20010037 Ver 1_Complete File_20010109

OPERATION/CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Municipal
Services
PO Box 97, Gamer, North Carolina 27529 [phone]
January 5, 2001

Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
f?V
1
' A 9 2M1
L _ANDS G?TtP
WATER-00,L i,Y S-,v?IAA`
Re: Pre-Construction Notification
Bridge #73 in Caldwell County (Harrisburg Drive Bridge)
State Project 8.2732301 010037
Municipal Engineering Project No. G97020
Dear Mr. Domey:
We are writing to advise you of a planned bridge replacement project within the
corporate limits of the City of Lenoir, North Carolina. The project owner is the City of
Lenoir. The project is however, receiving FWHA funding that is being administered by
NCDOT. This in turn, means that we are adhering to the planning, design and permitting
procedures typical to NCDOT owned bridge replacement projects. Part of this process
requires a.determination as to the project's classification as a Federal Categorical
Exclusion (CE). Please be aware that a CE document has therefore, been prepared in
accordance with NCDOT policies and per NEPA. The project has in turn, been
determined to be a Federal CE.
You are probably aware that because the project is being reviewed by NCDOT and
because the project was determined to be a Federal CE, we are not required to file a
Pre-Construction Notification Application with your agency so long as we expect the
project to remain in compliance with the conditions of NWP 23. We are however,
sending courtesy copies of the Pre-Construction Notification Application to the Division
along with two copies of the CE document and our statement that we expect the project
to remain in compliance with the conditions of NWP 23.
Although we are not required to seek your section's authorization of the project because
of its CE status, and because we expect the project to remain in compliance with the
conditions of NWP 23, we are enclosing the following items as a courtesy:
• seven (7) copies of the completed and signed Pre-Construction Notification
Application we forwarded to the Asheville Office of the Army Corps of Engineers;
CIVIUSANITARY ENGINEERS
Envneering
iCmpany, P.A.
PO Box 349, Boone, North Carolina 28807 [phone]

C:\PROJECPS\097020 CITY OF LENOIR BRIDOE\DWQ LTR 1, COURTESY NOTIFICATION
,
Mr. John Domey
January 5, 2000
Page 2
• seven (7) copies of a December 27, 2000 letter by the City of Lenoir Public
Works and Engineering Director that designates a representative authorized to
sign the Pre-Construction Notification Application;
• seven (7) copies each of four 8Y2" x 11" drawings that depict the specifics of the
proposed bridge replacement as well as, show the vehicular detour route; and
• two (2) copies of the Categorical Exclusion document for the proposed project.
Be advised that we filed the original Pre-Construction Notification Application and
supporting documentation with Army Corps of Engineers because the project is located
in a county with designated trout waters. We wish to point out however, that the
replacement project will occur at Lower Creek. To our knowledge, Lower Creek is not
designated as a trout stream.
We hope that the enclosed information will be useful to you. Please do not hesitate to
call us at [phone] if you have questions or desire additional information.
Sincerely,
MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES COMPANY, P.A.
Gregory K. Meshaw, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Len Hagaman, Jr.,
City of Lenoir Public Works and Engineering Director
C:\PROJECTS\097020 CrrY OF LENOIR BRIDOE\DWQ LTR 1, COURTESY NOTIFICATION
T31 p037
DWQ ID: _ CORPS ACTION ID:

JAN 92001

NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #)
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1. . NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2. APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3. COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FIELD
OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7) COPIES
SHOULD BE SENT TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, ATTN: JOHN DORNEY, 4401 REEDY
CREEK ROAD, RALEIGH, NC 27607. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.
1. OWNER'S NAME: City of Lenoir,
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 958
SUBDIVISION NAME
7.
CITY: Lenoir STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 28645-0958
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
Harrisburg Drive at Lower Creek
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) N/A (WORK) [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS, PHONE
NUMBER:
Owner's Representative: L.D. Hagaman, Jr. Dir. Of Public Works Agent for Owner: Gregory K. Meshaw,
PE, Municipal Engineering Services Company. P.A.. PO Box 97, Garner. NC 27529, [phone]
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Caldwell -NEAREST TOWN: Lenoir. NC
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ECT.)
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Lower Creek RIVER BASIN:
(a) IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER, (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES ? NO X IF YES, EXPLAIN:
(b) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES ? NO X
(c) IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF
COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8. (a) HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROJECT? YES ? NO X IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND
ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION):
(b) ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES ? NO X IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
(a) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
No jurisdictional wetlands have been observed within the planned project area.
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: _ EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER :
DRAINAGE_ TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
(b) (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: _ FT AFTER: _ FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): _ FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(b) (2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: X Bridge replacement
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (ATTACH PLANS; 81/2 BY 11 DRAWINGS ONLY)
Bridge replacement. Equipment Types: crane, excavator, backhoe, loader, etc.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Replace structurally deficient roadway bridge.
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS)
No jurisdictional wetlands have been observed within the planned project area.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY
LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: Note: The area has been visited by a private sector biologist who observed
no evidence of FWS listed protected species within the limits of the proposed Proiect area.
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA
WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED 4/8/98 &
10/14/98
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND? YES X NO ? (IF NO, GO TO 16)
(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT? YES ? NO X Project determined to be a Federal
Categorical Exclusion (CE). CE document prepared in accordance with NCDOT policies
as is a federally funded project administered by NCDOT and per NEPA.
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE YES ? NO ?
IF ANSWER 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OF FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:
(a) WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES, AND
PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38).
ALL STREAM (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON
THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OF 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET
OF THEIR EQUIVALENT.
(b) IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PRODUCT.
(c) IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
(d) ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
(e) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Commercial
(f) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
I. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM,
1< fkL4-J'U,? . Gregory K. Meshaw, PE
0 WN /AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).
• FROf•1 . HE'=i-'0-EOOHE PHO14E 140. . 0282652601 Dec. 2'c 2000 11:49k-1 P1

CITY OF LENOIR
Office of Director - Public Works and Engineering
Post Office Box 958
510-B career Circle
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
828-757-2160
828-757-2112(tax)
December 27, 2000
RE: Agent Authorization
Pre-Construction Notification Application
Bridge #73, Caldwell County (Harrisburg Drive Bridge)
NCDOT Municipal Bridge Project B-3719
Municipal Engineering Job # G-95028
To Whom It May Concern:
As authorized representative of the City of Lenoir, I am writing to advise that Mr.
Gregory K. Meshaw, PE, of Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA is
empowered to sign the Pre-Construction Notification Application for the above
identified bridge replacement project.
Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 828-757-2160 if there are questions.
NOIR
L am , Jr., vi or
Pub is Works a d Engin ering - City of Lenoir
/ldh
a
N
11
01-

F?
mi
U 1
m
c
0
J
J J V)
= 0 ??
r Q Y
rl 00 Z N Of O Q) ft.
Z
r O +
Cl- Y. w I- W
r a = Q > V Z 1
?I Y 4 _p O i Z U
N N W 0O m i N
r U- < 1 w V)
r 1
r 1
1 ,
1
1
1
n \`
c?
L?
zZ
O
-IG 7&0 y3MO7 ?
--- ------------- -- -
---- ---------?"--- --y--------i ---

1 ^

I -ICY

J

Z cn
I
CKJ
I
? U
O N w w W

O
.- m N p
w .-. ?? -
cr-
J J C O
ul U V . rp
N 2
p C

Ql) w
o Q
co
m z
? J
J
- - - O
? o ?

z ,-,,
w
J
J U
Q
L.?
i-? J PIZ
I !..
f-

Oid pby
QOQ0
o N N
I cl?
m
Jy `n Z
--- -- --- --- --- -- -
- --------------
-

G r-r
--- - ------- --- ----- ----
W W W W

`? W W
I
1
I / O
1
1

1
/ I

1

1 ' J
1

I m z
I I ? N Z
w^

<?
1

z
v
OO m

c i
i ?
CL o
? p
o

z V)
i
Y +
o a
Q w
Q
as
-1 J
av
1
i d

N ?
o
3 z

w w
F-
Ln m
( rn \?
?y;

F- 06
Z t\
W O V)
= I W
F J
CDJW C'? XW
Q L C:.J
Z_
7 LL.
CO .
C3 W
W
OC)
O O O Z =
LLJ
a

O
F-- W

-- - -
9-f w
°
o ? >,ooo I
,°' ?? oo J
o
_ o _
co U:
C-D
co c¢j c? o cr F_ L-Li
=o Of z?t? W 9-
CD m Q
O ¢ ?
w J M L- V)
O U a :Z: cn
W w of
Q '??^/-?
W mW N dU V
w? p ? To i X. V) J F-- 03
c?0 M I sQ Q
J o I y C! U- O
m V)
m
Q >
CD W O I U j
(¢ CD
ZW. Q ZX
90/ w o
i
J
el.
o ; T b901 .13 Q
j X19 i
o
U
X r C/LLJ
-)
W
cr:
FU \
V)
F- I W Z N
Z I? L- O F- 00
W L i
^ N ?- L J
J I Q j i.i ? X
O
M l _J I V a O G7 N J
W _ U -H
a0F i ZD w F-w CL
® cfl Z = V)
v+°\X/,
L`CDo xz
I\/? J
J Q ? W
Li V) CD \\/ X o
\\/ ° M
O
a_ Cif
c?
II II
LLJ
Q J
U
V) U
V)
O
? •::. ? ••,?.-;...:r,•' -I ?i / ?r.?•, moo.
•:
73,
?1q 1
FPS ?9
.jo
• • 4b N\?k wl Cy• 4pa? S\• .•?? -.r
? FAP ,
? ems. 1? O P ?:{i:? ?:•}:;:;{;fc••
4,5
o. O CL
A •
O. < 00 <?:
S\. 08r ^ W Z
z JO
?? n ?' ?m o rJ w
CL.
J CL
r4O"HWESiE ` ':') 19
o • W
S 1U1611,
1.) 91 -4S O'u'6J!A
L9* 76130
.08
13
/00
.4A Ot
61-
P
n ?
?P-'I ?, c' ?'• -I yon' o. ? o':'':::::', ; O v' ':??'
o m CJ? ..
;oi
Oil
5 JAN 9 2001
City of Lenoir
Bridge No. 73 on Harrisburg Drive over Lower Creek
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project MABRZ-1115(10)
State Project 8.2732301
T.I.P. No. B-3719
0 ? 0037
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 1998
Document Prepared by Municipal Engineering Services Company, P.A.
K SE.AI-
Grego . Meshaw, P.E.
Project Manager 12345
•. Y KE 10
!(II(. 19Fb
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
-A2'? 4??' x5-0?-x
aAames A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., U 't ead
Consulting Engineering Unit
1
T as R. Kendig, AICP
Project Planning Engineer
f ?
City of Lenoir
Bridge No. 73 on Harrisburg Drive over Lower Creek
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project MABRZ-1115(10)
State Project 8.2732301
T.I.P. No. B-3719
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED
CCA
'
013006 ZC
DATE William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
J 5 0 q't 0 j"
0.31 1/t 1?
DATE ticholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
r ? t
City of Lenoir
Bridge No. 73 on Harrisburg Drive over Lower Creek
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project MABRZ-1115(10)
State Project 8.2732301
T.I.P. No. B-3719
Bridge No. 73 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location
of the bridge is shown in Figure 1. No considerable impacts to the environment are
anticipated during this project. This bridge replacement is classified as a Federal
Categorical Exclusion.
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's (NCDOT's) Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts associated with the replacement of Bridge No.
73.
2. The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined
during final design of the replacement structure. Direct discharge into the
creek will be avoided to the extent practicable.
3. Necessary coordination regarding any floodway revisions will take place with
local officials and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The existing structure (Bridge No. 73) will be replaced on existing alignment with a single
span bridge having a clear roadway width of 9 meters (30 ft.) and a length of
1

approximately 15 meters to 18 meters (50 ft. to 60 ft.). The height of the bridge rails will
be no less than 137 centimeters (54 inches) in accordance with American Association of
State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) minimum guidelines for bridge rails
adjacent to bicycle lanes.
The clear roadway width of 9 meters (30 ft.) includes a 7 meter (22 ft.) vehicular travel
way and 1.2 meter (4 ft.) shoulders on each side of the travel way. This configuration is
consistent with the design criteria shown in NCDOT's Roadway Design Manual for new
and reconstructed bridges located along two-lane, two-way traffic collector systems that
have a design speed less than 64 km/h (40 mph) and a design year ADT of 2,001 to 4,000
vehicles per day.
Each new bridge approach will be constructed over a distance of approximately 15 meters
(50 feet). The work will involve constructing a transition section between the existing 8.2
meter (27 ft.) wide pavement and the 9 meter (30 ft.) bridge deck.
The elevation of the new structure deck will be approximately the same as the elevation of
the existing structure. If the elevation of the new structure were increased, the properties
immediately adjacent to the approaches would be impacted. The possible impacts include
limited access onto the properties from Harrisburg Drive or even loss of access from
Harrisburg Drive. It is also conceivable that loss of property could occur due to
encroachment of the project outside of the existing right-of-way.
Since the height of the new structure will approximate that of the existing deck, the affect
of the new structure on the 100-year flood stage and stages associated with other return
period events must be considered. Examination of the August 16, 1988 Flood Insurance
Rate Map published by FEMA shows the base flood elevation (National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929) for the 100-year flood to be approximately 329 meters (1080 feet).
Examination of the 1956 Lenoir Quadrangle published by the United States Geological
Survey indicates the elevation of the land in the immediate vicinity of the bridge to be
2
f ?
M
approximately 329 meters (1080 feet). Since the elevation of the existing bridge deck is
elevated only slightly above the nearby banks, it is reasonable to assume that, at a
minimum, the existing decking support structure would be subject to submergence during
a 100-year flood. Examination of the Flood Profiles for Lower Creek published by FEMA
confirms that the 100-year flood submerges the support structure. It also shows that the
100-year flood stage falls less than one foot below the bridge deck.
The new bridge should not cause the elevation of the 100-year flood stage or stages
associated with other return period events to increase because the new 15 to 18 meter (50
to 60 foot) long span will provide a wider opening under the bridge. The resulting cross
sectional area will accommodate higher flows during flood events than the cross sectional
area beneath the existing structure. Most of the increase in cross sectional area will result
from the end bents being spaced further apart. The placement of the bents will be such
that neither bent should be located within the waterline during average stream flow
conditions. This will be an improvement over current conditions as one of the existing end
bents is located within the waterline during normal stream flow conditions. Despite the
greater cross sectional area and the wider bent spacing however, it is still possible that
nearby structures that have historically been flooded during 100-year events and/or other
return period events will continue to be flooded. during future events of the same
magnitude.
During the period of construction, traffic that would normally use Bridge No. 73 to cross
Lower Creek will be rerouted to Virginia Street. Harrisburg Drive and points north will
then be accessed from Virginia Street by use of Fairview Drive and Overlook Road. This
detour route is depicted by Figure 9. The length of the detour shown by the figure is
approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles). The closure of the bridge will also add
approximately 7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles) to school bus routes according to Caldwell
County School Transportation Director.
3
r ?
The estimated cost of this project, based on current prices, is $338,000. This amount
includes $14,500 for right-of-way, easements and utilities, and $323,500 for construction.
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 1998 - 2004 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) is $380,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The bridge to be replaced is located on Harrisburg Drive in the City of Lenoir, Caldwell
County, N.C., approximately 76 meters (250 feet) southeast of the Harrisburg Drive - NC
18 (Morganton Boulevard) intersection. The surrounding area is urbanized. The study
corridor is located within the floodplain of Lower Creek and dominated by commercial
development with narrow bands of riparian forest adjacent to Lower Creek. A residential
area is located to the south and west of the existing bridge.
In the vicinity of the bridge, Harrisburg Drive has a 8.2 meter (27 foot) paved roadway
width (shoulder to shoulder). The bridge deck width is 8.5 meters (28 feet), from face of
curb to face of curb. The grade of the approaching roadway and bridge is relatively flat.
Harrisburg Drive extends north of the bridge approximately 61 meters (200 feet), to the
intersection of NC 18. The alignment of the southern approach is straight for
approximately 61 meters (200 feet).
Bridge No. 73 was constructed in 1950 and is currently in poor condition. The existing
bridge, according to the 1994 Municipal Bridge Inspection Report, has a sufficiency rating
of 29.6 out of a possible 100.0 and is structurally deficient. Bridge No. 73 is currently
posted for a weight limit of 9,979 kilograms (11 tons) for single vehicles and 13,608
kilograms (15 tons) for trucks tractor semi-trailers (TTST). The overall length of the
single span structure is 12.42 meters (40.75 ft.) and the clear roadway width is 8.53
meters (28 ft.). The superstructure consists of an asphalt concrete floor on corrugated
metal decking on steel I-beams and steel rails. The end bent substructure consists of
timber caps on timber piles with timber breast walls and wingwalls.
4
Both a water line and sewer line are attached to the existing bridge. The lines are of
ductile iron construction and are attached to the bridge by "tie rods" which are connected
to the deck beams. The water line is located beneath and parallels the eastern upstream
edge of the bridge while the sewer line is located beneath and parallels the western
downstream edge. The water line is located approximately 0.3 to 0.6 meters (1 to 2 feet)
beneath the bottom of the deck beams while the sewer line is 1.2 to 1.5 meters (4 to 5
feet) beneath the beams. The sewer line can be displaced laterally as the attachment
assemblies provide little lateral support. Overhead power and telephone lines also cross
the stream immediately adjacent to the downstream edge of the bridge.
The 1987 City of Lenoir Thoroughfare Plan designates Harrisburg Road as a Minor
Thoroughfare. The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 56 km/h (35 mph). A 1995
traffic count at Harrisburg Drive measured near the bridge indicated a traffic volume of
1500 vehicles per day (VPD), according to the City of Lenoir Planning Director.
Preliminary projections by the Statewide Planning Branch of the Department of
Transportation places the traffic volume at 1600 VPD for 1997 and 2500 VPD for 2025.
There are four school buses that travel across this bridge twice each school day. Also,
there have been several traffic accidents in the vicinity of the bridge within the last year.
Examination of the accident reports maintained by the City of Lenoir Police Department
indicates that none of the accidents occurred on the bridge. The reports also do not point
to the horizontal alignment, vertical alignment or width of the bridge as being factors
contributing to the causes of the accidents.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A "do nothing" alternative was considered for this project; however, this alternative will
not correct the problem, and will eventually result in closure of the bridge due to its poor
condition. Permanent closure of the bridge was eliminated from study after it was
5
! 1
determined that Harrisburg Drive provides a vital role in movement of traffic between NC
18 and the residences, businesses and industries located south of Lower Creek. The
access that Harrisburg Drive provides between NC 18 and points south of Lower Creek is
of particular importance to traffic movement at the end of the day shifts for nearby
furniture factories. Additionally, the closure of the bridge would result in an
approximately detour of 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) for vehicles traveling between the NC
18-Harrisburg Drive intersection and that portion of Harrisburg Drive immediately south
of the bridge. Closure would also add approximately 7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles) to school
bus routes according to the Caldwell County School Transportation Director.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing bridge was eliminated from consideration due to the
deteriorated condition of the existing bridge.
After a cursory review, it was determined that constructing a new bridge either
downstream (west) or upstream (east) of the existing site would not be feasible. A point
along Lower Creek approximately 137 meters (450 feet) west of the existing bridge and
one approximately 365 meters (1200 feet) east of the bridge were deemed the most
appropriate locations for a new "off-site" bridge. Construction of a new bridge 137
meters (450 feet) west of the existing location would most likely involve acquiring several
parcels of land (including dwellings) and right-of-way through an industrial property.
Also, approximately 457 meters (1500 feet) of new road would have to be constructed to
accommodate this shift to the west. Constructing the new bridge east of the existing
location would involve obtaining right-of-way through an industrial property and
constructing approximately 610 meters (2,000 feet) of new road to accommodate this 365
meter (1200 feet) shift. Given the local impact and perceived cost, it was determined that
shifting the bridge location either east or west did not merit further consideration.
Replacing the existing bridge on the existing alignment while using a temporary on-site
detour was not considered a feasible alternative because temporary and permanent
structures and approaches could not be constructed within the existing right-of-way.
6

Additional land would need to be acquired and commercial establishments demolished to
accommodate such work.
The preferred alternative involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment. During the period of construction, traffic that would normally use Bridge No.
73 to cross Lower Creek will be rerouted to Virginia Street. Harrisburg Drive and points
north will then be accessed from Virginia Street by use of Fairview Drive and Overlook
Road as shown by Figure 9. Again, the closure of the bridge crossing during construction
will necessitate a detour of approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) for vehicles traveling
between the NC 18-Harrisburg Drive intersection and that portion of Harrisburg Drive
immediately south of the bridge. Closure will also add approximately 7.2 kilometers (4.5
miles) to school bus routes. Additionally, the emergency response time by the City of
Lenoir Police Department and other emergency services will be lengthened by
approximately two minutes within the Norwood Street, Overlook Drive and Harrisburg
Drive area according to the City of Lenoir Police Department.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the recommended alternative, based on current 1998 dollars is
shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated Costs for Bridge Replacement Project.
Task/Item Recommended
Alternative Cost
Existing Structure Removal $ 16,000
New Structure $180,000
Roadway Approaches $ 20,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 64,500
Engineering and Contingencies $ 43,000
Right-of-Way, Easements and Utilities $ 14,500
Total $338,000
7

VI. RECOMMENDED H PROVEMENTS
The existing structure (Bridge No. 73) will be replaced on existing alignment with a single
span bridge having a clear roadway width of. 9 meters (30 ft.) and a length of
approximately 15 meters to 18 meters (50 ft. to 60 ft.). The clear roadway width of 9
meters (30 ft.) includes a 7 meter (22 ft.) vehicular travel way and 1.2 meter (4 ft.)
shoulders on each side of the travel way. The height of the bridge rails will be no less than
137 centimeters (54 inches) in accordance with AASHTO minimum guidelines for bridge
rails adjacent to bicycle lanes.
New bridge approaches will be constructed over a distance of approximately 50 feet each.
The work will involve constructing each approach so that it transitions from a width of 8.2
meters (27 ft.) to a width of 9 meters (30 ft.) at the bridge. The elevation of the new
structure deck will be approximately the same as the elevation of the existing structure.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the site on April 1, 1998. After gathering documented information and
field data from site assessments, a Natural Systems Report was prepared. The following
section is an overview of that report.
Study Corridor
The study corridor for this investigation covered an area that extended approximately 365
meters (1,200 feet) both upstream and downstream of the existing Harrisburg Drive
bridge. The northern, "lateral" limit of the study corridor was defined by NC 18 while the
southern limit was set at a distance of approximately 122 meters (400 feet) from Lower
Creek.
8

Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute
quadrangle topographic mapping (Lenoir, NC), Natural Resources Conservation Service
soils mapping (USDA, 1989), and recent aerial photography (scale 1:2400) furnished by
NCDOT.
The entire study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for significant features. The
study corridor is approximately 732 m (2400 ft) in length and 61 m (200 ft) wide.
However, impact calculations are based on the right-of-way width of 24.4 m (80 ft); actual
impacts will be limited to construction limits and will be less than those shown for right-
of-way. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected
species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Lower Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional
areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by terrestrial
wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive
documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992,
Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was
derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DEM 1993, DEM 1994). Quantitative
sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listing of federal
9
protected species with ranges which extend into Caldwell County was obtained prior to
initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of
federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the western portion of the Piedmont physiographic
province of North Carolina. Topography is characterized by a wide, nearly level
floodplain and gently sloping to strongly sloping terraces along streams. Elevations in the
study corridor are approximately 328 m (1077 ft) (USGS Lenoir, NC quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor are dominated by urban land complexes. These soils have been
altered from their original condition to a point where they are too intricately mixed to map
separately (USDA, 1989). No hydric soils or soils containing inclusions of hydric soils are
found in the study corridor. Specific mapping units found in the study corridor follow.
Table 2. Soils found in the study corridor.
Mapping Unit Symbol Mapping Unit Percent Slope
UaB Urban land complex; occasionally flooded N/A
CfD2 Cecil-urban land complex, eroded 8-15
UmC Urban land-masada complex 2-15
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 030831 of the Catawba River Basin (DEM
1989). Lower Creek is crossed by the study corridor as it flows through the study area
from east to west. Lower Creek has been assigned a Stream Index Number of 11-39-(0.5)
10
by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
Stream Characteristics
Lower Creek originates in eastern Caldwell County and flows to the southwest to its
convergence with the Catawba River near Lake Rhodhiss. In the study corridor, Lower
Creek is approximately 9 m (30 ft) wide and ranges in depth from 0.3 m (1 ft) near the
banks to 1 m (4 ft) in the main channel. Severe turbidity was observed during the site visit
and much of the natural substrate was covered with a fine layer of silt. The substrate is
composed of a mixture of sand and cobble with large rocks interspersed with debris.
Stream banks are extremely steep and have been fortified with riprap to slow erosion.
Streambank vegetation includes a mixture of opportunistic shrubs and herbs, as well as
riparian species. Riparian vegetation becomes more prominent upstream and downstream
of the existing structure.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing
or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best
usage classification of C (9/1/74) has been assigned to Lower Creek from its source to
SR 1143 in Caldwell County (DWQ, 1998). The designation C denotes that appropriate
uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an
infrequent or incidental basis.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I, or WS H
Waters occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the study corridor. Lower Creek is not designated
as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a national Wild and
Scenic River.
There is one major permitted point source discharger downstream from the study corridor
(DEM 1989). The Lenoir-Lower Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES
11
#NC0023981), which is located on Lower Creek less than 1.6 km (1.0 mi) downstream
from the study corridor, has a permitted flow of 4.08 MGD.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in
water quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates
(DEM, 1989). Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of
water quality. There are BMAN stations located upstream, downstream and within the
study corridor on Lower Creek. BMAN data collected from Zacks Creek 3.2 km (2 mi)
upstream of the project corridor, at US 18A, had a bioclassification of fair in 1987. Data
collected from Lower Creek in the study corridor also had a bioclassification of fair in
1987. A BMAN site located approximately 24.1 km (15 mi) downstream of the project
corridor on Lower Creek near SR 1501 in the city - of Morganton received a
bioclassification of fair from 1984 to 1992, when it was last sampled (DEM, 1994).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be
anticipated from construction-related activities. Impacts can be minimized by using best
management practices (BWs) during construction, including implementation of stringent
erosion and sedimentation control measures, and avoidance of instream activity to the
greatest extent practical.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed
improvements. The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present
flow, thereby protecting stream integrity. Additionally, the existing bridge will be
replaced with a single span structure; consequently, no bents will be constructed in the
stream. Therefore, only minimal secondary construction impacts are possible. Such
impacts should be temporary and occur over short periods of time.
12
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Two general plant communities were identified within the study corridor. These areas
have been greatly altered from natural conditions, are highly disturbed, and do not
represent mature natural communities. These communities, Urban/Disturbed Areas and
Riparian Forest, are described below.
Urban/Disturbed Areas
This community includes roadside shoulders, maintained lawns, and waste areas in the
Lower Creek floodplain. Typical species found include dandelion (Taraxacum officinale),
red clover (Trifolium pratense), rabbit foot clover (T. arvense), henbit (Lamium
amplexicaule), plantain (Plantago virginica), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), sibara
(Sibara virginica), broomsedge (Andropogon virginica), periwinkle (Vinca minor),
heronsbill (Erodium cicutarium), daylily (Hemerocallis fulva), vetch (Vicia angustifolia),
wild onion (Allium sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), foxtail grass (Setaria
sp.), violet (Viola papilionacea), fescue (Festuca sp.) and other grasses.
The number and diversity of species observed increased with decreased intervals of
maintenance. Fast growing opportunistic and escaped ornamental trees are found in areas
where maintenance, such as mowing, is not practical. Trees, such as pear (Pyrus sp.),
redbud (Cercis canadensis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and scrub pine (Pines
virginiana) were seen along the wooded margins of this community.
Riparian Forest
This community is limited to the banks of Lower Creek and is highly altered from its
natural state and includes many species which are also found in the urban/disturbed areas.
The canopy in this community is composed of a mixture of hardwoods that includes
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), ash (Fraxinus americana),
13
red maple (Acer rubrum), and box elder (Acer negundo). Shrubs and saplings such as
willow oak (Quercus phellos), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), grape (Vitis sp.), blackberry
(Rubus sp.), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) are also found in this community.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within the proposed alignment. Construction is not expected to result
in substantial adverse impacts to plant communities in the study corridor. A summary of
potential plant community impacts is presented below.
Table 3: Estimated plant community impacts.
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
hectares (acres)
Urban/Disturbed Areas 0.18 (0.45)
Riparian Forest 0.02 (0.05)
TOTAL: 0.20 (0.50)
Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of in-place bridge replacements are
restricted to narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway
approach segments. Approximately 90 percent of the study corridor occurs in
urban/disturbed areas and much of this area is currently developed. The proposed off-site
detour would utilize existing roadways and would not have any impact on plant
communities. It is anticipated that construction of the subject project will not have any
permanent impacts on plant communities.
14
WILDLIFE
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor is highly urbanized and disturbed. However, the presence of a
forested community along Lower Creek provides cover for wildlife known to forage in
urban areas. Other species may utilize the stream and surrounding riparian forest as a
migration route between forested areas up and downstream of the study corridor.
Amphibians such as Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), spring peeper (Pseudacris
crucifer), and northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) can commonly be observed in these
types of habitats.
Birds observed in the area include American robin (Turdus migratorius), barn swallow
(Hirundo rustica), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis). Other likely species expected include birds with similar habitat
tolerances, including blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern mockingbird (Mimis
polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), American crow (Corvu.s brachyrhyncho.s), and
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).
No signs of mammals were observed during the site visit. It is likely that mammals such as
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and various rodents may utilize the
riparian habitat for cover or as a travel corridor.
Aquatic
Fish expected to inhabit the study corridor include species such as common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), margined madtom (Noturus
insignis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi)
(Menhinick 1991). There are no anadromous fish within this system. No aquatic
macroinvertebrates were observed in the stream. Stream bank surveys did not yield any
15
shell fragments which could indicate freshwater mussel presence at the bridge site.
Limited surveys did not result in documenting salamanders in the stream. The stream
provides suitable habitat for a few semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians such as northern
watersnake (Nerodia sipedon), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and green frog
(Rana clamitans).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial or
aquatic animal populations. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be
avoided by bridging the system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition,
temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction
will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface eaters within the embankments of Lower Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States"
(33 CFR 328.3). The waters of Lower Creek within the study corridor exhibit
characteristics of riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded
waters (R3UBH). Approximately 732 m2 (7875 ft2) of Lower Creek occur within the
right-of-way; the maximum stream length crossed by the right-of-way is approximately
24.4 m (80 ft). Bridge replacement should negate the need for direct encroachment into
open waters (R2UBH) of Lower Creek.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
16
and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the
growing season (DOA 1987). Based on the three parameter approach, no jurisdictional
wetlands occur within the study corridor.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) 423 [33 CFR
330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact.
DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use
of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not
suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are
expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE
District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is
utilized.
Caldwell County is one of twenty-five North Carolina counties designated as having trout
waters. The COE has implemented discretionary authority to override certain nationwide
and general permits which authorize the discharge of dredged or fill materials into North
Carolina designated trout waters. Generally, projects. involving trout stream infringement,
including all waters upstream to and above their headwaters, can be processed under
either General Bridge Permit 031 or Individual Permit. Projects in trout water counties
require review by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Neither Lower Creek nor the
receiving waters of the Catawba River are designated by the Wildlife Resources
Commission as Public Mountain Trout Waters.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of
project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts.
17
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially
proposed for such listing (P), are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Federal protected species listed for Caldwell
County (May 14, 1998 FWS list) are listed below.
Table 4: Federally protected species for Caldwell County.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Biological
Status Conclusion
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered No Effect
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened No Effect
Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis naniflora Threatened No Effect
heartleaf
Note: Endangered: a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Threatened: a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Spruce-fir moss spiders inhabit moss mats that grow on rocks and boulders in shaded
conditions under high-altitude spruce-fir forests in the southern Appalachian Mountains.
This species has only been found at or above 1615 m (5300 ft) elevation. Spruce-fir moss
spiders are extremely vulnerable to desiccation, and are adapted to the high rainfall of
these mountains and the moist environment provided by the mosses.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect. Elevations found within the study corridor
[278 m (912 ft)] are substantially lower than 1615 in (5300 ft), which is the
reported lowest elevation for this species. Furthermore it is unlikely that the
urban/disturbed habitats found in the study corridor would support suitable habitat
18
for this species. The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
records of this species in the vicinity of the study corridor. Construction of the
subject project will not result in any impacts to the spruce-fir moss spider.
Heller's Blazing Star is an erect herbaceous perennial with glabrous stems that reaches
heights of 10 to 50 cm (4 to 20 in). The leaves are simple, linear to lanceolate, alternate,
and arranged spirally along the stem. Leaf size is variable, with a gradual decrease in size
up the stem. The inflorescence consists of compact heads arranged in a raceme-like
fashion along the stem. The heads typically contain seven to ten tubular florets which may
be purple to lavender in color. Heller's blazing star is distinguished from related species by
shorter height and relatively short pappus (modified calyx lobes) half or less the length of
the corolla tube. Flowers are produced from July to September, with fruiting occurring
from August to October (Massey et al. 1983).
Heller's blazing star has been found on rocky summits at high elevations [1070-1900 m
(3510-6232 ft)] in the mountains of western North Carolina. This species typically is
found in full sun growing in shallow, acidic soils on or around granitic outcrops, ledges,
and cliff faces (Kral 1983, Massey et al. 1983).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect. Elevations found within the study corridor
[278 in (912 ft)] are substantially lower than 1070 m (3510 ft), which is the
reported lowest elevation for this species. Rocky outcrops and shallow acidic soils
that support suitable habit for Heller's blazing star are not found in the vicinity of
the study corridor. The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows
no records of this species in the vicinity of the study corridor. Construction of the
subject project will not result in any impacts to Heller's blazing star.
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf is a small, spicy-smelling, rhizomatous perennial herb with
long-stalked leaves and flowers. Leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, leathery, and dark
green above paler below; the upper leaf surface is often patterned with pale green
19
reticulate mottles. The leaves grow about 6 cm (2.4 in) long and form a dense, spreading
rosette. The flowers, which appear in April and May, are solitary, flask-shaped, fleshy and
firm, and have three triangular lobes. This species differs from related species by having
smaller flowers with calyx tubes that narrow distally rather than broaden (Kral 1983).
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found in acidic, sandy loam on north-facing wooded slopes of
ravines in the Piedmont of North and South Carolina. This species typically occurs in oak-
hickory-pine forest where hydrologic conditions range from moist to relatively dry, but
also may be present in adjacent pastured woodland. This species typically is found in
moist duff at the base of trees or mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) (Kral 1983). In North
Carolina, dwarf-flowered heartleaf is known from a few southwestern Piedmont counties
(Amoroso and Weakley 1995).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect. The subject is located in a highly urbanized
portion of the western Piedmont of North Carolina. While north-facing slopes do
occur in the study area, these slopes do not provide suitable habitat for the dwarf-
flowered heartleaf due to the highly altered state of the communities. Gas stations
located on both north-facing slopes have parking areas that abut Lower Creek. In
addition, species known to associate with the dwarf-flowered heartleaf were not
observed in the study area. The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
shows no record of this species in the vicinity of the study corridor. Construction
of the subject project will not result in any impacts to the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species
The May 14, 1998 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the
ESA for the species listed. Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state
list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited
protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and
the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G. S. 106-202 et seq.).
20
The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats contains no records of FSC species
in the vicinity of the study corridor. Surveys for FSC species were not conducted nor
were any species observed. Table 5 lists the FSC for Caldwell County.
Table 5: Federal Species of Concern for Caldwell County.
Common Name Scientific Name N.C. Potential
Status Habitat
Alleghany woodrat
Margarita River skimmer
Edmund's snaketail dragonfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
fraser fir
mountain bittercress
bent avens
butternut
Gray's lily
sweet pinesap
riparian vervain
a liverwort
a liverwort
Neotoma magister SC No
Macromia margarita SR Yes
Ophiogomphus edmundo SR Yes
Speyeria dana SR No
Abies fraseri C No
Cardamine clematitis C No
Geum geniculatum T No
Juglans cinerea N/A No
Lillum grayi T-SC No
Monotropsis odorata C No
Verbena riparia C Yes
Bazzania nudicaulis C No
Plagiochila sullivantii var. C No
sullivantii
Notes:
SC: any species which is determined to require monitoring but which may be taken
under regulations adopted under the provisions of this Article.
SR: any species not listed as E, T, or SC but which exists in small numbers and has
been determined to need monitoring.
C: species which are very rare in N.C. and if current land use trends continue, are
likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened.
T: any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
21
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the Natural Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed or permitted project has an effect on a property
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
Documentation regarding the planned project was submitted to the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) along with a request for comments on the project to comply
with the requirements of Section 106. Comments and a request for additional information
were received from the Deputy SHPO in a letter dated April 29, 1998. A copy of this
letter has been made part of the Appendix.
The Deputy SHPO noted that a structure located at 1248 Harrisburg Drive had been
placed on the State study list during 1988. The Deputy SHPO therefore, requested that
the proximity of structure to the bridge be made known to the SHPO. Subsequent
investigation revealed that the structure is located approximately 1.8 km (1.1 miles) from
the bridge. The Deputy SHPO subsequently stated in an October 26, 1998 letter that his
department has no further comment based upon notification of the location of the
structure.
The other comments by the Deputy SHPO indicates that it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project. Therefore, no archaeological investigation
will be conducted for this project.
22
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 73 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human
or natural environment. The project will have an overall positive impact due to the
improvement of poor bridge conditions.
The proposed project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No substantial change in existing land use is expected to result from
replacement of Bridge No. 73. It is anticipated that all improvements will occur within
existing NCDOT right-of-way.
This project will not have an adverse effect on any prime, important or unique farmlands;
therefore, it is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be
impacted.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected as a result of this project. This project is an
air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions
analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality; therefore, no additional reports are
required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however, this
increase will be temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There will be no
notable change in traffic volumes after this project is complete. Therefore, this project will
have no adverse effect on existing noise levels. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise as set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional
reports are required.
23
The proposed project will provide a wider cross sectional area beneath the new bridge
than is currently present below the existing bridge. This wider area will accommodate
higher flows during flood events; therefore, the replacement bridge should not cause the
elevation of the 100-year flood stage or stages associated with other return period events
to increase. It is still possible however, that nearby structures that have historically been
flooded during 100-year events and/or other return period events will continue to be
flooded during future events of the same magnitude.
This project is considered to be a Federal Categorical Exclusion due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
24
X. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina National Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
NC. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
http://h2o.ehnr.state,nc.us/strmclass/hydro/catawba.html [September 1, 1998]
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1994. Draft Basinwide Assessment
Report Support Document: Catawba River Basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 234 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Harp, J.M. 1992. A Status Survey for the Spruce-Fir Moss Spider, Microhexura
montivaga Crosby and Bishop (Araneae, Dipluridae). Contract Number 91-SPID-
01, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 14 pp.
25
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related
Vascular Plants of the South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Massey, JR., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and
Illustrated Guide to the Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of the
Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia. Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 218 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Soil Survey of Caldwell County, North
Carolina. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 175 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
26
CALDWELL COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
V o0e,
r

/
i
i
•Ij
,I
I
. C
•II
,Sewage
.............
N0.73
---- 1

\ 1, ? ?\v
.34
:e 1
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
TIP PROJECT NO. B-3719
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NO. 73 ON
HARRISBURG DRIVE OVER LOWER CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY, NC
SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1

ALEXF
64 -4
lil tie Rne, i
mdle,sr'l let

L ` yst
j
4
4

_i•? p 1 fir. ,? tp ? i ?ti :.,? b i / ? ? ? ? !p ? ? ,
i. 8 't 1 y ye C: I

K
F
t+
t
T ?a? T
NT ?s??l! 4
>
l J A '?'
C) -E
I ? C)
< to
o =+o
C) m?mG-) 0
OC) a=o-
rr M (n Q r
W z
00 c
p z n 0 P
n
D? ' >f
;a cf)
ca C7 '? cD CD O
CC Q -i-
Q
U'
m
'
Y ,
(

M
0
--i
O
F rn o

z rn
D m z , -

Z
rn :-4
w
r<aA >'
s.
77

`?
,4 xG 1

a?

r

Hb
?
•
T*wMnSateyr,,,,? r y,
r.
«.p.4? ,? de.?y -`-..
?`I'
?'` r. h sa
irY
- ?r, " '? wie3a,....Lyµ Fai

>
t
N
C 18

G ?'
s . V4- U-4

gip' III I I ?
4WD
a.
T ..a
1. L r ?

LOWER CREEK ;;,.ca
LEGEND
I

? SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED
0"i" BY 100-YEA R FLOOD
ZONE A No base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of
ponding); base flood elevations determined.
ZONE A0 Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet
flow on sloping terrain); average depths
determined. For areas of alluvial fan flood.
ing, velocities also determined.
ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by
Federal Flood protection system under
construction; no base elevations determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); no base flood elevations deter.
mined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); base flood elevations determined.
s
;ar ;°
; FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
.
-
OTHER FLO OD AREAS
D ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of
100-year flood with average depths
of less than 1 foot or with drainage
areas less than 1 square mile; and
areas protected by levees from 100-
year flood.
OTHER AREAS
D ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-
year flood plain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are
undetermined.

Flood Boundary
- - Floodway Boundary
- Z
D B
d
- one
oun
ary
I
'
"
? Boundary Dividing Special Flood

MR Hazard Zones, and Boundary
. Dividing Areas of Different
Coastal Base Flood Elevations
Within Special Flood Hazard
Zones.
513 Base Flood Elevation Line; Ele-
vation in Feet*
?? Cross Section Line
(EL 987) Base Flood Elevation in Feet
Where Uniform Within Zone"
RM7X Elevation Reference Mark
•Ml.5 River Mile
*Referenced to the Nation al Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch

TIP PROJECT NO. B-3719
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NO. 73 ON
HARRISBURG DRIVE OVER LOWER CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY, NC
100-YR FLOOD MAP I FIGURE 3
F 4. Caldwcll l'r?rlnty - Brid-c No 7; ran I Lin sbm- Uii?.??
Bridgc No. 7 ? looking soullm;ird on I larrisburg Drirc
Bridge No 73 looking soii(lm lyd on Hanisburg Drive slow, upsiremn side ofbridge
FIGVRE'5: Caldwell COLIII y - Bridge No. 73 on I larrisbur" Drive over Lower Creel.

a

?+a,. ? - lry

+t r
?

Bridge No. 73 looking northward on Harrisburg Drive

Bridge No. 73 looking northward on Harrisburg Drive along doN%nstream side ol'bridge

Of 6: Caldwell COLI[It)' - l3rid,-?c Nk) 7on I ku rig ui p l Avo (s er 1. mci i Vk
~

14-11

eo. k?. :y fit" _ i

,nct c Nu_ 1_, luul:iu across bricl c in nutpick (1 m:clion to\?arcis npslrcaili sick Ul bil ?l
Bndgc No 71 looking at northern abutinciiI front ups Ucani side of briclgc
11;uliSt )kII ? I)ri?c %cI

. i look IUL? ;II lloitll?. i?i1 :I1 lll1.1, 11 irkillI tkm IISI I C;I I II "Ill,- ;?I hull

p
Brid-t: No 7, Iuukul, :u suut will abllllucnl holll dm nsur;uu ;Ids ul? bnd??
RE 8: C<il?l???II (_`ounly Bridge No 73) un 11,irritil?ur? I)ri?:'?? t??cr l.?>>??r f i(VI

TAQ.
1
ti
Hi idgk: No 7, looking upslrr;uu
Bi idgc No 73 lookin- dovv nslr?:;un
k+.?111SW1t;7R5 YL'8.:i.'teu:d:*..,cs?+ar?.?s?•, .. _cvw.???. _.._-..--_ y e.

/? 11 : \?Wglp,..... A II i ?f0\r 'BL nCw.\vu [a%°o-ts ,( \\ vFr y? ° ? o/
I / W X t
v `' O R•_ ? /Y/ EL°ER t CH m =
• I? a ?/ U ???, N'MO?O ?O PPEP NOSP a ; rV "O II? P /
?CV1 a
1303 ?? NO`Lr
. . ° `PL "4 8\,YEADOW ST O
OP ° ?< 1
p 210. VNITfD :y C `f
9 LENOI?LE['E CN Of C..I i F ; M.L SP`t P? °O <? ! i
a? H 9 f \ N.3 C ST FRANCI3 ASSISI 2 NO F //?1)
11T C ~/ 0E? i Z F „? °.CATHOLIC [H m
DP y U -?? ST b
STEVHE 9 St i '?` IB / `o
LVTNEwAN St V (. ' o Nt O•vEN POwT
?O, I / \ \ CH. fit, • ,NP`f' t COLLEGE Y \
O I POPt AR wE? 1 (y` Y . C0.LEGt J °Vt ; M Owt /
I .EhOPi O 7E mil` tr? o AVE WT i o• O • w 321
?\O ELE .9 ' i ff t CN P N 1 O PVE A ./?
;?aQ mL-, J O TOR\oi.. ^SCH. i 'Tlti ?O` _ 'Oy \ OP
toC
I'n\?\ E'X?O P? "O
J rJ CFC V (`•G°`LCOE o? P? ! EAST n I \OJV (•1?^ Y.? Tf 90 .
A
EST 4r'CP ° fOVTM f St ??/ O
\L[NOII KNOII a P PPE ti O
BAI O NP VI I.4 .
Of GOD f
1146 IK ('Y
U O S4 • O V CHAPEL O ;' F4
1310 O°CU ^ O f iZ CIA HALL OOENO PENNTON 9 VE LVV / OYm H\O
7 aUS ??/^\\ 1 NS wITT 9P t i/ d /? '., q
_ s J s ?NE
Bf SSES ?? R \\
RNNARDT ? ',"?O'?E ?' /: l III.
) O I1
b0P 1300 ••ol OjO OEP° O/ MO \ MDNtiPHI OH - 1/ l? T ?lu
_ o
1303 0 • J J?i ? c'. __ - /? 1', o
o '
C. ( j''J 3 / mZFO
x Ej Z /' ` 1. _ I
•ON SRO,
' ^ \ rE mN-1
E" . o
tH BERNHARDT NO < >M? s t' CA ZP
w BRIDGE #73
Q• 1 q w R
a 9 \_ till DRJL_°/ f I _
OLLIE
Q OY L O AIDGE iVRh { j O
4YP CO I I (, O
9 BLVD i` " ? Ht: SP`,
A' ; 0 ,qqa {
8 ` BRITISH WOODS
O
NA r ,* ` p
IaGANTo" 114
HARRISS V RD Lf,
RAPT.
' CHAPEL
i
/ DnrvE f
1 ' N'PP11itlURC
0
\ I
r .?l
a q `;
P" 1 > m< IH " J
f F"?f im St O \ 9 OEt IY .
f MILLER HILA p ?OJOO O WNITNEL , WH
Y' O O O PENTf COS TAL
r CH. Of CHRIST `COTL f ??01 \.?` NtE R" HOLINESS CH.
E' (rt \ PSI \\\??') CALVARY ° WHITHEL METH CH P°
V? ADVENT CHRISTIAN CN.
/-??O,P ? OEL Wp
CV,
MILL HILL ?(+ // O \'P ( ff [
4F? eltPr. @iq, ' WHITNEL 0
/ I is ,< 'NOS
/ //. rFA OYF \?O" FIRST ASSEMBLY Of Sq Ytb PQ
ytPOLN?' " a `-/ ti= / /\ fA1pV TE'N /' I ` O AY P \ 6 < \f CONNELLY i GOD W. O 0 040 P`4N
I I , j /^+ 1187 r• TPEELANO AMERICAN B EFIERD MILLS
i y,Yl C%$I
?1? II ? ESr i x?? c0
1001
VP ( r`--..??? 6 f 1i
I. WALT
FAITH
F-=Lj? "R
PT 11 •4?'?-? %A 04 i ? 1 B A
INAPT RECTION HOPE
9 1167 PL
1 W
BERRY P,
\I1I ? ? / 11 m a /
I? OJ
TARA, LACE,Ii ?AS°N
i
`A 4
1208
H U0 OALE ' \rNIiN a A m2
ROSE I I S I i.RST PT\ aA 9
?WE3T i FOREST °
DD??? ?P HILLS BIPD ,
W1NDT
RrL
FIGURE 9: DETOUR ROUTE
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
IVE"D
August 18, 1998 RECE
AUG 20 1998
Mr. Leon Bakely, E.I.T.
Municipal Engineering Services SF?'ICES COMpP
P.O. BOX 97
Garner, North Carolina 27529
RE: Project G-97020, City of Lenoir Bridge Replacement over Lower Creek, Caldwell
County. NCDOT TIP Project No. B-3719, Bdg. No. 73 on SR 1143.
Dear Mr. Bakely:
This is in response to your request for our initial scoping comments for the above
referenced project. These comments are provided in accordance with the.provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; NCAC 25).
Plans are to replace the existing bridge at the same location. The new bridge will be
replaced with a spanning structure. At this time we have not identified any special concerns
regarding this project. We are pleased that the bridge will be replaced with a new bridge instead
of a multi-cell reinforced box culvert. We offer the following recommendations to lessen
impacts during construction:
1. If concrete will be used,, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water
chemistry and causing a fish kill.
2. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel
in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream.
3. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and
maintained until project completion.
4. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early
planning stages. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 155
Timberbrook Trail, State Road, NC 28676, phone [phone].
Sincerely,
Joe H. Mickey, Jr.
Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Section

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO July 15, 1998
ATTENTION OF
Planning Services Section EN?I,
RECEIVED
JUL 20 1998
`RVIO CO9
Mr. Leon Bakely, E.I.T.
Municipal Engineering Services Co., PA
Post Office Box 97
Garner, North Carolina 27529
Dear Mr. Bakely:
This is in response to your letter of March 25, 1998, subject: "Project G-97020,
City of Lenoir Bridge Replacement Project: Caldwell County" (Regulatory Branch
Action I.D. No. 199830938). This bridge replacement is a project of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (TIP Project B-3719).
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
?--- ? cam-- Ste,
1---C. .Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
Copy Furnished:
City Engineer
City of Lenoir
Post Office Box 958
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645-0958
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201

July 15, 1998
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Project G-97020, City of Lenoir Bridge Replacement Project: Caldwell County"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199830938)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at (910)_251-4728
The project is the replacement of the Harrisburg Drive bridge over Lower Creek,
located within the jurisdictional limits of the city of Lenoir, which participates in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Lower Creek is a detailed study stream with
100-year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. For your information, we
are enclosing a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
"Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways". The project should be designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP,
administered by FEMA, and be in compliance with all local ordinances. The
engineering point of contact for the NFIP in this FEMA region is Ms. Bel Marquez, who
may be reached at [phone]. Specific questions pertaining to community flood
plain regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Division, at [phone]
Based on submitted information, Department of the Army (DA) authorization may
be required, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended.
Your study should identify the amount of surface waters and wetlands to be impacted
by the project, including any temporary detour that may be required. Please contact
Mr. Lund for a determination of DA permit requirements.

G?ZyGY M.??'c '
2- o < F
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Y . a Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
y C Atlanta, GA 30309
R-4
FOR

ON
1152
Section 60.3 (d)-:(3)1 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
regulations states that a community'shall "prohibit encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it
has been demonstrated -through hydrologic •and. hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice-that the'
proposed encroachment would not resultY3n any increase in flood
levels within the community during the occurrence of the base (100-
year) flood discharge."
Prior to issuing any building grading oidevelopment permits
involving activities in a regulatory, floodway, the community must
obtain a certification stating the. proposed development will not
impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations,
or floodway data widths. The certification should be obtained from
the permittee and be signed and sealed by a professional engineer.
The engineering or "no-rise" certification must be supported by
technical data. The supporting technical data should be based upon
the standard step-backwater computer model* utilized to develop the
100-year floodway shown on: the community's effective Flood
Insurance Rate-Map or Flood Boundary and- Floodway Map (FBFM) and
the results tabulated in the community's •Flood,insurance Study
(FIS).
Although communities are required to review and approve the "rio-
rise" submittals, they may request technical assistance and review
from the FEMA regional office. However, if this alternative is
chosen, the community must.review the technical submittal package
and verify that all supporting data, listed in. the following
paragraphs, are included in the package before forwarding to FEMA.

-2-
To support a "no-rise" certification for proposed developments
encroaching into the regulatory floodway, a community will require
that the following procedures be followed:
Currently Effective Model
1. Furnish a written request for the step-
backwater computer model for the specified
stream and community, identifying the limits
of the requested data. A fee will be assessed
for providing the data. Send data requests
to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
3003 CI?k?1St.i-TUcka2
'te
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 PAa, SU 1TxF 270
PTLA^)T A j 6W,16( t 3o3Lk(
• or to: .
Fis Information
Dewberry & Davis
8401 Arlington Boulevard
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666
Duplicate Effective Model
2,= Upon "receipt -of the step-backwater computer
model, the engineer should. run the original
-step-backwater model - to duplicate the data •in
the%e•ffective FIS.,
Existing Conditions Model
3. Revise the original step-backwater model to
reflect site specific existing conditions- by
adding new-cross-sections (two or more)-in the
vicinity of the proposed development, without
the proposed development in place. •Floodway
limits should be manually. set at the new
cross-section locations by measuring from the..
effective FIRM or FBFM. The-cumulative reach
lengths of the stream should also remain
• . unchanged- The
00 results ear
y for '
indicate the 1 floodway elevationsw
revised existing conditions at the proposed
project site.
?. .w . t+G'=

-3-
Proposed Conditions Model
4. Modify the revised existing conditions model
to reflect the proposed development at the new
cross-sections, while retaining the currently
adopted floodway widths. The overbank
roughness coefficients should remain the same
unless a reasonable explanation of how the
proposed development will impact Manning's Isn't
values should be included with the supporting
data. The results. of this floodway run will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
proposed conditions at the project site.
These results must indicate NO impact on the
100-year., flood elevations, floodway
elevations, *or floodway widths shown in the
Duplicate `Effective Model or in the Existing
Conditions Model.
The original FIS model, the duplicate effective FIS model, the
revised•existiing conditions model, and the proposed conditions
model should all produce'the same exact results.
The "no-rise" -supporting data and 'a copy: of the engineering
certification must be submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate
community official prior to issuing a permit:
The "no-rise" supporting data should include, but may not be
limited to:
a. Duplicate of the original FIS step-backwater model
printout or floppy disk.
b. ' Revised existing conditions. step-backwater model.
c. Proposed conditions step-backwater model.
d•. FIRM and topographic map, showing floodplain and
floodway, .the '-additional cross-sections,- the
site location with the proposed topog aapdhia
modification superimposed onto the' maps,
photocopy of the effective FIRM or FBFM showing the
current regulatory floodway.
e. Documentation clearly stating analysis procedures.
All modifications made to the original FIS model to
represent revised existing conditions, as well as

ENGINEERING "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that I am duly qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the State of
It is to further certify that the attached technical data supports
the fact that proposed
will not impact
(Name of Development)
floodwa elevations and
the 100-year f14 cod elevations, Y
floodway widths on (Name of Stream)
at published sections. in the Flood Insurance Study for
dated
(Name of Community) ;y
and'will not impact
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations, and
floodway widths at unpublished cross-sections in the vicinity of
the proposed development.
(Date)
SEAL:
FEMA, NTAD
8/91
• (Signature)
(Title)
(Address)
T
d,yt STA7r q,
Gy
V. n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 26, 1998
Gregory K. Meshaw, PE
Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA
P.O. Box 97
Garner NC 27529
Re: Bridge 73 (Harrisburg Bridge), Caldwell County,
State Project 8.2732301, TIP B-3719, Municipal
Engineering Project No. G97020, ER 98-8888
Dear Mr. Meshaw:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
RECEIVLU
OCT 28 199$
SFRVICCS C0100
Thank you for your letter of October 14, 1998, concerning the above project
We understand that the James H. Beall Sr., Summer House is located outside the
project's area of potential effect. Therefore, we have no comment on the project
as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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 919/733-47&3:
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??

d a?j r1t! t
C
_Iva) V4
ray„ ,vet` .\y..
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 29, 1998
Leon Bakely, EIT
Municipal Engineering Services, PA
P.O. Box 97
Garner NC 27529
Re: Bridge replacement on Harrisburg Drive over
Lower Creek, Lenoir, Caldwell County, Project
No. G-97020, ER 98-8888
Dear Mr. Bakely:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of April 8, 1998, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structure of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
James H. Beall, Sr., Summer House, 1248 Harrisburg Drive, Lenoir.
This property was placed on the state study list in 1988. Please notify us of the
proximity of this house to the bridge so we can determine whether it is located
within the project's area of potential effect.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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.
Si erely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
} U ??il}}
. 1
V'
CffYMANAGER
CITY OF LENOI R
JAMES ES H H. . HI PP
N O R T H C A R O L I N A
RECLI : LU
k??pR 2 ?March 31, 1998
Sf?,? ?I,?QA
Mr. Leon Bakely, E.I.T.
Municipal Engineering Services Co., PA
PO Box 97
Garner, North Carolina 27529
RE: Project G-97020, Harrisburg Drive Bridge Replacement Project
?I ear Mr. Bakely:
MAYOR
JERRY N. BROOKS
CITY COUNCL
D. W. BARROW
G. L BERNHARDT
T. W. BROACH
B. L BUSS
J. E. GEORGE
F. H. MOORE
M. O. STRAWN
Thank you for your inquiries regarding the Bridge Replacement project for Harrisburg
Drive. Below are the responses from various City departments to your letter dated March
25, 1998:
1. Is there traffic count information for this bridge, and if so, what is the traffic
volume? The 1995 average daily traffic on Harrisburg Drive, measured near
the bridge, was 1500 vehicles. A copy of the ADT map is enclosed.
2. Is there traffic accident data for and/or around the bridge? Please specify the
number and type of accidents, if possible. A traffic accident report from the
Lenoir Police Department is enclosed.
3. Is the project consistent with the County's long range planning goals? Yes.
4. Are you aware of any opposition, organized or otherwise, to this project? No.
5. Are there any sensitive issues associated with this project? No.
6. Are there any sensitive properties (parks, public lands, playgrounds, etc.) in close
proximity to the proposed bridge crossing? No.
7. Are there any proposed commercial or residential developments within the project
area? Yes. Air Power, Inc., located at 724 Harrisburg, will be constructing a
warehouse on Lynhaven Drive, approximately 400 feet from the bridge.
POST OFFICE BOX 958 • LENOIR, NORTH CAROLINA 28645-0958 • [phone]
r -

8. Is there a Thoroughfare Plan for Lenoir? If so, how may we obtain a copy?
Lenoir's existing Thoroughfare Plan is outdated. A new plan is being
prepared by Forrest Robson of NCDOT [phone].
9. Are regulatory floodway and 100-year floodplain maps available for the project
area? Yes. A copy is enclosed.
10. Will the proposed project or its construction affect local emergency routes such as
fire, rescue, etc.? Yes. A memorandum from the Lenoir Police Department is
enclosed.
11. Is there a Land Use or Master Plan available for Caldwell County? No.
12. What are the existing and future zoning classifications in the area surrounding the
proposed project? The project area contains a variety of residential,
commercial, and industrial zoning. A zoning map of the area is enclosed.
13. Are you aware of any other issues that may be relative to the project planning
process? No.
If you have any questions concerning our responses, or if the City staff can be of
additional assistance, please feel free to contact me [phone], ext. 216.
Sincerely,
CITY OF LENOIR
Charles A. Beatty, AI
Planning Director
t ?
To: Chuck Beatty
From: Capt. Mike Phillips
Subject: Closing of Harrisburg Bridge
Date: March 27, 1998
Chuck, _the bridge replacement project on Harrisburg Rd. off
Morganton Boulevard scheduled for the near future will have some
effect on police service in the following areas of the City. All
the streets located within the area of Norwood St. Overlook Drive
and Harrisburg Rd. past the bridge will be affected in that our
response time will be lengthened. This will be due to the fact that
all calls for service will have to be responded to by traveling
either Norwood St.,Fairview Drive or Connelly Springs road to
access these streets. Hopefully this will not increase our response
time to the area more that a couple of minutes. This will also be
true of all other Emergency Service responses to the area.
One other problem that is of a concern the Police Department
is the amount of traffic that will have to be redirected onto
Norwood St.,Overlook Dr.,Fairview Dr.. and Connelly Springs Road
from the businesses located on Harrisburg Road. These roads are
already congested during the time the furniture factories let out
in the evening. With the two furniture factories and other
businesses on Harrisburg Rd. the traffic on all these streets will
increase with the closing off of the exit onto Morganton Boulevard.
The likelihood of auto accidents will increase due to the increased
level of traffic in these areas.
A temporary bridge or structure would be nice so that we did
not have to inconvenience the public either in providing services
or increases in traffic.
C t.` Mike illi s
Patrol/Field Commander
cc Chief of Police
I'I K G! yJb VItf- 4 (Hl'1 I.HLLWLLL ZA-rl bUJ UHK
A
• y
7
CALDWELL COUNTY SCHOOLS BUS GARAGE
113 Tremont Park Drivc
I&M 4=
Lrnoir. NC 286456470
704-7544041 Far: 704-753-7902
Transportation Director. Philip Clark
March 27, 1998
Mr. Lee Bakley
Municipal Engineering
Gardner, N.C.
Dear Lee:
Per our conversation on March 25 about the bridge replacement on
Harrisburg Road off of Morganton Blvd., we have 4 buses that travel across this
bridge twice daily. It would add approximately 4.5 miles to each bus route and 12-
18 Minutes in ride time.
It would be very helpful for this project to be done during the summer months
if at all possible. School will be out after May 22 thru August 7.
Thank you for your concern and I look forward to working with you and your
staff.
Sincerel
Philip Clark
Transportation Director
cc: jbradshaw
F 3-,Q - f I?
&NO
J t
O
8
DWQ ID: _ CORPS ACTION ID: 9 2WI
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) + ti ; `, ;; , ° --
,?, r ntv,I P -_ a
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2. APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3. COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FIELD
OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7) COPIES
SHOULD BE SENT TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, ATTN: JOHN DORNEY, 4401 REEDY
CREEK ROAD, RALEIGH, NC 27607. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.
1. OWNER'S NAME: City of Lenoir.
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 958
SUBDIVISION NAME
CITY: Lenoir STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 28645-0958
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
Harrisburg Drive at Lower Creek
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) N/A (WORK) [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS, PHONE
NUMBER:
Owners Representative: L.D. Hagaman. Jr. Dir. Of Public Works Agent for Owner: Gregory K. Meshaw,
PE, Municipal Engineering Services Company, P.A., PO Box 97, Gamer, NC 27529. [phone]
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Caldwell -NEAREST TOWN: Lenoir. NC
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ECT.)
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Lower Creek RIVER BASIN:
(a) IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER, (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES ? NO X IF YES, EXPLAIN:
(b) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES ? NO X
(c) IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF
COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8. (a) HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROJECT? YES E] NO X IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND
ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION):
(b) ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES ? NO X IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
(a) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
No jurisdictional wetlands have been observed within the planned project area.
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: _
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE :
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
(b) (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: _ FT AFTER: _ FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): _ FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(b) (2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: X Bridge replacement
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (ATTACH PLANS; 81/2 BY 11 DRAWINGS ONLY)
Bridge replacement. Equipment Types: crane, excavator, backhoe, loader, etc.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Replace structurally deficient roadway bridge.
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS)
No jurisdictional wetlands have been observed within the planned project area.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY
LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: Note: The area has been visited by a private sector biologist who observed
no evidence of FWS listed protected species within the limits of the proposed proiect area.
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA
WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED 4/8/98 &
10/14/98
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND? YES X NO ? (IF NO, GO TO 16)
(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT? YES ? NO X Project determined to be a Federal
Categorical Exclusion (CE). CE document prepared in accordance with NCDOT policies
as is a federally funded project administered by NCDOT and per NEPA.
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE YES ? NO ?
IF ANSWER 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OF FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:
(a) WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES, AND
PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38).
ALL STREAM (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON
THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE I INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OF 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET
OF THEIR EQUIVALENT.
(b) IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PRODUCT.
(c) IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
(d) ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
(e) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Commercial
(f) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM,
/< fkz-,4-? Gregory K. Meshaw, PE //4 t
0 WN /AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATE ?-
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).
FR0h1 : HE' -ID-BOOHE PHONE 140. : 8282652601 Dec. 2'S _7'000 11 : 1' +Hl ? F1

CITY OF LENOIR
Office of Director - Public Works and Engineering
Post Office Box 958
510-6 Career Circle
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
828-757-2160
828-757-2112 (fax)
December 27, 2000
RE: Agent Authorization
Pre-Construction Notification Application
Bridge #73, Caldwell County (Harrisburg Drive Bridge)
NCDOT Municipal Bridge Project B-3719
Municipal Engineering Job # G-95028
To Whom It May Concern'
As authorized representative of the City of Lenoir, I am writing to advise that Mr.
Gregory K. Meshaw, PE, of Municipal Engineering Services Company, PA is
empowered to sign the Pre-Construction Notification Application for the above
identified bridge replacement project.
Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 828-757-2160 if there are questions.
NOIR
Public Works
jr., ui or
Engin ering - City of Lenoir
/ldh
a
N
n
Ol
f?
0 if
m

I
J
I N
00 Z
r+- CL
Q ?
F•- Qf
N

c?
U-
Z
O
U u

J
I N ?
?
t` Q Y
N O
O
a 0

,- Q Q W

p
N W
O

T --- -

-_--'?-___----1..-- - T T
-
.--1--------..I.. ---f
Tv
7-7

W -- -bit-------ixi- c---

J I
I J
Ob
U

o - >-
W ?Q?
? (A Z T CL
Q a
!Y =
Z cn
(n
Q Q
J J
a U
o N o
? - - --

-- m _
_ _
J
N U J J? I
N
V 0 O
t7,
LLJ
p U
Q
E
co z
J J
J
---- ----------- O
--
? o ?

z
W W
U
J Q
J <L
^ Q J
?- I.O. ?--
`i Q
N N m
C/4, 000
cr) co
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
w

LAI

i
A y -
1
1
I
1
1
1
i 1
1
1
1
1
1

?
l
1
Q]
?
1-
1 I Q Z
I J
i I U, Z w
1 _ ?
CL^ i pp
O I U O m
m
aQ i Z O p ~
a 1 p uj CY
= p a N O-
z to i Y p Q U
Q
Q Q H ' ' Z l
i
a U i N 3 Q U

I W

r--
I
J
N M E
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
? V
I
I I
I ?
r?
i
I-
1 ?
I C7 ~
? U
I N ?
w V)
1
I
I
1
1
1
l /.
O
N F)
?- Cd
W O
I
J
m I W
Q
®00O
u + W
< W
J CD
CE N

O
O
¢
3 Co
= O
Z
c.?
C/7 W
0 W

N
LAJ
_J
cr) x
C' p
j F -

W ^
U '- W
W
O O = c~/)

C.L U
? O

W I /?
W X -
'\

o
Q m ??.
U C? p
Zhu
J W
_J
mmm- -<
W
~ L,j W

W N
N?m
LLLJ oZf O o
rn

j d
O-j Q
Z LLJ ?
.kk
el.
CO
r
X\
`n9
O1
0
1
I
I
?j
?90t 'l3

x
U-
W
U
N
w Z CJ
Z ^ Li O i2 c(0 ( i
W ^ (n
?JO I Q< X L?
m I J I J¢ 00 N_1
¢Ow V a
® Z LLJ
= cn
woo
< C) ?j 1-
W?p XZ
J F--
x p
O
A 0- O
I a- ?
I Q (-D
w
H
U
v)
p
W Z
LL O
Q ?
U U
Z x
W
1 ?
Q- cl
L W
?
= N
? N L
¢ Q
a. U CIO
U?
\J
71
0
Q
0
U
W
V)
O
II II
J W
¢ J
U ¢
N U
L/')
N ?
O w
1
c y ± ::.. .

\19
`r•
r N
FAY ?9 "?

79.

fAP

n C) :.

o.

0.
e o co
V w
S?. o
. Z :r:l
Z ?...1;
4y
.

•` ? ? .;:;jam+,?
NORTMWESTE ` W :;:7 f.
`?J
r
? J 1 1 :C•?
y •1S d
DIU181IA ?
??
13a ? ;C•?
s ^I L9' ?ino
• :,
BD ?t.:i?•
? o
?
?
DM

?'r I
f
.?,)
;•
of :•>::?i:?::..
U :??:;?'1''"`'?:?i:•:. •+ $I
.J J
7 lh0(?tllDds. ;.
T. a ;;;
•'

:::
C•7
pl
.08
a

.•:.?
a /* of
?::.
G 6 k?:CO::,

66 1.

10

°C4.
0 15i;i a