19920277 Ver al_Complete File_19920513

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 8, 1992 ?-
f
fl
D '
Memorandum To: John Dorney
JUN 1199
From: D. Rex Gleason '1
010Prepared By: Kim H. Colson Y
Subject: 410 Certification Review
Department of Transportation
Bridge Replacement
Mecklenburg County, NC
The following project has been reviewed by the staff of this
Office and it is recommended that a 401 Water Quality Certification
be issued:
1. Department of Transportation
Bridge Replacement - Bridge No. 104
Watershed Classification: C
Less than one acre - NW26
General Permit applies.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
advise.
KHC
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
May 13, 1992
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
q -LZ?-7
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: Categorical Exclusion Approval for Federal Aid Project:
Mecklenburg County, SR 2110, Bridge No. 104 over Long Creek,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2110(1), State Project No. 8.2672001,
I. D. :No. B-2056
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with
23 CFR 711.115(0). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance wi W33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C)
of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
DOT will apply directly to NRCD for that permit when plans have been
developed.
If you have any ',questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
?• DM
L. J. "Ward, P. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. John Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. J. D. Goins
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
STAlF ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
l
APPROVED:
91? ?
D to
4-1;2 2
Date Ar
Mecklenburg County, Bridge No. 104
on SR 2110 over Long Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2110(1)
State Project No. 8.2672001
I. D. No. B-2056
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1ch L. Grat, P. E.
ivis on Administrator, FHWA
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT

Mecklenburg County, Bridge No. 104
on SR 2110 over Long Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2110(1)
State Project No. 8.2672001
I. D. No. B-2056
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Miche a James
Project Planning (/ngineer
Wayne Elliott
Project Pl n ing Engi Unit/Hea4f
/,
rxa"iin Vick, P. L. i
Assistant Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch
r f ?
Mecklenburg County, Bridge No. 104
on SR 2110 over Long Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2110(1)
State Project No. 8.2672001
I. D. No. B-2056
Bridge No. 104 is included in the current Transportation Improvement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 104 should be replaced at the existing location with a
precast reinforced concrete box culvert as shown by Alternate 1A (see
Figure 2). Only minimum approach work is required to tie the culvert to
the existing approaches.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate that a double 9' x 8' box
culvert should be provided. The length of the culvert should be adequate
to accommodate a 24-foot pavement with 8-foot graded shoulders.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during the 1.5 month
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $258,000.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the Transportation
Improvement Program, is $317,000.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are required for this project.
If the State Historic Preservation Officer determines that an
intensive archaeology survey is needed for this project, the survey will
be completed prior to construction.
Approximately .01 acre of wetlands will be disrupted by the project.
Best Management Practices will be utilized to minimize these impacts.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2110 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is not a part of the Federal Aid
Secondary System.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2110 has a 24-foot pavement with
6-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). Vertical alignment includes slight
approach grades downhill toward the stream. Horizontal alignment is
tangent. The structure is situated 15 feet above the creek bed. The
approaches are on embankments ranging 5-6 feet above the natural ground.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is primarily
woodland and farmland. Perimeter Woods Business Park is located in the
northeast quadrant of the project area. The gross leasable area of the
Perimeter Woods Business Park is approximately 950,000 square feet. The
primary uses of the Business Park will be for warehouse and distribution.
As of January 1992, a 29-. vacancy remained. The traffic"on Bridge No. 104
is expected to increase from 800 VPD to 1000 VPD, by 1997. To the north
of Perimeter Woods, a one million square foot shopping center is proposed.
Construction of the shopping center is anticipated to begin within five
years. A three million square foot business park is also proposed north
of the shopping center. It is anticipated that this facility will be
built when the Outer Loop is closer to completion.
Construction of a 640 acre housing development in the immediate
vicinity of the bridge is imminent.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Greenway Master Plan designates a greenway
along Long Creek, crossing SR 2110 at the bridge site. This proposed
future greenway is to end less than 1/4 mile east of the bridge. The
project has been coordinated with the Mecklenburg County Park and
Recreation Department. A spokesman expressed concern about accommodating
the greenway; however, the planned culvert is not conducive for greenway
conveyance. Therefore, it was agreed that any project grading on the
north side of the creek would include reshaping and proper sloping to
allow greenway users a means of crossing SR 2110.
The current traffic volume of 800 VPD is expected to increase to
approximately 9,500 VPD by the year 2011. This increase is due to
significant development proposed in the area. The projected volume
includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles
(DT). The speed limit is not posted.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1958. The
superstructure consists of a double timber deck with steel girders,
stringers and floor beams. The substructure is composed of timber caps
and piles.
Overall length is 36 feet. Clear roadway width is 17.2 feet. The
bridge has posted weight limits of 12 tons for single vehicles and 16 tons
for trucks with trailers.
Bridge No. 104 has a sufficiency rating of 40.8 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure.
Three accidents were reported near Bridge No. 104 during the period
from January, 1987 to June, 1990.
Six school buses cross the studied bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 104 were studied.
The design speed is 40 mph for each alternate, due to the vertical
alignment.
s
3
Alternate 1 would involve replacement of the bridge along the
existing roadway-
oa way alignment with a cast-in-place reinforced concrete box
culvert (2 @ 9' x 8'). The road would be closed for approximately 4
months. Traffic would be maintained on existing local roads as shown in
Figure 1. This alternate would retain the present roadway alignment..
Alternate 1A (recommended) will involve replacement of the bridge
along the existing roadway alignment with a precast reinforced concrete
box culvert (2 @ 9' x 8'). Road closure will be reduced to 1.5 months.
Traffic will be maintained on existing local roads as shown in Figure 1.
This alternate will retain the present roadway alignment.
Alternate 2 is identical to Alternate 1 except traffic would be
maintaine on-site with a temporary detour structure (2 @ 78" pipe)
located upstream of the existing structure.
Based on preliminary design, a 40 MPH design speed will result from
the proposed vertical alignment. This involves increasing the floor
elevation of the existing bridge by 2 feet. Consideration was given to
provision of a 55 MPH design speed, which involves increasing the floor
elevation of the existing bridge by 5 feet. The additional cost ($20,000
R/W + $100,000) is not justifiable due to the presence of a horizontal
curve (45 MPH design speed) about 600 feet south of the bridge. A design
exception will be required.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
SR 2110.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated cost of the studied alternatives is as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate 1 Alternate 1A Alternate 2
Structure $ 70,200 $ 76,700 $ 70,200
Roadway Approaches 105,000 105,000 105,500
Detour Structures & Approaches - - 187,500
Structure Removal 4,800 4,800 4,800
Engineering & Contingencies 27,000 27,500 55,500
Right-of-Way, Utilities 44,000 44,000 55,000
Total $251,000 $258,000 $478,000
r %
4
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The division office prefers that road closure be limited to 1.5
months. Traffic can be detoured during construction as shown in Figure 1.
Approximately 1.2 miles of additional travel will be necessary for the
average vehicle affected by road 'closure.
A road-user analysis, based on a 4-month construction period
indicates the cost of additional travel would be approximately $35,000.
The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $227,000, resulting
in a benefit-cost of 0.20. Replacing Bridge No. 104 with a precast box
culvert (Alternate 1A) would cut the road closure time to 1.5 months. The
road user cost would be reduced to $13,000. Provision of the recommended
precast culvert will minimize closure time at an additional cost of only
$7,000.
Provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable due to the
availability of a suitable detour route. Detour roadways and bridges are
adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
The Mecklenburg County School Transportation Director has no
objections if Bridge No. 104 is closed to traffic for construction.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge-No. 104 should be replaced at its present location with a
precast reinforced concrete box culvert. According to a preliminary
hydrographic study, a double 9' x 8' reinforced concrete box culvert will
accommodate the flow of Long Creek at this point. The structure
dimensions may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak
flows of Long Creek as determined by further hydrologic studies.
The recommended improvements will include about 200 feet of improved
roadway approaches. A 24-foot pavement with 8-foot graded shoulders
should be provided on the approaches. The elevation of the new crossing
is expected to be approximately the same as the elevation of the existing
bridge. The length of the culvert should be adequate to accommodate a
24-foot pavement with 8-foot graded shoulders. The design speed is 40
mph.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not
the quality of the human or natural
NCDOT standards and specifications.
have a significant adverse effect on
environment with the use of current
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No significant adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social,
economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The bridge is to be replaced at the existing location and is exempt
from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
The project lies to the immediate north of Charlotte, the Mecklenburg
County seat. A highly urbanized county, it is located in the southern
Piedmont physiographic province in North Carolina. The relief of the
county is characterized by broad, gently rolling interstream areas.
Two vegetative communities were identified in the study area:
Man-dominated and Piedmont Alluvial Forest. All are characterized as
wetlands.
Man-dominated lands are areas where man's structures or activities
preclude natural plant succession. Powerline clearings and clearing
associated with the maintenance of sewage outfall areas, have given rise
to a mixed herbaceous community. Diverse herb and vine strata supports
lespedeza Les edeza vir inica), false nettle (Boehm?eria c lindrica),
jewel-weed Im atiens a i a), poke-weed Ph to al ca americana , rush
Juncus diffuses), poison-ivy Toxicodendron ra icans , woo sorrel
Oxalis vi- olaceae), Mimulus Mimu us ringens), Indian strawberry
Duc esnea mica), morning gory I omoea hederacea), Japanese
honeysuckle onicera 'aJ ponica), kudzu Pueraria o ata , trumpet creeper
(Cam psis radicans), and Virginia creeper Part enoccissus quinquefolia).
Piedmont alluvial forest is associated with Long Creek south of the
existing structure. The floodplain is seasonally or intermittently
flooded, supporting flood-tolerant species such as river birch Betula
ni ra), sycamore Platanus occidentalis), hackberry Celtis laevi atta ,
re ash Fraxinus Penns lvanica , and tulip tree Lirio end ro
tuli ifera . Box elder Acer ne undo), red maple Acer ru rum lack
willow Salix nigra) and privet Li ustrum sinense) are common understory
components. A diverse herb layer supports eel-weed, poison ivy,
arthraxon Arthraxon hispidus var. cryptatherus) and false nettle.
Impacts resulting from bridge replacement and the construction of a
detour would involve at least partial clearing of wetland areas. Wetland
habitat within the construction path would be eliminated where Long Creek
is crossed on fill and culverts. Causeway construction will result in the
addition of sediment to the aquatic system being crossed. Minimal habitat
loss and the modification of existing habitat would also be associated
with culvert placement in the channel.
•
Anticipated impacts for each alternate are summarized in Table 1
below. Calculations are based on SO feet of right-of-way.
Table 1. ' PLANT COMMUNITY/WETLAND IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
ALTERNATES AREA OF IMPACTS (acres)
MD* PAF**
Alternate 1 0.01 0.0
Recommended
Alternate 1A 0.01 0.0
Alternate 2 0.30 0.10
* Man Dominate
** Piedmont alluvial Forest
Floodplain forests are home to a resurgent beaver Castor canadenses)
population. Other typical residents are raccoons Proc on otor , mus rat
Ondatra zibeus), mink Mustela vision) an Virginia opossum
(Dis virginiana).
Birds sighted or heard in the area, include the belted kingfisher
Cer le a?lcyon) cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis), common flicker Cola tes
auratus) and field sparrow Size a passerina .
Wetland communities are valuable habitat for reptiles and amphibians.
Amphibians in particular, are highly water dependent for completion of
larval stages in their life cycle. Some species are totally aquatic.
Spring peeper (H,lea cricifer), bullfrog Rana catesbeiana), pickeral frog
(R. palus?tris), dwar sa Tamander Eur cea quad-ri i itata , southern dusky
salamander Desmo nathus auricultatus , yellow e y slider Chr Ha s
scri ta), nort ern water sna a Nero yea si edon), and rat sane e
obso eta) are but a few of the repo es an amp ibians likely to be found
in the project area.
Sampling efforts in Long Creek, conducted by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission in 1964 revealed the following fish species:
redbreast sunfish Le omis auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), gizzard
Shaw Dorosoma ce a ianum popeye shiper No?tropis ariommus), redlip
shiner N. c iliticus , greenfin shiner (N. chloristius brown bullhead
(Ictalurus ne u onus , margined madtom Notorus ac neri) and spotted
darter (Etheostoma maculatum).
Loss of wildlife habitat, particularly for aquatic species and the
elimination of existing habitat are serious impacts that result from
dredging, filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization and land
clearing. These construction activities result in the direct loss of
benthic organisms and an increase in silt load in wetland environments.
Mobile aquatic organisms are better able to avoid impacts, and will have a
7
faster recovery rate from siltation, than those species that are filter
feeders and/or relatively immobile. The removal of benthic organisms
reduces the potential food supply for vertebrate and aquatic organisms.
Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish and benthos: decreases the
depth of light penetration inhibiting plant and algal growth, which is a
food source; clogs the filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and
the gills of fish; buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting them
off from a food source; adversely modifies preferred benthic substrate;
and spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
This bridge replacement project spans Long Creek, a second-order
tributary to the Catawba River, contained within the Catawba River basin.
Long Creek may be characterized as a sandy, low gradient stream. The
stream course is channelized and varies in width from twenty to
twenty-five feet. No aquatic vegetation in the channel was noted.
Long Creek has a "best usage" classification of C. Class C
designates waters suitable for secondary recreation, aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and agriculture.
The (BMAN) Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network, (NC-DEHNR)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling of selected benthic
macroinvertebrates as indicator organisms. These organisms are sensitive
to very subtle changes in water quality. Sampling efforts in September
1986 in Long Creek received a bioclassification of Good-Fair due to point
source dischargers in the general vicinity.
No waters classified as High Quality waters, Outstanding Resource
Waters, nor any segments of rivers classified under the federal Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act or the state Natural and Scenic Rivers Act, will be
impacted by the proposed project.
Bridge replacement with box culverts will allow normal flows.
Embankments and culverts would modify flow patterns in portions of the
wetlands close to the road, and hence modify the original character of the
habitat. Pools frequently created above or below openings of culverts,
trap sediment during periods of high water. Wetland flood control
capacity will be reduced proportionately by the amount of fill utilized in
wetlands.
During construction, erosion in combination with heavy rainfall, will
cause the loss of mineral and organic material from the soil surface.
This will result in added sediment to the aquatic system causing temporary
periods of turbidity and overall decline in water quality.
Wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
takes jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill material into
these wetlands as authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
8
Wetland communities were identified in the project corridor on the
basis of low soil chroma values, hydrophytic vegetation and the presence
of hydrology or hydrological indicators, such as stained, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface
roots.
Probable Wetland acreage impacts are summarized in Table 1, on
page 5.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for
the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States".
The subject project is classified as a federally funded Categorical
Exclusion likely to come under provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole
or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is
"categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N. C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources will be required.
This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a
discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide Permit.
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced
during construction activities to minimize unnecessary impacts to
stream/wetland ecosystems.
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.
Information received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
reports the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthius
schweinitzii) as occurring in Mecklenburg County. Suitable habitat Tor
the above listed species was ascertained from in-house review of taxonomic
literature and availability determined from aerial photographic
interpretation.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the piedmont of the Carolinas,
where it is currently known from eight populations in North Carolina.
Growing to a height of one to two meters, it is a rhizomatous, perennial
herb, growing from a cluster of carrot-like, tuberous roots. Narrowly
lanceolate, opposite leaves are scabrous above, resin-dotted and
white-hairy beneath. Yellow flowers are borne on arching stems from
September until frost. The species occurs in clearings and edges of
r
9
upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay-loams or sandy clay-loams
often with a high gravel content. Appropriate habitat of this type does
not exist in the project area; thus the subject project will not impact
the species.
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula), a Candidate species may occur in the
area. 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 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database reports no state
protected species within the immediate project area. However, the USFWS
provided information on the Candidate (C) species nestronia, that occurs
in Mecklenburg County. Currently, nestronia is listed by the state of
North Carolina as Threatened. It occurs in sandy, open woodlands and
creek borders, usually parasitic on oak and pine roots. This plant and
suitable habitat, were not surveyed for. The presence or absence of this
species can only be confirmed through a scientific survey during the
appropriate season(s).
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by the State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979, administered and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture.
The project does not involve
no publicly-owned parks, historic
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
in the vicinity of the project.
any Section 4(f) properties. There are
sites, recreational facilities, or
national, state, or local significance

The area of potential effect of this project on historic
architectural resources was delineated, and all buildings within that area
were investigated. There are no National Register-listed or eligible
properties located within the area of potential effect. The State
Historic Preservation Officer was consulted and concurred with these
findings. See letter in Appendix.
The project is located within the Metropolitan-Charlotte Interstate
Air Quality Control Region. This project is in an air quality
nonattainment area which has transportation control measures in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) which was approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on March 19, 1981. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that both the Transportation Plan and
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the SIP. The FHWA
has determined that this project is included in the TIP for the Charlotte-
Metropolitan planning area. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this
project conforms to the SIP.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall

10
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of FHPM 7-7-3
(highway traffic noise) and FHPM 7-7-9 (air quality) and no additional
reports are required.
Mecklenburg County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area
is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not
considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area.
Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of about the same
magnitude. The alignment of the project is perpendicular to the
floodplain area. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
An individual permit will not be required from the Corps of Engineers
since the Nationwide Section 404 permit provisions are applicable, and the
provisions of 330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
MJ/rfm

..6 ¦
I
211e
]276 _
PERIMETER WOODS
2
, BUSINESS PAR=
1Z.,- 10
)BRIFGE NO
104
31iL /
266,
24@3
°o
207. /
.rJ 7667 ? , .?.?
0, 07 Td)1
8676 ?
J
0, o 7661 /
lp
\ 0 1.
1
4A
1A
1
1
f
112
2244
II
72710
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
13RANCH
B-2056
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 104
OVER LONG CREEK
0 miles 1/2
?-1/92 1 1 FIG. 1

ALTERNATE2

w`4
NNW. WM
•
JAWN
pUR
n
BRIDGE NO. 104
MECKLENBURG CO.
B- 2056
s,-

' SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3

71
\\ TYtsy? r ?, /.
r I
q ?A I??aD 1113
?;'}I ? ? ? t"?`•? i?%.. Jr ?? ? //? 2110
BRIDGE NO. 104
--

X71
ii -ZONE A
I' ICI f f'•, }fi b 1K I' ?/,i
?/ v \ ZONE C
?? \ s ?2112
OPO at _'t
S(VARINGER LAKE V P ??+
\1 A?
/ DAPHINE
DRIVE
LAKEVIEW_
i 111 Ii0 II
- ie< l II ?
I\ _ ?I Ili //
I I
z I. _
rr.
rJ L_
P? A? Oq C E
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX
. z
,? swFv
•? 7iw. vOY.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
December 5, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration.
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Replace Bridge No. 104 over Long Creek on
SR 2110, Mecklenburg County, B-2056, ER 92-7363
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letters of November 13 and December 3, 1991, concerning
the above project.
We have reviewed the additional information which describes the basement
structure located in the area of potential effect. Based upon this
information, we can concur that no National Register-listed or eligible
properties are located within the area of potential effect.
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.
cerely,
U?u
?/bavid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: V. Charles Bruton
109 East ones Street 9 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807