These homes are set
back from the highway facility, and will not be affected by the
improvement. East of this small residential section, Mallard Creek
Church Road passes adjacent to several small homes before curving to
the south and back again to the north. Because the proposed action
straightens this section of roadway by realigning onto new location,
some dwellings may be relocated. Just prior to reaching US 29, the
proposed alignment will take lands on the south side of Mallard Creek
Church Road. This taking will impact a small pond and land where a
slight amount of illegal dumping (appliances and furniture) has
occurred.
Proceeding from US 29 toward NC 49, a Citgo Service Station is
located in the northeast quadrant of the US 29 and Mallard Creek
Church Road intersection. Immediately adjacent to Citgo are two
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department athletic fields,
used primarily for soccer. After Mallard Creek Church Road crosses _
Mallard Creek, the Alexander Glen Apartments, Alexander Glen
subdivision, and Craven Croft subdivision are on the south side of
the roadway. An access road to.the Martin Marietta Quarry and Rea
Construction Company is located on the north side of Mallard Creek
Church Road, immediately across from SR 4671. After passing SR 2834
(Mary Alexander Road), the Mallard Green Apartments and Psi Delta
Fraternity are located on the south side of Mallard Creek Church
Road. Psi Delta owns a tennis court near the intersection with
19
SR 2834, however it is not anticipated the court will be impacted by
the proposed project. From SR 4671 toward the Psi Delta Fraternity,
three residences are sited on the north side of Mallard Creek Church
Road. Approximately 3000 feet west of NC 49, three individual
residences are located on the south side of the roadway. Two
entrances to UNCC and UNCC parking lots are located between these
homes and NC 49. University Terrace Condominiums are located on the
north side of Mallard Creek Church Road, with an access point
approximately 2,500 feet west of NC 49. A BP station is located in
the northwest quadrant of the NC 49 intersection with Mallard Creek
Church Road.
2. Economic Factors
The proposed widening of Mallard Creek Church Road will likely
increase the tax base along the existing highway corridor. Improved
safety and convenience for motorists will increase commercial
activities in the area. Also, it can be assumed that some portions
of the labor force and construction materials will originate from
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, somewhat increasing local commerce
for the project duration.
3. Public Facilities and Services
Public Facilities along the proposed project consist of the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation athletic fields adjacent to
Mallard Creek. Additionally, the Mallard Creek Greenway is proposed.
The proposed action will take a small amount of land from the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department, on the north side
of Mallard Creek Church Road in the vicinity of the athletic fields
and on the east side of Mallard Creek. If an alignment were chosen
which totally missed taking this land, the resulting roadway would
take many homes and two apartment buildings, increase project cost,
and increase the acreage of land taken from a wetland mitigation area
on the other side of Mallard Creek Church Road. These consequences
combine to cause an impact of extraordinary magnitude. Fortunately,
Mecklenburg County plans already incorporate the widening of Mallard
Creek Church Road. The parklands that will be taken are
insignificant to the purpose or function of the park, and do not
affect access to or from existing or future facilities. To address
the issue of taking these lands, a Section 4(f) Programmatic
Evaluation is included in Appendix B.
4. Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action
a. Relocation Impacts
It is anticipated that the proposed action will cause the
relocation of 5 residences. Other residences may receive
proximity damage due to the proposed improvements. These
relocations are not expected to cause the breakup of a
community, nor the disruption of services. It is anticipated
20
that adequate replacement properties will be available for the
relocatees. All relocations will be in accordance with the
revised North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 133. A
relocation report is included in Appendix D to this document.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of
state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three
programs to minimize the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT
staff will be available to assist displacees with information
such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or
businesses for sale or rent and financing of other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general,
provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to
purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation
Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will
compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify
and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be
conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is
designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of
displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow
ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations, and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day
written notice after NCDOT.purchases the property. Relocation
of displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less
desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals
displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of
displaced businesses, non-profit organization, and farm
operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
21
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, increase interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under
the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment,
not to exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make
a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the purchase
of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what
the State determines is required when the rent supplement
exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be
displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted
construction projects unless or until comparable 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 income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of
eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement
payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose
of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of
implementation by the State so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appears to
be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
22
b. Social Impacts
The proposed action will have a positive impact on the
community as a whole. Such positive impacts will include:
increased safety and convenience for the motoring public,
improved visibility and accessibility for various businesses and
services along the proposed facility, and improved response time
for emergency vehicles.
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion,
and it will not interfere with the accessibility of public
facilities or services.
C. Section 4(f) Resources
This project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land from
1) the UNCC District Park belonging to the Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation Department, and 2) from the Alexander property, a property
which is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
(See Figure 4). Both properties are adjacent to the existing roadway.
Since the minor use of this land meets the criteria set forth in the
Federal Register (December 23, 1986), a programmatic Section 4(f)
evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966. Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations are
provided in Appendix B.
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the park and historic
site, have fully been evaluated:
1) Do Nothing.
2) Widen the highway without using land from the park or the
historic site.
3) Build the improved facility on new location without using land
from the park or the historic site.
These alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
Building an improved facility on new location without using land from
the park of the historic site does not satisfy the needs of the project,
and introduces significant additional cost. In addition, the layout of
the UNCC District Park and the Alexander property would force a new
location alternative well to the north of the existing project location.
A widening alternative was studied which entirely misses the
Alexander property and the UNCC District Park (See Figure 6). The
alternative widens Mallard Creek Church Road to the opposite side from
these properties. This alternative was not found to be feasible and
prudent for the following reasons:
1. The alignment results in the removal of several apartments and
homes, resulting in the relocation of 35 additional residences.
this is an extraordinary amount of upheaval to a community.
23
2. The alignment results in the destruction of approximately 0.4
acre of an existing wetland mitigation area that has been
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The recommended
alternative does not impact the wetlands.
3. The alignment will remove a pond which is located across Mallard
Creek Church Road from the Alexander property.
4. The avoidance alternative will cost $530,000 more than the
recommended alternative.
5. The avoidance alignment causes a curved approach to the US 29
intersection, thereby increasing the chance for accidents to
occur.
6. The recommended alternative would be closer to the remaining
homes and apartments along Mallard Creek Church Road (between
Mallard Creek and SR 2834) that it did not relocate.
All planning to minimize harm to the park and to the historic
property has been performed as an integral part of this project. The
officials having jurisdiction over these Section 4(f) properties have
agreed, in writing, with the assessment of impacts resulting from the use
of the properties and with the mitigation measures to be provided.
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Officer(SHPO), whose correspondence is attached to this
document. The SHPO has concurred that this project, as proposed, has no
adverse effect on the Alexander property.
Measures to minimize harm to the Alexander property include the
following:
1. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT has agreed to
.landscape the grassed median with wax myrtles, forsythia, and/or
scotch broom. NCDOT will also plant a screen of trees and
shrubs on the north side of SR 2472 at areas where no landscape
buffer currently exists. Prior to the initiation of
construction, NCDOT shall submit the landscaping plan to the
State Historic Preservation Office for review and comment.
2. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT will minimize
the clearing of trees in the right-of-way.
Widening Mallard Creek Church Road will not use land from any area of
the UNCC District Park which is used for activities, ie, the athletic
fields or parking. However, access to the park is still a concern.
Therefore, measures to minimize harm include the following:
1. During construction, traffic control measures will be taken to
prevent interference with access to or operations of the soccer
fields belonging to the Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation
Department. Any areas of the park that are disturbed by
construction will be restored and landscaped.
24
The recommended alignment is actually a compromise. It is not the
geometrically-preferred alignment. However, NCDOT discovered the
Alexander property and the UNCC District Park early in the planning
process. In an effort to preserve the properties and to minimize damage,
NCDOT shifted its original, preferred alignment to the south, to what is
now the recommended alignment. The recommended alignment cannot be
shifted any further to the south for the reasons stated in evaluating the
avoidance alternative. The recommended alignment is estimated to acquire
approximately 0.13 acre of the approximate 1.61 acres of the Alexander
property, representing 1.9% of the area. However, the sliver of land that
will be taken does not have significance in its own right. Rather, the
"neck" of land that extends to Mallard Creek Church Road was included in
the boundary description to assure access to the roadway. The loss of a
small portion of land from that access area will not affect the
architectural characteristics that qualify the Alexander House for the
National Register of Historic Places, nor will the loss of land be visible
from the house (See Figure 6 and the property boundary map in Appendix A).
D. Cultural Resources
1. Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, and the Regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Governing the Section
106 Review Process, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. It is also subject
to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966, as amended.
In response to project information received from the State
Clearinghouse, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) searched their files and maps, located one property of
historical and architectural importance within the general project
area, the W.T. Alexander House, and notified NCDOT of their findings.
Background information on the Alexander House was obtained from the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Historic Landmarks Commission. A NCDOT
staff architectural historian surveyed 100 percent of the project
area in May, 1993, and again in July, 1994.
Five properties over fifty years old were identified within the
APE of the proposed new extension of Mallard Creek Church Road: the
Roland House, Back Creek Parsonage, Back Creek School, Helms House,
and Back Creek Associate Reform Presbyterian Church and Cemetery.
These properties, however, were previously evaluated as part of TIP
Project R-2215, the widening of NC 49 from UNCC to Harrisburg, North
Carolina. As letters from the Department of Cultural Resources
attest, none of these structures.or sites are considered eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places.
Two properties over fifty years old were identified within the
APE of existing Mallard Creek Church Road: a circa 1930 one-story,
frame, gable-front bungalow dwelling and the W.T. Alexander House
previously identified by SHPO. The former is a commonplace example
25
of a type prevalent through-out the state and is therefore not
considered potentially eligible for the National Register. The latter
was designated a local historic landmark by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
County Historic Landmarks Commission in 1970 and is evaluated in more
detail below.
The W.T. Alexander House is a two-story, single-pile, three-bay,
Flemish bond, brick Federal dwelling with a one-story, frame side ell
and one-story, frame rear shed. The rear shed and side additions
were built later than the house; the side addition has a relatively
low, step-down, single-shoulder brick chimney.
At the time of the site visit by NCDOT staff, there were three
associated outbuildings: a 1936 frame and stone two-story garage, now
used as an apartment and garage: a small, frame, side-gable building
(originally a well shelter) immediately behind the house, which
appears to have been altered with wide synthetic siding: and a large,
frame, weatherboard-sheathed, 'gable-front bank barn, c.1920-25. The
Alexander family does not intend to maintain the barn.
The house is located at the end of a long drive, at a right
angle to Mallard Creek Church Road (See Appendix A).
The Alexander House has retained a high degree of integrity of
its materials, design, workmanship, setting, location, feeling, and
association. The outbuildings associated with it retain a much lower
degree of integrity. The plantation house is described by the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission as one of the
finer extant Federal style plantation houses in Mecklenburg County.
The Alexander House is considered potentially eligible for the
National Register.
Proposed boundaries for potential National Register eligibility
are shown on the property boundary map in Appendix A. The boundaries
include the plantation house, the well house, and the tax parcel they
occupy, with the addition that the western boundary should encompass
all of the driveway to the house.
It is the opinion of NCDOT, FHWA, the State Historic
Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation, that the proposed project will have no adverse effect
on the Alexander House. The amount of land involved is small and far
enough removed from the house that the project's impact will be
negligible.
In order to minimize effect on the property, NCDOT has committed
to the measures discussed in the previous Section 4(f) Resources.
The Section 4(f) Resources section of this document discusses
the impacts associated with total avoidance of the Alexander
property. Appendix B contains a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
26
which addresses the impact of the proposed project on the W.T.
Alexander property. Because the avoidance alternative causes impacts
of extraordinary magnitude, the recommended alternative is justified
in taking a slight amount of land from the Alexander property.
2. Archaeological Resources
NCDOT archaeologists conducted a survey in March, 1993, and
August, 1994, to locate and evaluate archaeological resources in the
project impact area in accordance with FHWA procedures for compliance
with historic preservation legislation. A brief reconnaissance
inspection of the entire project was followed by a pedestrian survey
of all areas with potential for significant archaeological sites.
Subsurface testing was conducted in areas of low ground surface
visibility.
Since the project is along an established highway, much of the
corridor is developed or has at some time in the recent past been
affected by residential or commercial development. During the
intensive survey of approximately 1.0 mile of the 2.2 mile project,
four previously unrecorded prehistoric archaeological sites were
found and two previously recorded sites were investigated. None of
these sites appear eligible for the National Register, and the State
Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with this finding (See
SHPO letter in Appendix D).
Since the project a!
any archaeological sites
the National Register of
work is recommended.
E. Natural Resources
currently planned will have no effects on
that are on or are eligible for listing on
Historic Places, no further archaeological
The project study area lies in Mecklenburg County in the
south-central part of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed project
corridor by NCDOT biologists on October 5, 1993 and on September 9, 1994.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded. Wildlife was identified using a variety of observation
techniques: active searching and capture including hand held dipnet,
visual observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows).
Information sources used in this investigation include; U.S. Geodetic
Survey (USGS) quadrangle map of Harrisburg, National Wetland Inventory Map
(NWI) of Harrisburg, NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:2400),
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
list of protected and candidate species, and N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Research using these resources was conducted prior to field investigations
taking place.
27
Mecklenburg County is characterized by broad, gently rolling
interstream areas and by steeper slopes along the drainageways. Uplands
are generally level along Mallard Creek and become more rolling away from
the creeks flood plain.
1. Water Resources
The proposed project lies within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Water flow is generally from southwest to northeast and bottom
composition is primarily sand and clay sediments which are a result
of heavy erosion along the creek banks. Exposed rock outcrops as
well as leaf litter zones are also present in scattered locations
along Mallard Creek. Creek banks are steep 3.0 m to 3.6 m (10 to 12
ft high) and scarped. Width ranges from 2.5 to 6.0 m (8 to 20 ft)
while depth ranges from 0.1 to 0.6 m (0.5 to 2 ft) in deeper holes.
One impounded area (pond) is located on the south side of
Mallard Creek Church Road approximately 120 m (400 ft) west of the
intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek Church Road. This pond
covers approximately 0.4 ha (1 ac) and pond depth ranges from 0.6 to
2.5 m (2 to 8 ft). The substrate is composed of eroded sediments
which have resulted from development practices.
Mallard Creek has a best usage classification of C. Class C
waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. No waters
classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-11 will be impacted by the
proposed project, nor are these resources located within 1.6 km (1
mile) of the subject area.
Potential impacts to Mallard Creek include increased
sedimentation from construction-re lated erosion. Poorly managed
application of sedimentation control policies can result in serious
damage to the aquatic environment. Increased sediment loads can cause
mortality among less hardy organisms and their progeny due to
associated factors such as toxic run-off, increased turbidity,
reduction of dissolved oxygen content, smothering of fish eggs,
clogging of gills and filter feeding organs. Sedimentation and
erosion control measures will be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of this project.
2. Biotic Resources
The following descriptions refer to the dominant plants and
animals in each community and how these biotic components relate to
one another. Approximately 40 animal species were visually observed
during field surveys. Complete listings of fauna which may occur in
the study area can be found in one or more technical references in
section 5.0 of the U-2508 Natural Resources Technical Report
(available at NCDOT).
28
Man=dominated and Mixed Pine/hardwood Forest are the 2
terrestrial communities found in the subject project study area.
Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas
will be discussed in each community description, however many species
are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project
alignment and may not be mentioned in each community description.
The man-dominated community makes up the majority of the
terrestrial communities found in the project study area and includes
and includes highly disturbed areas such as road shoulder, cutover,
soccer field, pasture, and lawn habitats. Many plant species
characteristic of the roadside are adapted to disturbed and
maintained habitats. The more well-maintained (mowed) areas are
dominated by fescue, Bermuda grass, plantain, and clover along with a
variety of ornamental herbs, vines, shrubs and trees. Native trees,
such as red maple and red cedar are also present throughout yards and
lawns.
Many animals present. in these disturbed habitats are
opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of forage
resources ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, seeds, and
fruits) to animal matter (living and dead). Gray squirrel, Virginia
opossum, northern cardinal, northern mockingbird, American crow,
ruby-throated hummingbird, and mourning dove are examples of species
attracted to lawns and gardens by the year-round feeding stations and
abundance of cultivated forage items provided by humans. Six-lined
racerunner, rufous-sided towhee, and several species of mice prefer
the less well maintained margins or ecotones of road shoulders and
lawns.
Mortality among animals which migrate across roadways provides
forage for opportunistic species such as turkey vulture and Virginia
opossum which may in turn become fatalities and subsequently forage
items themselves. Reptiles and amphibians, including toads, frogs,
turtles, and snakes, may sun themselves on the roadside and even lie
on the road surface at night to absorb heat.
Less well maintained areas have succeeded to dense grassland and
scrub\shrup stages of development. Lower growing, grassland areas
are dominated by vegetation such as fescue, sericea, golden rod,
mourning glory, Japanese honeysuckle, and poison ivy. Saplings and
young trees such as, shortleaf pine, ash, red cedar, red maple,
sweetgum, tuliptree, dogwood, redbud,.and black cherry along with
smooth sumac, blackberry, and grape predominate in the scrub\shrub
habitats. Kudzu is an introduced and obvious component of these
ecotonal areas and is in the process of smothering out native
vegetation at one location at. the northeast corner of the
intersection of Mallard Creek Church Road and US 29.
Many animals which use less well maintained habitats prefer
dense vegetation of disturbed areas for nesting and or foraging.
Some species, including the five-lined skink, eastern fence lizard,
and hispid cotton rat, use brush piles, dead vegetation, and vine
29
thickets as refuge and breeding areas. Avian species found in this
early successional community include red-tailed hawk, American Crow,
northern bobwhite, and blue grosbeak.
The mixed pine/hardwood forest is an upland community which at
most locations has been heavily impacted by logging. Logging roads
dissect this community which is stratified into three primary
vegetational strata, including canopy, subcanopy, and shrub/vine/herb
layers.
The canopy is composed primarily of shortleaf pine, tuliptree,
and scattered oaks. Red cedar, red maple, sweet gum, tuliptree,
winged elm and black cherry dominate the subcanopy. Birds dominate
these levels of vegetation while a few mammals and amphibians are
also found here. Broad-winged hawk, red-bellied woodpecker, Carolina
chickadee, white-breasted nuthatch, and red-eyed vireo are common.
Gray treefrogs, and gray squirrel also nest and or forage in the
canopy. Another canopy resident the eastern screech-owl forages on
the forest floor.
The shrub\vine\herb layer includes saplings of oaks as well as
flowering dogwood, blackberry, broomstraw, goldenrod, rose, grape,
and poison ivy. The density of vegetative cover in this layer forms
many refuges for a variety of smaller animals as well as white-tailed
deer. Passerine birds such as tufted titmouse, Carolina wren,
black-and-white warbler and northern cardinal are present throughout
this habitat. Other animals likely to be found in or beneath the
shrub/vine/herb layer include slimy salamander, eastern fence lizard,
copperhead, and southeastern shrew.
Although discussions of aquatic resources typically address the
biota of the waterbody itself, adjacent uplands tend to be integral
components of water resources with which they are associated.
Therefore buffers (uplands) in the immediate vicinity of aquatic
communities will be included in the following discussions.
A piedmont stream habitat (Mallard Creek) is crossed by the
proposed project alignment. Areas associated with Mallard Creek have
been deforested for development leaving a small buffer of hardwood
forest approximately 6 m (20 ft) wide on either side of the creek
channel. This buffer is dominated in the canopy by box elder,
sycamore, ash, and black walnut. The understory contains black
willow, and dogwood while the relatively sparse shrub\vine\herb layer
is composed of giant cane, grape, violet and knotweed.
This small buffer provides nesting and foraging habitat as well
as stop over habitat for variety of birds. Northern cardinal,
catbird, and Carolina wren nest and forage in the shrubs along the
creek while ovenbird and Louisiana waterthrush nest and forage in
leaf liter and associated vegetation. Feeding evidence on black
walnuts by gray squirrel is apparent, while other evidence (gnawing
marks on twig and limb segments) suggests that beaver may be present
upstream of the project area.
30
Other vertebrate inhabitants of Mallard Creek include fish,
amphibians, and reptiles. Fish diversity is usually related to
waterbody size and thus is relatively low in Mallard Creek as
compared to larger streams or rivers. Species such as sunfish and red
lip shiner appear to be common inhabitants of this system.
Amphibians and reptiles which may be found in and around this creek
include northern dusky salamander, leopard frog, snapping turtle, and
northern watersnake.
Invertebrate inhabitants of Mallard Creek include species such
as crayfish which scavenge on animal matter. The Asian clam is also
common. These clams tend to be able to survive in water resources
which have reduced water quality.
A small pond will also be impacted by the proposed construction.
Pond banks are vegetated by button bush and soft needle rush, and
knotweed. Fish, amphibians, reptiles dominate the vertebrate
component of this ponds community. Largemouth bass, other sunfish,
frogs, painted turtle, snapping turtle, and northern watersnake are
all likely inhabitants of the pond. Birds such as great blue heron
seeks out prey along the pond banks while the belted kingfisher may
forage on the ponds surface.
Three intermittent piedmont stream habitats are crossed by the
extension of Mallard Creek Church Road onto new location. The
largest of the three streams shows evidence of sedimentation
resulting from a highly erodible, surrounding landscape. Other
substrate components include boulders, rock, and gravel. Flow rate
was low. The remaining two intermittent streams exhibited heavy
sedimentation and no flow of water.
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are
being addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic
impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly
in locations exhibiting moderate to steep slopes can result in the
aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of
erosion.
Truly natural communities are few in the project area and those
communities remaining have been highly fragmented and reduced as a
result of previous development. The man-dominated community
component of the project area will receive the greatest impact from
habitat reduction resulting in the loss and displacement of plant and
animal life, regardless of which alignment is chosen. Anticipated
impacts to terrestrial communities are listed by proposed alignments
in Table 1.
31
Table 1. Anticipated impacts to
Terrestrial Communities by Alternative
(hectares\acres)
Community Type *
Project Alternative MD MPHF MHF Total

Recommended Alt 4.9\12.0 4.0\9.9 1.7/4.3 10.6\26.2
Avoid Alex. House 8.6\21.2 3.8\9.5 1.7/4.3 10.6\26.2
11 *11
Note:
MD = Man-Dominated Community
MHF = Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
MPHF = Mixed Pine\Hardwood Forest Community
Impacts are based on 36 m (120 ft) of Right-of-Way.
As mentioned previously in the water resources section, the
aquatic component of the project area has already been altered by
sedimentation of silts from erosion due to development. Project
construction is likely to increase sediment loads in Mallard Creek
and the pond. Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to
local populations of invertebrates which are important parts of the
aquatic food chain.
3. Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under
"Waters of the United States" as defined in
accordance with provisions of section 404 of
(33 U.S.C 1344) and are regulated by the U.S.
(COE).
the broad category of
33 CFR 328.3 and in
the Clean Water Act
Army Corps of Engineers
Section 404 impacts to surface waters will occur. Construction
at these sites is likely to be authorized by provisions of Nationwide
Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 and 26 under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act., This permit authorizes fills for roads crossing waters of
the United States. However, the Corps of Engineers has final
discretionary authority.
Improvements to Mallard Creek Church Road cannot be accomplished
without infringing on surface waters. Surface waters associated with
the subject project are Mallard Creek and a pond which is located
just west of US 29 and on the south side of Mallard Creek Church
Road.
Mallard Creek will be bridged by a replacement structure, as
discussed in the Recommended Improvements section. All efforts to
minimize fill will be taken. Therefore, impacts to Mallard Creek are
minimal.
32
The pond west of US 29 has a surface area of approximately 0.8
acre, and is classified as surface waters. The widening of Mallard
Creek Church Road will most likely cause the draining and
back-filling of the pond. No wetlands will be impacted.
This project will also require a general 401 Water Quality
Certification from NCDEHNR prior to the COE issuance of a Nationwide
404 permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that
the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the
waters of the United States.
Since this project will likely be authorized under Nationwide
Permit process, and because only impacts to surface waters will take
place it is likely no mitigation will be required by the COE. A
final determination regarding mitigation requirements will be made in
coordination with various environmental review agencies during the
final design phase of the project.
It is important to note that two NCDOT wetland mitigation sites
are located adjacent to the proposed project alignment. One site is
located on the southwest side of Mallard Creek Church Road and to the
west of Mallard Creek, and the other site is located northeast of
Mallard Creek Church Road and east of Mallard Creek.
The proposed alignment does not take land from these wetland
mitigation sites or any other wetland. Therefore, the project does
not impact any wetlands.
4. Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in
the process of decline either due to natural forces or due to their
inability to coexist with man. Plants and animals with federal
classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 2 federally
protected species for Mecklenburg County as of September 20, 1993.
These species are Carolina hellsplitter and Schweinitz's sunflower.
Carolina hellsplitter (E)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A June 24, 1992 memorandum from North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission states that NCWRC biologist John Alderman
conducted mussel surveys in water resources associated with the
project area and found poor water quality and no fresh water
mussels. Therefore, no impacts to the Carolina hellsplitter will
result from project construction.
33
Schweinitz's sunflower (E)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted
October 5, 1993, and on September 9, 19949
Helianthus species were present in suitable
the project ROW. No sunflower species were
ROW, therefore it can be concluded that the
impact Schweinitz's sunflower.
5. Federal Candidate Species
by NCDOT biologists on
to determine if_any
habitat associated with
found along the project
subject project will not
Federal Candidate 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
Threatened or Endangered. Four federal candidate species including
Georgia aster, Heller's trefoil, Nestronia, and tall larkspur are
listed for Mecklenburg County.
Although suitable habitat for these species does occur in the
study area, no specimens were found. No impacts to these species
will result from proposed project construction.
F. Floodplain Involvement
Mecklenburg County participates in the National Flood Insurance
Regular program. Mecklenburg County is included in the detailed flood
study and has a regulatory floodway. The floodplain in the vicinity of
the Mallard Creek Church Road crossing is wooded east of the stream. The
east side of the floodplain consists of Mecklenburg County Parks and
Recreation Department athletic fields on the upstream side of the
crossing, and meadowlands on the downstream side. Several acres of the
undeveloped areas around this crossing are anticipated to be used as
wetland mitigation for TIP Project R-211, the Charlotte Outer Loop. There
are no known buildings with floor elevation below the 100-year flood level
in the vicinity of the bridge. The proposed roadway widening and bridge
replacement will not adversely affect the existing floodplain. A local
permit from Mecklenburg County will be necessary for the proposed bridge
replacement at Mallard Creek. The Hydraulic Design Unit will coordinate
with Mecklenburg County authorities during final hydraulic design to
ensure their concerns are appropriately addressed.:
Since this project is the widening of an existing roadway, no
significant adverse impact,-on quality or quantity of ground water is
anticipated. Siltation of adjacent areas due to project construction will
be minimized with the implementation and maintenance of stringent erosion
and sediment control measures.
G. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
project on noise levels in the immediate project area. The investigation
included an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field
34
survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also
included a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise
levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting
from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the
current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination
and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or
eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
1. Characteristics of Noise
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (Db). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A scale approximates the frequency response of the
human ear by placing most emphasis on the frequency range of 1,000 to
6,000 Hertz. Because the A-weighted scale closely describes the
response of the human ear to sound, it is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements. Sound levels measured using A-weighting
are often expressed as DBA. Throughout this report, references will
be made to DBA, which means an A-weighted decibel level.
Most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high
noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily
activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound
depends essentially on three things:
1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise,
2) the relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise, and
3) the type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine that highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways (See Appendix Q. These
abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). The Leq, or equivalent
sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given
situation and time period has the same energy as does time varying
sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise
are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy
content.
35
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a basis for assessing the impact
of noise level increases.
The ambient exterior Leq noise levels along the project ranged
from 48.0 dBA on Marlynn Drive (located on the west side of NC 49,
midway between Old Concord Road and Gus's Restaurant), to 64.6 dBA,
which was obtained one-fifth of a mile east of US 29 on SR 2833. The
calculated existing noise level along NC 49, measured 50 feet from
the centerline, was determined to be 73.8 dBA using the existing
roadway and traffic conditions.
4. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in the noise
analysis. Existing natural or man-made barriers were included in the
analysis. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were
assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents
"worst-case" topographic conditions. The noise predictions made in
this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with the proposed speed limits. Hence, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in
this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to determine of the
number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour in the
design year, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses
predicted to expect a substantial noise increase.
5. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise
levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement
criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2
value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels (See
Appendix Q. Consideration for noise abatement measures must be
given to receptors which fall in either category.
36
Over the entire project some 53 residences (including two
apartment buildings with 12 units each) and 1 business are predicted
to experience noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the noise
abatement criteria.
Forty-seven receptors are predicted to experience a substantial
increase in traffic noise levels during peak conditions. Predicted
noise level increases for this project range up to +14 dBA. One
residence on Marlynn Road will experience an increase of +15 dBA.
Those receptors experiencing significant noise increases have low
existing ambient noise levels. When real-life noises are heard, it
is possible to barely detect level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA
change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most
people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
6. Noise Abatement
a. Hiahwav Alianment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way
as to minimize impacts and costs. This selection for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise
impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For
noise abatement, horizontal alignment selection is primarily a
matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient distance from noise
sensitive areas. Changes in the vertical alignment can be
effective in limiting noise impacts of certain highway
facilities. However, this mitigation measure is not reasonable
or feasible and would be too costly for this project, which
involves at-grade intersections and no control of access. The
proposed alignment for Mallard Creek Church Road was developed
to minimize costs and environmental impacts. Hence, further
alteration of the proposed alignment is not reasonable or
feasible from a planning and design perspective.
b. Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle
type, speed, volume and time of operations are often effective
noise abatement measures. For this project, however, traffic
management measures are not considered appropriate for noise
abatement due to their effect on the capacity and
level-of-service on the proposed roadway.
C. Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earthen berms or
artificial abatement walls.
37
The project will maintain no control of access, with
driveway connections permitted for most abutting properties and
with all intersecting roadways adjoining the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction
it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the
barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct
a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access
openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight
(8) times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction
to approximately 4 dBA.
Businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow
these two qualities and, thus, would not be acceptable abatement
measures in their case.
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors and/or
scattered receptors generally require noise barriers which are
too costly because of the length and height required for a
reasonable noise level reduction. For this reason, no isolated
receptors were analyzed in detail.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures
are feasible and none are recommended for this project. A noise
wall was considered for receptors between SR 4671 and SR 2834
(See Figure 4). Due to the spatial relationship of the barrier
and the adjoining land use, however, a noise wall is not
reasonable. To improve aesthetic views in this area, however, a
plant screen will be planted between SR 4671 and SR 2834 to
visually shield homes from the proposed cross-section.
7. "No Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no build" alternative were
also considered. If the traffic currently using the network of roads
in the area should double, the future traffic noise levels would
increase by approximately +3 dBA. This small increase to the present
noise level would be barely noticeable to the people working and
living in the area. In addition, no traffic noise impacts would
result from substantial increases.
38
8. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not feasible or reasonable and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project
change develops, no additional reports are required for this project.
H. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industry and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying
existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air quality. The
traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of a new
highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility.
Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobilis are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
1. Carbon Monoxide Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor
near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions
from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances
within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a
pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the
local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the
local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer
modeling and the background component was obtained from the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were resolved, they
were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
area in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
i
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration for each of the sensitive receptors to
the project.
39
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based
on the annual average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the completion year
(1995), five years, after completion (2000) and the Design Year of
2015 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors", the
MOBILE4.1 mobile source emissions computer model for idle emissions,
and the MOBILESA mobile source emissions computer model for free flow
conditions.
The background CO concentrations for the project area were
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM),
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is
suitable for most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be located
at the intersection of SR 2472/SR 2833 (Mallard Creek Church Road)
and NC 49. The intersection will be redesigned as a result of the
widening of Mallard Creek Church Road. The predicted 1-hour average
CO concentrations for the evaluation build years of 1995, 2000 and
2015 for the worst-case air quality scenario are as follows:
1-Hour CO Concentration
(PPM)
Receptor 1995 2000 2015
REC 78 (NW CORNER) 7.4 6.1 5.3
AIR 1 (SW CORNER) 6.7 5.6 5.2
AIR 2 (SE CORNER) 5.5 4.9 4.8
AIR 3 (NE CORNER) 7.6 6.2 5.8
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9
ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard.
2. Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars
are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to
form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of
HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future because of the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices
on new cars, and thus help to lower ambient ozone and nitrogen
dioxide levels.
40
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen
dioxide require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak
levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the
source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded
as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low,
there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause
air quality standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular
gasoline. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded
gasoline eliminating lead emissions.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more
cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced., The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply,
or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after
December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that
traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be
exceeded.
3. Conformance with Clean Air Act and Conformity Guidelines
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection.
Mecklenburg county is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for
Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Ozone (03). However, due to recently
improved air quality monitoring data, this area is under review to
become a maintenance area for ozone. A redesignation request for CO
was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
October 7, 1994. All appropriate Transportation Control Measures
(TCM) included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), which was
approved by the EPA on March 19, 1981, have been completed. The
Charlotte/Mecklenburg 2010 Urbanized Area Thoroughfare Plan (TP) and
the 1994 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) have been determined
to be in conformance with the intent of the SIP. The approval dates
of the TP and the TIP by the Metropolitan Planning Organization were
on September 18, 1991 and September 15, 1993, respectively. The
approval dates of the TP and the TIP by USDOT were on November 15,
1991 and December 15, 1993, respectively. There have been no
significant changes in the project's design concept and scope, as
used in the conformity analyses.
4. Construction Impacts on Air Quality
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with
41
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care
will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are
such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed
under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will
be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the
control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
I. Transportation Management
In Transportation Management Areas (TMA) designated as non-attainment
for air quality, the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) places restrictions on federally funded projects that increase
capacity for single occupancy vehicles (SOV). Section 1024(a) of ISTEA
states that projects which increase SOV capacity in TMA's classified as
non-attainment areas must be part of an approved Congestion Management
System.
North Carolina is currently developing its Congestion Management
System. A working plan for North Carolina's CMS will be in place by
October 1, 1995. Prior to implementation of the Congestion Management
System, projects that improve SOV capacity in non-attainment areas will be
analyzed to determine if travel demand reduction and operational
management strategies can be used to reduce SOV demand.
Charlotte is classified as a moderate non-attainment area for carbon
monoxide and ozone. The widening of Mallard Creek Church Road (U-2508)
will increase the capacity for SOV use. The following is an analysis of
travel demand reduction strategies, operational management strategies, and
alternative transportation modes that have been considered as part of the
proposed project.
Travel Demand Reduction Strategies:
The following travel demand reduction strategies were considered for
this project:
1. Staggering work hours at local businesses.
2. Growth management.
3. Road Use Pricing.
Growth management involves public policies to regulate development so
that trip generation follows a desired pattern. Road pricing involves
charging motorists a "price" associated with their use of a particular
facility. Growth management and road use pricing are not considered
feasible options because they involve area-wide policies rather than
policies applicable to discrete corridors.
Staggered work hours, flex-time, or modified work weeks can be
implemented on a corridor level if large employers along the corridor
cause congestion at their entrances and exits. These applications would

42
reduce spot congestion at entrances and exits to large employers (those
employers attracting enough trips to cause congestion); however, there are
no such employers along this project.
Because SOV reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for
this corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted and will be provided
for by the widening of Mallard Creek Church Road.
Consideration of Alternative Transportation Modes:
The City of Charlotte and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation have adopted a thoroughfare plan designed to provide
Charlotte with an efficient transportation network. The thoroughfare plan
includes both highway improvements and transit service. The widening of
Mallard Creek Church Road with project U-2508 is a part of Charlotte's
thoroughfare plan.
The City of Charlotte currently has
transportation available to commuters which
vehicular trips in the city. The City's goal
25%. Current transit systems are estimated to
Bus Service
To help meet their goals, Charlotte seeks to:
alternative modes of
are designed to reduce
is to reduce SOV demand by
reduce SOV demand by 10%.
* Increase bus routes along various arterials in the metropolitan
area,
* Increase the accuracy of arrivals and departures of buses, and,
* Increase transit ridership by 20% by advertisement.
Bus service in Charlotte is also being improved by the use of signal
preemption for buses. This system provides more continuous flow for buses
by reducing stopped time at intersections.
Currently, only one bus route extends to the limits of project
U-2508. Consideration has been given to providing bus turnouts along
Project U-2508; however local planning officials have determined that, due
to the type of development found along the corridor, bus turnouts will not
enhance bus operations along this project. Therefore, no bus turnouts are
proposed.
Carpool/Vanpool Programs
Charlotte promotes both carpool and vanpool service to reduce SOV
use. Charlotte currently has 18 operating vanpools which serve the entire
metropolitan area. A computer matching system is available to assist
potential carpool and vanpool users find suitable rides. In addition, a
commuter service has been developed jointly with the City of Rock Hill,
South Carolina, to assist ridesharing for commuters who work across state
lines.
43
The closest "park and ride" lot is located at University Place on the
corner of US 29 and Harris Boulevard.
Bicycle Use
Accommodations for bicycle traffic have been recommended for the
project length. This measure will provide for bicycling as a
transportation alternative.
Pedestrian Facilities
NCDOT recommends a sidewalk along Mallard Creek Church Road, from
US 29 to NC 49. In addition, sidewalks are recommended for both sides of
the replacement bridge over Mallard Creek. These provisions will enhance
the pedestrian transportation alternative.
Congestion Management Strategies
To reduce potential congestion along project U-2508, progressive
signal timing has been evaluated as a congestion management strategy.
Progressive signal timing is a part of the City of Charlotte's Traffic
Signal System. Implementation of progressive signal timing will be
performed for this project.
Other congestion management strategies such as ramp metering and High
Occupancy Vehicle lanes are not applicable because this project is not a
controlled access facility.
Consistency with ISTEA
ISTEA requirements, as amended in 23 USC 134, for the Charlotte TMA
have been reviewed as previously described. Project U-2508 is a part of
Charlotte's thoroughfare plan. Travel demand reduction strategies,
operational management strategies, and alternative transportation modes
have been analyzed along the Mallard Creek Church Road corridor to
determine if these strategies could eliminate the need for additional SOV
capacity.
Because SOV reduction strategies are not considered appropriate for
this corridor, additional SOV capacity is warranted and will be provided
by the widening of Mallard Creek Church Road.
J. Construction Impacts
There are a number of environmental impacts normally associated with
the construction of highways. These are generally short term in duration
and measures will be taken to mitiaate these impacts.
Traffic along Mallard Creek Church Road will experience brief periods
of disruption during construction.
44
Telephone, water, sewer and electric services are available in the
area. The Department of Transportation will hold a preconstruction
conference between the Department, the Contractor, representatives of the
involved utility companies, and pertinent local officials. Methods to
coordinate utility adjustments will be discussed at this conference.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any
burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents.
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passersby and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. Overall, construction noise impacts are
expected to be minimal since, for the most part, the project traverses
developed areas of low-density. In some areas, construction noise impacts
would be expected to be more substantial due to the project's close
proximity to existing housing. However, considering the relatively
short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction
to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The
transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made
structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered
in Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications which is 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 the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the "N. C. Highway Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures" together with the policies of the Division of
Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion and sedimentation on
work performed by State Forces.
Waste and 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 Engineer.
45
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.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for the use on
this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of the material from the borrow
source will have no effect on any known district, site, building,
structure, or object that is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer
prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
K. Contaminated Properties
A reconnaissance survey of the study area identified one active
facility with potential for underground storage tanks (UST) or hazardous
materials involvement. A subsequent records search of the DEM/Groundwater
Section was conducted to determine the status of these tanks. The
following information was obtained:
Site Number I
The Citgo gasoline station and convenience store is located at the
intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek Church Road (See Figure 4).
Underground storage tanks are present. Twelve gasoline valves are located
in the paved area of the gas station. The closest valve to US 29 is 65
feet from the edge of pavement. The closest valve to Mallard Creek Church
Road is 40 feet from the edge of pavement. The recommended alignment
avoids impacting this site.
A files search of the Division of Solid Waste Management was also
conducted to determine whether any known unregulated dumps or other
potentially contaminated sites are within the project corridor. After
review of these files, none of the known sites in Mecklenburg County were
identified within the corridor.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were
consulted regarding this project :
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Federal Emergency Management
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
N. C. Dept. of Human Resources
N. C. Dept. of Public Instruction
N. C. Dept. of Public Transportation
46
*N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Centralina Council of Governments
*Mecklenburg County Commissioners
The Mayor of Charlotte
City of Charlotte Transportation Dept.
*Mecklenburg County Planning Dept.
*Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Dept.
*University of North Carolina, Charlotte
*Charlotte/Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written responses were
received. Those comments are included in Appendix D of this report.
On April 22, 1993, an Informational Workshop was held to obtain
public comments and suggestions on the project. This meeting was only
attended by a few citizens, but those in attendance voiced their support
for the project.
TD/plr
FIGURES
2713

it 52 6
MECKLENBURG COUNTY 14 'a 5 ECKLI
521 11
49
1 ineville
c
z' of
???ewelfl
hotte
• '° Allen
1 I - i
???,Mint?lill5 g
i
A
•
•
11? •
?1? •
2470 ,04 2676
•
.06
?1 •
Mallard 4? y'ti 1?1
Cr••k 11
t ? 2n1 5? %
13 ?11? :
? 2698 '37 ?l •?
2473 • 4°.f
k r67a
1
.03 464
ffi ; SR 2472 267' ` ?' Oh 4641
" D
? 03 ° ? 1j oy.
BEGIN "56
Malla : 4ess 4654
PROJECT'
\ • 657 ,.
•
4630
\ • .1° 4626 27 1611 '1? \0609
• 4627 .13? .04 161 m .11
\ • \O- 0'1 1611
\SR 2833 \ =° °
• .07 p 613 O ? 1611
k • 2eoo
4672. 1821 46 1627
4e71 • 1e ° ?
4628
• o
°y46]2 • 122 N .11 461
J?o? 46]3 •? \ • ^y •as ^
619 Ob 24- 4616
O
4618
A_ bl]
v•
4
•
2431 2, • \ FAP 56
?9 •
Back END )° •? 5 0•ek al
y Z
j PROJECT w
V? U.N.C. W CHARLOTTE \ w
2835 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
* .05 05 0 3049 TRANSPORTATION
2665 .52 2636 2032 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
4.62 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
?G 3019 °'• ? \ 29]9
021 ' 30229 MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
90 4543
t7,? SR 2472 FROM SR 2681 TO US 29
^p .11 306] ar
3029 - •s 3027
Q 3028,, O'r' • ?. 4542 - 3056 AND
C:,6? ,658 SR 2833 FROM US 29 TO NC 49
.•??'Ory v `y ?>D?O? $ 4663 ry .05 T. I. P. NUMBER U-2508
69 3069 e+ / ?5
FIG. 1
FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY WITH
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS, DIVIDED
BY A 20-FOOT RAISED MEDIAN
30' Pavement 20' 30' Pavement
120 FEET OF RIGHT OF-WAY, PLUS CUT AND FILL
* Bicycles are accommodated by a 6 foot paved shoulder.
With a 24-foot traveled way, this totals 30 feet of pavement.
Total shoulder width is. 8 feet, including 6 feet of pavement.
FIGURE 2
FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY WITH
CURB AND GUTTER, DIVIDED
BY A 20-FOOT RAISED MEDIAN
14' 12' 20' 12' 14'

100 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, PLUS CUT AND FILL
* SIDEWALKS ARE NOT SHOWN.
* BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED BY WIDER, 14-FOOT
OUTSIDE LANES.
FIGURE 3
CURBS/ \ CURBS
vs ?ianoij
z
O
ro
m
= m D
m C MM
I-MCr
?
D
? Z m
w i =
?
Z
Z A O

O
1 m CID
N
0
0
U) m
N
N m?. V
RW

m
- (n
' of (O
O?
ao
m
m N
j

m
N w
m _ W
N
O ? ?
N O N
i0 W a N

C m I m W
t
W b V O W
r
(n
N
O
N co
co
W O
A

° ,(^
I
? V
m
D
N
V
w? N
a OD
D
A m

W ?0
° 0 °
z
?v

N
@\
n
--q
n
C
r D
rr
z (11 O
?mm
F, S M
m
z

m X
° z m
m

0
33
L"
"? T
ca
0
r

CA m
0
W C 4

N

.?

o X D
3R 4g)' l
-lew !'
V? 0. ? N
W fCn
S
< ?j N)

Z W.T
z
z v
N D N
? a r
C4 w R
W Jp D
r m
° ?
C m
L m ? ?
N z
mz
3131 N ?? ?? / V N -I
m D •('? W < m 00
-1 . CA
m ? V 70
o? y
17 17 r? ®? O O? N O O z
m< ?W mz ?
m `? -
CO
OD co
ao
R r m
z
w
a 1 1 m
I m

L7=
C) w co
NNW nCF
gn
(O O ?1
A A .a (n S
?
N a O
in
N b m
m
N O a?

/nC O
?a rl)?
A

A ` J
/ A 7
W d w
? ?N
^Q
O
?
N
0 z
40
m Oa0 N A A
(O
oa c Ul A
M
m
nC
? N
r
M 0
zm
31 ?
G7 0
n°w
Pal
99 3anJ1:j
z
o W OOr.

D
0
m A
SC mm rr
1
D

D

?
Z v

m ?io

S
O O
Z
O

A
z
O

O
W
n
00f w w b j'
N 1 O V
? A ?O
m V CD
ao ?
N N
co

? W
e
A a \
O
01

N ? b
1
t0

? W
W
A ?
^a A
N o\ A
e A
W.J I j O `
A b

O j?
co
l
A
? ? O
(o CD N A
?
0 f0
OD >
r
N ?- 0 D

W A a?
>S
?z C
_G N
co b m w ? o
C ?> ,
_ tD .N

Z m
z x
O O D ?d A m
D nm
D rn w co
b ?"
? w
°
` 0 D
?
? r=
riv A N OD A ` " 0
S9 CD W

(A z O Z

W n
A N ,n
0
_
N °f D o Z
mm awo b ? t to N A mm Z
D
mD
m'
G
?
1 -<
p zal
m Ill
D
\ W ,
J
1 O
1

W

W AO 00

zz n
m >
m W
V
? ..
mz_
?
m ?w

w
w
/v
w R i
w
wLO
!P
r m

z
?
w
r j m
R
? w

z
0 A. co N W / W W aC S? f0
A, CD
co ° o -V
a
W N / NOO N 2
y?
W
I G) C.) ro
O R V V
>
BCD
N

O N? W

N A O N V/
V O V W

A_
m
0
01 W ^O N N^? N
° ci
p0 CD
co z

0
O m o

z Go
N
? V
CAI
N Al

s
C
bD
oa w co 8
co Q w
p u,
09 3bnou
SAI,LVWdHJL'IV
09 OT T, £ 96T OTT NOILVOOrI MEN
S8-I 30
*M ' Crd HZ)UMO
s s 6 £ Z T, S£ 96T xssuO Q2iF1'I'IKJni
*CIE HOUMD
XHHHZ) CIUV I'=
S5 6 9 8T ZTOT Z95 30 'S S8-I
6 Z Sfl aO
'M ' C[H HOHMZ)
09 6 £ Z 86Z 99T XZHUZ) CrdVrt'IVN

XSHH3 ally Ir=
09 6 £ £ 9G£ 9T,Z aO 'N 6Z Sn.
6 Z Stl aO
' H ' art HZ)UMO
09 OT T, £ Z 9 Z 9 T, T XHHUZ) (Iuvq' ivx
6T, ON aO
' M ' art HOHM3
09 OT T, £ 99 9£ XaHUZ) CPdVggX
' art art0ON0O
09 TT S T, Z89 T,T,£ ar1O 30 'N 6T, ON
6T, ON aO
' H ' CCH HOUM0
09 OT T, £ Z S 9z XHHH0 CPdV I'I'dDi
' art HOUMD
MHUD cluvq vx
09 TT S T, 9T,9 HE 30 'S 6T, ON
STOZ S66T
saxxaHnH
HI SMMgOA
xia % AHa % 7vna % ISIZ % Safi • ZSH e14nou
3AlZsVK Z,LrW KOLL d' M MM
HIM 61P off oz, S 8 - I NMI ' ax 80ME, xxMEo axrirm
3Snou xs sHOWA RDMd xonum
T, 6 6 T ' a9C[ManoN
80SZ-n 1132moud
Ammon aaaff r37mam
Appendix A
Historic Architecture Resources
\\\? = J \C)' w
W
OIL 0 cr- co
i, e L' CL
CL CL
7i:A1 '7? :'•:
61
En Q ~
Q X C0
0 LL
co 0
?• c? G ??•r? ?r ?/ ?j \ ?.?/;?y?"_..-?'l? \C:7? ''?' ter. (.12'. ?C
F- I
z:l
Ilk%
C• .7,1,c7 , .?d:G?',.C?:r._1.,1'- ,\\ \ \ \ \ ,;x.1:1+L:....?- 4rq_..:',_- <•.::;.-
?''-? --
.?::` •?]
15
Uil
;Ole t3
OS -
\ ? S? ? -l ;. ? ? -??,• •.• / /r F. Vii:?• 'a
4L CV
! ---
113
?? „ .: , / ..: f rye ..- •- - - „'?'`=`' - •' ?- _- .._._ ..___ . _....._ ...- '---..__._...__ ..._. _....... .
r,:3
J V n? ^ ? Ci {' ? •O
L$ 1
?i;1 \?iULI:,? !•_7 111 _ :,o '
r
ye r?°'.
?= s
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 18, 1993
MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of 1'rwL5portation ti
FROM: David Brook
Deputy Stat His one Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Widening SR 2472 (Mallard Creek Church Road) from
1-85 to US 29 and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49,
Mecklenburg County U-2508, 8.2672601, STP-
000S(72), CH 93-E-4220-0668
EI?
O
MAR 2 3 1993
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
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:
W. T. Alexander House. SR 2826 (Hood Road), Mallard Creek vicinity. (A
map showing the location is enclosed.) This property was designated as a
local historic landmark on April 18, 1977.
We recommend that an architectural historian for the Department of
Transportation survey the area of potential effect and report the findings to us.
Please send photographs, keyed to a map, of all structures over fifty years of age.
Also include a brief statement about each structure's history and explain which
National Register criteria it does or does not meet.
In an earlier "meeting of the minds" an archaeological survey was recommended
-for this project-(November 24, 1992). To reiterate that opinion, we recommend
that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to
identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be
damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown
resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Testing should include evaluation of the potential for buried sites in the vicinity of
Mallard Creek.
109 East Jones. Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
March 18, 1993, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Charlotte/Mecklenburg HLC
R

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 25, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Widening SR 1472 (Mallard Creek Church Road) from I-
85 to US 29 and SR 2833 from US 29 to US 491
Mecklenburg County, U-2508, STP-OOOS(72),. ER 94-
7098
Dear Mr. Graf:

C
,isioNo NcaivN'Jd
Wilam S. Price, Jr.-
1J1'.//,31C P41^ C.
iv IL,
Thank you for your letter of July 20, 1993, concerning the above project.
Q
We have reviewed the historic architectural resources phase I survey report prepared by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation for the above project. Based upon the
information provided, we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's (FHwA)
determination that the W. T. Alexander House is eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places under Criterion C for architecture. We feel that the proposed boundaries--
which are the same as the current tax parcel--are appropriate, except that the western
boundary should encompass all of the driveway to the house.
We also concur with FHwA's determination that the 1930 bungalow is not eligible for the
National Register since the structure does not possess sufficient historical or architectural
significance.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator; at
919/733-4763.
'Sincer ly,
s v
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation-Officer
DB:slw -.?
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic ."
Landmarks Commission e: fry'
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
10D,
1o
p
?
EiV?
O
fi°f "4
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRA710H
REGION FOUR
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
" Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
August 31, 1994
a
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
NC-
S€p 0 2 1994
01I1ISICN OF
Subject: Federal-aid Project STP-OOOS(72), State No. 8.8100315,
U-2508, Mecklenburg County - Addendum to the Historic
Architectural Resources Report
Enclosed are two copies of an addendum to the architectural
resources report for the subject project. This addendum has been
prepared to address a revision in the eastern terminus of the
project. The report concludes there are no properties listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
within the project's area of potential effect.
Based upon our review of the addendum, the Federal Highway
Administration has determined there are no properties within the
area of potential effect for the revised location that are eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Your
concurrence in this determination is requested. Questions
concerning the report can be directed to John Wadsworth of this
office at [phone] or Ms. Barbara Church with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation at [phone].
Sincerely yours,

For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
i-? cc: Mr. H.F.Vick, P.E., NCDOT
Mallard ,/Cee?k?, .. ' = H v /??? ??`? 'c0 '? ? I ? as I ? ? _ `?_ ? __- ?_.' v:.
Cho
• /r0. ?'1+. ' .r/T _ ^ \ \\ ?i lJ`S `'? '-605 C_ '•???y^ /
'C'r '.,''(rl `v i1-
1' l1? I?? a
Z M13
_ 1-/ f` ` wag ? ,.?.? 1" ? 1''`•
E L Roland House
f sso o 3?' 151111 .-mil/ B \Z?\ ?.! o -_?•.?--
.? 2. Back Creek Parsonage
? / ? ? ? ?.`? S? ? ?.,sa/ ? 1 ?? , •. a Ult`1 c-?7Y/Y1 i-?1 J1//":•r"f.?' /
g
Q ?? 1 ltiard 3. Back Creek School
jF 2Q
65_ IT 4. Helms House tirst
•? •* r," n ?' .," ??r / \ ' / ?? ?'?ao yap
^?. ? ?•• l( / ?zf l! ii e • ?\ s=• 't J/(. aile ?,r? ? ? , (\?? r \?' _ .
3907 i V4 >\?l •r B ? 1 r, .N it ( ?.ti is ?^\?? "1 `. ??I l ? ?\? /k ?:J?. ?\ ?. ' ? 5.?1 / \'?/ / :.
?d7ll/ /? f?i al v of 230 Carolina
Emu lit
j •(.-~? ?/ \?5?'' / CYr' ;,' ?'li x '.'*'? i.111 \( •? `I? 'i^W. 1 '•\ \l\ , ?C B' Q??l `?\O `._ ?.' _.
AS \N
m ?\- ??/i;.? J ?? ?``? - I ?II+?? •u i ,?;?; 5. Back--Creek ARP^„ -
Church/Cemetery
'^?.. it\Ij ..- l ??'" '\r//vr? ?'•i •? I ? ?.?? I \ I, /?.l\` (•L. ?v\•?^,`, \I?(O\\?;:,
3906
j ?.! fir, ?? _^r / / / i?\? times: • • \ i j L/\\ !
10
r30n
1:
76.1 "J
39M I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
13RANCH
SR 2472 from I-85 to US 29 and
SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49
-- SR 2833, New Location
Alternative
TIP No. U-2508
Figure 1
r ,p'0 -• •' ? ??. .ate •?/ L; ..S ,
a f Tip \ ? ?. 'I
k ",/ \ tom
a • • - i .-?"?./ (^? 750 r/ ,• ?? (-, /ten ?.?1
Area of Potential
.`
Effect (APE)
\?\1New Location Alternative

._ o SCE/VF
OCT 1 0 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc
22 DIVISION OF Qg?
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor G' HIGHWAYS
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary ?ONNIE . to
Division of tory
October 5, 1994 William S. Price, Jr., Director
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Addendum to Historic Architectural Resources
Survey Report for widening of SR 2472 (Mallard
Creek Church Road) from US 29 to NC 49,
Mecklenburg County, U-2508, 9.8100315, STP
OOOS(72), ER 95-7422
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of August 31, 1994, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Scott Owen for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) concerning the above project.
We understand that the area of potential effect for the project has been revised
since the eastern terminus of the project has changed. Now, five additional
properties over fifty years of age are located in the area of potential effect for the
project. We note that during our review of another NCDOT project--the widening
of NC 49, TIP R-2215--we concurred with the Federal Highway Administration's
determination that these five properties are not eligible for 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 still not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places:
Roland House
Back Creek Parsonage
Back Creek School
Helms House
Back Creek Associate Reform Presbyterian Church and Cemetery
r
I
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
October 5, 1994, Page 2
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 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sin ely,
'd' Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Charlotte/Mecklenburg HLC
Appendix B
Programmatic Section 4(? Evaluations
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT STP-OOOS(72)
STATE PROJECT 8.2672601
T. I. P. NO. U-2508
DESCRIPTION: Minor taking of land from W.T. Alexan der
historic property, located adjacent-t o Mal lard
Creek Church Road on the west side of US 29.
Mecklenburg County.
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of the
existing highway facility on essentially
X
the same alignment?
F-1 X
2. Is the project on new location? _
X ?
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the project?
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings,
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are
important to preserve in place rather

than to recover for archaeological
?
\
n
research?
' 6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f)
site considered minor (i.e. no effect,
X
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
? X
determination of "no adverse effect"?
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the

assessment of impacts and the proposed ? ?
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation ? X
of an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
X F-1
1. Do nothing
Doe s the "do nothing" alternative: F-1 X

(a)
correct capacity deficiencies? -
a
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
F-1
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create a cost or impact of ? x

extraordinary measure? -
2. Imp rove the highway without using the x
adj acent historic site.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes
in standards, use of retaining walls,
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude

x
3. 'Build an improved facility on new location
without using the historic site.
(a) An alternate on new location would
ult in: (circle, as appropriate)
U a project which does not solve
U the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
X ?
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X ?
historic integrity of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed
to, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by
the FHWA, the SHPO, and as appropriate, a
the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
1. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT
has agreed to landscape the grassed median with wax
myrtles, forsythia, and/or scotch broom. NCDOT will
also plant a screen of trees and shrubs on the north
side of SR 2472 at areas where no landscape buffer
currently exists. Prior to initiation of construction,
NCDOT shall submit the landscaping plan to the State
Historic Preservation Office for review and comment.
2. In the vicinity of the W.T. Alexander House, NCDOT
will minimize the clearing of trees in the right-of-way.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information
prior to approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f)
evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer X
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
C. Property owner x
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies x
e. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
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. There
are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the
historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm,
and the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
- project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed
with local and state agencies.
Approved:
-2L-f?
Date
Date

A,,-(-,Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Di,fision Administrator, FHWA

R
Ce el
z OCT 19 1993
7-- DIVISIct OF
NlGHWAY Q?.
e"V
????R4NMEISC Pig
216 Mallard Creek Church Road West
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
October 16, 1993
Mr. Frank Vick, P. E. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
On October 14th Kitty Houston, architectural historian with the Department
of Transportation in Raleigh, called me regarding our driveway being
included in the proposed National Register boundaries for the W. T.
Alexander House. She explained that the red area marked on the map that
L. J. Ward sent me on September 14th was the portion of the driveway that
extended into the 75.448 acres that my sister and I own jointly. The
yellow-marked area is the designated historical property that was surveyed
in 1977.
Margaret and I both did not clearly understand what was meant by the red-
marked area on the map sent to us on September 14th. With Kitty Houston's
explanation, we agree to the driveway boundaries (yellow-marked area and
the curved red-marked area) to be included in the proposed National Register
boundaries for the W. T. Alexander House.
Sincerely,
/-, Z&??Jtct?,?
Sarah L. Alexander
Q??C E, V?
OCT 1 1 1993
x U=
2''L DIVISION F
HIGHWAYS
P
216 Mallard Creek est
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
September 30, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
On September 27th my mother and I met with Dr. Dan L. Morrill, Director of
the Charlotte Mecklenburg Historic Properties Commission, to review the
information included in your letter of September 14th and the map you sent us
marling the area included in the proposed National Register boundaries. We
spent about two hours discussing the possibility of enlarging the boundaries
for historic property preservation and eventually developing the surrounding
land with deed restrictions that would be sensitive to the historical portion
of the land. Of course, my sister and I, with the assistance of our attorney,
would have to jointly decide what would be economically feasible with
consideration to the taxes on the 74.448 acre parcel and the after tax capital
gain should we decide to sell a portion of the land.
Margaret and I, with the help of Dr. Morrill and perhaps other people, would be
willing to grant permission to seek eligibility for the National Register and
to determine the nronosed boundaries in concurrence with the State Historic
Preservation Office. We do not object to the driveway being included in the
proposed National Register boundaries. We understood the area highlighted in
yellow on the map you sent; however, Dr. Morrill, my mother, and I did not
understand what was meant by the small area highlighted in red.
On September 16th I sent Barbara Church by certified mail a notebook that
included a history of the W. T. Alexander House, several generations of the
Alexander family and their kin, institutions that molded and shaped their lives,
such as the Great Wagon Road, Presbyterianism, education, 150 years of the
cotton economy of the Old South, industrialization and urbanization of the New
South, and specific historical developments (museums and folk parks) that have
similarities with the history of the Alexander family and the W. T. Alexander
House. In talking to Dr. Morrill, I reviewed the same information that I sent
to Barbara Church.
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #F809
Washington, DC 20004
FEB 2 5 1994
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
REF: Proposed Widening of SR-2472 (Mallard Creek Church Road)
from US 29 to NC 49
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Graf:
On February 8, 1994, the Council received your determination,
supported by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), that the referenced undertaking will have no.-
adverse effect upon the W. T. Alexander House, a'property
eligible for inclusion in the National Register 4f H?gtgrie
Places. Pursuant to Section 800.5(d)(2) of the Cobncil's
regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part
800), we do not object to your determination. Therefore; you are
not required to take any further steps to comply with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act other than to implement
the undertaking as proposed and consistent with the conditions
you have reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Don L. Klima
Director
Eastern Office of Review
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
.y??T 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
?of411%Ot T Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
December 10, 1993
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Department of Cultural
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Preservation Officer
Resources
??G C E I
v?•
6
13 1993
Z ?
2 DIVISION OF
C
In Repl .GHWAYS 4e
HO-N ? DONtdI t
Subject: Federal-aid Project STP-OOOS(72), U-2508, Mecklenburg
County - Section 106 Consultation
The subject project is for widening Mallard-Creek Church Road from
Interstate 85 to NC 49 in Mecklenburg County. Based upon the
Historic Structures Report previously submitted to your office, the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determined that the W. T.
Alexander House was eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places. Your office concurred in the eligibility of the property
on August 25, 1993 and recommended the proposed western boundary
for the property be revised to encompass all of the driveway to the
house.
Enclosed is a copy of information developed during the study
concerning use of a small portion of the property for right-of-way
for the project. This information was presented to a
representative of your staff at a meeting held November 1, 1993 and
a tentative agreement reached for a determination of no adverse
effect. With agreement for a no adverse effect determination, a
programmatic section 4(f) Evaluation will be prepared for the use
of land from the historic site.
As a result of the project studies prepared as a part of the
environmental process, the FHWA has determined the project will
have no adverse effect on the W. T. Alexander House. Your
concurrence with this determination is requested. FHWA concurs
with your recommendation to revise the proposed western boundary of
the site to include all of the driveway to the house.
Sincerely yours,
I.sl on, S. /' , i h-----'
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Mr. H. Frank Vick, P.E., NCDOH
- a.?SGUFo
,y^ r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
January 4, 1994 Cil-,DIVISIGN Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 OF Re: Widen SR 2472 from US 29 to NC 49, -iWAYSMecklenburg County, U-2508, ER 94-7981 ti6`
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1993, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the preliminary documentation provided to us to determine the
project's effect on the National Register-eligible W. Ir. Alexander House. Based
upon this information, we concur with the Federal Highway Administration's
determination the project will have no adverse effect on the W. T. Alexander
House if the following conditions are carried out:
1. In the vicinity of the W. T. Alexander House, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) will landscape the grassed median with wax
myrtles, forsythia, and/or scotch broom. NCDOT will also plant a screen of
trees and shrubs on the north side of SR 2472 at areas where no existing
landscape buffer currently exists. Prior to the initiation of construction,
NCDOT shall submit the landscaping plan to the State Historic Preservation
Office for review and comment.
2. In the vicinity of the W. T. Alexander House, NCDOT will minimize the
clearing of trees in the right-of-way.
We understand NCDOT will outline these measures in the Environmental
Assessment to ensure they will be addressed during the design and construction
phases of the 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 Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 276012807
Nicholas L. Graf
January 4, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely, t
I -
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
Charlotte/Mecklenburg Historic
Landmarks Commission

Mr. L. J. Ward
Page 2 ,
September 30, 1993
I will mail a copy of this letter, your letter, and the map with the high-
lighted areas to my sister, Margaret. If she is in agreement with what I have
stated in my letter, I will type a line on my copied letter for her to sign
and send to you.
Sincerely,

Sarah Iand Alexander
9
Mar aret Stafford Alexander
Date : /R -- 7 3

Mtet?
.. A • Q ? .?yL?`4ZPiltA
lmzvt?
01

.' 0h? Gov ..? `Uat°' ?? a'

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL FOR
FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL
REFUGES
F. A. Project STP-OOOS(72)
State Project 8.2672601
T. I. P. No. U-2508

Description: Minor taking of land from lands owned by
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation
Department, located east of US 29 and adjacent
to Mallard Creek Church Road.. Mecklenburg
County.
Yes No
x
1. Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X_ F
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? ?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or ? ?
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below)
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ................ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f) ? X
land impair the use of such land for its
intended purpose?
Yes No
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(f) lands?
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act).,
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency object to the land NR
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of ?
an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE
FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do-nothing. ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
? x

(a)
correct
capacity deficiencies? -
F-1 "
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
F-1 x
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions9 .
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X ?
impacts of extraordinary measure?

R

2. Improvement of the highway without us_in
the adjacent Public park, recreational
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of
retaining walls, etc., or traffic
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a),would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community
impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance,
or safety problems
or iv) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems
which are of extraordinary
magnitude
Yes No
X ?
x?

Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using the public park. ?
recreational land, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
{i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such,impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude

i
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle those which are_
appropriate)'
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of at least
comparable value.
b ?- Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
O Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
section 4(f) property.
O Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
Yes No
X ?
?-/ 0 Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
t 3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided
as follows:
During construction, traffic control measures will
be taken to prevent interference with access to or
operations of the athletic fields belonging to the
Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department. Any
disturbed areas will be restored and landscaped.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional
information prior to approval. Consult. Nationwide
4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following
(attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over x
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies X
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are
involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all 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. There
are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of
the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm,
and there are assurances that the measures to minimize harm
will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
I 1-22-94
VaLC
// /,?, I 11!f-
Date

Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT i
ivision Administrator, FHWA

a
L MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department
October 8, 1993
Mr. Ted Devens, P.E.
Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: TIP Project U-2508, County Property at Mallard Creek
Dear Mr. Devins:
Mecklenburg County's Park and Recreation Department owns property
on both sides of Mallard Creek Church Road along Mallard Creek.
The land is intended to be part of the Mallard Creek greenway
system, part of which is now under construction.
The greenway system for the County has multiple uses on its land.
These uses include bicycle and pedestrian trails, natural areas,
and in some locations open play fields for active recreation. One
component of our natural area preservation program is wetlands
preservation and enhancement.
The County has already discussed with NCDOT the possibility of
enhancing the wetlands along the creek on the southwest side of
Mallard Creek Church Road. As part of that enhancement, NCDOT
agreed to build a boardwalk in the wetlands. This will maintain
the integrity of the trail system along the greenway and allow the
use of the wetlands as an educational tool.
Upon investigation of appropriate uses for the county land on the
northeast side, we have determined that a portion of it is well
suited for wetlands preservation. The proximity of this land to
elementary schools in the area and to UNCC offers a unique
opportunity for educational benefits from a wetlands enhancement
program.
NCDOT has already agreed to construct an underpass under Mallard
Creek Church Rd to allow the passage of the trail system along the
creek. This underpass and boardwalk system must be constructed to
AASHTO bikeway design standards as are the trails along the rest of
our greenway system.
700 N. Tryon Street • Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
! All services are available without regard to origin, sex, or disability
Mr. Ted Devens, P.E.
October 8, 1993
page, 2
The Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department recognizes
that additional right-of-way through the County property is
necessary for the widening of Mallard Creek Church Road. The
department believes that an NCDOT contribution toward wetlands
enhancement on the northeast side of the road and appropriate trail
construction on that property will be adequate compensation for the
right-of-way and will be in keeping with County's long term goals
for the property. We will recommend that position to the Park and
Recreation Commission.
We understand that there has been discussion of.making the outer
lanes of the project wide enough to allow joint use with bicycles.
We strongly support this concept as being an opportunity to further
the linkage between the University and the educational opportunity
of these wetlands as well as furthering the County's promotion of
bicycling as an environmentally responsible mode of transportation.
If we can answer any questions or furnish you with any additional
information, please contact me at [phone] or Bill Coxe at
[phone].
Sincerely,
) le??11
Nancy M.? Brunnemer
Park Planner
NMB/WSC/la
cc: Mr. William S. Coxe
Appendix C
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted 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 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting roasts, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CPR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
t
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
Appendix D
Additional Comments/Coordination
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
ION OFFICE
Fx-? E.I.S. CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN MANAGER OF
FR IGHT nC7 tArn.. 1,
...?- .
PROJECT: 8.2671601 COUNTY I Mecidenburg Alternate 'B' Sect' n
I.D. NO.: U-2508 F.A. PROJECT ST? 0005 72)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Mallard Creek Church Road from Interstate 85 to U 29

:
:: S i lYl#:TEII AISFi ?AGI;I ::::..... ..... . F.. .
. ; 71 :
:::::::
Type of
I
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M
50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 3 0 3 0 0 2 I, 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 i*3:u: :; iiiatt :::::::::::::::::
. . . . . ::::::::::savEt vaBZ :::::::;
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 2 SO-150 0 0 20M , 3 SO-1501, 0
..:.................... . ?S'tM:i k .QtTJCSkXONIS .:.::= 20-40M 1 150-250 I 0 20-40M 19 ><so-2so 2
Yes No E lain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250 400 0 40-70M 135 250-400 22
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-IOOM 0 400-600 0 70-IOOM .197 400-600 30
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by loo UP 0 600u" 0 100 uP 123 600 uP 4
displacement? TOTAL 3 0 477 58

x 3.

..1.
Will business services still be available after . . . . . . ::,:

...... .... ... . ... . . . .:.. ,.._:..,.._._..._.......:._...........
. .............. ._..::
itEM: Res Qad:b? .:?fwtabec

_.:._.
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. No permanent displacement of businesses.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6. NILS service, Realtors, newspapers, real estate
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? publications, on-ground investigation.

6.
..............
Source for available housing (list).
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? S. Will be implemented as necessary.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. Public housing is available in the city and county.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Given adequate lead time, it is felt D.S.S. housing will be
x 11. Is public housing available? available.
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? Nine
i.6- : t/--
Relocation Agent Date
Form 154 Revised 990
Approved by Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
IF-RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
El E.I.S. El CORRIDOR E] DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2671601 CONY MeddenbuIg CURB & GUTTER SHIFTED AWAY FROM HOMES
I.D. NO.: U-2508 C F.A. PROJECT STP 0005 72)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Mallard Creek Church Road from US 29 to NC 49
:• :.
...............
..............

............. ....
....

.... ...............................................................
................................................................
M.A. D.tTtSP `` ::: :::.:::
................................................................. .............
..............
:: ;::: :=: ;:::
.............. ............................................................................
...........................................................................
::::::::::< :I L t?? ::::::::: :::::::::::::: ;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...........................................................................
Type of I i
7
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 1- M
25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0
::::::::::::: VAE3;
}N:::::::::
.:::::::SS:CrAAlL::::
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M i 0 $0-150 0 0-20M 3 s 0-150. 0
: :::::=: = :AW&M t: aYa::Q s tt (5:::::=::::; ::::::=:::: 20-4oM 0 150-250 0 20-40M I 19 150-2501 2
Yes No E xpLdn all "YES" answers 40-70M 0 2s0-400 0 40-70M i 135 250-400 1 22
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-300M i 0 400-600 0 70-100M 197 400-600 30
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600.11F 0 100 up ' 123 600 UP { 4
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 477 58
.

3.
Will business services still be available after
.............. > s EI:
=
b riiiii4ti :: .:.. ` . _ : ... :...
.............................
...................................
•::•::.:•:::::: project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NO DISPLACEES
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
j 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.

10. families?
Will public housing be needed for project?
'
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? °
I 13. Will there be a problem of housing within .
financial means?
j 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source). .; '... f
,
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION

. ;.,' LI' /Cv Ol, '
'
00,
A ?-. Xcl??? 5 =9
Relocation Agent Date
F=15 4 Revised 5190
yy?9ONMEt?C P?.".
/0C 4??
Approved by Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
Z Copy Area Relocation Office
1
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
EIE.I.S. El CORRIDOR F? DESIGN,
PROJECT: i 8.2671601 COUNTY ! Mecklenburg Old Mallard Creek Church Rd. Realignment
I.D. NO.: U-2508 C F.A. PROJECT STP 0005 72
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Mallard Creek Church Road from US 29 to NC 49

...............
.............
:::::: .:..:::: ....
....
:::. ...............................................................
................................................................
:.:::....... -..................:...........::::.::.:::::::.::.::.. ...........
......
.. _ ......... .......................................................................

............. :::.::...............:......::::.::::.:...:.........-._..._ .....

.....-
Type of
I
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M I 15-25M 25-35M 50 UP
35-50M
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0` 0 0 0 0
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 « :>: ?A+I:i[M...><.
...................... ...... T;itslf? :...... .
...................... ....:::D?SI
........... Yl'€MING:AVAI i:E?
............................. : :,:.:
.....
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 3 s 0-150 o
::::aNSS R !;t::kt St F? ?5........... >:::::::= : 20-40M , 0 IW250 0 20-40M 19 150-250 2
Yes No E lain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 z3o aoo 0 40-70M 135 250-400 22
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-1003A 0 400-600 0 70-Io0M 197 400-600 30
2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 60O .Up 0 100 uP I 123 600 up I 4
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 477 58
3.
::: ;:-:::::
Will business services still be available after
::; :: ; :::::::.........:..............................:...........................
:.:.:.::::.:::.
.... .
:::.
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, a NO DISPLACEMENT
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
', . Will additional housing programs needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing

13. housing available during relocation period?
Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list ?.'
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? I
Relocation Agent Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5190
Approved by Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
E.I.S. 1:1 CORRIDOR F? DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2671601 COUNTY Mecklenburg OLD CONCORD RD. REALIGINTMENT
I.D. NO.: U-2508 C F.A. PROJECT STP 0005 72
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Mallard Creek Church Road from US 29 to NC 49

...................................................

:=:=::t< 1 1T D I?I;S#'# ACEI :=::= ::
................
::: >` ::::: i?tGf?7VIE I E. ..:::::.::::::::: <:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M , 35-50M , 50 LTP
Individuals 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0, 0
Families 2 0 2 0 0 . 0 2, 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 :::::vF_ pax:
.................... ::::::::
............................................
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants. For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 SO-1501. 0 0-20M 3 $ 0-150 0
............. ........ ...A, iS ?R#dr:? :::;=: : =: 20.401M 0 150.250 a 20-40M 19 150.250 2
Yes No E xplain all "I'E,S" answers. 40-70M 2 250.400 40-70M 135 250.400 22
x I. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-1o0M 0
70-100M 197 400-600 30
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by LA
100 UP I p loo uP i 123 600 up 1 4
displacement? TOTS 2 477 58
x 3. Will business services still be available after
:..... . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ...... .
:: - s's:
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. No business displaced.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6. MLS, newspaper, real estate publications
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). S. If necessary, Last Resort Housing will be administered
i x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? according to state law.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. Public housing is available in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. If current housing trends continue, adequate housing will
x . 11. Is public housing available? available.
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? 14. No business displaced
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
•' ' financial means?
x
I 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
.•
•. source).
15. Number months estimated to com fete
RELOCATION? 6 months
l
Relocation Agent Dale
Form 15.4 Revised SM
Approved by
Original & 1 Copy:
2 Copy
-/? -HIV
Date
State Relocation Agent
Area Relocation Office
dN e r??o?
G E I LF
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour NW
1 6 1993
Z
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Divisiof pistory
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Will ?i r..' Director
November 12, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological survey report for SR 2472 from SR
2681 to US 29, from US 29 to NC 49, U-2508,
Mecklenburg County, ER 94-7748
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of October 27, 1993, transmitting the archaeological
survey report concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places due to lack of integrity:
31 MK627, 31 MK628, 31 MK629, 31 MK630
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 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
VDav"id Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 27, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: SR 2472 from SR 2681 to US 29, from US 29 to
NC 49, Mallard Creek Church Road, Mecklenburg.
County, U-2508, Federal-Aid STP-OOOS(33), State
8.2672601, GS 93-0024, ER 95-7584
Dear Mr. Graf:
y%,#&. I k
(trek b
_"V 0 1 .1994
z
)urces 2p DIVISICV 01:
d' HIGHW
Division of and
William S.
Thank you for your letter of September 30, 1994, transmitting the supplemental
archaeological survey report by Thomas Padgett, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, concerning the above project.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior. Based upon our review and the lack of identified cultural resources
within the proposed project area, we believe the project will not affect
archaeological sites which might be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sipcer*,
P11 ali Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw /
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
F?
?=J
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 QR

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 19, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301268
Mr. L.J. Ward
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

This is in response to your letter of February 4, 1993 requesting our
comments on the proposed widening of Mallard Creek Church Road (SR 2472 and
2833) from Interstate Highway 85 to NC Highway 49 northeast of Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (TIP Project U-2508).
The proposed project crosses property adjacent to Mallard Creek which has
been identified as a mitigation area under Department of the Army (DA) permit
No. 199200013 issued to the North Carolina Department of Transportation on
May 19, 1992 for construction of a portion of the Charlotte Outer Loop
Highway. As you are aware, under the terms and conditions of this permit
mitigation is to be accomplished on 10.5 acres of this property located on
both sides of Mallard Creek Church Road. Widening of this road will reduce
the amount of area available for mitigation and result in a.violation of the
permit conditions unless suitable replacement area can be found and agreed to
prior to any right-of-way aquisition or construction. A written permit
modification request must be submitted to this office for review well in
advance of any contracting deadlines. The proposed widening is also likely to
affect forested wetlands outside of the mitigation area triggering additional
DA permit requirements. We would anticipate additional mitigation
requirements for new impacts at a 2:1 ratio. We recommend that impacts to the
mitigation area as well as wetlands be minimized by utilizing the existing
bridge and approaches and eliminating any medians at the Mallard Creek
crossing.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steven Lund of my Asheville
staff at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
?ieV a Wrig t
Regulatory Branch
APR 2 1 M z
DIVISION OF-
G'CP HIGHWAYS
d?(]t
\ DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY /
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1 ,. P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 15, 1993
Planning Division C E / V
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager -U APR 19 1993
Planning and Environmental Branch 2
Division of Highways Z DIVISICN OF
North Carolina Department 2 Q
of Transportation HIGHWAYS
Post Office Box 25201'IgpNr`?P
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your letter of February 4, 1993, requesting
our comments on the proposed modification to "Mallard Creek Church Road
(SR 2472) From I-85 to US 29, (SR 2833) From US 29 to NC 49, Mecklenburg
County, TIP Project U-2508" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199301268).
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) perspective,
involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and other environmental
aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The proposed project would not
involve any COE constructed navigation or flood control project.
The proposed project is sited in Mecklenburg County, which
participates in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The roadway
crosses Mallard Creek, which has been studied by detailed methods with
the 100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. The
hydraulic effects on the 100-year flood level and floodway should be
addressed in the environmental document. The final project's-hydraulic
effects should be coordinated with Mecklenburg County for compliance with
their flood plain ordinance and possible revision to their flood insurance
maps and report. Executive Order 11988 should also be complied with.
Our Regulatory Branch has also reviewed your letter and has the
following comments. The proposed project crosses property adjacent
to Mallard Creek which has been identified as a mitigation area under
Department of the Army (DA) Permit No. 199200013 issued to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation on May 19, 1992, for construction
of a portion of the Charlotte Outer Loop Highway. As you are aware, under
the terms and conditions of that permit, mitigation is to be accomplished
on 10.5 acres of this property located on both sides of Mallard Creek
Church Road. Widening of this road will reduce the amount of area avail-
able for mitigation and result in a violation of the permit conditions
unless suitable replacement area can be found and agreed to prior to any
right-of-way acquisition or construction. A written permit modification
-2-
request must be submitted to this office for review well in advance of
any contracting deadlines. The proposed widening is also likely to affect
forested wetlands outside of the mitigation area triggering additional
DA permit requirements. We would anticipate additional mitigation
requirements for new impacts at a 2:1 ratio. We recommend that impacts
to the mitigation area as well as wetlands be minimized by utilizing the
existing bridge and approaches and eliminating any medians at the Mallard
Creek crossing.
If you have any questions concerning permits, please contact
Mr. Steven Lund of our Asheville Field Office, Regulatory Branch, at
telephone [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.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
CHARLOTTE - MECKLENBURG PLANNING COMMISSION
March 3, 1993
Mr. Ted Devens, P.E.
Planning & Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Mallard Creek Church Road Widening, I-85 to NC 49,
TIP Project U-2508,1 Environmental Assessment
Dear Mr.Devens:
On February 17, 1993, the Mecklenburg-Union Technical Coordinating
Committee met and discussed the proposed widening of Mallard Creek
Church Road between I-85 and NC 49. The TCC agreed that the
following issues should be addressed during the planning and
construction of this project:
1) Mallard Creek Church Road from I-85 to NC 49 is designated a
major thoroughfare on our mutually adopted Thoroughfare Plan.
Approximately half way between US 29 and NC 49, a proposed
major thoroughfare known as the "Eastern Circumferential"
intersects Mallard Creek Church Road. In the future, the
major volume movement is anticipated to be handled on the
Eastern Circumferential. A map showing the locally identified
alignment for this thoroughfare is attached.
It is the TCC's belief that the proposed project should
involve widening the existing road from I-85 to the Eastern
Circumferential and then building the Eastern Circumferential
to NC 49 with minimal improvements to the remainder of
existing Mallard Creek Church Road. Widening the existing
road all the way would provide great pressure to extend it as
the Eastern Circumferential in an undesirable location. If
funding is a problem, perhaps only two lanes of the Eastern
Circumferential could be built off-center on four lanes of
right-of-way.
2) The standard right-of-way width for a major thoroughfare is
100 feet.
600 East Fourth Street • Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2853 • [phone]
Mr. Ted Devens
March 3, 1993
Page. 2
3) The design speed for both roadways should be 50 miles per
hour. We strongly prefer no greater than .04 superelevation
in the urban area.
4) A median divided curb and gutter cross-section is strongly
preferred. We recognize that in this college area, bicycle
and pedestrian traffic is high. We recommend that four lane
sections have 25 feet of asphalt on either side of the median
to provide for an 11 foot wide median lane and a 14 foot wide
outside lane for joint use by bicycles and motorized vehicles.
Sidewalks should be installed on both sides throughout the
project. Landscaping similar in character to that installed
on the portion of Mallard Creek Church Road between I-85 and
Mallard Creek Road should be installed on this project. A
proposed typical cross-section is attached.
5) Mecklenburg County owns land adjacent to Mallard Creek just
southeast of US 29. Part of the land on the northeast side
of the road is being used for soccer fields. The rest of the
property is to be used in the County's greenway system. It
is crucial that passage for the greenway's trail system be
provided as a grade-separated underpass designed to AASHTO
bikeway standards as part of NCDOT's reconstruction of the
creek crossing. Also, the County has agreed to deed to NCDOT
a covenant on one of these tracts to allow its use for
wetlands mitigation for a different project. Maps and
correspondence pertaining to these issues are attached. Ms.
Nancy Brunnemer of our Park and Recreation Department can be
reached at [phone] for further information.
6) The crossing of Mallard Creek involves the 100 year floodway
regulations. Review and consent of the Mecklenburg County
Engineering Department is required for this crossing. Please
contact Mr. Dave Canaan of that department at [phone]
for details.
7) The Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
(D.E.P.) has expressed concerns about impacts to the water
quality of Mallard Creek during the construction of the
project. They request that NCDOT use the best available
` techniques for erosion and siltation control on the creek
crossing and that they stay on top of the contractor to ensure
maintenance of these techniques. D.E.P. will probably monitor
the water quality in this creek during the construction
period.
8) The W. T. Alexander homesite, a designated historic landmark,
lies in the northern quadrant of the intersection of US 29 and
Mallard Creek Church Road. A copy of the research report on
Mr. Ted Devens
March 3, 1993
Page.3.
this site is attached. You may wish to contact Dr. Dan
Morrill of our Historic Landmarks Commission at [phone]
for further information.
9) Directly across Mallard Creek Church Road from the Alexander
homesite lies the site of a future shopping center, office -
park, and multi-family development. A copy of its conditional
zoning plan is attached. We have not yet received any
requests for detailed development approval on the property.
10) Between US 29 and NC 49, right-of-way has been preserved for
future widening in front of several projects. Copies of
appropriate site plans or recorded plats are attached.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the issues surrounding
the widening of Mallard Creek Church Road and welcome further
discussion of any-of them. We recognize the need for and support
the construction of a quality multi-modal transportation project
in this sensitive corridor. If you have questions, please contact
Bill Coxe of the Mecklenburg County Engineering Department at (704)
336-3745.
Si cerely,
Robert N. Pressley, P.E.
Chairman, Mecklenburg-Union
Technical Coordinating Committee
attachments (Devens only)
RNP/WSC
cc: Metropolitan Planning organization members
Technical Coordinating Committee members
Chancellor J. H. Woodward
Ms. Nancy Brunnemer
Dr. Dan Morrill
Mr. Tom Norman
s
?r~ `w V MAR 3 0 1993
X erkl enhurg Toun#i ?z
2 DIVISION OF Q
Poarb of Tounty Tommissioners HIGHWAYS ??
(Q1iMrlottc, ?dartif (tlttrolintt 28202 FN?R?rI?P?'
Telep4one 704-336-2472
H. PARKS HELMS
CHAIRMAN
March 18, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Mallard Creek Church Road (SR 2472 and 2833)
Widening From I-85 to NC 49, TIP Project U-2508
Dear Mr. Ward:
Mecklenburg County appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the widening of Mallard Creek Church Road
between I-85 and NC 49. Our staff comments have been
coordinated through the Mecklenburg-Union Technical
Coordinating Committee in their letter dated March 3,
1993.
The integration of this project into the fabric of the
community through which it passes is the primary
concern of Mecklenburg County. This involves careful
attention to impacts to the historic Alexander
homesite at US 29 and to the County's parkland and
greenway along Mallard Creek. Bicycle and pedestrian
traffic is growing near the campus of the University
of North Carolina at Charlotte. Twenty-five (25) feet
of pavement and creative striping would allow joint
usage by bicycles and vehicles while sidewalks would
allow safe pedestrian movement. We request that NCDOT
include these provisions in the project.
A permit is necessary for the crossing of the 100 year
floodplain of Mallard Creek. Details can be obtained
through Dave Canaan of our Engineering Department at
[phone].
AL A, AIL AL _a, a,
671 _ ._ n _Q_
Mr. L. J. Ward
March 18, 1993
Page, 2
The adopted Thoroughfare Plan shows the Eastern
Circumferential leaving the alignment of existing
Mallard Creek Church Road approximately half way
between US 29 and NC 49. Since this facility is
intended to handle the majority of traffic in this
area in the future, Mecklenburg County requests that
NCDOT construct it down to NC 49 instead of extensive
widening and straightening of Mallard Creek Church
Road's existing alignment.
Mecklenburg County supports the widening and
improvement of Mallard Creek Church Road to a facility
which will serve the mixture of trips in this area as
further growth occurs. If we can be of any
assistance, please contact Bill Coxe of our
Engineering Department at 336-3745.
in ly,
arks Helms, Chairman
ecklenburg County Commission
HPH/WSC
cc: Dave Canaan
Bill Coxe
AL r L r i J? a r a a AIL a ` r . a

LN TTE
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, N.C. 26223
Vice Chancellor for
May 4, 1994 Business Affairs
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Mr. Ted Devens, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Devens:
Your willingness to meet with Vice Chancellor Ed Kizer on April 26, 1994, to discuss UNC
Charlotte's position regarding the NC DOT proposal to widen and realign Mallard Creek
Church Road between Highway 29 and Highway 49 is appreciated. Earlier Ed and I met with
Mr. Donald Spence, District Engineer, NC DOT, and outlined the University's position on this
matter. I thought it might be helpful for you to have a statement of the University's position
on the widening of Mallard Creek Church Road in writing.
We recognize the need for the widening of Mallard Creek Church Road connecting Highway
29 and Highway 49. However, we would like to see this done in a way which preserves the
"local street" character of the southern portion of the current segment of Mallard Creek
Church Road between Highways 29 and 49. The University owns about 130 acres of land
across Mallard Creek Church Road from the main campus. We are currently in the process of
developing a Campus Master Facilities Plan which :N- l': likely plucc student housing in this
area. Moreover, the privately owned student housing which has been and is being developed
on the east side of Mallard Creek Church Road, with the resulting heavy pedestrian and
bicycle traffic between the housing sites and the main campus, makes a strong case for
preserving the southern portion of Mallard Creek Church Road as a local street.
We strongly favor the proposal which would widen Mallard Creek Church Road from
Highway 29 to a point near its interaction with Mary Alexander Road and connecting there to
a new four-lane spur to the east connecting to Highway 49. (This is the proposal which we
understand has been incorporated into the Thoroughfare Plan as part of the Eastern
Circumferential system.) We believe adoption of this plan would divert through traffic away
from the University and permit future development of private student housing and campus
components across Mallard Creek Church Road with appropriate access to the main campus.
Mr. Ted Evans
May 4, 1994
Page Two
We would very much appreciate your incorporating the University's position into your
study/findings and supporting this position in future deliberations on this matter. If you
would like additional information on our position regarding Mallard Creek Church Road or ,
our Campus Master Facilities Plan, please let me know.
Thank you again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Olen B. Smi , Jr.
Interim Vice Chancellor for
Business Affairs
OBS/rf
cc: Mr. R. Edward Kizer

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks
February 3, 1993

Ted Devens
State of North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
I FEB 1993
Dear Mr. Devens:
Re: T.I.P. Number U-2508
Please find enclosed a letter prepared by Ms. Frances Alexander,
a consultant for the Historic Landmarks Commission.
Thank you for providing us an opportunity to submit this
convent.
S ncerely,
Dr. Dan L. Morrill
Consulting Director
encl.
cc: Louis A. Bledsoe III, HLC Chairman
P.O. BOX 35434 • CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 • [phone] • FAX' [phone]
Frances P. Alexander
240 South Laurel Avenue, Apt. 2
Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
January 29, 1993
Dan L. Morrill
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission
P.O. Box 35434
Charlotte, North Carolina 28235
Re: Environmental Review - Nlallard Creek Church Road Project
T.I.P. No. U-2508
Dear Dan:
Thank you f'or asking me to comment on the N.C.D.O.T. project to widen Mallard
Creek Church Road between 1-85 and N.C. 49. 1 am writing in response to an agency
request for information about historic sites and properties in the project area.
In general, there are few identified properties within the scope of this project, a's
outlined in the N.C.D.O.T. letter of 18 December 1992. Along N.C. 49, there are five
properties which are in the general area, but would probably fall outside the area of'
potential effects. These five properties were identified during the survey,of Mecklenburg
County, and none of the properties has been locally designated or listed in the National
Register. The properties along N.C. 49 are: Roland House (Survey Site No. 1281), Helms
House (No. 1264), Back Creek Associate Reform Presbyterian Church (No. 1255), Back
Creek Parsonage (No. 1256), and the Back Creek Schoolhouse (No. 1257). At the opposite
end of the corridor, west of 1-85, are the Mallard Creek Presbyterian Church and Cemetery
(No. 1274). Separated from the project area by the 1-85 interchange, the church and.
cemetery would probably fall outside the project area. In addition, the church building
has been altered several times since its 1856 construction and probably does not retain
enough integrity for historical designation despite its importance to this historic
community. On the other hand, the church cemetery contains mid-nineteenth century
gravestones, which correspond to the founding of the church in 1824.
Within the project area are two properties which are locally designated historic
sites. The W.T. Alexander House (No. 1254) and the Alexander Slave Cemetery (No. 0'210).
The Alexander House is located on the northeast side of Mallard Creek Church Road, west
of Hwy. 29, and the cemetery is situated across Mallard Creek Church Road from the house.
't'hese two sites are of great importance to the history of Mecklenburg County. The
Alexander House, reputedly built in 1799, was the seat of a 935 acre, antebellum cotton
plantation owned by a prominent local family. Architecturally, the house is a rare
eighteenth century survivor as well as one of the finest Federal farmhouses remaining in
this rapidly urbanizing county. The slave cemetery, associated with this plantation, is
undoubtedly one of' thc_ few African-American slave cemeteries remaining in the Piedmont,
where slavery was less prevalent than in other areas of the South. The geographical
relationship between the farmhouse and the cemetery is an essential element in the
significance of these two properties. The widening of' this rural road between the
plantation house and its associated cemetery would destroy this geographical feature. It
is my recommendation that steps should be taken to avoid any widening in this locale.
With the exception of the Alexander plantation site, there are no other historic
properties along Mallard Creek Church Road. Please let me know if' you need additional
information on any of these properties.
Sincerely yours, /
Frances P. Alexander
Architectural Historian
i - T
QpP?M?/T R ry??a
p United States Department of the Ini
X
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
a
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
March 24, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
z NO 19 1995
Subject: Scoping for proposed improvements to Mallard Creek Church Road
(SR 2472) from Interstate 85 to NC 29, (SR 2833) from US 29 to
NC 49, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2508
In your letter of February 4, 1993 (received February 19, 1993), you
requested any information that would be useful in evaluating the
potential environmental impacts that could result from this project. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve widening and realignment improvements to Mallard Creek Church
Road from east of Interstate 85 to NC 49. The road will be widened to a
four-lane divided highway primarily on the existing alignment; some
realignment will be necessary to flatten several curves. The total
length of this project is approximately 2.2 miles. A U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) biologist conducted a site inspection on
March 10, 1993.
The Service is particularly concerned about the potential impacts the
proposed project could have on Mallard Creek and an adjacent wetland area
and on Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), a federally
endangered plant species known to occur in Mecklenburg County.
Preference should be given to alternative alignments, stream-crossing
structures, and construction techniques that avoid and/or minimize
encroachment and impacts to these resources.
Helianthus schweinitzii occurs in relatively open habitats--early
successional fields, forest ecotonal margins, or forest clearings. It
thrives in full sun, but also grows in the light shade of open stands of
oak-pine-hickory. This species generally occurs on soils characterized
as moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have
a high gravel content. Helianthus schweinitzii is considered to be a
prairie species and appears to be-dependent on some form of disturbance
to maintain the open quality of its habitat. The presence or absence of
this species in the project impact area should be addressed in the
environmental document.
In your letter, you stated that "a slight realignment may be necessary to
avoid impacting a potentially historic site just west of US 29." The
Service recommends that realignment be considered in order to avoid the
shrub-scrub wetland adjacent to Mallard Creek just east of US 29 (on the
south side of the road across from the athletic field). Any encroachment
on this wetland should be addressed in the environmental document.
The Service's review of the subject environmental document would be
greatly facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
existing and required additional rights-of-way and any
areas, such as borrow areas, that may be affected directly
or indirectly by the proposed road improvements.
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be filled as
a consequence of the proposed road improvements. Wetlands
affected by the proposed project should be mapped in
accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend
contacting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Regulatory Field Office (704/259-0855), to determine the
need for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e.,
spanning structure, culverts, etc.) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s) for the proposed new
crossings.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be
eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses
associated with any part of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-93-049.

Sin rely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc.
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O._ Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Dennis Stewart, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188

d??o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James R Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Warren G. Boyette,'Program Head, Technical Development
and Planning
DATE: March 15, 1993
SUBJECT: DOT EA Scoping for Improvements to Mallard Creek Church
Road (SR2472) in Mecklenburg County.
Project 193-0668
Due Date: 3-8-93
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the
proposed project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the
following information concerning the proposed alternative routes
and for the possible right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The total forest land acreage by types that would be
taken out of forest production as a result of new right-
.of-way purchases.
2. The productivity of the forest soils, as indicated by the
soil series, that would be involved within the proposed
right-of-way.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the
proposed project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any
merchantable timber that is to be removed. This practice
is encouraged to minimize the need for piling and burning
during construction. If any burning is needed, the
contractor should comply with all laws and regulations
pertaining to debris burning.
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the
construction phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and
construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-
way and construction limits. Trees outside the
construction limits should be protected from construction
activities to avoid:
PO. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax k 919.733-0513
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Page 2
Project 193-0668
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by
heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root system of
trees, a practice that impairs root aeration.
WGB/rv
Enclosure
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
El Project located in 7th floor library
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:1 Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
/ ' . C
a This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ?AII RIO Areas *Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville )RAir ?Coastal Management Water Planning
IffWater ? Water Resources *N Environmental Health
VMooresville Groundwater Wildlife
? ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer V
Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster

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

? Wi
l
S ?Others Environmental Management
S?u`? 4 ?"`L y? ?
nston-
a
em
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency,

Response (check all applicable) '
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insuff icient 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) ,if+•?b
tee. / £A A. /
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
M104
e ,a STATE o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James R Hunt, Jr., Govemor Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
4
MEMORANDUM!
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0668 - Improvements to Mallard Creek
Church Road, Mecklenburg County
DATE: March 11, 1993'
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The attached comments
list and describe information that is necessary for our divisions
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the. project.
More specific comments will be provided during the environmental
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The applicant is
encouraged to notify our divisions if additional assistance is
needed.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
MAR 151993
}
II J P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax # [phone]

An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
?yy .aSCNEs ,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor February 25, 1993 Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
.
TO: Melba McGee, 'Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihar#' Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments - NCDOT Improvements to Mallard Creek
Church Road (SR 2472) From I-85 to US 29, (SR2833) From
US 2.9 to NC 49, Mecklenburg County, State TIP #U-2508
Project Review #93-0668
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizatiorrs/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
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 Opporamity Affimative Action Employer
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Prior to the approval
of any borrow source in. a wetland, the contractor shall obtain
a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilized the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
8395er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

• Division of Soil & Water Conservation
February 25, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee ? Q
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to Mallard Creek Church Road,
Mecklenburg County. Project No. 93-0668
The proposed improvements include widening Mallard Creek Church
Road to utilize a 50 mph design standard. The Environmental
Assessment should identify any unique, prime, or important
farmlands that would be impacted by the project. A wetlands
evaluation should be included.
DH/tl
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment _
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator or??
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 10, 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for improvements to Mallard Creek Church Road
(SR 2472) from I-85 to US 29, (SR 2833) from US 29 to
NC 49, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-
2508, SCH Project No. 93-0668.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves widening of the existing
facility, with possible realignment improvements associated with
curve adjustments and avoidance of historic sites. The NCWRC
prefers improvement of existing roads over construction on new
alignment and recommends that relocation of right-of-way be
minimized. Our major concerns involve impacts to aquatic and
wetland resources in the vicinity of the Mallard Creek crossing,
and indirect natural resource impacts associated with secondary
development facilitated by the proposed improvements.
Cross-section Alternative 2 is preferred, since grassed
shoulders will provide a buffer between highway runoff and nearby
aquatic and wetland systems. The additional right-of-way
requirements of this alternative will producea greater barrier
Memo Page 2 March 10, 1993
to wildlife movement, however, and clearing associated with
construction should be minimized, particularly in the vicinity of
Mallard Creek. The use of oversized structures at hydrologic
crossings may help to alleviate barrier effects of the widened
roadway for smaller animals and will also serve to mitigate
wetland loss associated with the project.
Recent NCDOT documents for projects of this scope have
generally provided satisfactory information on project impacts.
For purposes of reference, our informational needs are listed
below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. When practicable, potential borrow
areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation
with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
Memo Page 3 March 10, 1993
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland.
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages-of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation, including that associated
with accelerated development in the project area.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
DIVISION OF PARRS AND RECREATION
March 1, 1993
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall C )4
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Improve Mallard Creek Church Road,
Mecklenburg County
REFERENCE: 93-0668
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for
several species of rare plants occurring within the vicinity of
the proposed project. Populations of Heller's rabbit tobacco
(Gnaphalium helleri), considered significantly rare in North
Carolina, historically occurred at two locations close to SR
2833. Carolina birdfoot-trefoil (Lotus helleri), a candidate for
both federal and state-listing has been recorded within two miles
of the project area, as have the following candidates for state-
listing: southern thimbleweed (Anemone berlandieri), necklace
sedge (Carex pro'e-L cta), and dissected toothwort (Cardamine
dissecta).
These species are all indicative of basic soil conditions that
often support populations of other rare plants. Both the trefoil
and rabbit tobacco are also frequently associated with the dry,
open habitats favored by Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), federally and state-listed as Endangered, and
Georgia aster (Aster georgianus), a candidate for both federal
and state-listing.
Given the concentration of rare plants that at least historically
occurred within the vicinity of the proposed project, we
recommend that the area be surveyed during the appropriate
seasons by a qualified biologist. We further recommend that
state-listed species and federal candidates be considered in
decisions concerning the final alignment selected for the
project.

State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources A AD
Project Number. Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS qA-n/-r?Q
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
...1J - -A" -A A- x? ta.ntnnr l Alfir? indicated on the reveme of the form.
Ouestions regarding these Permits snvuru raa .00165560 sv ...? ..? .._.._. _--•-- -----__--- - - - -
rmation and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
f
i
Normal Process'
n
o
All applications,
Regional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct i operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
? sewer system extensions, i sewer
facilities construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
,
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual 190 days)
NPOES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 190 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pro-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
? discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary (NIA)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
415 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property SS days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre4pplicatfon conference usual. Filling
o may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

? Permit to construct 9 operate Air Pollution Abatement
15A NCAC 21H
NIA 60 days
(9o days)
.
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
D must be in compliance with 1SA NCAC 2D.OS20.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
? NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
(90 days)
919.733.0820.

? Complex Source Permit required under 161/ NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion t sedimentatio
? control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouality Sect.) at Nast 30 20 days
s
30 d
days before Winning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the lam a
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: 00 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres Of affected land Any area 30 days
60 da
s)
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond y
(
must be received before the permll can be Issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources It permit
4 d 1 day
(NIA)
ays
exceeds
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more / day
(NIA)
? counties in coastal N.C. with Orgenic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
•'
should be requested at Nast ten days before actual bum is pianned.
90120 days
? at Refining Facilities NIA (NIA)
If permit required. application W days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. Qualified engineer to: prepare VIM. 30 days
? Dam safety PerMt Inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv
d
(W days)
ad plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
eery to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 9200.00 nest so-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
Continued on reverse
w W.
I Normal Process
.. ?imp
L'
L
L
L
L

LL
C
L
r
` (statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
Fat surety bond of =5,000 with ENNR nwaw* to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil Or ees well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shell, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged meeording to EMNR rubs and regulations.
Geophysical Exploritioh Permit Application filed with EMNR at Nast 10 days Prior to bow of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application torn. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure site is charged. Must hiclude 15.20 days
descriptions Z drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA 4130 days)
• 55 days
LAMA Permit for MAJOR development &250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development &50.00 fee must accompany application 125 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 20.0100. .
NOtifidation Of the proper regional office is regwated if "Orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2N.1()00 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required.
1
1 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority).

6w -

// ?.1o lliv?,,,r+,? /...?p,ta ? 7f ? ? ? ? ??o0u•%? fJ? ?'7-- ?? ?c'? C? GCS-?J, ?i?s a? Oc?a ?
,a,
?
/
/
ls' '
'
' v
%
/
?"
'
,
ct
ij?.t
(? (,pn?17 F
-
c f c
W ?L iJ /'c r '?n_?9ccl
_nep ??"?=rr7 - (
.n?
?

REGIONAL OFFICES
" Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wschovia Building
• Asheville, NC 26801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
(704) 25145208 [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 ? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
(704) 6631699 [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27869 Wilmington. NC 28405
(919) 9465481 [phone]
? Winston$alem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27106
(919) SW7007

` VED
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and NaturaW ncesry SECTION
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: C3 "G 4L k county:
Project Name:
K Z ?j Z
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact, r,
geodetic survey markers.. ..G Geo,detjp
Survey should be contacted prior•to construction at.P.O. 2768Y`
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruct 0f a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102- ?L'1p ?5
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For moorreeiinformation e contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
c
Reviewef Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
FEB 18 p9,
No comment
This project will re ND ?l?iLIT SEUTiON
P quire approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
A
B
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
MOOS
x.17,, Zae \? q
,/ YOD i1 2111 ` .
,r0 /? r.li ry
211
.Lii 1714. `:` RpE?k raoe ?24,[,d
RIDGE DA VI ON 2420 L9 d
tE3ETA?)PO?.2.573 . e RIVER NO C 2,2, 'q .
?OAVIDSON 77 v !?, ¦ 73 e .
tax] IC?Y'?•` 'q
2422
R
VIDSON SW M/I ! ! Q''? ?' 315 R
•e
,? X[trEl ELL ?6-l,aQb ti.y~ I4b . ' I I
ARV N: .. CORNEuus 31L9 •'T' Q A bQ ?ti? c r[s S
Pop. AZ.YK. 3416 ? ,' - zin
k
3413 MOIe K
-'offt
7 ~ ,7 v R C? 2426 ,
?s . rm.l
ufJ
CIL M BOe
Q HDTTS 7
rst 6{T[[RR t rp7 T, `?yw 1 0
ill .26
O
7000 COL R Ra °R 2126 \4
x413 rpSAi ] tux LITTL[m 29
2117 3 NE 3 Pn ERS / elielRtrlD 2•.1
J ? ply ?J '•! ,[ aY`t?SLOOP .10
]600 - 7ELL. / G
2602 7.39 -\. _ ,? O'L 1 A5
? -
6 r0001oi r Lcl Nds •It3 3!47
THMIM ff. O r 0 LOpeE
2.64
7..7 2461 x403
OLD STATE YO14 AZ ,y
ELLEN e7
]147 143 \ x•. aJ 244r'
T !o DLVT7E r 2.t 2u2 teor s•7454
OG ? 7442 x439 ,9 74er J•2 ?3?¢l y?Oj J r,?7 -HILLS
IOf \
_ J f.fXEN J\ 2460 YOZS AZ ,r
/rz
/ 11N 24.. J•s o 2473 ^ U711 7F8t1TY •?rEwN K BLAN(Q/?
Ta RANAM NUNTBtS r0 2e01 'a 1? Q 7037 -'N
ORy GI`` !
try ur r4 rC(r. 1.0014` is n Ja 00
Awb- 2
-j 1•J ?SROWN U41 NUNTERSVOI AZ Ot 7 NUS 70N
21p VALLEY AIR ;.4s5 IIpOt AZ 2447 WAXF
I ?nRfr 14e J °;A6 7 3 5 63. AA r/3NE,7 ORD
c1 yy4 ?QQ\YYppZ3 /?-uv .a jN9 L7 7 `Fy ? ! REFO&4m
' •J T r0i4
??NOL !0 '? \?
RAr / f
2033
MO. 1 ?IrKl 113 / 140 JAS T x4» f RANSONQ 7+s 3.6.46 usi _
sv
x616 1
1139 N, JOLLY 3?i .J ie4 'e t•rrt7 rl o? rissa N3?A \ sC ?LAR TANI?1 L
1 1
Moll RY 200• C TAe01 k •I 2639 T190 ?? ,1170JLSFrE, r Q ?F \ gr?ATNESON
L6] ; ®PP.ISON ??? '9• j?TURE
Nidl7 Crmro. ?? ro 447 _ C ro 7s 9o RM•,RMS ?
®VANALL
"s® Ce,O
?O
Q PRODUCT
PD SALLAM
d] I i° r1 1e1 Ati. ? UNITED 4?' .Ri Zen t
3176 AZ or to 1
S Y013 9A5 I]6 Zl le MO r a?Wgr XOOOf7?
283,
`y 1]f
I ? U49
tit J'ti? t. {? ? T? i ARrasEt.
1 \ 23 rDrtAR CLAPS It[ E '? !tipu o ,1?•" A?1 NfsrLE / Jolr
' y Yon A2G r.fl T r /'Tr ?? h S s,NK ?I ?9 Z3' `(T? ,? 49 \I B co_ • fiuawArwA
9a 1 0 ]Ito Q / 4 ,6- i-e DIVISION SNONARS ]a]f[AwsE
]rZ RY
F LET 7 ?e CUr ' QROOR• p ROION7ItoAn
i
2ff.CK?39 +/ C ?4 1C?4[ •o. 7 7 SO ?Ii ! vy AST f
\`(F/ 2111 2-20 'F / 30 S 4 et 'tPO?IAr??, -Q D1RR rA 410 NCTIONAI_ (ll / QM50C MOST
G? 7 17 VO Js 3 e2 p7 r4, L!J 1iil?}aJ? ry
3IOZ 1 110 MOYeX l?' 4'f+ 2!L TJS el. - T IANit[ OATREA'I
NArE l-
t • 212e BrocAeRbr.rOh ] 1 • 3M?7]? DI 7
7s RY ruae? C ?i , R i
r?y No RM RoRn Awl- rlMl? RITA A 1422 71;° 1/f-? [""oN 1
2004 `` na ?! ?J?DERTTAt iJS ?InAN3 I 9vERS `r2?MArE '^? ?/•
NO,
207. ?Ml al ME (? N11 SI[R[7EY;RYIV?YACRID yyAAww •: f• ?TA7L
701. G. Rr• Rr!- \ R, [
2074 ELL @A ?'? r7:o 2!?t o +*/ ]117 R =, 4oa.30JS tiT ORR - x30] r
r! wm RM "? its ?_ 1 ?r/wfson ' oI`eA- r. : YIf.-" R YLrO \
ws:AZ " 110 7.13'1 IOeA7? ytRWN' \? ?o tv]s
IN/
DVRYm YE ZOX /yi
1.s3 0 NTO[ OYpe too 01 MOO G
????? l ?? 000 I "'?
A ? 77W 9? `'• 7310 YE Ii N.K NS fAS. ';•
h10UNTAIN r , _ ` I1• rwto?t? SELN IPL7 2 _ 3 NE 3• /
ISLAND r =0 L3! Twj ERA sfDN[rp___wx
L SS
LAKE. i;
r 2001 22400 4 / To]; 9o aos CAPPS "Rat 332\ Q \70=4 w es [ 4 2-
SIC fJO,
Na v tRVNDt EVfA T1-1
TIy YL1J/It41 rATRM! ?? . X0.:_4 kF ! rt x "?Ov
le 61077Kd rATSy 7rDM , ' ?L't'/ x icYPL[,YL
r •SEC • M030 K MOp \ 1°? Z.NK. $• - '} ?? =. C1r1U! QS ME 9
]004 2003 rAS d AYTEN • 21 710
/e IfLA RSmr TORN 7A5 ? 7006 I• i ./ &efRwSMSt 7 OMWAY YC i
.\'TIl.V I ?"1, / A 7EOZ 2006 RE3eRrfM1 PAP -Nor 011? i 'G 7B yJ' 2040
i5l.:I.V/J .' two - a.l. ? tr Is LAr_a? p I C%y'r o COAir O 3 ME e
qMl K
'j211 A/ ae > s[wu 1 / 33W
••71!7:2. ? IN) V[ 17P! M.1] RAY[S[7 3 Ron 1 22014? X Z7T ® RV 432 Y 1 r•
r(q? / /
•'::i)) . O?? Cul. 3.1 ?f41 N?F TT[ 1000
470 '? 1 .029K .44M, I— wp-NRr I)1?? 1 Y^ nrun .. ?!? 3"_._. RV431 1 2?
?? , 1 SrA7t o
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
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Jack Ward
NC DOT
From: Eric Galamb
DEHNR I
November 25, 1992
Subject: Scoping Meeting on Mallard Creek Church Road
Mecklenburg County
TIP Project U-2508
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Acting Director
?cE jv
DEC 0 2 1992 r
U
?? DIVISIG'V OF Q?
v HIGHWAYS P??
/RONNtiErS0
A meeting was held yesterday on the subject project. This memo is to reiterate
comments made at the meeting. Mallard Creek is a class "C" stream. DEM endorses
a widening of Mallard Creek Church Road. There are utility lines between the existing
road and a state listed historic house. Is it feasible to widen SR 2472 north of US 29
and still avoid impacting this house while not impacting the large pond adjacent to the
junk yard? DEM requests that the corridor be protected under the 1987 Roadway
Corridor Official Map Act especially within the city limits of Charlotte.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
cc: file

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
.ti

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Gov€moR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
October 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: A. Schenck Cline, Jr., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Hal Bain, Environmental Biologist /¢. 6.
Environmental Unit
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Proposed widening of Mallard Creek Church Road
from I-85 to NC 49 in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County;
TIP No. # U-2508; State Project # 9.8100315;
Federal Project # STP-OOOS(72).
ATTENTION: Thomas E. Devens, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides pertinent
details and descriptions of each natural resource likely to be impacted by
the proposed project, including wetlands and federally-protected species.
Please review the information at your convenience. This report is available
on computer disc and I will be glad to transfer the file to your disc at your
convenience.
cc: V. Charles Bruton,
M. Randall Turner,
File # U-2508
Ph. D.
Environmental Supervisor

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
for U-2508
The executive summary is intended to be a concise review
of the Natural Resources Technical Report for U-2508 and is
submitted in an -effort towards paper reduction of the
Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) to be prepared for this proj-ect. The purpose
of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and
describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted
by the proposed action. It is requested that the Natural
Resources Technical Report be submitted in its entirety along
with the EA/FONSI document to the reviewing natural resource
agencies.
INTRODUCTION
The subject project consists of widening Mallard Creek
Church Road from I-85 to NC 49. Mallard Creek Church Road
is a combination of two SRs in the project study area. The
northern portion (SR 2472) is between I-85 and US 29, while
the southern portion (SR 2833) is between US 29 and NC 49.
There are two alternatives being studied for this project.
Alternative 1: a four-lane facility which has a 4.9 m
(16 ft) raised median with curb and gutter on the outside.
Minimum right-of-way will be 46 m (150 ft).
Alternative 2: a four-lane facility which has a 4.9 m
(16 ft) raised median, but has 2.5 m (8 ft) shoulders on the
outside, with accompanying ditches. Minimum right-of-way is
46 m (150 ft). This alternative travels south of the
existing road on new alignment, approximately 60 m (200 ft)
west of the intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek Church
Road. Alternative 2 ties back into alternative 1 at SR 2834.
The proposed project study area lies in Mecklenburg
County (figure 1) in the south-central part of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. Mecklenburg County has a primarily
urban population and the county's major economic resources
include trade, industry, agriculture, forestry, tourism, and
recreational activities. Charlotte is the Countys' and North
Carolinas' largest city and is located near the proposed
project alignment.
Information sources used in this investigation include;
U.S. Geodetic Sufvey (USGS) quadrangle map of Harrisburg,
National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) of Harrisburg, NCDOT
aerial photographs of project area (1:2400), Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps, Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate species, and
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (.NHP) database of uncommon and
2
protected species and unique habitats. Research using these
resources was conducted.prior to field investigations taking
place.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
project alignment by NCDOT biologists Hal Bain and Cyndi Bell
on October 5, 1993. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife was
identified using a variety of observation techniques: active
searching and capture including hand held dipnet, visual
observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows).
Mecklenburg County is characterized by broad, gently
rolling interstream areas and by steeper slopes along the
drainageways. Uplands are generally level along Mallard
Creek and become more rolling away from the creeks flood
plain. ,
WATER RESOURCES
The proposed project lies within the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin. Water flow is generally from southwest to
northeast and bottom composition is primarily sand and clay
sediments which are a result of heavy erosion along the creek
banks. Exposed rock outcrops as well as leaf litter zones
are also present in scattered locations along Mallard Creek.
Creek banks are steep 3.0 m to 3.6 m (10 to 12 ft high) and
scarped. Width ranges from 2.5 to 6.0 m (8 to 20 ft) while
depth ranges from 0.1 to 0.6 m (0.5 to 2 ft) in deeper holes.
One impounded area (pond) is located on the south side
of Mallard Creek Church Road approximately 120 m (400 ft)
west of the intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek Church
Road. This pond covers approximately 0.4 ha (1 ac) and.pond
depth ranges from 0.6 to 2.5 m (2 to 8 ft). The substrate is
composed of eroded sediments which have resulted from
development practices.
Mallard Creek has a best usage classification of C.
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life-.propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. No waters classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or waters designated
as WS-1 or WS-11 will be impacted by the proposed project,
nor are these resources located within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the
subject area. '
Potential impacts to Mallard Creek include increased
sedimentation from construction-related erosion. Poorly
managed application of sedimentation control policies can
result in serious damage to the aquatic environment.
Increased sediment loads can cause mortality among less hardy
3
organisms and their progeny due to associated factors such as
toxic run-off, incr-eased turbidity, reduction of dissolved
oxygen content, smothering of fish eggs, clogging of gills
--a-nd filter feeding organs. Sedimentation and erosion control
measures should be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of this project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
The following descriptions refer to the dominant plants
and animals in each community and how these biotic components
relate to one another. Approximately 40 animal species
were visually observed during field surveys. Complete
listings of fauna which may occur in the study area can be
found in one or more technical references in section 5.0 of
the U-2508 Natural Resources Technical Report.
Man-dominated and Mixed Pine/hardwood Forest are the 2
terrestrial communities found in the subject project study
area. Dominant faunal components associated with these
terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community
description, however many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment and may
not be mentioned in each community description.
The man-dominated community makes up the majority of the
terrestrial communities found in the project study area and
includes and includes highly disturbed areas such as road
shoulder, cutover, soccer field, pasture, and lawn habitats.
Many plant species characteristic of the roadside are adapted
to disturbed and maintained habitats. The more well-
maintained (mowed) areas are dominated by fescue, Bermuda
grass, plantain, and clover along with a variety of
ornamental herbs, vines, shrubs and trees. Native trees,
such as red maple and red cedar are also present throughout
yards and lawns.
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are
opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of forage
resources ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, seeds,
and fruits) to animal matter (living and dead.). Gray
squirrel, Virginia opossum, northern cardinal, northern
mockingbird, American crow, ruby-throated hummingbird, and
mourning dove are examples of species attracted to lawns and
gardens by the year-round feeding stations and abundance of
cultivated forage items provided by humans. Six-lined
racerunner, rufous-sided towhee, and several species of mice
prefer the less well maintained margins or ecotones of road
shoulders and lawns.
Mortality among animals which migrate across roadways
provides forage for opportunistic species such as turkey
vulture and Virginia opossum which may in turn become
fatalities and subsequently forage items themselves.
4
Reptiles and amphibians, including toads, frogs, turtles, and
snakes, may sun themselves on the roadside and even lie on
the road surface at night to absorb heat.
__Less well maintained areas have succeeded to dense
grassland and scrub\shrub stages of development. Lower
growing, grassland areas are dominated by vegetation such as
fescue, sericea, golden rod, mourning glory, Japanese
honeysuckle, and poison ivy. Saplings and young trees such
as, shortleaf pine, ash, red cedar, red maple, sweetgum,
tuliptree, dogwood, redbud, and black cherry along with
smooth sumac, blackberry, and grape predominate in the
scrub\shrub-habitats. Kudzu is an introduced and obvious
component of these ecotonal areas and is in the process of
smothering out native vegetation at one location at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Mallard Creek Church
Road and US 29.
Many animals which use less well maintained habitats
prefer dense vegetation of disturbed areas for nesting and or
foraging. Some species, including the five-lined skink,
eastern fence lizard, and hispid cotton rat, use brush piles,
dead vegetation, and vine thickets as refuge and breeding
areas. Avian species found in this early successional
community include red-tailed hawk, American Crow, northern
bobwhite, and blue grosbeak.
The mixed pine/hardwood forest is an upland community
which at most locations has been heavily impacted by logging
Logging roads disect this community which is stratified into
three primary vegetational strata, including canopy,
subcanopy, and shrub/vine/herb layers.
The canopy is composed primarily of shortleaf pine,
tuliptree, and scattered oaks. Red cedar, red maple, sweet
gum, tuliptree, winged elm and black cherry dominate the
subcanopy. Birds dominate these levels of vegetation while a
few mammals and amphibians are also found here. Broad-winged
hawk, red-bellied woodpecker, Carolina chickadee, white-
breasted nuthatch, and red-eyed vireo are common. Gray
treefrogs, and gray squirrel also nest and or forage in -the
canopy. Another canopy resident the eastern screech-owl
forages on the forest floor.
The shrub\vine\herb layer includes saplings of oaks
as well as flowering dogwood, blackberry, broomstraw,
goldenrod, rose,'grape, and poison ivy. The density of
vegetative cover in this layer forms many refuges for a
variety of smaller animals as well as white-tailed deer.
Passerine birds such as tufted titmouse, Carolina wren,
black-and-white warbler and northern cardinal are present
throughout this habitat. Other animals likely to be found in
S
or beneath the shrub/vine/herb layer include slimy
salamander, eastern fence lizard, copperhead, and
southeastern shrew.
Although discussions of aquatic resources typically
address the biota of the waterbody itself, adjacent uplands
tend to be integral components of water resources with which
they are associated. Therefore buffers (uplands) in the
immediate vicinity of aquatic communities will be included in
the following discussions.
A piedmont stream habitat (Mallard Creek) is crossed by
the proposed project alignment. Areas associated with
Mallard Creek have been deforested for development leaving a
small buffer of hardwood forest approximately 6 m (30 ft)
wide on either side of the creek channel. This buffer is
dominated in the canopy by box elder,,sycamore, ash, and
black walnut. The understory contains black willow, and
dogwood while -the relatively sparce.'shrub\vine\herb layer is
composed of giant cane, grape, violet and knotweed.
This small buffer provides nesting and foraging habitat
as well as stop over habitat for variety of birds. Northern
cardinal, catbird, and Carolina wren nest and forage in the
shrubs along the creek while ovenbird and Louisiana
waterthrush nest and forage in leaf liter and associated
vegetation. Feeding evidence on black walnuts by gray
squirrel is apparent, while other evidence (gnawing marks on
twig and limb segments) suggests that beaver may be present
upstream of the project area.
Other vertebrate inhabitants of Mallard Creek include
fish, amphibians, and reptiles. Fish diversity is usually
related to waterbody size and thus is relatively low in
Mallard Creek as compared to larger streams or rivers.
Species such as sunfish and red lip shiner appear to be
common inhabitants of this system. Amphibians and reptiles
which may be found in and around this creek include northern
dusky salamander, leopard frog, snapping turtle, and northern
watersnake.
Invertebrate inhabitants of Mallard Creek include
species such as crayfish which scavenge on animal matter.
While the Asian clam an introduced clam, is also common, and
acquires nutrients through filter feeding. These clams tend
to be able to survive in water resources which have reduced
water quality.
A small pond will also be impacted by the proposed
construction. Pond banks are vegetated by button bush and
soft needle rush, and knotweed. Fish, amphibians, reptiles
dominate the vertebrate component of this ponds community.
Large mouth bass, other sunfish, frogs, painted turtle,
snapping turtle, and northern watersnake are all likely
6
inhabitants of the pond.
seeks out prey along the
kingfisher may forage on
Birds such as great blue heron
pond banks while the belted
the ponds surface.
Biotic community impacts resulting from project
construction are being addressed separately as terrestrial
impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial
communities-,..particularly in locations exhibiting moderate to
steep slopes can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is
important to understand that construction impacts may not be
isolated to the communities in which.they occur.
Truly natural communities are few in the project area
and those communities remaining have been highly fragmented
and reduced as a result of previous development. The man-
dominated community component of the project area will
receive the greatest impact from habitat-reduction resulting
in the loss and displacement of plant and animal life,
regardless of which alignment is chosen. It is recommended,
from an environmental standpoint, that alignments be chosen
which follow the existing road to minimize loss of the few
remaining forested areas. Anticipated impacts to terrestrial
communities are listed by proposed alignments in Table 1.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts'to
Terrestrial Communities by Alternative
(hectares\acres)
Community Type
Project Alternative MD MPHF Totals
Alt l 9.6\23.8 2.8\6.9 12.4\30.7
Alt 2 8.6\21.2 3.8\9.5 12.4\30.7
MD = Man-Dominated Community
MPHF = Mixed Pine\Hardwood Forest Community
Note: Impacts are based on 46 m (150 ft) of Right of Way.
As mentioned previously in the water resources section,
the aquatic component of the project area has already been
altered by sedimentation of silts from erosion due to
development. Project construction is likely to increase
sediment loads in Mallard Creek and the pond. Construction-
related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of
invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food
chain.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33
CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of
7
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344) and are regulated by the
U.S'. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Improvements to Mallard Creek Church Road cannot be
accomplished without infringing on surface waters. Surface
waters associated with the subject project are Mallard Creek
and a pond west of US 29.
Section 404 impacts to surface waters will occur.
Construction at these sites is likel-y-to be authorized by
provisions of-Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This permit authorizes
fills for roads crossing waters of the United States.
This project will also require a general 401 Water
Quality Certification from NCDEHNR prior to the COE issuance
of a Nationwide 404 permit. Section '401 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) requires that the state issue--or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed--
activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the
United States.
Since this project will likely be authorized under
Nationwide Permit process, and because only impacts to
surface waters will take place it is likely no mitigation
will be required by the COE. A final determination regarding
mitigation requirements will be made in coordination with
various environmental review agencies during the final design
phase of the project.
It is important to note that two future NCDOT wetland
mitigation sites are located in the proposed project
alignment. One site is located on the south side of Mallard
Creek Church Road west of Mallard Creek and the other site is
located north of Mallard Creek Church Road east of Mallard
Creek.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or
are in the process of decline either due to natural forces or
due to their inability to coexist with man. Plants and
animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed
Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. '
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists
2 federally protected species for Mecklenburg County as of
September 20, 1993. These species are Carolina hellsplitter
and Schweinitz's sunflower.
s
Carolina hellsplitter (E)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A June 24, 1992 memorandum from North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission states that John Alderman conducted
mussel surveys in water resources associated with the project
area and found poor water quality and no fresh water mussels.
Therefore, no impacts to the Carolina hellsplitter will
result from project construction.
Schweinitz's sunflower (E)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted by NCDOT
biologists Hal Bain and Cyndi Bell on.October 5, 1993,,to
determine if any Helianthus species were present in suitable
habitat associated with the project ROW. No sunflower
species were found along the project ROW, therefore it can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact
Schweinitz's sunflower.
Federal Candidate 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 Threatened or Endangered.
Four federal candidate species including Georgia aster,
Heller's trefoil, Nestronia, and tall larkspur are listed for
Mecklenburg County.
Although habitat occurs in the study area, no specimens
were found. However should construction parameters fo.r'this
project change, new surveys for federally protected species
may be warranted. No impacts to these species will result
from proposed project construction.
Proposed widening of Mallard Creek Church Road
from I-85 to NC 49 northeast
of Charlotte, in Mecklenburg County
TIP # U-2508
State Project # 9.8100315
Federal Project # STP-OOOS(72)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT.
U-2508
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Hal Bain, Biologist
October 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description. .1
1.2 Purpose ................ .. .. .. .. .. .. ....................1
1.3 Study Area ............. . . . . . . . .. ...................1
1.4 Methodology ............................ 1)
1.5 Physiography and Soils ...........................2
2.0 Water Resources
2.1 Streams, Rivers, Impoundments, etc .............. 3
2.2 Water Quality. . .3
2.3 Anticipated Impacts ...................... ......4
3.0 Biotic Resources
3.1 Terrestrial Communities.... 4
3.1.1 Man-Dominated. 4
3.1.2 Mixed Pine/Hardwood•F0rest............... 5
3.2 Aquatic Communities. 6
3.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities. .7
3.3.1 Terrestrial......... •..7
3.3.2 Aquatic............ ......................S
4.0 Special Topics
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional
- Issues.. 8
4.1.1 Impacts to ?Wetlands ?and Surface Waters. .S
4.2 Permits. ......... .9
4.3 Mitigation... 9
4.4 Rare and Protected Species. .10
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species.. .10
4.4.2 Federal Candidate/State Listed
Species ............. .11
-- 4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impact-
s .......... 12
5.0 References. .13
APPENDIX A: Species 'observed ' List .....................15
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report is submitted for use as a supplement to assist
in preparation of a Federal Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No
Significant Impact (Fonsi).
1.1 Project Description
The subject project consists of widening Mallard Creek Church Road
from I-85 to NC 49. Mallard Creek Church Road is a combination of two SRs
in the project study area. The northern portion-(SR 2472) is between I-85
and US 29, while the southern portion (SR 2833) is between US 29 and
NC 49.
There are two alternatives being studied for this project. Both
alternatives will widen Mallard Creek Church Road to a four-lane facility
which is divided by a 4.9 m (16 ft) planted median. Both alternatives
will also seek to realign the road to 80 km/h (50 mph) design speed
standards.
-Alternative 1: a four-lane facility which has a 4.9 m (16 ft) raised
median with curb and gutter on the outside. Minimum right-of-way will be
46 m (150 ft).
Alternative 2: a four-lane facility which has a 4.9 m (16 ft) raised
median, but has 2.5 m (8 ft) shoulders on the outside, with accompanying
ditches. Minimum right-of-way is 46 m (150 ft). This alternative
travels south of the existing road on new alignment, approximately 60-m
(200 ft) west of the intersection of US 29 and Mallard Creek Church Road.
Alternative 2 ties back into alternative 1 at SR 2834.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and
describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed action. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the
likely consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to conduct
additional field investigations, should design parameters and criteria
--- -change.
1.3 Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in Mecklenburg County (figure 1)
in the south-central part of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
Mecklenburg County has a primarily urban population and the county's major
economic resources include trade, industry, agriculture, forestry,
tourism, and recreational activities. Charlotte is the Countys' and North
Carolinas' largest city and is located near the proposed project
alignment.
1.4 Methodology
Information sources used in this investigation include; U.S. Geodetic
Survey (USGS) quadrangle map of Harrisburg, National Wetland Inventory Map
(NWI) of Harrisburg, NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:2400),
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
list of protected and candidate species, and N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Research using these resources was conducted prior to field investigations
taking place.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed project
alignment by NCDOT biologist Hal Bain on October 5, 1993.- Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Wildlife was identified using a variety of observation techniques: active
searching and capture including hand held dipnet, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks, and burrows).
1.5 Physiography and Soils
Mecklenburg County is characterized by broad, gently rolling
interstream areas and by steeper slopes along the drainageways. Uplands
are generally level along Mallard Creek and become more rolling away from
the creeks flood plain.
The Mecklenburg County soil map lists eight general map units, two of
which are crossed by the proposed project including, Wilkes-Enon and
Monacan. These general map units contain some specific soil series which
are classified as (B) soils with inclusions of hydric soils, or which have
wet spots (Table 1).
Table 1. Mecklenburg County Soils
in the Project Area
Map Unit Percent Hydric
Symbol Soil Series Slope Classification
EnB Enon sandy loam 2 to 8 none
EnD Enon sandy loam 8 to 15 none
HeB Helena sandy loam 2 to 8 B
Mo Monacan loam - B
WkB Wilkes loam 4 to 8 none
WkD Wilkes loam 8 to 15 none
WkE Wilkes loam 15 to 25 none
Wilkes-Enon soils are gently sloping to steep, well drained soils
that have a predominantly clayey subsoil. These soils were formed in
residuum from diorite, hornblende schist, and other basic rock, or from
3
mixed acidic and basic rock. This series occurs as scattered areas
throughout the county on broad and narrow ridges and strongly sloping to
steep side slopes.
Monacan soils are nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soils that
have a predominantly loamy subsoil. These soils were formed in fluvial
sediment on flood plains. This series occurs throughout the county as
long, narrow bands parallel to streams and drainageways.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to
major water systems. Water resources located in Mecklenburg County have
generally been encroached upon by development and drainage practices.
2.1 Streams, Rivers, Impoundments, etc.
The proposed project lies within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Water flow is generally from-southwest-to northeast and bottom composition
is primarily sand -and clay sediments which.. are a result of heavy erosion
along the creek banks. Exposed rock outcrops as well as leaf litter zones
are also present in scattered locations along Mallard Creek. Creek banks
are steep 3 m to 3.6 m (10 to 12 ft high) and scarped. Width ranges from
2.5 m to 6 m (8 to 20 ft) while depth ranges from 0.1 m to 0.6 m (0.5 ft
to 2 ft) in deeper holes.
One impounded area (pond) is located on the south side of Mallard
Creek Church Road approximately 120 m (400 ft) west of the intersection of
US 29 and Mallard Creek Church Road. This pond covers approximately 0.4
hectares (1 acre) and pond depth ranges from 0.6 m to 2.5 m (2 ft to 8
ft). The substrate is composed of eroded sediments from development
practices.
2.2 Water Quality
Mallard Creek has a best usage classification of C. Class C waters
are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-11 will be
impacted by the proposed project, nor are these resources located within
1.6 km (1 mile) of the subject area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long
term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated
with high taxa richness (the number of different types of organisms) and
the presence of many species intolerant to pollutants and low levels of
dissolved oxygen. Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more
sensitive species and leads to a community structure quite different from
that in an unstressed stream. BMAN information is not available for the
immediate project area.
4
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists one
discharger ( CMUD-Mallard Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant) for Mallard
Creek. This discharger is located downstream of the study area.
2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Potential impacts to Mallard Creek include increased sedimentation
from construction-related erosion. Poorly managed application of
sedimentation control policies can result in serious damage to the aquatic
environment. Increased sediment loads can cause mortality among less hardy
organisms and their progeny due to associated factors such as toxic
run-off, increased turbidity, reduction of dissolved oxygen content,
smothering of fish eggs, clogging of gills and filter feeding organs.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of this project.
3.0-,,.BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the-following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions refer to
the dominant plants and animals in each 'community and how these biotic
components relate to one another. Lists'of vertebrate species which were
visually observed during field surveys are contained in Tables a-d of
Appendix A. Complete listings of fauna which may occur in the study area
can be found in one or more technical references in section 5.0.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used
for plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same
species will include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated and Mixed Pine/hardwood Forest are the 2 terrestrial
communities found in the subject project study area. Dominant faunal
components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in
each community description, however many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment and may not be
mentioned in each community description.
3.1.1 Man-Dominated
This highly disturbed community makes up the majority of the
terrestrial communities found in the project study area and includes road
shoulders, cutover, soccer field, pasture, and lawn habitats. Many plant
species characteristic of the roadside are adapted to disturbed and
maintained habitats. The more well-maintained (mowed) areas are dominated
by fescue (Festuca sp.), Bermuda grass (C ny odon dactylon), plantain
(,antago sp.), and clover (Trifolium spp.) along with a variety of
ornamental herbs, vines, shrubs and trees. Native trees, such as red
maple (Acer rubrum) and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) are also present
throughout yards and lawns.
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic
and capable of surviving on a variety of forage resources ranging from
vegetation (flowers, leaves, seeds, and fruits) to animal matter (living
and dead). Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis),
northern mockingbird (Mimus pol lottos), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), and
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) are examples o species attracted to
lawns and gardens by the year-round feeding stations and abundance of
cultivated forage items provided by humans. Six-lined racerunner
(Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), rufous-sided towhee (Pi ilo
er thro hthalmus), and several species of mice (Peromvscus spp.) prefer
the less wel maintained margins or ecotones of road shoulders and lawns.
.
Mortality among animals which migrate across roadways provides forage
for opportunistic species such as turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and
Virginia opossum which may in turn become fatalities and subsequently
forage items themselves. Reptiles and amphibians, including toads, frogs,
turtles, and snakes, may sun themselves on the roadside and even lie on
the road surface at night to absorb heat.
Less well maintained areas have succeeded to dense grassland and
scrub\shrub stages of development. Lower growing, grassland areas are
dominated by vegetation such as fescue, sericea (Lespedeza spp.), golden
rod ( Solidago sp.), mourning glory (I omomea sp.), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Saplings
and young trees such as, shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), ash (Fraxinus
sp.), red cedar, red maple, sweetgum (Li uidambar stvraciflua), tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), dogwood (Cornus f orida), redbud (Cercis
canadensis), and black cherry (Prunus serotina) along with smooth sumac
(Rhus labra), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and grape (Vitus rotundifolia)
predominate in the scrub\shrub habitats. Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) is an
introduced and obvious component of these ecotonal areas and is in the
process of smothering out native vegetation at one location at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Mallard Creek Church Road and
US 29.
Many animals which use less well maintained habitats prefer dense
vegetation of disturbed areas for nesting and or foraging. Some species,
including the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), and hispid cotton rat Si modon hispiduus , use
brush piles, dead vegetation, and vine thickets as refuge and breeding
areas. Avian species found in this early successional community include
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American Crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), northern bobwhite (Colinas virginianus), and blue
grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea).
3.1.2 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine/hardwood forest is an upland community which at most
locations has been heavily impacted by logging. Logging roads direct this
community which is stratified into three primary vegetational strata,
including canopy, subcanopy, and shrub/vine/herb layers.
6
The canopy is composed primarily of shortleaf pine, tuliptree, and
scattered oaks (uercus spp.). Red cedar, red maple, sweet gum,
tuliptree, winged elm (Ulmus alata) and black cherry dominate the
subcanopy. Birds dominate these levels of vegetation while a few mammals
and amphibians are also found here. Broad-winged hawk (Buteo
platypterus), red- bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), white-breasted _ nuthatch (Sitta
carol inensis and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) are common. Gray
treefrogs (Hyla chr soscelis, H. versicolor), and gray squirrel also nest
and or forage in t?;y Another canopy resident the eastern
screech-owl (Otus asio) forages on the forest floor.
The shrub\vine\herb layer includes saplings of oaks as well as
flowering dogwood, blackberry (Rubus sp.), broomstraw (Andropogon sp.),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), rose (Rosa sp.) grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The density of vegetative cover in
this layer forms many refuges for a variety of smaller animals as well as
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Passerine birds such as
tufted titmouse (Parus- ice), Carolina wren (Thryouthorus ludovicianus),
black- and-white warbler (Mniotlta varia).-and northern car ina are
present throughout this habitat. Other animals likely to be found in or
beneath the shrub/vine/herb layer include slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus), eastern fence lizard copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Although discussions of aquatic resources typically address the biota
of the waterbody itself, adjacent uplands tend to be integral components
of water resources with which they are associated. Therefore buffers
(uplands) in the immediate vicinity of aquatic communities will be
included in the following discussions.
A piedmont stream habitat (Mallard Creek) is crossed by the proposed
project alignment. Areas associated with Mallard Creek have been
deforested for development leaving a small buffer of hardwood forest
approximately 6 m (20 ft) wide on either side of the creek channel. This
buffer is dominated in the canopy by box elder (Ater ne undo), sycamore
(Piatanus occidentalis), ash, and black walnut (Juglans nigra). The
understory contains black willow (Salix ni ra), and dogwood (Cornus
amomum) while the relatively sparce shrub\vine herb layer is composed of
giant cane (Arundinaria gigantia),- grape (Vitus rotundifolia), violet
(Viola sp.) and knotweed (Poligonum sp.).
This small buffer provides nesting and foraging habitat as well as
stop over habitat for variety of birds. Northern cardinal, catbird
(Dumetella carolinensis), and Carolina wren nest and forage in the shrubs
along the creek while ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) and Louisiana
waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) nest and forage in leaf liter and
associated vegetation. Feeding evidence on black walnuts by gray squirrel
is apparent, while other evidence (gnawing marks on twig and limb
segments) suggests that beaver (Castor canadensis) may be present upstream
of the project area.
Other vertebrate inhabitants of Mallard Creek include fish,
amphibians, and reptiles. Fish diversity is usually related to waterbody
size and thus is relatively low in Mallard Creek as compared to larger
-streams or rivers. Species such as sunfish (Le omis spp.) and red lip
shiner (Notropis chiliticus) appear to be common inhabitants of this
system. Amphibians and reptiles which may be found in and around this
creek include northern dusky salamander (Desmo nathus fuscus), leopard
frog (Rana sphenocephala), snapping turtle Chel dra serpentine)-, and
northern watersnake (Nerodia si edon).
Invertebrate inhabitants of Mallard Creek include species such as
crayfish (Cambaris spp. and Procambaris spp.) which scavenge on animal
matter. While the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) an introduced clam,A s
also common, and acquires nutrients through fi ter feeding. These clams
tend to be able to survive in water resources which have reduced water
quality.
A small pond will also be impacted by the proposed construction.
Pond banks are vegetated by button bush (Ce halanthus occidentalis) and
soft needle rush (Juncus effusus), and/ notwee. Fish, amphibians,
reptiles dominate the vertebrate component of this ponds community. Large
mouth bass (Microterus salmoides), other sunfish, frogs (Rana spp.),
painted turtle (Chr sem s Pi-cta), snapping turtle, and northern watersnake
are all likely inhabitants o the pond. Birds such as great blue heron
(Ardea herodias) seeks out prey along the pond banks while the belted
kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) may forage on the ponds surface.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are
being addressed separately-as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts.
However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations
exhibiting moderate to steep slopes can result in -the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is
important to understand that construction impacts may not be isolated to
the communities in which they occur.
3.3.1 Terrestrial
Truly natural communities are few in the project area and those
communities remaining have been highly fragmented and reduced as a result
of previous development. The man- dominated community component of the
project area will receive the greatest impact from habitat reduction
resulting in the loss and displacement of plant and animal life,
regardless of which alignment is chosen. Highways also can become death
traps, for many animals which try to cross roads, as well as barriers to
other species which are less mobile. It is recommended, from an
environmental standpoint, that alignments be chosen which follow an
existing road to-minimize loss of the-few remaining forested areas.
Anticipated impacts to terrestrial communities are listed by proposed
alignments in Table 2.
8
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to
Terrestrial Communities by Alternative
(hectares\acres)
Community Type *
Project Alternative MD MPHF Totals
Alt 1 9.6\23.8 2.8\6.9 12.4\30.7
Alt 2 8.6\21.2 - 3.8\9.5 12.4\30.7
MD = Man-Dominated Community
MPHF = Mixed Pine\Hardwood Forest Community
Note: Impacts are based on 46 m (150 ft) of Right of Way.
3.3.2 Aquatic
As mentioned previously in section 2.1 of the water resources
section, the aquatic component of the project area has already been
altered by sedimentation of silts from erosion due to development.
Project construction is likely to increase sediment loads in Mallard Creek
and the pond. Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to local
populations of invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food
chain. Less mobile organisms such as many of the filter feeders may
smothered by sedimentation. Local fish populations can also be harmed by
construction-related sedimentation. Increased sediment loads and
suspended particulates can-lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced
depth of light penetration in the water column, and reduction in the
waters oxygen carrying capacity.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
.Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters
of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344) and are
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface waters
Improvements to Mallard Creek Church Road cannot be accomplished
without infringing on surface waters. Surface waters associated with the
subject project are Mallard Creek and a pond west of US 29.
9
4.2 Permits
Section 404 impacts to surface waters will also occur. Construction
at these-sites is likely to be authorized by provisions of Nationwide
Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This
permit authorizes fills for roads crossing waters of the United States
(including wetlands and other special aquatic sites) provided:
a. The width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for
the actual crossing;
b. The fill placed in waters of the US is limited to a filled area
of no more than 0.1 hectare (1/3 acre). Furthermore no more than
a total of 62 linear meters (200 linear ft) of the fill for the
roadway can occur in special aquatic sites including wetlands;
C. The crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to
prevent the restriction of, and to withstand, expected high
flows, and to prevent the restriction of low flows and the
movement of aquatic organisms;
d. The crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary
and permanent, is part of a single and complete project for
crossing of a water of the US.
This project will also require a general 401 Water Quality
Certification from NCDEHNR prior to the COE issuance of a Individual 404
permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the
United States.
4.3 Mitigation
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Engineer (DE) is required
to determine whether any activity, covered by the General Permitting
Process, will result in more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
If the DE determines that the adverse effects of the proposed work are
more than minimal, then that office will notify the prospective permittee
either: (1) That the project does not qualify for authorization on the
procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit; or (2) that
the project is authorized under the nationwide permit subject to the
permittee submitting a mitigation proposal that would reduce the adverse
environmental effects to the minimal level. Since this project will
likely be authorized under Nationwide Permit process, and because only
impacts to surface waters will take place it is likely no mitigation will
be required by the COE.
It is important to note that two future NCDOT wetland mitigation
sites are located'in the proposed project alignment. One site is located
on the south side of Mallard Creek Church Road west of Mallard Creek and
the other site is located north of Mallard Creek Church Road east of
Mallard Creek.
10
A final determination regarding mitigation requirements will be made
in coordination with various environmental review agencies during the
final design phase of the project.
4.4 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the
process of decline either due to natural forces or due to their inability
_.to coexist with man.
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 2 federally
protected species for Mecklenburg County as of September 20, 1993.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species
for Mecklenburg County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range). -
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) (E)
The Carolina heelsplitter was known historically from several
locations within the Catawba River and the Pee Dee River systems.
Presently this mussel is known only from two populations in North
Carolina. These populations are located in Waxhaw Creek and Goose Creek
in Union County.
The shell of the Carolina heelsplitter is ovate, trapezoidal,
unsculptured and greenish, yellowish or brownish in-color with greenish or
blackish rays. The nacre is usually pearly-white to bluish-white graying
to orange near the umbo and in older specimens the entire nacre may be
mottled orange. the umbo is flattened and the beaks are depressed and
project a little above the hinge line. The shell averages 78 mm in
length, 43 mm in height and 27 mm in width. The thin lateral teeth may or
may not be well developed.
11
The Carolina heelsplitter has been found in creeks, streams and
rivers. Individuals are most often found in shaded areas, either in a
ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs along steep banks with a
moderate current. Water less than three feet deep and substrates that are
composed of soft mud, sand, muddy-sand and sandy-gravel are preferred
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

A June 24, 1992 memorandum from North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission states that John Alderman conducted mussel surveys in water
resources associated with the project area and found poor water quality
and no fresh water mussels. Therefore, no impacts to this species will
result from project construction.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (E)
This rhizomatous perennial herb grows 1 to 2 meters tall from a
cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. The stems are usually solitary,
branching only at or above mid-stem, with the branches held in
candelabrum-style arches. The narrowly lanceolate opposite leaves are
scabrous above, resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath and
entire (or occasionally with a few small teeth). The leaves are
approximately 18 cm long and 2.5 cm wide. Yellow flowers approximately
5.5 cm in diameter can be witnessed from September to October. Stems are
often deep red in color and the fruit of this species is a smooth,-dark
gray-brown achene about 5 mm long.
This plant is endemic to the piedmont of the Carolinas, occurring in
clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay-loams,
or sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel content and are
moderately podzolized. Habitat for this species exists in the study area.
Verification of the presence of this species is possible only between
September and October when flowering takes place. However surveys for
Helianthus species in general can be conducted prior to September and
October.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted by NCDOT biologists Hal Bain
and Cyndi Bell on October 5, 1993, to determine if any Helianthus species
were present in suitable habitat associated with the project ROW. No
sunflower species were found along the project ROW, therefore it can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact Schweinitz's sunflower.
4.4.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate 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
Threatened or Endangered. The following table includes federal candidate
species listed for Mecklenburg County and their state classifications
12
(Table 7). Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under
the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Tab-lC 4. Federal Candidate Species
(and their State Status) listed
for Mecklenburg County
COMMON NAME STATUS
(Scientific name) Federal/State HABITAT
Georgia aster * C2/C Y
Aster eorgi anus
HeT a Ts trefoil C2/C Y
Lotus helleri
Nestronia C2/SR Y
Nestronia umbellula
to larks ur C2/E-SC Y
Delphinium exaltatum
"*" Population documented as extant in Mecklenburg County in
the last ten years (1983-1993).
Note: species represented in bold is protected by state law.
4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Although habitat occurs in the study area, no specimens were found.
However should construction parameters for this project change, new
surveys for federally protected species may be warranted. No impacts to
these species will result from proposed project construction.
13 -
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds
(6th ed.). .Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual," Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clerk. 1982. A Distributional
Survey of North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of
Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer,_ J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980.
The Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill,
University of North Caroli naPress.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina.
N.C.WRC., Raleigh. - -
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. .1991. Biological Assessment of Water
Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and nL ng Tern
Q t
Changes in Water Quality, 1983- 1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned
to the waters of The Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin". Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina". Raleigh, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991.
Threatened and Candidate Plant
Department of Agriculture.
"List of North Carolina's Endangered,
Species". Raleigh, North Carolina
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.-
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular
Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. CIassificat ion of The Natural
Communities of North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Caro ina
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
14 k.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil
Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. North Carolina
Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife -Service. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and 4 h,
Deepwater Habitats of the United States., U.S. Government Printing`
Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Vir inia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The -University of
North Carolina Press.
16
The following lists of vertebrates include those species
which were observed along the project alignment.
Table a.
Fish
COMMON NAME
redlip shiner
sunfish
Table b.
COMMON NAME
slimy salamander
bullfrog
southern leopard frog
Table c.
COMMON NAME
great blue heron
turkey vulture
red-tailed hawk
northern bobwhite
mourning dove
belted kingfisher
blue jay
American crow
tufted titmouse
Carolina chickadee
Carolina wren
eastern bluebird
American robin
northern mockingbird
European starling
northern cardinal
rufous-sided towhee
white-eyed vireo
common yellowthroat
ovenbird
Louisiana waterthrush
eastern meadowlark
common grackle
song sparrow
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Notropis chiliticus
Lepomis spp.
Amphibians
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Plethodon glutinosus
Rana catesbeiana
Rana sphenocephala
Birds
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Ardea herodias
Cathartes aura
Buteo jamaicensis
Colinus virginianus
Zenaida macroura
Cer_yle alcyon
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Parus bicolor
Parus carolinensis
Thryouthorus ludovicianus
Sialia sialis
Tur uus migratorius
Mimus polyglottos
Sturnus vulgaris
Cardinalis cardinalis
Pi ilo erythrophthalmus
Vireo riseus
Geothlypis trichas
Seiurus auroca illus
Seiurus motacil a
Sturnelia magna
uiscalus quiscula
Melospiza melodia
17
Table d. Mammals
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana
gray squirrel Sci'urus carolinensis
beaver * Castor canadensis
raccoon * Proc on ot? or
white-tailed deer * Odocoi eus virginianus
*" NOTE: spoor evidence only.

?` STATEo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201 SECRETARY
S'eptember I6, 199T
.: .`A Ui; A Im ;N ti TO .
F <0 ,I :
uiie Hun.in5. P.~., Unit Head
Project Pit?nnin Unit
al Bain. ---n4ironmenta.
i.C:nia
BioIoaist d?
S-BJEC`.. yr;de CiCiTi to ?'atiil'ai lResozirces Technical
eJ0:t -f i;i' h e ')i'oi)oseC. ii'iaen_nR o-f y1a i_..Cl
ee_ Church i",Oa(; from i-S to \(_ ? in
ilaF_otte. ;ieCc_I ei.0 iFR: C'ounuv , i? = i_250-'3
State P oject = 9.S1003115: -"ederai Project
ioiliati ue i-ens
r! O :eCt N..!dna-er
KLCL77 IT ,Na?(ra i\eSou:c es eCnniCcii R epOrt C•.at'ti
i c.to?er ?0. ' 99 1
i..is acaen,uin Cesc_11) s na?iiraI resouI-ces associateC:
::, s)rojeC1 r_ _s ions hot di -s c isseCi in 1ne reie'_e.nCed
:aili' _ ?o rCc eC: n i L'a. ?eol't i Cr the pi'CipOSeCt i Ci e c
i 11_s a ci(i e lil.L i.i!ii Q(_' L__VeJ liilpal. -, s as s o c _a rl ea w i? 1 the __ns Io
J. `.a . . arC (:r C.i I i u cn .Load or, new .oco t on - i 1-o , N1ar
_e:_anC_er '_?oai. i0 im-ac tS zo Lind a description oi "fie
:)±.t is Com;.,iunat?" (i' ixed hardwood -forest) not encountered
Cii rin the t?r _iin -A in -vest i`:. t _on1. i 11 1) e addresse+ A so
cnCiiit i0iia wa er resouI-,eare .liieI y to be iaioaCteCi i_'r.C: w .
`e discussed her". D, 0 T personnei Mai fain. ieCi i)e4en5 and
Cy nCii Bel i 1 Con(Iucte(i additlon ai naturaI resources
investigations on SeoteIilber q . 1c"ll
Mi 3e i iiarciwood Forest CO.mm-L7ni t ?
The in. i'_ed ha. rd` ;---d -forest 1s a.i u-11and Coiimun1t ?' Z4"i11Cil
15 Ti?Und t?iOTi` upper TCaCI1eS 0-f tiOttOiiliands where it araCes
the in_-)1'lejtlai'C:«`000I OreSt This CoiTllnunitV is %?
:e,,m< a,i of iarsae=,, his torica: i:' - ore'sted tracts. A, ina:
yPE'CieS ioi.inc: 1:. this Coitllili.ini are similar co those
illentiC.-ne-(.1 in he reie:encea 'echnicai report.

The canopy is composed primarily of tuliptree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), scattered oaks (Quercus spp.) and
hickories (Carva spp.). Red cedar, red maple, sweet gum.
tuliptree, winged elm (Ulmus alata) and black cherry dominate
the subcanopy. The relatively sparse shrub\vine\herb layers
include saplings of oaks, as well as flowering dogwood,
blackberry (Rubus sp.), strawberry bush (Euonvmus americana),
grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
Aquatic Community
Although discussions of aquatic resources typically
address the biota of the water body itself, adjacent uplands
tend to be integral components of water resources with which
they are associated. Please refer to natural resources
technical report of L-?50S for desc.riptions of plants and
aniriais associated with aquatic communities and their
relationships to one another.
Three intermittent piedmont stream habitats are crossed
bv the -evised project alignment. The largest of the three
streams shows evidence of sedimentation resulting from a
11?'Piy e--- dible, sui-roundinc, iaildscape. Uti:er sUiSircte
components include boulders. rock anti `ravel. Plow rate lv'as
low. Tile. remainin_°_ two intermittent St?'eams exhi iced heavy
sediment loads and no flow.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project
construction are beins addressed separatel%. as terrestrial
impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial
coM;:un:_ties, part_cu.ar y in locations e-iIriibitinz mode-are to
Steen slopes can result in severe Sediment loading 01?'
aquatic communize. It is irlportant to understand that
construction iinpacts may, not be isolated to the coin1111uniti's
in which they- occur. See referenced technical report for
general impact discussions and recommendations to a,.roid or
minimize imnaets to biotic communities and water resources.
Impacts resulting from construction of all alternatives are
shown in table 1. The revised alternative is shown as
alternative = 3.
Table 1. Anticipated impacts to
Terrestrial Communities by Alternative
(hectares\acres)
Community Type
Alternatives MD MPHF MHF Totals
Alt 1 9.6\23.8 2.8\6.9 -0- 10.0\24.6
Alt 2 8.6\21.2 3.8\9.5 -0- 10.0\24.6
Alt 3 4.9\12.0 4.0\9.9 1.\4.3 10.6\26.2
MD = .tan-Dominated Community
1.1ixed Pi ne\lardwood Forest Communi ty
M H F = Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
Note: Impacts in the reference technical report are based on
46 m (150 ft) of Right of Way. impacts in this table are
based on 36 m (120 ft) ROW.
cc: Charies Bruton. Ph.D.. Unit Head
M. Randall Turner. - n'vironmentaSuoerv'
isor
File: U-2508
M SfATFo
n?
ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 15, 1994
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
. -A,
%lot
- i
~L9 se's
s?
?r
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,
Widening of Mallard Creek Church Road, SR 2472 from SR 2681 to
US 29; and SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49, F. A. Project STP - OOOS
(72), State Project 8.2672601, T.I.P. Project U-2508
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural
Resources Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It
is anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No
Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate.a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by February 3, 1995. If no comments
are received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy
of the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
. 1,f'4,DM
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
22
2 "-ZZ
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Mr. Eric Cxlo,-v\-3 1 iA Iy'R -?M
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

A TION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATU RE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
L4
v

PROJECT S.COPING SHEET
,Date October 21, 1992
Revision Date 9'158 9.?
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2508
Project # -9?0 3--5-(S TAT-E-)-- g 72 Fg??
F.A. Project # STP-0003(72)
Division
,
Eif'
3 190
GROUP
V CCl?T3?R:
County MECKLENBURG
Route SR 2472 AND SR 2833
(SR 2833) (SR 2472)
Functional Classification URBAN LOCAL URBAN COLLECTOR
Length 2.2 MILES
Purpose of Project: INCREASE CAPACITY AND SAFETY OF EXISTING
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD TO IMPROVE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR
CURRENT AND DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
' elements of work:
WIDEN EXISTING TWO-LANE SHOULDER SECTION TO MULTI-LANES. WIDEN
OR REPLACE BRIDGE #59084 OVER MALLARD CREEK. SIGNAL UPGRADES AT
US 29, NC 49, AND POTENTIALLY AT INTERCHANGE WITH I-85
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA/FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA MAY 93
FONSI NOV 93
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No _X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or (?)
How and when will this be paid?
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Features of Proposed Facility
Type of Facility: MULTI-LANE
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section of Roadway:
5-LANE CURB AND GUTTER OR 4-LANE BOULEVARD-TYPE SECTION
6o0 - /6,zoo ,6?-- 30300
Traffic: Current -7-,4-&0--1-5-,&&G-.Design Year 13 , 6-0-0-2-8 14
% Trucks 10 % DHV 10
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 45 MPH (CURRENTLY SIGNED AT 35 MPH)
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) . . . . . . . . . . . $ yI) t 050, 000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition). . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way . . . . . . . . .
Total Cost
$ 4,050,000
$ 1,570,000
. . $ 5,620,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
PUBLIC RECREATION PARK NEAP. US 29. UNCC MAY PUSH FOR AN
ALTERNATE ON NEW LOCATION TO MINIMIZE CONGESTION @ PARKING LOTS.
A SIGN/Frc?4?/r /t/sro?/c PRoP??'rY /s ?oc.?T?? ?u3? w?sT of Lls ?9 on/ F/F
a/? Prff S/.D.? of 3R ?Y7.? _
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED ( }
COMMENTS
COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts. $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $
Sub-Drainage. . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
New Bridge X $
Widen Bridge X $
Remove Bridge X $
New Culverts: Size Length _ . . . $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
_
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . .
$
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter... $
Concrete Sidewalk . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. _ $

Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
$
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing: New. . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. . . . $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo $
Markers
Delineators . . . $
Other $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $
Page 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of-Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
No
Total Estima ed Cost udes R/W): $
Prepared By: Date: Oc r ?/ 199.Z
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic-.Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
'Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
.Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY IN.
i
i
]7.e
!•0°
0) 1623
]71]_
. --SR 2833 1 _7 .1 9 o?.Q) .13
i
64
.06 1
1 +
t t.
Mallord ?? b^ .334! / f I
:L' C, ..k
.Ch i
y0
1771
C
.l6 ` ]69eJ? 327
].)] L?
i
i
SR 2472 ]6l9 1 ?+
\T
BEGIN \ I
PROJECT
N \
n 79
C? yQ /
?400
^1
?>31
? ]de5 S7
.ed?
I.vv

\ t .01
/ o ,e0o ,,Q
0
m n 971
o?
I \
m i o]
END ?J?I .s.d oS\ % / f ?
PROJECT
t f5 f
U.N.C. of CHARLOTTE f F
O,
ye
l
8-k C-k Ch.
'--"a NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 0
ps .ps TRANSPORTATION .20 DIVISION Or HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
]oiv c ' ]vi?
3071 307,lkc. MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
"° SR 2472 FROM SR 2681 TO US 29
.o2221 AND
Ob y -
]02 e o .sq. ]°se. I i
a;,o? /e]e SR 2833 FROM US 29 TO NC 49
od=5 °„°o ?o Jae, j T. I. P. NUMBER U-2508
.05
>o]
0 0
o pa

.e.Q
•o,
.ese ° oy
!e5) .e51
.4?e
F, .eis
pJ
3?pp !dle
1e 19- ?b
!4.1?
`0 I?l?r
FIG. 1
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
TO MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD FROM I-85 TO NC 49
Project 8.2672601 U-2508 Mecklenburg County
The above workshop will be held on April 22, 1993 between the
hours of 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in the Mallard Creek Presbyterian
Church Activity Building, located just west of I-85 on Mallard
Creek Church Road.
Representation of the Department of Transportation will be
available to discuss the proposed project. All interested persons
are invited to attend during the scheduled hours.
If additional information is needed, contact Mr. Ted Devens,
NCDOT, Planning and Environmental Branch, 919 733-3141 or P.O.
Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids,
and services for any qualified disabled person interested in
attending the public workshop. To request the above you may call
Mr. Devens at the above number no later than seven days prior to
the date of the workshop.
,T_,. ?
?,
,?
M ?' g
?? ?
r
?vC 6?
'tivo-
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor February 25, 1993 Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihar#, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments - NCDOT Improvements to Mallard Creek
Church Road (SR 2472) From I-85 to US 29, (SR2833) From
US 29 to NC 49, Mecklenburg County, State TIP #U-2508
Project Review #93-0668
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
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
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Prior to the approval
of any borrow source in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain
a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilized the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
8395er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

ST\TE OF FORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF H(GI-i??!-?1'S
NC _ P.O. GOX 25201. RALEIGH.:'-C. 27611-5201
February 4, 1993
SAN1 H? \-
SECRETA:
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager 9
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Mallard Creek Church Road (SR 2472) From I-85 to US 29,
(SR 2833) From US 29 to NC 49, Mecklenburg County, TIP
Project U-2508 t?,I C'J?A
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to Mallard Creek Church Road. The
project is included in the 1992 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled, for right of way in fiscal year 1994 and
construction in fiscal year 1995.
Mallard Creek Church Road is to be widened from just east of interstate
85 to NC 49, utilizing a 50 mph design standard. The improvement will
require flattening of several curves. Two alternative cross-sections are
being considered. Both cross-sections are a four-lane highway divided by a
16-foot raised median. Alternative 1 uses outside curb and gutter with
8-foot berms on 100 feet of right-of-way. Alternative 2 is an outside
shoulder section on approximately 150 feet of right-of-way. A slight
realignment may be necessary to avoid impacting a potentially historic site
just west of US 29.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a document
evaluating environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your
agency respond by April 20, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted
Devens, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJ°:/pl r
Attachment
FEB ! 1

\
9r

It ? 1
MECKLENBURG' COUNTY
NIECKL
C ..,,,a`?,??? m
49
/ ? diner: ile
/ f
/ f
h? 1`ewell?
C hatte'
-
Alit
?Mint?ill 51
rfl?l?l'?bc ?

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTINIENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
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

N'C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
!??-3HD
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-. EL i mo
FROM. REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ie(A ?)P uens 1-5
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? 'TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

SrATp y
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
October 23, 1992
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
Division of Environmental Maann?agement`
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Mana;? , `? ' a, ?? .;
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Mallard Creek Church Road,
(SR 2472) from SR 2681 to US 29; (SR 2833) from US 29
to NC 49, Mecklenburg County, State Project 9.8100315,
TIP Project U-2508
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for November 24, 1992 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part
If there are any questions about the meeting or
call Ted Devens, Project Planning Engineer, at
TD/plr
Attachment
G ass ?
of our planning process.
the scoping sheets, please
733-7842.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
i
i
2470 • .Oa0, '
.06 / f t
ti rasa
at Mallard t? P f
:3! Ge h ?.
I 2771 S0 t '
•!6 / 2690 'J> 34i2 Q
2473 F
f
aY 1 SR 2472 2629 \ ft
\i
BEGIN 472 tr Oard \ ft ° 16'11
PROJECT M f -"
\ f eo9
\b7 a6]6 ]] 2611 ''7
\ t .10 x623 IJ 4620 .0a f61
?
?p p7 \aei o O' _
tt
\ / ?rJ .J0 2123 SR 2833 \\ .f .1612016 .73o Oj ^ 613 `06
7713-
260}
\ ?L
\ ?o
'- \ 7
* \63`
Bet
\ 9
W ?
/ f 2.00 \ /a 'O 2
a6o °
.16 m
m 0Dad7? \f .a/a ° o
o? ap2a tt
X677 0a S (\ 1y _- OJ 00
\ f \ a619_ Ob 2D-
o
_
` ?eg
211± ell f

END
JECT
?i
PRO t
V.N.C. 01 CHARLOTTE

j
f }
o
\ J

-
Back Creek Ch.

!6!1
2-35 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of,
.05O5 TRA'QSPORTATION
jlJd .p $32 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
e? PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
I3IZANCH
;019 pv \ 29]9
X021 3021'j' MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
°;° SR 2472 FROM SR 2681 TO US 29
,oo9-ob ?" / AND
SR 2833 FROM US 29 TO NC 49
3060 .,? ..,6q 7; f6se.
.°s T. I. P. NUMBER U-2508
o
3069 12601 ' / \? I
J ?> 41
FIG. 1
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date October 21, 1992
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP #
-2508

Project # 9.8100315 (STATE) d
F.A. Project #
Division 1
County MECKLENBURG
Route SR 2472 AND SR 2833
(SR 2833) (SR 2472)
Functional Classification URBAN LOCAL URBAN COLLECTOR
Length 2.2 MILES
Purpose of Project: INCREASE CAPACITY AND SAFETY OF EXISTING
MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD TO IMPROVE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR
CURRENT AND DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work:
WIDEN EXISTING TWO-LANE SHOULDER SECTION TO MULTI-LANES. WIDEN
OR REPLACE BRIDGE #59084 OVER MALLARD CREEK. SIGNAL UPGRADES AT
US 29, NC 49, AND POTENTIALLY AT INTERCHANGE WITH I-85.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA/FONSI
Environmental study schedule: EA MAY 93
FONSI NOV 93
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No _X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or (%)
How and when will this be paid?
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Features of Proposed Facility
Type of Facility: MULTI-LANE
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section of Roadway:
5-LANE CURB AND GUTTER OR 4-LANE BOULEVARD-TYPE SECTION
Traffic: Current 7,400-15,600 Design Year 13,600-28,100
% Trucks 10 % DHV 10
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed: 45 MPH (CURRENTLY SIGNED AT 35 MPH)
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . . $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost.
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . .
Right of Way . . . . .
Total Cost . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . $
. . . . . . . . $ 4,050,000
. . . . . . . . $ 1,570,000
. . . . . . . . $ 5,620,000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project:
PUBLIC RECREATION PARK NEAR US 29. UNCC MAY PUSH FOR AN
ALTERNATE ON NEW LOCATION TO MINIMIZE CONGESTION @ PARKING LOTS.
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
New Bridge x $
Widen Bridge x $
Remove Bridge X $
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . ... . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing: New . . . ... . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . ... . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms. $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo $
Markers
Delineators . . $
Other . . $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $
Page 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering $
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • $
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
No
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared By:
Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
INIT. DATE
INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway _ Mgr. Program & Policy _
Structure Chief Engineer-Precons_
Design Services Chief Engineer-Oper
Geotechnical Secondary Roads Off.
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. & Surveys Roadside Environmental-
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance _
Planning & Environ. Statewide Planning
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator -
Traffic Engineering Program Development
Project Management FHWA _
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/Municipality Dept. of EH & NR -
Others
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.
y J-
State of North-Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Saiisbwy Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Marvin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
November 25, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Mr. Jack Ward
NC DOT
From: Eric Galamb
DEHNR 25?
Subject: Scoping Meeting on Mallard Creek Church Road
Mecklenburg County
TIP Project U-2508
A. Preston Toward, Jr., P.E.
Acting Director
A meeting was held yesterday on the subject project. This memo is to reiterate
comments made at the meeting. Mallard Creek is a class "C" stream. DEM endorses
a widening of Mallard Creek Church Road. There are utility lines between the existing
road and a state listed historic house. Is it feasible to widen SR 2472 north of US 29
and still avoid impacting this house while not impacting the large pond adjacent to the
junk yard? DEM requests that the corridor be protected under the 1987 Roadway
Corridor Official Map Act especially within the city limits of Charlotte.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
cc: file
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-salcm
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 9191946-6481 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

_-
-- --

.,
..; --- -

- - - ? S

_ ,:

- - - -

;,
i
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
mr. G;r- Liam h -E
FROM:
REF. NO. O
ROOM, BLDG.
RR
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
1-2
~ D
O
? qum,MO''
STATE OF NORTH CAROLIN.
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPO
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5:
February 4, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager 9.
Planning and Environmental Branc
SUBJECT: Mallard Creek Church Road (SR 2472) From I-85 to US 29,
(SR 2833) From US 29 to NC 49, Mecklenburg County, TIP
Project U-2508
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to Mallard Creek Church Road. The
project is included in the 1992 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1994 and
construction in fiscal year 1995.
Mallard Creek Church Road is to be widened from just east of Interstate
85 to NC 49, utilizing a 50 mph design standard. The improvement will
require flattening of several curves. Two alternative cross-sections are
being considered. Both cross-sections are a four-lane highway divided by a
16-foot raised median. Alternative 1 uses outside curb and gutter with
8-foot berms on 100 feet of right-of-way. Alternative 2 is an outside
shoulder section on approximately 150 feet of right-of-way. A slight
realignment may be necessary to avoid impacting a potentially historic site
just west of US 29.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a document
evaluating environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your
agency respond by April 20, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted
Devens, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachment

3712
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
2470 .04 21,76 .06 1
/
'65 Mallard Y< bM1 2661 /
Creek
Ch. / f
Z? f
.16 I / 2696 2771 -7l +047 , P
2472
F
'f
f
tkSR 2 4 7 2 2679 V'
1
PROJECT Map°'? \ 1
\ 1 4626 22
f \p 162J 13
46
c 07
--SR 2833 f 4617 0.41
6k / 2600
Cr6 4e \ ,Z 4a2?\9
4'. / ? 094672 ?, ?/
p? \ 46_19
.04 \ 1 \ 1y
r
29 2834 622 F^P
7 ? f p
2665 / 1516
j END s? t Back Creek Ch.
0
G'? / PROJECT °f
2664. \ i f ` t
V \
U.N.C. of CHARLOTTE
166_5
aaz.
4656
I,
.1641
.4615
'4616
1 Boa
2635 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
os .os 3019 TRANSPORTATION
6 DIVISION OF HIGHW
0022
547
11
?_ 'ia //?1 \\ 7064
AYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
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
- /?,3

c
ezr7 1 -
--- ---1
' i
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

373
26°5
,-Tx
NCy -3ijRG COUNTY
IF,
/
/
/
/
/ +
2470 .04$
:oa 1
/ 1 f
e 3aB! / /
M Ildrd ?,r?
$ Creek
Ch.
26987047 P
2.77
SR 2472 2679 1 +
BEGIN ?a7,/ ,?t" Mattard \ +
PROJECT `/' +
7
.862.
9 \ + l0 `04677 .17 0,1 16
/rJ .'20 - 2877 SR 2833 \\ ?? rev •1! X4.17 p~d
0 2800 2676
ego
ODre \+
16]0
J?0? i re77 .04 S , ^y
se
? 3934 877 FA9
?y
+ \ 07
Z' 1346
J ;!?
END 5 t back Creek Ch.
0
PROJECT ? +
?/+ }O dry
y 4?
V/ U.N.C. of CHARLOTTE
-o
l \ ?

koAt
refit
11 \ 4613
2°06 rela
7b
°
to
aB-° ,, a J NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
.03 103 3049 TRANSPORTATION
,ez v DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
j1 09 / BRANCH
3019 -? N ? 29]9
7011 3022 A9 MALLARD CREEK CHURCH ROAD
az 11 7067 r '\ SR 2472 FROM SR 2681 TO US 29
.11
)79. 6 6 3027
0 9 AND
,,,, _ 3056
SR 2833 FROM US 29 TO NC 49
]06 !7 .07 t res8.
..16o 1
I
A663 .OS T. I. P. NUMBER U-2508
J069 662
. o
l ? D :l
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 Dark and
cre
ric sites. -
and
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 is no prudent and feasible alternative to
using that land; and
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.
z
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 property boundaries are not necessarily a factor.
Since "effect" is an issue under Section 4(f) Constructive Use, a
distinction must be 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
241-281 16' 241-281
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.
CURBS / \ CURBS
FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY WITH
OUTSIDE SHOULDERS, DIVIDED
BY A 16-FOOT RAISED MEDIAN
vvo wv
241-281 16' 241-281
UP TO 150 FEET
* 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.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
12 -2 -q
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM BLDG.
}-
? c- En ( lam' I i1? 14
D
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

XICTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTI ON ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
ZZ??)
Ddb
MEMO TO FILE:
FC - a?
? 41992
FROM: Ted Devens, PE
SUBJECT: Minutes of Scoping Meeting for U-2508-
DATE: November 24, 1992
At 9:00 am on November 24, 1992, a scoping meeting was held
for project U-2508 in the P&E conference room. In attendance
were:
Ted Devens
Jay Woolard
Carolyn Hignutt
Walker Armistead
Jack Matthews
Robin Stancil
Danny Rogers
David Yow
Eric Galamb
Schenck Cline
Mack Bailey
Linda Dosse
Joe Foutz
Michael Paylor
Todd Dudley
Alden Whitmore, Jr.
Len Hill
Jerry Snead
Cecil McLamb
Project Planning Engineer
Traffic Control
Location & Surveys
Structure Design
Photogrammetry
Dept of Cultural Resources, SHPO
Program Development
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
DEHNR - Dept. of Environmental
Planning & Environmental
Structure Design
Statewide Planning
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
Roadway Design
Division.10 Construction
Roadway Design
Hydraulics
Right-of-Way Branch
-Habitat Cons.
Mgt.
The meeting began with presentation of the overall project and
existing conditions. Program Development has changed funding from
state-funded to federally-funded. The scoping meeting discussed
sections B and C of project U-2508. Section A is already under
construction, and consists of improvements to the interchange area
over I-85. In the project area, Mallard Creek Church Road is SR
2472 from I-85 to US 29, and is SR 2833 from US 29 to NC 49. All
of SR 2833 is within the Charlotte City Limits. The road serves
traffic between I-85, US,29,.and NC 49, and is a vital access to
UNC-Charlotte. Project termini were defined as "From SR 2681 to NC
49." The western terminus will be slightly west of SR 2681 to
widen a taper section from U-2508 A. This project is a continuance
of SR 2472 on the west side of I-85, which was widened (U-2303) to
a four-lane facility with a 16-foot raised median and outside
shoulders.
Existing speed limits vary from 35-45 mph. This project is on
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan as a Major
Thoroughfare. Existing R/W on SR 2472 is expected to be the
maintained width, while SR 2833 is expected to be 30 feet on each
side of the centerline.
No traffic projections were yet received from Joe Springer's.
unit. Based upon counts from adjacent projects, traffic has
doubled from 1985 to 1990. A 1993 ADT of 7,800 was estimated for
SR 2472, while SR 2833 was estimated to be 15,800 near NC 49. (The
15,800 ADT is based upon an independent traffic count at the
intersection of SR 2833 and NC 49. However, since UNCC has two
very large parking lots with entrances off of SR 2833, this ADT is
expected to be lower when received from the Traffic Forecasting
Unit.)
Problems exist with both horizontal and vertical alignments.
SR 2472 has degrees of curvature up to 11.5, while SR 2833 has DC's
up to 13. Vertical grades approach 5% in areas.
Very high accident rates are evident on SR 2833, due to many
accidents at intersections with US 29 and NC 49.
The only notable stream crossing is Mallard Creek, where
bridge #84 carries SR 2833 over the creek. It was determined that
the structure cannot be widened, and due to its sufficiency rating
and structure, must be replaced. Hydraulics is in the process of
determining whether the elevation of the bridge deck must be raised
because of the Mallard Creek floodplain, although Jerry Snead
mentioned that a need to raise the bridge elevation is not
probable. David Yow stressed the environmental importance of
replacement with a bridge vs. a culvert. For wildlife mobility, he
prefers a full span across the creek. Project planning will
contact Charlotte to see if they want a sidewalk on the bridge, and
if they will pay for it. Eric Galamb pointed out a need to avoid
the small pond west of US 29. He also stated that Mallard Creek is
a Class C stream.
Mecklenburg County has a public park with two soccer fields on
the north side of SR 2833, just east of US 29.
Alternatives were discussed. It was pointed-out that
Charlotte historically wants median-divided facilities. The trend
of late has been 16-foot raised & planted medians with modified
curbs. It was agreed that the first alternative shall be a four-
lane facility divided by a 16-foot raised and planted median with
modified curb and outside shoulders. A second alternative will be
the same median-divided section, but with curb and gutter on the
outside of travel lanes (to save R/W).
Design speeds are anticipated to be 50 mph throughout the
project, 'with the exception of 40 mph as the section approaches NC
49 and the congestion of the UNCC parking lot. Anticipated R/W is
100 feet for an all-curb and gutter section, and 150 feet for a
median-divided facility with shoulders.
Robin Stancil presented concerns for historical and
archaeological sites. The W.T. Alexander House is locally
significant, and is located just west of US 29 on the north side of
SR 2472. She gave a point of contact at the Charlotte/Mecklenburg

Historic Landmarks Commission. SHPO maps show archaeological sites
in the project area, particularly at the intersection of SR 2834
and SR 2833, and in the Mallard Creek area. A NCDOT archaeological
survey is recommended for.the entire project area.
The project schedule was briefly discussed. It was felt that
an Environmental Assessment should be adequate. The EA is
currently due in May 1993. The FONSI is scheduled from August to
November, 1993. The TIP currently schedules section B (SR 2742) to
be constructed before section C (SR 2833). It was discussed that
traffic on section C is almost double that of section B, and that
perhaps section C should be built before section B. Danny Rogers
responded that traffic forecasts must definitely justify a change
in priorities to overrule the present phasing scheme. For
continuity of travel on Mallard Creek Church Road, it may be better
to construct section B first. A shift in phasing will cause
Program Development to reshuffle funds.
Alden Whitmore presented Division 10's desire to see SR 2833
extended on new location to a new intersection with NC 49 which is
north of the existing intersection. This extension is shown as a
dashed line on the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Thoroughfare Plan. It was
the general consensus that this extension is a part of a future
"inner loop" concept, and is beyond the scope of this project. It
would add considerable cost to the TIP-programmed amount, and
deviates significantly from the TIP description. Linda Dosse of
Statewide Planning agreed that the "loop" is far in the future.
Eric Galamb pointed-out that if section C is to be constructed
after Section B (and since section C seems to be developing .
rapidly), then future R/W on section C should be protected under
the official Map and Corridor Act of 1:987.