20010025 Ver 1_Complete File_20010108

Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
July 27, 1999
Ms. Cyndi Bell
North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management
4401 Reedy Creek Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: Fowler Secrest Road Over Stewarts Creek
Bridge Replacement (Bridge # 446)
NCDOT TIP No. B-3544
Categorical Exclusion
Dear Ms. Bell:
Scoping Letter, Jul) 21). 1999, Page 1
r

¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
,ru,/q?-,T I ex-,, <

'File firm of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., has been retained by the City of
Monroe to prepare a Categorical Exclusion for the proposed replacement of the
Fowler Secrest Road Bridge (Number 446), which crosses Stewarts Creek. The
purpose of this letter is to solicit input from agencies and individuals concerning
the potential impact of the proposed project upon social, economic,
demographic, land use, and environmental conditions near the project.
Alternates will be investigated and evaluated for replacing the bridge.
The Fowler Secrest Road Bridge is located 0.87 miles north of US 74 in Monroe,
Union County. The attached USGS map (Bakers quadrangle) shows the
proposed project's location. The current length and width ofthe two-lane bridge
are 31.0 feet and 20.0 feet, respectively. The bridge, which was built in 1958,
consists of timber floor on steel stringer/Mbeam and timber caps, timber post
and concrete sills substructure. According to the National Bridge Inventory
(8/12/96), the bridge has no historical significance.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency Scoping meeting for this
project. This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping comments
related to this project. To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed
project, please respond with oral comments by August 27 and in writing at
your earliest convenience concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts of the
proposed project relating to the interest of your agency.
If you have any questions concerning this project, please call me at (919) 677-
2157.
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Kimley-Horn Scoping Letter. July 29, 1999, Page 2
and Associates, Inc.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIA'T'ES, INC.
/-G'Il?r?eLr.?T
Ging Tennant
Environmental Analyst
118510001
628
. ISU ?1 .
?Substauon 6J1\
13)
i
- ?1 'mil Q !I f, : i • ?50?91 ?? a. A(' - ?-
"?\? 1508
p?, Morning Star Ch ?? VI ??-
6? _ -'Watts Gro,i• (?i>? O 679 ? ???? i 1 II
?.
p 1514' ?, ?-? ?? _ . ,A `' e?• _ .
1511)
I
8<5 , \ r
6,j_. _ C. j?• ?? . PROPERTY ssi ?? `_SSO•`
• \ -Cem
^Gracc Ch \
1001 ?? `, r c t.o? I 0
1503
/ C
638
?? 'j.._ r • ' -1510
2
?.„Bakers .. -? \ ?o
I I l ;` ' ') ms's ?: =a /i I r ( r
<If
\, r?' O /j61hnF , Rolling H('ll? r
I y QCount Club
????. ,l >> /• '? Rolling ? '\_/? •??
t 8M Hills Cli•, C I?
t Z) l50
117 .
Calvary
`??• ?? i% v •rCh
_ r\
•,, ?- ?_.•`? v `\"?• ••600";?,\;`
\Fairg?r un s
0 ???? ?, 5Je ?' ??' _? ?./ ? v 'vV lei I ?'„? v ? A? m• • ,
Aw Sulam -. • n- , / \ Y615 . ?. u r /6 7n

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
October 11, 1999
MEMORANDUM
-Jf
NCDENR
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E.. Manager. NCDOT, Projeca evelopment & Environmental Analysis
Prom: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality/;?/
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 107 over Bearskin Creek, TIP B-
3544.
Reference your correspondence dated July 27, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for the
replacement of bridge number 446 (TIP B-3544). Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the
proposed bridge will span Stewarts Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The stream is classified as
WS III waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental
issues for the proposed project:
A. Review of the proposed project reveals the potential for impacts to a Water Supply III. Prior to
selecting a preferred alternative, the DOT needs to assess and document all other reasonable and
feasible alternatives. The NCDWQ cannot permit impacts to valuable drinking water supplies that
are otherwise avoidable. Prior to issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT will
need to demonstrate the rationale for the selected alternative and all efforts undertaken to ameliorate
impacts.
B. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
C. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
D. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/14/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/14/99
Page 2
E. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters, Body
Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However,
impacts to waters classified as Water Supply III will be impacted. The DWQ requests that DOT
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply for
any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water),
HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact). SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications.
F. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 40t Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
G. The DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing
directly into the stream.
H. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
1. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
J. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
K. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
L. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
M. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules ( 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
N. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
0. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
P. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/ 14/99
Page 2
E. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters, Body
Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However,
impacts to waters classified as Water Supply III will be impacted. The DWQ requests that DOT
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply for
any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water),
HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications.
F. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
G. The DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing
directly into the stream.
H. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
K. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
L. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
M. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
N. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
0. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
P. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/14/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFW S
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:AncdotATIP B-3544\comments\B-3544 scoping comments.doc
? ?„ Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
January 4, 2001
John Dorney
NC DENR-DWQ
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27607

"401 ISSUED.
Re: Application for NWP # 23
Fowler-Secrest Bridge (#446) replacement
Fowler-Secrest Road (Lat 35° 1' 47"/ Long 80° 33' 44")
State Project No. 8.269230 1, TIP B-3544
Monroe, Union County, NC
Dear Mr. Domey:
¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068
01 0025
Attached is a Pre-Construction Notification Application for a Nationwide Permit
#23 (Categorical Exclusions) and 401 Water Quality Certification for the
replacement of the Fowler-Secrest Bridge (#446). The bridge is located in Union
County 0.87 mile north of US 74 spanning Stewarts Creek on Fowler-Secrest
Road between Meadowood Ln. and Creekwood Dr (see attached vicinity map).
The bridge, shown on the attached USGS map (Bakers quadrangle), was built in
1958, and consists of timber floor on steel stringer/Mbeam and timber caps,
timber post and concrete sills substructure. It is a two lane bridge 31 feet long
and 20 feet wide. Stewarts Creek is a cobble-bed stream 10-15 feet wide and
approximately 1-2 feet deep in the project area.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of
Bridge #446 was 29.9 out of 100 in March 2000, when the latest bridge
inspection was performed. According to DOT standards, this rating warrants
replacement of the bridge. Permit authorization is being requested to replace the
bridge. The exiting bridge will be removed and replaced in its existing location
by a 28'x11' bottomless Conspan bridge system in order to avoid stream impacts
(see attached site plan). The bridge is located within the 100-year floodplain, but
significant fill will not be placed in the floodplain, and the 100-year flood
elevation will not be increased (See construction plans/ CE).
A field review was conducted on July 29, 1999 by KIIA scientists during which
it was determined that no wetlands are located in the project area. The project
will have no wetland impacts, and minimal stream impacts to Stewarts Creek will
occur. Fifty-five to seventy-five feet of rip-rap will be placed on the banks of the
stream 1-foot above the Q50 water elevation. Since the streambed is composed
of cobble, no rip-rap will be require in the stream for stabilization. Bridge
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
footings will be placed 8 to 15-feet from the stream in order to avoid impacts.
The length of bridge spanning the stream will be approximately 70 feet.
The Fowler-Secrest bridge replacement has been classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion" as no substantial environmental impacts are anticipated
as a result of the project. A copy of the draft Categorical Exclusion document is
included for your review.
Thank you very much for your attention to this project.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
Colleen Dunlevy L
Environmental Analyst
Enclosures
0jgo2.5
DWQ ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) 23
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
MUST 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 Monroe
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Attn: James Loyd Jr., PE, 300 West Crowell St.
SUBDIVISION NAME N/A
CITY: Monroe STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 28111
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
Bridge #446 over Stewart's Creek, Fowler-Secrest Rd.
4. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) (WORK) 561-713-6824
IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Attn: Colleen Dunlevy
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
919-678-4155
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Union - NEAREST TOWN: Monroe
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ECT.)
The Fowler-Secrest Road bridge is located 0.87 miles north of US 74 in Monroe, Union County. The
bridge spans Stewarts Creek on Fowler-Secrest Road between Meadowood Ln and Creekwood Dr.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Stewarts Creek RIVER BASIN: Yadkin- Pee Dee
7. (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 E] NO ® IF YES, EXPLAIN:
(b) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)'?
YES ?NO ®
(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
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
IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9. (a) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0 EXCAVATION: 0
FLOODING: 0 OTHER : 0
DRAINAGE : 0 TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0
(b) (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: 155 FT AFTER: 155 FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 10-15 FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 2 FT AFTER: 2 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: 55' to 75' from placement of rip-rap on banks
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (ATTACH PLANS; 81/2 BY 11 DRAWINGS ONLY)
Bridee # 446 will be replaced at the existing location. A new 28' x I V bottomless consaan bridle
system will be constructed on the existing alignment. The Conspan bridge system has been chosen to
avoid impacts to the stream and avoid the need to divert the stream during bridge construction. The
new bridge will measure 70 feet long by 30 feet wide. Rip-rap will be placed on the downstream
banks of the stream to prevent erosion. The riprap will placed 1 foot above the Q50 water elevation
of the stream, as the bed is currently composed of cobble material, and will not require stabilization.
The bridge replacement will not place significant amounts of fill in the flood plain area and will not
increase the 100-year flood elevation. Mechanical equipment used will likely include a backhoe to
excavate footings, cement trucks to place the bridge footing, a small crane to place the bridge
infrastructure over the stream, and grading equipment for the bank areas.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
The purpose of the project is to replace bridge # 446, a two-lane bridge on Fowler-Secrest Road,
Union County. The bridge was determined to be structurally deficient in March 2000, during a
NCDOT Bridge Mainenance Unit inspection.
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS)
N/A
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: July 27, 19999
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 August 10,
1999.
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OT THE USE OF PUBLIC
(STATE) LAND?
YES ® NO ? (IF NO, GO TO 18)
(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES®NOn
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES ® NO F? (See attached CE)
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?
(f) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
(g)SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOT'E: 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 LE'T'TER FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATU

(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).
Letter of Authorization
The City of Monroe authorizes Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to act as its agent in the
application for the Section 404/401 permits and approvals associated with the
replacement of the Fowler-Secrest bridge (#446) on Stewart's Creek, Union County,
North Carolina.
December 20, 2000
ames Loyd Jr. PE
City of Monroe
01 km-"'
l i
,rte
rr
%
r- 5? I -?+J'' '7S
1
1
-- ?? - ,T ??r Secr st Robd
r' 1-
``" I f's-
,? ocation -
%}_. Fowler Crosryroads Y --
1349 akeR.
H e I IT>I r I; I
S
r, k? X0
r I1?lu ?eorii, _ L.?
r _
ti p1I ' r' f 1' • .? r ??+[ {? M f 1.10 t
10 09 '''•? ?`', ? _ it ? ?''?^?''?, , ?' '? ?'?
Bent
:6 ?He1g
-' 0
?-?- -
Monroe i 0
01999 Ma u$st. oa m I no.: 01!9!99 G DT, I no.
Fowler-Secrest Bridge Fowler-Secrest Bridge _ Scale, NTS
Replacement Date: 12115/00
City of Monroe
Union County, NC Vicinity Map and AssaYates. Inc.
Figure: 1 of 4
E} M 1 x y} i !/ Vii
( { L ?. 1 Hllll 1 r ? + ?'? JAI r ? i } .,/
t'r s
m yw
r ,
7 1 i ) i I 'LI 1i?+ 1.rv
.? i. 1f ',II A Y.?! J, .71\ ?-.:INII1 I?.r , ? I f. 1 ? ?
?y
.-
J4
s
...k,, Ch
, 1 `I iJV •l r?,??? ? 7 r ?lr'^???kuOw• i"v. ? s ? ,1; 5 \ r S S'??t `t .< '.
u 1, ?rOCat?. Qwi. i?J' ? I w??? ? 1. ,1 .IY ? _ I r ti x 1 I r? ? ,_ ?`-'? ' r "?ri
J'', ?.. r... - i ii :61. .. .a..SA; s. ,. ... .. 'tSi. :wt'j .r '! _ +.: ..... 1. ,,.nr ? •. r. y -
V c
r
ii f,
d
S
11 -?i• -- ,A +
1 `-'?;
1
11? r

K
L ?
' i

V
[
?
?
':
V ? t5H
°
GJ
:

`
I
. 1 r
I
1 (
?X
`4 4 1 'te
1 /

I 1 ????''FF ?a ? ? •h LL? I? µ

Fowler-Secrest Bridge
Replacement
City of Monroe
Union County, NC
Fowler-Secrest Bridge
USGS Map
(Baker Quadrangle)
c:n
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Scale: 1:24000
Date: 12/15/00
Figure: 2 of 4
r
fig
W
?LLJ C) W W g
ONICj?? WO Q
Q d 0 „
I
'r a W O _
Q_ ko
c) z Lo Ln
`
V) --j
W V)
_ • Lu
\ l\?yO?O OOOj{ ?I.,
\ \\ Imo. \ j \ V v\/ \ll
'7 \
09
c1li
?OQ
m W cn
n \? 1ST S b3? , -\Ln rn ?/I
Ln I NNkD
I m k ,v?
F-- vu?? ?\ ? F
in in Lrl
U')
O
z --
.4 V) L-j
? s
o Gv 0 p`L 8 ~ ?~`
°
N
z Co
> 'n Lnn
,.
I 3 ?d -3Gd
o> II \ \
w w> o)
VI
J W
LLI ; % m\1 ; O b ?Pgv3
oa
cr o r i OM ... Sp
\ ob LL I
CL z
f?\? --" Ln
/i 4
, i1 T fi
+
\ o
? aaa
b $
LLJ
\
\ o
y

\
V D
`O
O ?N

LIZ l<

\\'\ j j LLJ

CC)
O
F?
\ '\
1
. c
a0?
\
1 j NZ V) ?t
O W o v'
o `r n - - _----- T
? n
ci'-`rte II 11 I I
Lr) 11 4 ° ?; 1 ; I I
[I JUY
- N
I I
Q _

ii LLJ
Q
I N I lLl O III _ L N
'TM? ?J W
I I J
`
? cq?cr-Z
hl
I Ln II
-
W I I UW

Ln 00
of

I- LL-
II OQz O

?
-14

I

-- Qz
W
~?
J U kj
?
( W ??
Z J
O
' II
L l
/ mo Wci

cr-
n
lLJ ~
Cj V)
II Lr)
?
M O' O1.•
C7 % Q) Lu
>c ?
N I
O

I?
1 1.
° Q3 O ? L 0
rn
Lf) Lf) Ln Ln L() Ln
Monroe
Bridge No. 446

I+owler Secrest Road over Stewarts Creels
Union County; North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (9)
State Project No. 8.2692301
TIP B-3544
.t51a-%s:J"

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Monroe
Bridge No. 446
Fowler Secrest Road over Stetivarts Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (9)
State Project No. 8.2692301
TIP B-354-1
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2000
Documentation Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates
For the City of Monroe and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mike 1N1. Rutkowski, P.E.
Project Manager
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
James Loyd, Jr., P.E.
City Engineer
City of Monroe
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Project Development Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT CONIMITTMENTS
Bridge No. 446
Fowler Secrest Road over Stewarts Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (9)
State Project No. 8.2692301
TIP Project Number B-3534
1? Al
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the
following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Desi-,n
Roadside Environmental Unit
The construction contract shall include a notice for the potential for lead paint and creosote on the
project and shall include provisions for their disposal.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis dranch/Roadivay Design Unit
An 3" (0.2 meter) ductile iron pipe sanitary sewer line will be permanently relocated. A
description for the sewer line relocation is included in the roadway design plans and bridge
replacement plans. An 3" (0.2 meter) PVC water line is located approximately 9 feet (2.7 meters)
north of the existing bridge and is currently underneath the streambed. In order to construct the
Conspan bridge, the water line should be permanently relocated outside the wingwalls of the
Conspan bridge. Before Conspan bridge construction begins, the waterline should be relocated to
provide uninterrupted service. The required amount of additional water line is approximately 150
feet (45.7 meters). All utility conflicts will be coordinated with the NCDOT and the City of
Monroe prior to the construction phase.
Green Sheet
Preconstruction Page I of I
December S. 2000
Table of Contents
Pate
I. Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................... ...1
H. Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... ... I
III. Alternatives ................................................................................................................... ...2
IV. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................3
V. Recommended Improvements ..........................................................................................3
VI. Natural and Physical Resources .......................................................................................4
1. Physical Resources ......................................................................................................4
2. Biotic ..........................................................................................................................6
3. Wetlands .....................................................................................................................3
4. Protected Species ........................................................................................................9
5. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 12
VII. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 12
A. Compliance Guidelines ............................................................................................ 12
B. Historic Architecture ................................................................................................ 12
C. Archaeology .............................................................................................................. 13
VIII. Environmental Effects .................................................................................................... 12
IX. Responses to Agency Comments ................................................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1 Cost Breakdown of Recommended Alternate .....................................................3
Table 2 Federally Protected Species for Union County .................................................10
Table 3 State Protected Species for Union County ........................................................11
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 USGS Topographical )lap -Monroe, NC Quadrangle
Figure 3 Plan Sheet
Figure 4 Typical Section
Figure 5 Detour Routing
Figure 6, 6A Site Photographs
Figure 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate iVlap
Figure S National Wetlands Inventory Map - iYlonrce. NC Quadrangle
Figure 9 Union County Soil Survey Map
Appendices
Appendix A Agency Comments
Appendix B Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects
Monroe
Bridge No. 446
Fowler Secrest Road over Stewarts Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015(9)
State Project No. 3.2692301
TIP B-3544
The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 446, and associated approach roadway improvements,
which carries Fowler Secrest Road over Stewarts Creek in the City of Nlonrce, North Carolina, is
scheduled for construction in the North Carolina Department of Transportation 2000-2006
Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUNBURY OF RE, COMMENDATIONS
A new structure on existing alignment is recommended to carry Fowler Secrest Road over
Stewarts Creek (See Figure 2).
The proposed grade of Fowler Secrest Road will be raised approximately three feet (0.9 meters)
to improve sight distance. The proposed improvements will require approximately 100 feet (30.5
meters) on the southbound approach and 490 feet (149.4 meters) of improvements on the
northbound approach. As shown in Figure 3, the project ties into each approach using guardrail.
The new roadway approaches will have a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway with 6 feet (1.8 meters)
of unpaved shoulders on each side (see Figure 4).
The proposed structure will be a 28'x11' (3.50.4 meter) bottomless Conspan bridge system.
This is the most cost-effective alternative due to its simple form of construction, and it allows for
an adequate hydraulic opening.
During construction the existing crossing will be closed. Through traffic will be detoured along
the existing streets (see Figure 5).
The estimated cost is $424,000 including $40.000 for right-of-way acquisition and $384,000 for
construction. The estimated cost included in the 2000-2006 TIP is 5393,000 including $32.000
for right of way acquisition and 5361,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Fowler Secrest Road is classified as a local access street in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Fowler Secrest Road is also designated as a local access street in the 1997
Monroe Thorou,hfare Plan and serves local residential traffic.
Near Bridce No. 446. Fowler Secrest Road is a 20.0-foot (6.1-meter) wide, two-lane paved road
with 3.0-foot (0.9-meter) wide unpaved shoulders. The horizontal alignment in the project area
is good. However, the vertical alignment needs to be raised to provide adequate vertical
transition. The deck of Bridge No. 446 is 11 feet (3.4 meters) above the streambed. Water is
approximately 1 feet (0.3 meters) deep in the project area. See Figure 6.
Bridge No. 446 was built in 1953. The bridge has a 3.5-inch (3.9-centimeter) asphalt wearing
surface. The bridge includes a one span - timber deck on steel beams supported by a timber
substructure (see Figure 6). It is 31.0 feet (9.4 meters) long with a 19.3-feet (5.9-meter) wide
roadway. It carries two lanes of traffic, with posted load limits of 15 tons (13.6 metric tons) for
single vehicles and 19 tons (17.2 metric tons) for Truck-tractor Semi-trailers (TTST).
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 4,46
was 29.9 of 100.0 in ;March 2000, when the latest bridge inspection was performed; this means
the bridge was structurally deficient.
According to a traffic count performed by the City of Monroe in September 1999, the traffic
volume was 1,303 vehicles per day (vpd) along Fowler Secrest Road near the bridge. The
design year (2020) traffic at the Fowler Secrest Road Bridge is projected to be 4,000 vpd (based
on a 5.5 % growth rate). The growth rate of traffic is anticipated to increase substantially due to
the traffic impact of developable land in the vicinity of the bridge. The truck percentage is 5
percent based on NCDOT counts. The speed limit in the project area is 35 miles per hour (55
kilometersihour).
Accident Records indicate that one non-fatal accident occurred in the vicinity of Bridge No. 416
between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1998.
The Transportation Director for Union County Schools indicated that there are currently 2 daily
school bus crossings on Bridge No. 446. The number of school bus crossings is expected to
increase to 3 buses per day at the time the bridges are replaced.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives studied focused on minimizing human and environmental impacts and providing
improved traffic movements while satisfying minimum design speeds criteria.
The "do-nothing" alternative is not practical. The existing bridge would continue deteriorating
until it was unusable and unsafe. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not feasible due to its age and deterioration.
The option of maintaining traffic along an on-site detour was eliminated due to the resulting
social and environmental impacts and availability of suitable detour routes.
The recommended alternative proposes a new Conspan bridge system located on the existing
alignment (see Figure 3). The typical sections are shown in Figure 4. The proposed grade on
Fowler Secrest Road will be raised approximately three feet (0.9 meters) to improve sight
distance. The proposed improvements will require approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) on the
southbound approach and 490 feet (149.4 meters) of improvements on the northbound approach.
Closure of the existin, bride will be necessary. Traffic will be rerouted using an off-site detour
(see Figure 5).
IV. COST ESTI UTE
Table 1 shows a breakdown of the estimated total cost of the recommended alternate.
Table 1
Cost Breakdown of Recommended Alternate
Items Estimated Cost
Structure $225,000
Roadway Approaches $ 45,000
Structure Removal $ 24,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 30,000
Engineerinz and Contingencies 560.000
Construction Total $384,000
Right-of-Way Total $ 40.000
Project Total $ 424,000
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVE NIE NTS
Bridge No. 446 will be replaced at the existing location, as shown in Figure 2. Traffic will be
maintained by detouring onto existing roadways during the construction period.
Bridge No. 446 will be replaced with a 28'x11' (8.5x3.4 meter) bottomless Conspan bridge
system. This is the most cost-effective alternative due to its simple form of construction, and it
allows for an adequate hydraulic opening.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 50 miles per hour (81
kilometers per hour). The new roadway approaches will have a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway
with 6 feet (1.8 meters) of unpaved shoulders on each side. The new roadway approaches will be
raised approximately three feet (0.9 meters) to improve sight distance.
There are no future plans for bicycle lanes on Fowler Secrest Road. Therefore, the bridge
replacement will not include accommodations for bicycle lanes. City staff officials approved this
design consideration.
Construction of this alternative will not increase the 100-year flood elevation. The bridge
replacement will not place substantial amounts of fill in the flood plain area.
The existing bridge will be closed during construction of the replacement structure. Traffic will
be detoured on existing streets (See Figure 5). The total length of the detour would be
approximately 2.5 miles (4 kilometers). Road user costs associated with this detour route will be
minimal compared to costs associated with constructing a detour structure and the resulting
impacts to the environment.
All utility conflicts will be coordinated with the NCDOT and the City of ivlonroe prior to the
construction phase. An 3" (0.2 meter) ductile iron pipe sanitary sewer line will be permanently
relocated. A description for the sewer line relocation is included in the roadway design plans
and bridge replacement plans. An 3" (0.2 meter) PVC water line is located approximately 9 feet
(2.7 meters) north of the existing bridge and is currently underneath the streambed. In order to
construct the Conspan bridge, the water line should be permanently relocated outside the
wingwalls of the Conspan bridge. Before Conspan bridge construction begins, the waterline
should be relocated to provide uninterrupted service. The required amount of additional water
line is approximately 150 feet (45.7 meters).
Currently, the utility contract for this project has not been finalized. However, this project
commitment shall be implemented during construction of the project.
Additional utility conflicts include the relocation of four power poles.
VI. NATURAL AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES
An evaluation of resources within the project area was conducted to determine the potential
impacts on these resources as a result of the proposed bridge replacement. This analysis
included a review of background resource information including the US. Geological Survey
(USGS) map (Bakers, NC quadrangle) (Figure 2), the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map
(Bakers, NC quadrangle) (Figure 3), and soils mapping contained in the Soil Survey for Union
County (Figure 9). Water resource information was obtained from publications of the North
Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species was gathered from the US. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species for Union County, the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program database of protected species and unique habitats, and a scoping response from
USFWS. Natural communities, potential wetlands, and potential hazardous materials were
evaluated during site reconnaissance conducted on July 29, 1999 by Kimley-Horn environmental
scientists.
1. Physical Resources
Water and soil resources identified within the study area are discussed below. Hydrologic
influence, soil characteristics, and topographic positioning directly influence the
distribution of plant communities within a landscape as well as the associated fauna
within these communities.
a. Water Resources
The existing bridge and proposed replacement Conspan bridge span Stewarts
Creek, which is located within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Stewarts Creek
flows west to east until its convergence with Richardson Creek approximately 6.5
miles (10.5 kilometers) southeast of the project area. The channel is
approximately 3 to 10 feet (2.4 - 3.0 meters) wide and approximately two feet (0.6
meter) deep in the vicinity of the bridge with a rock/sand substrate. Flow rates in
the project area are slow to moderate depending on precipitation.
i. Best Usage Classification
Water quality is regulated by NCDENR - Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The state of North Carolina has assigned a best usage classification to waters of
the state based on water quality. Stewarts Creek in the vicinity of the project
area is designated as a WS-III Stream. This classification denotes a public water
supply stream in generally low to moderately developed watersheds. Local
programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharge are required.
Also, this classification denotes waters suitable for secondary uses such as
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
ii. Water Quality
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BIMAN) Monitoring Survey is
another approach to assess water quality using biological indicators. BiVIAN
results are available for certain water basins throughout the state and are useful
for determining long-term changes in water quality. The classification system
uses ratings from poor to excellent. As of September 23, 1999, there have been
no benthic macroinvertebrate surveys done in Stewarts Creek.
iii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project would involve some degree of impact on water quality as a
result of the dismantling of the existing bridge and the installation of the
replacement Conspan bridge. Construction activities will temporarily alter and
interrupt stream flows, as well as water levels at the project site. Temporary
impacts may include increased siltation during installation, temporary fill
materials placed in the stream for retaining wall construction, and temporary
damming of the waterway.
Since the bridge deck, superstructure and substructure for Bridge No. 446 are
composed of timber, steel, and concrete sills, there is not potential for
components of the deck, superstructure or substructure to be dropped into
Waters of the United States during construction.
Although no permanent impacts to water quality should occur as a result of the
bridge replacement, precautions will be taken to minimize temporary
construction related impacts. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protections of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be
implemented during all phases of construction to avoid adverse impacts to water
quality in the study area as well as downstream of the study area. The primary
concern during construction is the movement of sediment from land into
Stewarts Creek. Construction practices to prevent sedimentation include berms,
dikes, dams. silt fences, and silt basins.
b. Soils and Topography
Soil formation and characterization result from a combination of biological and
ecological activity along with the topography of an area. According to the Soil
Survey of Union County (1996), the project area extends through one main soil
association, the Badin Series (Figure 9). The soils in the project area are Badin
channery silt loam with 3 to S percent slopes. These soils are moderately deep.
well-drained soils on ridges and side slopes, and are highly erosive.
i
According to the USGS map (Bakers, North Carolina quadrangle), land elevations
within the project area range from approximately 560 feet (170.7 meters) near the
edge of the stream bank to 550 feet (167.6 meters) within the stream channel
(Figure 2). The land within the project area is sloping.
2. Biotic Resources
The distribution of plant communities and their associated wildlife is the result of
topographic positioning, climate, soil characteristics, hydrologic influence and past and
present land use practices. Through field reconnaissance on July 29, 1999, three
terrestrial communities as well as an aquatic community associated with Stewarts Creek
were identified in the project area. The terrestrial communities include upland hardwood
forests, riparian forests and maintained communities.
a. Terrestrial Communities
1. Upland Hardwood Forests
Upland hardwood forests are scattered throughout the project area, usually
occurring in mesic areas adjacent to the Stewarts Creek floodplain. Many of the
upland forest areas in the immediate project vicinity have been fragmented for
residential development. Plant species found in this community include tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), white oak
(Quercus alba), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciJlua).
These forested areas provide forage, shelter, and nesting resources for a
relatively diverse population of wildlife. These areas may be particularly suited
to a diversity of wildlife when located adjacent to agricultural fields,
successional areas, and developed areas. Mammalian species typically found in
forested habitats of this region include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), gray squirrel (Scizinis
carolinensis), and the eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus). Common
reptiles and amphibians found in these uupland areas include the eastern box
turtle (Terrepene carolina), American toad (Bufo americanus), wood frog (Rana
sylvatica), eastern garter snake (77zamnophis sirtalis), and black rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta). Avian species include wood thrush (Hylocichla fuscenscens),
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes
carolinus).
2. Riparian Forests
A band of riparian forest occurs along the streambanks within the floodplain of
Stewarts Creek. The hydrology of this community reflects the proximity of the
creek, a perennial stream. The canopy and understory in this area is dominated
by black willow (Sali_r nigra), American elm (Ulnurs americana), and box elder
(,r1cer negundo). The area borders upland hardwood forests and maintained
communities.
Riparian forests provide habitat for wildlife due to the presence of food and
cover and the proximity of water. Species diversity and wildlife popualtions are
often high in such areas. Mammals such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethictts) would likely occur in
such an area. The diversity of amphibians and reptiles could likely include water
snakes (Nerodia spp.), snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina), and various frogs
species (Rana spp.). Bird species known to occur in these areas include the red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-bellied woodpecker, and red-eyed vireo
(Vireo olivacetts).
3. Maintained Communities
A portion of the land within the project area would be classified as maintained
communities, which include existing roads and road right-of-ways, utility
corridors, parklands, and residential areas that have been cleared for
development. These communities exhibit a suppressed level of vegetative
growth due to mowing, spraying, clearing, or other man-initiated activities.
Vegetation in these areas primarily consists of maintained grasses (Festuca
spp.), large shade trees such as southern red oaks (Quercus rubra) and tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and ornamental plantings.
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, associated with Stewarts
Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical and chemical
characteristics of the water body dictate the faunal composition of the community.
Fish species likely to occur within piedmont perennial streams of this type include
bigmouth chub (Nocomis platyrltyncus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus),
common carp (Cyprintts carpio) and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Clearing, grading, and creating borrow areas into the stream are the primary
actions that would modify terrestrial communities and their associated wildlife
during the proposed bridge replacement project. Impacts to terrestrial
communities will occur in the form of habitat reduction. However, because the
project is located primarily within a disturbed area, minimal impacts to terrestrial
communities are anticipated.
Because this project consists of the replacement of an existing bridge with a
Conspan bridge within the same footprint as the existing bridge, aquatic impacts
should be minimal and, with the exception of the area of streambed under the
Conspan bridge, temporary. These temporary impacts to the aquatic community
associated with Stewarts Creek may occur as a result of increased sedimentation
and siltation from construction activities. Sedimentation may result in oxygen
depletion, coating of gills on fish, siltation of filter feeding structures, reduced
solar radiation, and interference with spawning activities. Impacts are especially
detrimental to less mobile benthic organisms. Many fish will exhibit an avoidance
response and leave the immediate area.
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
phase of the project.
3. Wetlands
Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)(33 CFR 328.3) as:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three essential parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1987). Besides providing valuable habitat for a diverse number of plant and
animal species, wetlands also control floodwaters and erosion, replenish groundwater,
filter contaminants and excess nutrients from runoff, and protect municipal water
supplies.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the disposal of dredged or fill material into
"waters of the United States." The term "waters of the United States" incorporates both
surface waters and wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates
development activities within waters of the United States. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for water quality standard compliance in the state and for
Section 401 Water Quality Certificates of the Clean Water Act.
Currently the COE is using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
when performing wetland delineations in North Carolina. The 1987 Manual was the basis
for evaluating wetlands within the project area during field review conducted on July 29,
1999.
No wetland areas were identified within the project area. The only COE and NCDENR
jurisdictional areas would be associated with construction activities within Stewarts
Creek.
a. Permitting Requirements
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, permits will be required
from the COE for any activities that encroach into jurisdictional waters or "waters
of the United States." In addition, Section 401of the Clean Water Act requires
each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for
activities that: (1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license or (2) require
discharges into "waters of the United States." A 404 permit for construction
activities from the COE is not valid until NCDENR issues a 401 Water Quality
Certificate.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certificate, administered by NCDENR -
DWQ, will also be required for any activities, which may result in a discharge into
Stewarts Creek. In addition, and erosion and sedimentation control plan will need
to be submitted and approved by NCDENR -DWQ prior to initiation of
construction.
b. Mitigation
Typically, projects authorized under Nationwide permits do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE.
However, final permit and mitigation requirements will be determined during the
permit review process based on the amount of impact to the stream.
4. Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1943) mandates that federal
agencies ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency do not
jeopardize the "continued existence" of listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536). North Carolina laws grant
protection to rare plants and animals that are endemic to the state or whose populations
are in severe decline.
a. Federally-Protected Species
Federally protected species designated as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened (PT) receive protection under
the Endangered Species Act. Written correspondence, included in Appendix A,
from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service state that there are no records of known rare species, high quality natural
communities, or substantial natural areas occurring in the project area.
It was also noted that no systematic inventory has been undertaken for the project
area. A complete list of protected species known to occur in Union County is
included as Appendix A. If suitable habitat for these species exist in the project
area, a field survey for these species may need to be conducted. The agencies also
stated that due to the lack of data available for the project area, surveys for the
federally endangered Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata); the Carolina
darter (Edieostoma collis collis), a species of federal concern; and three mussel
species of Federal concern are recommended. Tim Savidge of NCDOT conducted
the mussel surveys on December 8, 1999 and September 2S, 2000. Based on the
surveys, it is apparent that mussels are generally uncommon throughout the creek
and that the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in Stewart's Creek. Therefore, it is
concluded that no impacts will occur to mussel species as a result of construction.
Table 2 shows the species that are known to occur in Union County and are
federally and/or state listed as either threatened or endangered.
9
Table 2
Federally Protected Species for Union County
Scientific Name
Lasmigona decorata
Helianthus schweinitzii
(as of July 1999)
Contnton Name
Carolina Heelsplitter
Federal Status
LE
Schweinitz's Sunflower
LE
"LE" denotes listed endangered (a species is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
Carolina Heelsplitter
The Carolina Heelsplitter is a small, freshwater mollusk with a greenish-brown to
brown outer shell. It has been historically documented from small to large streams
and rivers as well as millponds along streams. Typical substrate is mud, muddy
sand, or muddy gravel along stable, well shaded stream banks. Known populations
exist only in three small streams and one river in the Pee-Dee and Catawba River
Basins. The Carolina Heelsplitter is not documented from Stewarts Creek. A
mussel survey was conducted for the project and no species that were not
previously recorded in the creek were found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Schiveinitz's Sunflower
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb 3.3 - 6.6 feet (1 to 2 meters) tall with
small yellow flowers. It is typically found in clearings and woodland edges and
several populations are known from roadsides and utility right-of-ways.
Populations are known from Union County but there is no documentation of the
species within the project area. Pete Romano, Environmental Scientists with
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc conducted on-site surveys for this species on
November 15, 2000. No suitable habitat was found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
b. State Listed Species
Rare plant and animal species are also granted limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. Species given the state classification of endangered (E)
and threatened (T) have been granted protection. The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture are
responsible for enforcing and administering species protection. NCDOT projects.
however, are not subject to these Acts. Table 3 summarizes the state-protected
species (those threatened or endangered) and Federal Species of Concern in Union
County.
Table 3
State Protected Species for Union County
Scientific Name
Fusconaia masoni
Strophitus undulatus
Toxoplasma pullus
Aster georgianus
Common Name Federal Status State Status
Atlantic Pigtoe FSC T (PE)
Squawfoot ---- T
Savannah Lilliput FSC T
Georgia Aster FSC T
"°T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"PE" denotes Proposed Endangered (a species which is thought to be endangered).
"FSC" denotes a species of federal concern (a species that is of concern in which
further biological research and field study are necessary to resolve the
conservation status of the taxa).
"SC' denotes Special Concern (a species that merits further study to determine its
status)
*Denotes species account that is a historic record over 50 years old
Georgia Aster
The Georgia Aster is a protected plant species known to occur along roadsides and
forest openings. It typically flowers in September and October.
Others
The remaining state listed species are mussels found within the Pee-Dee River
drainage in North Carolina. Mussel surveys were conducted in the project area.
The results of the surveys indicate that mussels are generally uncommon
throughout the creek and that the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in Stewart's
Creek. The following is an excerpt from a letter dated December 12, 1999
regarding the mussel survey conducted by NCDOT Environmental Specialist Tim
Savage.
"The project site was surveyed for the presence of mussels on December 7-8,
1999, and it was stated that additional surveys would be needed to determine the
presencelabsence of the Endangered Carolina heelsplitter from Stewart's Creek
(Ref.). Stewart's Creek was revisited on September 28, 2000 by NCDOT
Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge, Jeff Burelson, Mike Wood and Larry
Thompson, and US Fish and Wildlife biologist John Fridell. Surveys were
conducted by wading using view buckets from NC 200 upstream for approximately
1/J mile, and also at the proposed Monroe Bypass (R-2559) crossing of Stewart's
Creek, between NC 200 and US 601. A total of 3 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.)
were found during 2 hours of survey time. Shells of elliptios were also found.
Tim Savidge, Mike Wood and ivlatt Smith (from ESI) surveyed Stewart's Creek on
October 25, 2000 from the bridge crossing downstream of the project (SR 1501)
working upstream for approximately ?,4 mile. A total of 5 live and 4 shells of
elliptio mussels, and 1 shell of eastern floater (Pyganadon cataracta) were found
in 1.5 hours. No species that were not previously recorded in the creek were
found. The introduced Asian clam (Corbictda flettninea) is abundant in the creek.
Based on the recent and previous (Ref.) surveys in Stewart's Creek, it is apparent
that mussels are generally uncommon throughout the creek and that the Carolina
heelsplitter is not present in Stewart's Creek. It can be concluded that project
construction will not impact the Carolina heelsplitter."
5. Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials within a project area can impose substantial cost and liability to the
property owner as well as substantial delays in a project schedule. A review of the project
area was conducted to identify obvious indications of hazardous materials that may be
located within the project area. This general screening of hazardous materials included a
limited field review for obvious signs of hazardous materials and a limited review of
current land uses in the immediate project area. No obvious sources of potential
environmental concern were observed in the immediate project area.
According to John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality, since there are no catch
basins associated with the existing bridge, hazardous spill catch basins are not required
for this project.
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
a. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified
as 36 CFR Part 300. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and
to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
b. Historic Architecture
NCDOT staff architectural historian, INIary Pope Furr, conducted a field survey of
the APE on December 16,1999. The investigation determined that there are no
properties over fifty years old, or properties less than fifty years old which are
considered to meet Criterion Consideration G. or National Register-listed
properties located within the project's APE.
A copy of the concurrence form signed by NCDOT is included in Appendix B.
12
C. Archaeology
According to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, there are no
known archaeological sites within the proposed area. Based on their 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.
VIII. ENVIRONIVII;NTAL E ECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and minimal
environmental consequences.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
Union County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The approximate limits
of the 100-year floodplain are shown in Figure 7. The proposed structure is not expected to
adversely affect existing floodplain conditions. The studied crossing of Stewarts Creek is within
a designated flood hazard zone.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
All utility conflicts will be coordinated with the NCDOT and the City of Monroe prior to the
construction phase. An 8" (0.2 meter) ductile iron pipe sanitary sewer line will be permanently
relocated. A description for the sewer line relocation is included in the roadway design plans
and bridge replacement plans. An 8 " (0.2 meter) PVC water line is located approximately 9 feet
(2:7 meters) north of the existing bridge and is currently underneath the streambed. In order to
construct the Conspan bridge, the water line should be permanently relocated outside the
wingwalls of the Conspan bridge. Before Conspan bridge construction begins, the waterline
should be relocated to provide uninterrupted service. The required amount of additional water
line is approximately 150 feet (45.7 meters).
Currently, the utility contract for this project has not been finalized. However, this project
commitment shall be implemented during construction of the project.
Additional utility conflicts include the relocation of four power poles.
Since the bridge deck, superstructure and substructure for Bridge No. 446 are composed of
timber, steel. and concrete sills. there is not potential for components of the deck, superstructure
or substructure to be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction.
I,
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106. codified at Title 36 CFR Part 300. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed
on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer
(see Appendix A) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located
within the area of potential effect (APE). There are no structures over fifty years of age in the
APE.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural
resources, is required.
The Schweinitz's sunflower is a federally protected species listed for Union County. It is
typically found in clearings and woodland edges and several populations are known from
roadsides and utility right-of-ways. Populations are known from Union County but there is no
documentation of the species within the project area. Pete Romano, Environmental Scientists
with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc conducted on-site surveys for this species on November
15, 2000 and no protected species were identified in the project area.
The project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land protected under
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. No publicly-owned parks,
recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance
are found in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies and their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. This project is located in an urban area and is exempt from further
consideration of this Act.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and project level analysis is not required. Traffic volumes will not decrease
or increase as a result of the project.
The existing street traffic noise levels are not expected to change substantially, therefore no
impacts will occur. Noise levels may temporarily increase during construction. This evaluation
completes the assessment for highway traffic noise of Title 23, CFR Part 772, and for air quality
(1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional
reports are required.
14
If ve-etation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable
local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC2D.0520.
As described, no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites were observed in the
immediate project area.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
IX. RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS
US Denartment of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service: (letter dated 9-16-99)
Item A: Mussel surveys were conducted in the project area. The results of the surveys indicate
that mussels are generally uncommon throughout the creek and that the Carolina heelsplitter is
not present in Stewart's Creek. The following is an excerpt from a letter dated December 12,
1999 regarding the mussel survey conducted by NCDOT Environmental Specialist Tim Savage.
"The project site was surveyed for the presence of mussels on December 7-8, 1999, and it was
stated that additional surveys would be needed to determine the presencelabsence of the
Endangered Carolina heelsplitter from Stewart's Creek (Ref.). Stewart's Creek was revisited on
September 28, 2000 by NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge, Jeff Burelson, Mike
Wood and Larry Thompson, and US Fish and Wildlife biologist John Fridell. Surveys were
conducted by wading using view buckets from NC 200 upstream for approximately 'Amile, and
also at the proposed Monroe Bypass (R-2559) crossing of Stewart's Creek, between NC 200 and
US 601. A total of 3 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.) were found during 2 hours of survey time.
Shells of elliptios were also found. Tim Savidge, Mike Wood and Matt Smith (from ESI)
surveyed Stewart's Creek on October 25, 2000 from the bridge crossing downstream of the
project (SR 1501) working upstream for approximately '/a mile. A total of 5 live and 4 shells of
elliptio mussels, and 1 shell of eastern floater (Pyganadon cataracta) were found in 1.5 hours.
No species that were not previously recorded in the creek were found. The introduced Asian
clam (Corbicula fluminea) is abundant in the creek.
Based on the recent and previous (Ref.) surveys in Stewart's Creek, it is apparent that mussels
are generally uncommon throughout the creek and that the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in
Stewart's Creek. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact the Carolina
heelsplitter."
Item B: Bridge design will follow NCDOT B,'vIPs for stormwater and instream work. This
project will replace an existing bridge with a Conspan bridge. For description of utility
relocation see Section VIII.
15
Item C: Bridge construction will follow NCDOT BMPs for bridge construction, which will not
allow for wet concrete to contact stream.
Item D: Since the bridge deck, superstructure and substructure for Bridge No. 446 are composed
of timber, steel, and concrete sills, there is not potential for components of the deck,
superstructure or substructure to be dropped into Waters of the United States during
construction.
Item E: The issue of coffer dams will be addressed during permitting
Item F: No temporary access road is required due to off-site detour.
Item G: Utilities will be coordinated with City staff and will be worked out during the
construction phase of the project. For a description of utility relocation see Section VIII.
NC Department of Cultural Resources: (letter dated 10-13-99)
Item A: On December 16, 1999, a determination was made by the NCDOT and SHPO
representatives that there are no National Registered-listed properties located within the project's
area of potential effect. See Appendix B for Concurrence Form dated December 16, 1999.
NCDENR: (letter dated 10-11-99)
Item A: A Conspan bridge is proposed for this bridge replacement as opposed to a culvert,
because it does not have a bottom, therefore, providing less of an impact to the open water and
streambed. The No build alternative is not feasible due to the structural deficiency of the
existing bridge.
Item B: The purpose of the Fowler Secrest Street bridge project is to provide a safer structure by
replacing the existing 42 year-old bridge with a Conspan bridge. The bridge sufficiency rating is
29.9. The roadway at the bridge location would be raised three feet (0.9 meters) to improve the
vertical alignment.
Item C: Water resources see Section VI-1. Wetlands see Section VI-3.
Item D: Mitigation may be required for stream impacts in excess of 150 linear feet (46.7 meters).
A mitigation strategy shall be approved by COE and DWQ prior to submission of permit
documents to ensure concurrence of all agencies.
Item E: Construction will adhere to B,'vIPs and "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (see
Section VI).
Item F: Fowler Secrest Street will be closed and traffic will be detoured around the project
location, see Figure 5. Remediation measures will be followed in accordance to NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification.
Item G: According to John E. Hennessy. NC Division of Water Quality, since there are no catch
basins associated with the existing bridge, hazardous spill catch basins are not required for this
project.
10
Item H: The bridge is being replaced by a Conspan bridge.
Item I: Although no permanent impacts to water quality should occur as a result of the bridge
replacement, precautions will be taken to minimize temporary construction related impacts.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be implemented during all phases of construction to avoid
adverse impacts to water quality in the study area as well as downstream of the study area.
Item J: No wetland areas were identified within the project area.
Item K: A Conspan bridge will replace the existing bridge.
Item L: Foundation test borings were conducted on October 26, 1999. The Geotechnical Report
of Subsurface Exploration dated December 7, 1999 can be provided upon request.
Item M: No wetland areas will be impacted by the proposed project. Stream impacts are not
anticipated to exceed 150 linear feet (45.7 meters). The proposed project will impact
approximately 145 feet (44.2 meters) of stream including 70-foot (21.3 meters) bridge and
placing riprap along the stream channel. It is acknowledged that since less than 150 linear feet
(45.7 meters) of Stewarts Creek is to be impacted by the proposed project, mitigation will not be
required.
Item N: No wetland areas were identified within the project area. However, the project will
follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Sediment Erosion Control guidelines.
Item O: Bridge design will follow NCDOT BMPs and will address stormwater management.
Item P: On-site wetland delineations were conducted on 07/29/1999 by Ginger Tennant and Beth
Reed, Environmental Scientists with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. No wetlands were
identified.
r
Citv of iVlonroe: (letter dated 4-13-99)
Item A: Utilities have been coordinated with City staff and will be worked out during the
construction phase of the project. For a description of utility relocation see Section VIII.
17
Figures
B-3544
Title: Vicinity Map
d ` 4
Z
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
rowler-Jecrest Koad lir
over Stewart's Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
MONROE, BRIDGE ;?446,UNION
COUNTY. REPLACE BRIDGE ON
FOWLER SECRET ROAD OVER
STEWART'S CREEK.

/• ? -? -- Ih I y r x_....607
- • ?
_ •-:r'.
v .
Morni Sur (711
Watts Grol-e Ch
-
O 679\, ° 1
r

)0
s
lo

-- -
r -9/ •
._
-
. ?
--_ •_ ??, _
. ??`
-
,I
PROJECT'
•?
Cern _ i
Grace Ch

_ - .. .
%
l
loo,
-
?r -'_
.__
PP? -`A
°
- .. .?
=
`_ -
+
° .• .-
1678
_L
/
__
.
:rci<=;. • `. -
/-
/?
' - _ -
'SCI' • S?
--
.
.
Bakers
,,
-75

+'- '677 '?
•
" '\ i U
•
4 ! r?,`
•
.
•
k7
/ '
cc

I
Roll,ng.H+lls
Rali.ng
• ^?
_ t.

Rollin

Rolli
Hi
lls cl;-
.
ISO[ V
\
627

Ch
j
• I
Title: USGS Topographical Map
Project: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
"•' `y over Stewart's Creek
? Monroe. North Carolina
\.
`? ....••'i• Project De
velopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cale: acne: rrc,eci,lo. rgure:
10110!99 1.24N0 011851001 2
P?
ti
o
'' mi???c~yvwb
ti.?Oqu,
?ba N NN
utn-i?
F- u,
N 4 jF,n
`r c N
VlZ2u)p.
?pOa?l
W W 2 W
ti
!-
W
LiJ
.L

?-
/'?
l? LLJ
CY'-l l?li 11.%!1 Q
LLJ
Y. W U IJ
¢ ac1Oe? /
Vf W W
?IJJ ?
Z It I
4.?. pQ I m
W I
6 ^
I ? J 3 g U
I ? 3 F N 0
I 31 Z U
N - m w?
11v I ,
lr) 4
I \ ?c
1
L n
Il I,? I I ? 1` ?
a_
U
oo,
\
J
J i?rl l \ ,/ ?l \ \ 00'91
I I ????aNu w ?\L /l'I/7 ? I c ?
I 0 J ? GCOj I \ I ;: I {, ? ??S
z o o I \? I I ?} k ?? \
1 1 - ?
I I 5 .- I ?..
1 Ln II \??
! ! I-
/ ? I I I- I o
/ W I I = IV
O Y Q i
[?J 4 I I I I 9il^`?o
I v;WVW-_ Q I I-?IUUI I v
I 7 j p m n Vl I , 7 U 4 3 P b
?0>- v q -C
oT aoq i i L btu
I V N W h W ?
u
O Z N U Qu n
I d N <
%,v?go
7( hW1
I Z W V < ? OU I rl I I nl
N ?
l V) IW I I ,,I
~ O??
I Lo I? I I °I
Viler
p ?N
r--)
Y
J

_Y_ ?-
?
O
U l1J
CU
t1_
?Wd
y_ cl t O
U r? Z
1
(n CD ?
J1 O
-
zaf 0 0
U Q
W U
U-) Z
(- f-
N
..L V) I . 1 II
Li.J 0
J
? Of W
J
O 7
O U
U
i >- I
l
J WW2W
- - - - 0001
>An,a v
°^a
olr,,?

~ I I

II
O

II
II
II
I r9
.Z .IWARCRAIL
r r e
;r r
GU.IRCRAIL
EXISTING
G2 I C2 1 p?
EXISTING
., ?GROUND
Gwr TO THIS U.VE ' VARIABLE \
SLOPE \1
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
WIDEN/OVERLAY EXISTING
-
L-,r.1
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
LZ
EXISTING
I J .? , GROUND
GRACE TO THIS
uNE ' VARIABLE
SLOPE
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2
NEW CONSTRUCTION
TYPICAL SECTIONS
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 446
FOWLER SECREST ROAD OVER
STEWARTS CREEK
TIP NO. B-3544
MONROE, N.C. UNION COUNTY
SCALE = NONE FIGURE: 4
71
1St.) - .• - - ?. .-? ? _
Nlofninc Star Ch _
\ SS II o? _ ..I ?r. Watts ..-
f . r
645
':. ., • .`._\ti
- _ s1111:? i l ^ _ _ PROJECT Bfi dg le
• y 4?f ,
IP#
IDO,
+? _.? 1?,1,, ' • • ?l"? ? ? '''?? __ C,.?..i.?, ^ n 580 ? _ _° ,.?=
%
* 40
fakers + -
?? 1111 `'' - - - ;
r US 74,''
• •\ L ' •- ` A -Roll -n Hills
:Coon •y Club _
Rollins
_ Hills !i• -
Title: Detour Routing
Project: Fowler-Secrest Road Brid-ge Replacement
over Stewart's Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ua;e: aca;e: rrc;et r^;o. I rgure:
10/1C,'99 1.24CC0 011851001
"'
Photo 1: Looking southwest along Stewarts Creek from
Road Bridge
Photo 2: Looking southeast along Stewarts Creek from Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge

Title: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
Project: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
?•" " `bz over Stewart's Creek
s Monroe, North Carolina
C. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
6

Title: Union County FIRM Map j ,1
t?.d'°"`2 over Stewart's Creek
a Monroe, North Carolina
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
..r
• _ . + : ,' ?'i\ . uu? 11 ; ?: i?> ? _ W ,c '", 1.11 •?r F :_? ?c? ? . YUtlMti
I'rDU9HAi -(r I ( ?? S`• \1 S ?vbsietiar\." •? a `??i ^ ?p?.?.?_`:
610•' Pug?I. ?,?J,?tA \??, ' TTV? •. I •?
• ! / r'll
.'? PUBR ,, L:,/ eH"" ? ? 1r'\?t?\j?_^bFO??At _; ' / I • ? „ ?- ( `?°; , , ? ? ?--- ?` , _ .1 ?; :A?u? -;.
bs Pus, N84 - /? r
- PUSH
• „ ?// peat
PUB i, 6 SO"
V ,??? , ? ' °twat+?s sfar tar = `%?' - 8H n -
Watts Oros ?• " .. o`` 679 ^ /
71
,-+-
• PFOtR= ? t<' _ _ . »? , %13
, ?\ ? .,? r, `• .Y '' rl i J .' / ?• BH>' PuBHtt•
G a\ 39 O
- • t ' YU6H6 ^ ' ii ~' - ?" Fl S11 `r w 1 600
P, ftsw
46
..._ -- - ,\`*?•\,ll.• '•r! ??(,- V '1"O°" 'j?? `' - _ \
'tGraiie Ch
9-1 1001 --
r CA
? eie ? ' '% PIIBHA ^1 -P
i .-• r /. ..? ? Jam` -?ti. - r ; "
- -• \?
eskers.,: _ .????.? .. ':? r-- ..f ttt8?N? , .-:
0-5
4. J
)4/Jr •
VYOMh •"`..: q• ?7,ia?? %`,''?. ti ?' t.r _ BH •?? - :? ' f ,
UBHt+ • PUBH6, ,V ling HOR)
_. r- ? (''•.. ._ ._?-' lv. -, ;+"--.•_?NO • ,• ? / •, / / `_?i. • ? • y .. .? (rte
Title: NWI Map - Bakers, NC Quadrangle
roject: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
over Stewart's Creek
Monroe. North Carolina
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Title: Union County Soil Survey Map
d e?
C? + V?
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
over Stewart's Creek
Monroe, North Carolina

Appendix A
Agency Comments
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 23301
September 16, 1999
Ms. Ginger M. Tennant
Environmental Analyst
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33063
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3063
Dear Ms. Tennant:
Subject: Proposed Bridge Replacement, Bridge ?446 over Stewarts Creek, Monroe, Union
County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3544)
In your letter of July 27, 1999, you requested our comments on the subject project with regard to
potential impacts to federally listed species. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The proposed project will involve the replacement of Bridge x446 on Fowler Secrest Road over
Stewarts Creek, in lionroe, Union County, North Carolina. The existing bridge, built in 1953,
consists of a timber floor on steel stringers, with timber posts and concrete sills.
Enclosed is a list of the federally endangered and threatened species known from Union Countv.
This list also includes species of Federal concern that are currently under status review by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which may occur in the project impact area. Species of Federal
concern arc not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We
are including these species in our response to give you advance notification.
The immediate project area has not been surveyed for listed aquatic species. We have records of
a mussel--the Savannah lilliput (Torolasnui pullus)--in Richardson Creek, to which Stewarts
Creek is a tributary. We are concerned about the potential effects that could occur to aquatic
resources as a result of the proposed construction and related activities at the site. We
recommend a survev for fish and mussels in the project area.
The bridge design should provide for the deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer
before it reaches the affected stream. We prefer a bridge design that does not alter the natural
stream morphology or impede fish passage. Any new piers or bents should be placed outside the
bankfull width of the stream. Erosion and sedimentation control measures should be in place
prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet concrete should never be allowed to come into
contact with the stream. If any in-stream work is planned, it should be scheduled during periods
of low flow. Please address the demolition plans for the existing bridge in any environmental
document prepared for this project, as well as any temporary access roads or coffer dams. Will
other utilities require relocation because of the new bridge?
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Mark Cantrell of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-99-247.
Sincerely,
, . Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kemersville, NC 27284-9180
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Union County, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbariums, literature, and personal
communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records
being added and old records being revised as new information is received. Please note that this list cannot
be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
Sea turtles: Sea turtles occur in coastal waters and nest along beaches. This list includes sea turtles
in the counties where they are known to nest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
jurisdiction over sea turtle issues on terrestrial systems; the National Marine Fisheries
Service has authority over sea turtles in coastal waters.
Manatees: Manatees occur throughout North Carolina's coastal waters; this list includes manatees
in counties where there are known concentrations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
consultation and recovery responsibility for manatees.
COIVENION NA,tifE SCIENTIFIC NADE STATUS
UNION COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostonta collis collis FSC
Invertebrates
Pee Dee cravfish ostracod DactvlocLthere peedeensis FSC*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
Savanna lilliput Tosolasma pullus FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster .Aster georgianus FSC
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
August 17. 1999 Page 1 of
COTtiIIi ION NAIM E SCIENTIFIC NAIN E STATUS
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
FSC A Federal species of coucem-a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
August 17, 1999 Page, 2 of

North Carolina Department of Cultural
State Historic Prt:servation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 13, 1999
Ginger Tennant
Environmental Scientist
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 32068
Raleigh, NC 27638-3058
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 446, TIP No. B-3544, Union County, ER 00-7635
Dear Ms. Tennant:
We have conducted a review of the project area and are aware of no properties of architectural, or historic
significance within the project area. However, since the project area has not been comprehensively
surveyed in over a decade there may be structures of architectural of historic significance of which we are
not aware.
We recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department of Transportation
identify and evaluate all properties over fifty years of age within the project area and report the findings to
us.
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.
Sincerely,
C DQr?o ok
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:ldb
cc: W.Gilmore
B.Church
RECEIVED
OCT 1 "P 1999
Niva--r-MORN
Resources Eg111'R'
109 East Jones Streee 9 Raleiah. North Carolina _7601-2307
. _: C.. .. rji
y? 1•
CDENR
JAMES ©. HUNTJR. Ms. Ginger iVI. Tennant
GOVERNOR
Kimlev-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33063
Raleigh, NC 27636-3063
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECRr-ATION
August 12, 1999
WAYNC MCCIEVITr
SECRETARY _ SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas at the Sites of Two
Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects in Monroe, Union
County, North Carolina: NCDOT TIP: B-3543
DR. PHILIP K- MCKNCLLY' NCDOT TIP: B-3544
CIRECTOR
Dear Ms. Tennant:
_ The NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) does not have a record of rare species,
high quality natural communities, state park and recreation areas, or Significant
Natural Heritage Areas at or within a 1.0 mile radius of the proposed bridge
replacement projects B-3543 and B-3544 at Bearskin Creek and Stewarts Creels
respectively in iVfonroe, Union County, North Carolina. However, because Union
County has not been systematically inventoried, this is not a definitive statement that
rare species do not exist in the area.
Enclosed is a list of rare species known to exist in Union County. If habitat for any of
these species exists at the site, they may be present there. Consultant acquired
knowledge of the existing habitat should determine if a survey is necessary.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below or call me at (919) 715-
3703 if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Susan Ret-cc Giles
Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
Enclosure
27699-1615
P.O. 3Ox 17H97• RALEIGH NC ONE 919.773-4131 FAX [phone]
•.N O RECYCLEOl10s P03T•CONSUNER PAPER
Av GCUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFTfAMATIVC ACTT %
NC , (ATUR',L HERITAGE PROGRAM COUL lTY STATUS LIST COVER SHEET
Tne county status list of the NC Natural Heritage p,ogrn• rn is a listing of the e!emcats of natural diversity (rare plant and animal
species, esempiary natural communities, and special animal habitats) known to ecc'ur in all North Carolina counties. The
information an which this list is based comes from a varier/ of sources, inc!uding Fie.d surveys, museums, herbaria, scientific
literature, and personal communications. This list is dynamic, with new records continually being added and old records being
revised as new information is received. As a result, the enc!osed list cannot be considered a definitive record of natural heritage
elements present in a given county and should not be used as a substitute for de!d surreys.
When this information is used in any dec'umcm, we request (hat :he date this list :vas compiled be given and that the NC Natural
Heritage Program be Credited.
STATE STATUS
CODE STATUS CODE STATUS
E Endangered SR Significantly Rare
T Threatened Eat Extirpated
SC Special Concern D De-listed
C Candidate P_ Proposed (E, T. SC, EX er D)
P1nnt statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculturc) and the Natural Heritage
Program (NC Department of Eaviroament and Natural Resources). E, T, and SC species are protected by state law (PI
art
Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designatieIIS indicate rarity and the need for peculation monitoring and
conservation action. Note that some plants have a double status (e.g., E-SC, indicates that while the plant is endangered, it is
collected or sold under regulation). Sec the Natural Heritage Program Lest of the Rare Pant Soec.es of North Carolina for further
ez?ianation of these statuses.
Animal statuses that indicate state protection (E. T, and SC) are published in Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina, March 16,
1992, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Progam (NC Department of Environmr't and Natural Rerourc=). SR and EY statuses
are Natural Heritage Program desigrladons. SR indicates rarity and the nr_d for population monitoring and conservation action.
See the Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Specter of Nosh Carolina for further e.:planation of these stances.
FEDFRAL STATUS
These statuses are designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Eadanllered and Threatened species are
protected under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the Mth Congress. Unless otherwise
noted, definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 2255, November 21. 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
CODE ST?,TUS DEFItYrI'ION
LE Endangc:ed A talon "in danger of a ;tinc:ion throug-'n.Cut all of a significant portion of its range."
LT Threatened A taken 'likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future Ihroughcm all of a
significant portion of its range."
C Candidate A talon under consideration for which the:e is sufrc:ern t^<ormaron to succor, List nQ. This categori was
forme:Iy designated as a Candidate 1 (Cl) species.
FSC Fcde:al 'Species of Conce-t' (also called 'Species at Risk"). Formerly de :ned as a (axon under
consideration for which (here is insufficient info=tien to support listing; formerly desigated as a
Candidate 2 (C2) species. Currently, the US Fsh and Wildlife Service dces hot recognize this as an
official desipation.
T(5;.,) T area:e^ed due to SimiIar:ry JI ?DCCaraI CC• The ?rdar•_"red Species .ac: a`atrerzes the treatment of a
species (subscecies or populatiCn seg rent) as thr.-::=td -ven theuzh a s not Jtrerwise listed as :11treaceaed
If: (a) 7hc species so clCsciy :ese.:.bies :n ,pcczrarc: a hrectencd species ;ha( enforcen:e nt persorre!
vcuid'have substantial diif:city in diffe:_t!iatin- :e:'•vee..:; e listed and uniis:ed species; (b) the effect of

an addicurlal ::.rent :o a :hre_te e i xecics; and +c) such treat;.,e nt of an unlisted
;h:S SL'bSlaSl[Ia( d1fI1C::1[Y is
Viii substantlailV !aC:ll(ate t!: _.^.:CfCeTC.^.( =d ur!i C: I.:C ccl;CY Jr :hc aC'. T :Z
CS '
SCCC
.
.
??11?1[Cr has this desi?nat:Cn uuC 10 itm:iar:C: JI CCLeCrC.^.CC :0 C[C_. re :CCCdiliar:. The Sog Turtle
ISCL'tlC n occuiatnon) has :,ins deSt'„'naCCn __ :o xr':ar::% J( CCCCaf: Ca :0 ?C? Tu:ales :1 :he :1-.:eatJ C'?
nc.n Can CCCulzuri.
PD procosel :Jr
sCCC.''S has bCC.

C T3AL STAT- FED. STA7Z
SC=:::TT:: =C NANr cc:.?CN :IAI.'-M STAT•JS STATUS RA11K RANK
Un_cn-C'.1==ent
Vertebrate Ani=al
. WvztCma ta' cc:ce_.. '!0:2 SalZmarce= SC - S2 GS
__ necstcma cc_'_:s carcl_na Dart- SC - S' G3
_inve=tebrate Ani=al
-usccna_a mason. G2
Lasmi cons ceCOrZa
- S.
Gi
Strcohit a uncuia__s scuawfoot T - S2S? G?
Taxolasma pulluS Savarman -_l__=u: G3

-
Villosa const_ct- Notched Rainbow S= (?SC; - S3 G_G4
V.llcsa deli:-._S _sste_n C__ekshe-- S7 - S3 G;
Vil losa vauchaniana _arOllr.a Creeks^e-_ SC (P?) .SC S2 G2
vasczla= Plant
aster cecrcianus Georcia Ster cSC S' G2G3
ante= laevis var ccncinnus Narrow-le=ved; aster C - S2 GST4
Aster mi_abil_s ?iecr=C Aster C - S2 G2G3
3aptisia albescenz
..
:hin-pod WhiCe Wi- In .. _co SR - S2 G4
Gnac a__u:m he__er- far he_ler_ acco
=el_er's Rabb:. 0-- S.R _
SZ
G4G5T3?
ne'__anthus laevicatus Smcot: Sunflower Sa - S2 G4
el_anthus schwe=.._t=__ Sc:::+ei.._.._'s Sun__owe= S2 G2
Lows heller, _ C.:rcl_na ?ird_oot-tre:.,__ C : SC S3 G3
Pc°erarthus st tulatus :radian Physic Sit - S2 G5
Nacz:al Cc=unity
3as_c Oak--:.:_;ckozy Forest
Dry Oak--.Hickory :crest - - - S4 G5
Xeri c Hard=an Forest - - - S3 G3G4
Union- _-r.toric
vasc.la= Plant
Ccelcrac his cv'__::d_'-ca Carolina Jointc:ass C - S G4G5
T_seetes ._ _ni-a vi_-_.._a Qui'_1wc=t C .SC S? G3
:':ACT- -=CC;7,A , _900
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
October 11, 1999
INiFNIORANDUNt
P=n
M
MCD9
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E.. Manager, NCDOT, Proje fevelopment & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Qualit
-14U sreuwtt3
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No.,leover BearskitrCreek, TIP B-
3544.
Reference your correspondence dated July 27, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for the
replacement of bridge number 446 (TIP B-3544). Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the
proposed bridge will span Stewarts Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The stream is classified as
WS III waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental
issues for the proposed project:
A. Review of the proposed project reveals the potential for impacts to a Water Supply III. Prior to
selecting a preferred alternative, the DOT needs to assess and document all other reasonable and
feasible alternatives. The NCDWQ cannot permit impacts to valuable drinking water supplies that
are otherwise avoidable. Prior to issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification. the NCDOT will
need to demonstrate the radonale for the selected alternative and all efforts undertaken to ameliorate
impacts.
B. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
C. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
D. There should be a discussion on mitiption plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required.
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 500 recycled/ 10% past-ccnsumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore mcmo
10/11/99
Page
E. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters. Body
Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However.
impacts to waters classified as Water Supply III will be impacted. The DWQ requests that DOT
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply for
any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water),
HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications.
F. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction. Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
G. The DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing
directly into the stream.
H. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
1. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/rrteasures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
J. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
K. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
L. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
M. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)). the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
N. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
0. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
desi,ned stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
P. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/1-499
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information.
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C: ncdot%TlP B-35441cammcntskB-3544 scoping commcnmdoc

CITY OF 100E
P.O. BOX 69 • MCNRCE, NCRTH CARCUNA 23111.OCC3
FAX [phone]
August 13, 1999
Mr. Michael M Rutkowski, PE
Kimley-Hoen and Associates, Inc
P O Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Re: Bridge 9446 Fowler Secrest Rd and Stewart Creek
Bridge 9107 Miller Street and Bearskin Creek
Dear Mr. Rutkowski:
This letter is in response to your request for comments in reference to possible conflicts with the
City of Monroe Water Resources Utilities. We have several items that need attention before
design of the bridges gets to far ahead. At both locations at bridges 446 and 107 we have water
and sewer mains that will be in direct conflict of demolition of the old and on construction of the
new. I list these possible conflicts below.
Bridge '107 on Miller Street has an existing 8" cast iron water main located in the floor
and steel beam section of the bridge. This main is approximately 9'- 0" from the West
side wall back into the bridge. Also a 24" sewer main is located approximately 30' - 0"
South of the South end wing walls.
Bridge 9446 on Fowler Secrest Road has both water and sewer mains located on the
upstream and downstream sides of the bridge. The lines run parallel to Fowler Secrest
Road. Both are 8" size and are materials consisting of 8" PVC and 8" ductile iron pipe.
I request through your firm that we be provided with a scope of work plan giving some general
layout dimensions of the bridges proposed and the approach and exit points of both locations.
Until we have some type of knowledge as to size, length, width, etc of the bridges and road way
improvements it is extremely difficult for the Water Resources Department to give any type of
solid plans for removal of the old lines or to the replacement of the new lines.
We also will request what type of funding will be used to reimburse the department for removal
and replacement costs.
I will be glad to meet you or a representative of your firm on site to review these items and
discuss possible alternatives of location etc. Please contact me at [phone] office, (704)
282-9210 mobile, and [phone] fax.
Sincerely,
6-(,& '
C W Snipes, Jr.
Water Resources Construction Manager
C: Russ Colbath
Duane Wingo
James Pope
Jim Loyd

Appendix B
Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects
17L ? i?(.,?1 .1
F?deral.Vd »BRZ-1015(9) TIP 413-3544 Counry: Union
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Project DescriFtion: Replace Bride No 4-16 on Fowler-Secrest Road over Stewnrt's Creek in Monroe
On December 16, 1999, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
/,?-< Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
-}? photograph review sessiorticonsultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
j there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
QaA,k -% &Q,? ??2- - I -?9
Representative NCDO Date
F WA, , e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
/Z /hC
Rep sentative, SHPO Date
Late Historic Preservation Officer ` `Date

If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 01, 2000
Memorandum To: Tom R. Kendig, Project Manager
Consultant Unit
From: Tim Savidge, Regional Environmental Coordinator
Environmental Unit
Subject: Mussel survey for proposed replacement of bridge no.446 over Stewart's
Creek on Fowler Secrest Road; Union County, B-3544.
Reference: January 03, 2000 Survey Mussel Report for B-3544.
The project site was surveyed for the presence of mussels on December 7-8, 1999,
and it was stated that additional surveys would be needed to determine the
presence/absence of the Endangered Carolina heelsplitter from Stewart's Creek (Ref.).
Stewart's Creek was revisited on September 28, 2000 by NCDOT Environmental
Specialists Tim Savidge, Jeff Burelson, Mike Wood and Larry Thompson, and US Fish
and Wildlife biologist John Fridell. Surveys were conducted by wading using view
buckets from NC 200 upstream for approximately %4 mile, and also at the proposed
Monroe Bypass (R-2559) crossing of Stewart's Creek, between NC 200 and US 601. A
total of 3 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.) were found during 2 hours of survey time. Shells
of elliptios were also found. Tim Savidge, Mike Wood and Matt Smith (from ESI)
surveyed Stewart's Creek on October 25, 2000 from the bridge crossing downstream of
the project (SR 1501) working upstream for approximately'/4 mile. A total of 5 live and 4
shells of elliptio mussels, and 1 shell of eastern floater (Pyganadon cataracta) were
found in 1.5 hours. No species that were not previously recorded in the creek were
found. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) is abundant in the creek.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on the recent and previous (Ref.) surveys in Stewart's Creek, it is apparent
that mussels are generally uncommon throughout the creek and that the Carolina
heelsplitter is not present in Stewart's Creek. It can be concluded that project
construction will not impact the Carolina heelsplitter.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Manager
a
Monroe
Bridge No. 446
Fowler Secrest Road over Stewarts Creel:
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (9)
State Project No. 3.2692301
TIP B-3544
. - i ;`:'?11J ?UA

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADI-MNISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE
DATE
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Nicholas L. Graf. P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Monroe
Bridge No. 446
Fowler Secrest Road over Stewarts Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-101 (9)
State Project No. 3.2692301
TIP B-3544
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2000
Documentation Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates
For the City of Monroe and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mike M. Rutkowski, P.E.
Project llana;er
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
James Loyd, Jr., P.E.
City Engineer
City of Monroe
Thomas R. Kendig, AICP
Project Development Unit Head
Consultant Engineerin- Unit
NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMIIITTMENTS
Bridge No. 446
Fowler Secrest Road over Stewarts Creels
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (9)
State Project No. 3.2692301
TIP Project Number B-3544
?f
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the
following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadside Environmental Unit
The construction contract shall include a notice for the potential for lead paint and creosote on the
project and shall include provisions for their disposal.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch/Roadivay Design Unit
An 8" (0.2 meter) ductile iron pipe sanitary sewer line will be permanently relocated. A
description for the sewer line relocation is included in the roadway design plans and bridge
replacement plans. An 8" (0.2 meter) PVC water line is located approximately 9 feet (2.7 meters)
north of the existing bridge and is currently underneath the streambed. In order to construct the
Conspan bridge, the water line should be permanently relocated outside the wingwalls of the
Conspan bridge. Before Conspan bridge construction begins, the waterline should be relocated to
provide uninterrupted service. The required amount of additional water line is approximately 150
feet (45.7 meters). All utility conflicts will be coordinated with the NCDOT and the City of
Monroe prior to the construction phase.
Green Sheet
Preconstruction Page l of l
December S. 2000
Table of Contents
Page
I. Summary of Recommendations .......................................................................................1
II. Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................1
III.
....................................................................................................................
Alternatives 2
....
IV. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................3
V. Recommended Improvements ..........................................................................................3
VI. Natural and Physical Resources ..................................................................................... ..4
1. Physical Resources .................................................................................................... ..4
2. Biotic ........................................................................................................................ ..6
3. Wetlands ................................................................................................................... ..8
4. Protected Species ...................................................................................................... ..9
5. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 12
VII. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 12
A. Compliance Guidelines ............................................................................................ 12
B. Historic Architecture ................................................................................................ 12
C. Archaeology .............................................................................................................. 13
VIII. Environmental Effects .................................................................................................... 12
IX. Responses to Agency Comments ................................................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1 Cost Breakdown of Recommended Alternate .....................................................3
Table 2 Federally Protected Species for Union County .................................................10
Table 3 State Protected Species for Union County ........................................................11
Figures
Figure 1 Site Location
Figure 2 USGS Topographical Map - Monroe, NC Quadrangle
Figure 3 Plan Sheet
Figure 4 Typical Section
Figure 5 Detour Routing
Figure 6, 6A Site Photographs
Figure 7 FERIA Flood Insurance Rate Map
Figure 3 National Wetlands Inventory 'YIap -'vlonroe, NC Quadrangle
Figure 9 Union County Soil Survey ivlap
Appendices
Appendix A Agency Comments
Appendix B Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects
Monroe
Bridge No. 446
Fo%vler Secrest Road over Stetivarts Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015(9)
State Project No. 3.2692301
TIP B-3544
The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 446, and associated approach roadway improvements,
which carries Fowler Secrest Road over Stewarts Creek in the City of Monroe, North Carolina, is
scheduled for construction in the North Carolina Department of Transportation 2000-2006
Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. SUMMARY OF RECOIIivIENDATIONS
A new structure on existing alignment is recommended to carry Fowler Secrest Road over
Stewarts Creek (See Figure 2).
The proposed grade of Fowler Secrest Road will be raised approximately three feet (0.9 meters)
to improve sight distance. The proposed improvements will require approximately 100 feet (30.5
meters) on the southbound approach and 490 feet (149.4 meters) of improvements on the
northbound approach. As shown in Figure 3, the project ties into each approach using guardrail.
The new roadway approaches will have a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway with 6 feet (1.8 meters)
of unpaved shoulders on each side (see Figure 4).
The proposed structure will be a 28'x11' (8.5x3.4 meter) bottomless Conspan bridge system.
This is the most cost-effective alternative due to its simple form of construction, and it allows for
an adequate hydraulic opening.
During construction the existing crossing will be closed. Through traffic will be detoured along
the existing streets (see Figure 5).
The estimated cost is $424,000 including $40,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $384,000 for
construction. The estimated cost included in the 2000-2006 TIP is $393,000 including $32.000
for ri ght of way acquisition and S361,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Fowler Secrest Road is classified as a local access street in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Fowler Secrest Road is also designated as a local access street in the 1997
Monroe Thoroughfare Plan and serves local residential traffic.
Near Bridge No. 446. Fowler Secrest Road is a 20.0-foot (6.1-meter) %vide, two-lane paved road
with 3.0-foot (0.9-meter) wide unpaved shoulders. The horizontal alignment in the project area
is eood. However, the vertical aliumnent needs to be raised to provide adequate vertical
transition. The deck of Bridge No. 446 is 11 feet (3.4 meters) above the streambed. Water is
approximately 1 feet (0.3 meters) deep in the project area. See Figure 6.
Bridge No. 446 was built in 1958. The bridge has a 3.5-inch (8.9-centimeter) asphalt wearing
surface. The bridge includes a one span - timber deck on steel beams supported by a timber
substructure (see Figure 6). It is 31.0 feet (9.4 meters) long with a 19.3-feet (5.9-meter) wide
roadway. It carries two lanes of traffic, with posted load limits of 15 tons (13.6 metric tons) for
single vehicles and 19 tons (17.2 metric tons) for Truck-tractor Semi-trailers (TTST).
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 446
was 29.9 of 100.0 in March 2000, when the latest bridge inspection was performed; this means
the bridge was structurally deficient.
According to a traffic count performed by the City of Monroe in September 1999, the traffic
volume was 1,303 vehicles per day (vpd) along Fowler Secrest Road near the bridge. The
design year (2020) traffic at the Fowler Secrest Road Bridge is projected to be 4,000 vpd (based
on a 5.5 % growth rate). The growth rate of traffic is anticipated to increase substantially due to
the traffic impact of developable land in the vicinity of the bridge. The truck percentage is 5
percent based on NCDOT counts. The speed limit in the project area is 35 miles per hour (55
kilometersihour).
Accident Records indicate that one non-fatal accident occurred in the vicinity of Bridge No. 446
between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1998.
The Transportation Director for Union County Schools indicated that there are currently 2 daily
school bus crossings on Bridge No. 446. The number of school bus crossings is expected to
increase to 3 buses per day at the time the bridges are replaced.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives studied focused on minimizing human and environmental impacts and providing,
improved traffic movements while satisfying minimum design speeds criteria.
The "do-nothing" alternative is not practical. The existing bridge would continue deteriorating
until it was unusable and unsafe. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive
maintenance. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not feasible due to its age and deterioration.
The option of maintaining traffic along an on-site detour was eliminated due to the resulting
social and environmental impacts and availability of suitable detour routes.
The recommended alternative proposes a new Conspan bridge system located on the existing
alignment (see Figure 3). The typical sections are shown in Figure 4. The proposed grade on
Fowler Secrest Road will be raised approximately three feet (0.9 meters) to improve sight
distance. The proposed improvements will require approximately 100 feet (30.5 meters) on the
southbound approach and 490 feet (149.4 meters) of improvements on the northbound approach.
Closure of the existing bridge will be necessary. Traffic will be rerouted using an off-site detour
(see Figure 5).
IV. COST ESTIMATE
Table 1 shows a breakdown of the estimated total cost of the recommended alternate.
Table 1
Cost Breakdown of Recommended Alternate
Items Estimated Cost
Structure $225,000
Roadway Approaches $ 45,000
Structure Removal $ 24,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 30,000
Engineering and Contingencies S60.000
Construction Total $384,000
Rieht-of-Way Total S40.000
Project Total $ 424,000
V. RECONIlVIENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 446 will be replaced at the existing location, as shown in Figure 2. Traffic will be
maintained by detouring onto existing roadways during the construction period.
Bridge No. 446 will be replaced with a 28'x11' (8.5x3.4 meter) bottomless Conspan bridge
system. This is the most cost-effective alternative due to its simple form of construction, and it
allows for an adequate hydraulic opening.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 50 miles per hour (81
kilometers per hour). The new roadway approaches will have a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway
with 6 feet (1.8 meters) of unpaved shoulders on each side. The new roadway approaches will be
raised approximately three feet (0.9 meters) to improve sight distance.
There are no future plans for bicycle lanes on Fowler Secrest Road. Therefore, the bridge
replacement will not include accommodations for bicycle lanes. City staff officials approved this
design consideration.
Construction of this alternative will not increase the 100-year flood elevation. The bridge
replacement will not place substantial amounts of fill in the flood plain area.
The existing bridge will be closed during construction of the replacement structure. Traffic will
be detoured on existing streets (See Figure 5). The total length of the detour would be
approximately 2.5 miles (4 kilometers). Road user costs associated with this detour route will be
minimal compared to costs associated with constructing a detour structure and the resulting
impacts to the environment.
All utility conflicts will be coordinated with the NCDOT and the City of Monroe prior to the
construction phase. An 8" (0.2 meter) ductile iron pipe sanitary sewer line will be permanently
relocated. A description for the sewer line relocation is included in the roadway design plans
and brid=e replacement plans. An 3" (0.2 meter) PVC water line is located approximately 9 feet
(2.7 meters) north of the existing bridge and is currently underneath the streambed. In order to
construct the Conspan bridge, the water line should be permanently relocated outside the
wingwalls of the Conspan bridge. Before Conspan bridge construction begins, the waterline
should be relocated to provide uninterrupted service. The required amount of additional water
line is approximately 150 feet (45.7 meters).
Currently, the utility contract for this project has not been finalized. However, this project
commitment shall be implemented during construction of the project.
Additional utility conflicts include the relocation of four power poles.
VI. NATURAL AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES
An evaluation of resources within the project area was conducted to determine the potential
impacts on these resources as a result of the proposed bridge replacement. This analysis
included a review of background resource information including the US. Geological Survey
(USGS) map (Bakers, NC quadrangle) (Figure 2), the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map
(Bakers, NC quadrangle) (Figure 8), and soils mapping contained in the Soil Survey for Union
County (Figure 9). Water resource information was obtained from publications of the North
Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (NCDETNR). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species was gathered from the US. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species for Union County, the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program database of protected species and unique habitats, and a scoping response from
USFWS. Natural communities, potential wetlands, and potential hazardous materials were
evaluated during site reconnaissance conducted on July 29, 1999 by Kimley-Horn environmental
scientists.
1. Physical Resources
Water and soil resources identified within the study area are discussed below. Hydrologic
influence, soil characteristics, and topographic positioning directly influence the
distribution of plant communities within a landscape as well as the associated fauna
within these communities.
a. Water Resources
The existing bridge and proposed replacement Conspan bridge span Stewarts
Creek, which is located within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Stewarts Creek
flows west to east until its convergence with Richardson Creek approximately 6.5
miles (10.5 kilometers) southeast of the project area. The channel is
approximately 8 to 10 feet (2.4 - 3A meters) wide and approximately two feet (0.6
meter) deep in the vicinity of the bridge with a rock/sand substrate. Flow rates in
the project area are slow to moderate depending on precipitation.
i. Best Usage Classification
Water quality is regulated by NCDENR - Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The state of North Carolina has assigned a best usage classification to waters of
I
the state based on water quality. Stewarts Creek in the vicinity of the project
area is designated as a WS-III Stream. This classification denotes a public water
supply stream in generally low to moderately developed watersheds. Local
programs to control nonpoint sources and stormwater discharge are required.
Also, this classification denotes waters suitable for secondary uses such as
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
ii. Water Quality
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Monitoring Survey is
another approach to assess water quality using biological indicators. BMAN
results are available for certain water basins throughout the state and are useful
for determining long-term changes in water quality. The classification system
uses ratings from poor to excellent. As of September 23, 1999, there have been
no benthic macroinvertebrate surveys done in Stewarts Creek.
iii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project would involve some degree of impact on water quality as a
result of the dismantling of the existing bridge and the installation of the
replacement Conspan bridge. Construction activities will temporarily alter and
interrupt stream flows, as well as water levels at the project site. Temporary
impacts may include increased siltation during installation, temporary fill
materials placed in the stream for retaining wall construction, and temporary
damrning of the waterway.
Since the bridge deck, superstructure and substructure for Bridge No. 446 are
composed of timber, steel, and concrete sills, there is not potential for
components of the deck, superstructure or substructure to be dropped into
Waters of the United States during construction.
Although no permanent impacts to water quality should occur as a result of the
bridge replacement, precautions will be taken to minimize temporary
construction related impacts. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protections of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be
implemented during all phases of construction to avoid adverse impacts to water
quality in the study area as well as downstream of the study area. The primary
concern during construction is the movement of sediment from land into
Stewarts Creek. Construction practices to prevent sedimentation include berms,
dikes, dams, silt fences, and silt basins.
b. Soils and Topography
Soil formation and characterization result from a combination of biological and
acolo?ical activity along with the topography of an area. According to the Soil
Survey of Union County (1996). the project area extends through one main soil
association, the Badin Series (Figure 9). The soils in the project area are Badin
channery silt loam with 3 to 3 percent slopes. These soils are moderately deep.
well-drained soils on ridges and side slopes, and are hi?zhly erosive.
5
According to the USGS map (Bakers, North Carolina quadrangle), land elevations
within the project area range from approximately 560 feet (170.7 meters) near the
edge of the stream bank to 550 feet (167.6 meters) within the stream channel
(Figure 2). The land within the project area is sloping.
2. Biotic Resources
The distribution of plant communities and their associated wildlife is the result of
topographic positioning, climate, soil characteristics, hydrologic influence and past and
present land use practices. Through field reconnaissance on July 29, 1999, three
terrestrial communities as well as an aquatic community associated with Stewarts Creek
were identified in the project area. The terrestrial communities include upland hardwood
forests, riparian forests and maintained communities.
a. Terrestrial Communities
1. Upland Hardwood Forests
Upland hardwood forests are scattered throughout the project area, usually
occurring in mesic areas adjacent to the Stewarts Creek floodplain. Many of the
upland forest areas in the immediate project vicinity have been fragmented for
residential development. Plant species found in this community include tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), white oak
(Quercus alba), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
These forested areas provide forage, shelter, and nesting resources for a
relatively diverse population of wildlife. These areas may be particularly suited
to a diversity of wildlife when located adjacent to agricultural fields,
successional areas, and developed areas. Mammalian species typically found in
forested habitats of this region include white-tailed deer (Odocoiletts
virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and the eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus). Common
reptiles and amphibians found in these uupland areas include the eastern box
turtle (Terrepene carolina), American toad (Bufo americantts), wood frog (Rana
sylvatica), eastern garter snake (77tamnophis sirtalis), and black rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta). Avian species include wood thrush (Hylocichla fiiscenscens),
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes
carolinus).
2. Riparian Forests
A band of riparian forest occurs along the streambanks within the floodplain of
Stewarts Creek. The hydrology of this community reflects the proximity of the
creek, a perennial stream. The canopy and understory in this area is dominated
by black willow (Salle nigra), American elm (Umus americans), and box elder
(.,1cer negundo). The area borders upland hardwood forests and maintained
communities.
6
Riparian forests provide habitat for wildlife due to the presence of food and
cover and the proximity of water. Species diversity and wildlife popualtions are
often high in such areas. Mammals such as raccoon (Procyon: lotor), opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), and muskrat (Ondatra <.ibethic ts) would likely occur in
such an area. The diversity of amphibians and reptiles could likely include water
snakes (Nerodia spp.), snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina), and various frogs
species (Rana spp.). Bird species known to occur in these areas include the red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-bellied woodpecker, and red-eyed vireo
(Vireo olivacetts).
3. Maintained Communities
A portion of the land within the project area would be classified as maintained
communities, which include existing roads and road right-of-ways, utility
corridors, parklands, and residential areas that have been cleared for
development. These communities exhibit a suppressed level of vegetative
growth due to mowing, spraying, clearing, or other man-initiated activities.
Vegetation in these areas primarily consists of maintained grasses (Festuca
spp.), large shade trees such as southern red oaks (Querctts rubra) and tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and ornamental plantings.
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, associated with Stewarts
Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical and chemical
characteristics of the water body dictate the faunal composition of the community.
Fish species likely to occur within piedmont perennial streams of this type include
bigmouth chub (Nocomis plaryrhyncus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus),
common carp (Cyprinits carpio) and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Clearing, grading, and creating borrow areas into the stream are the primary
actions that would modify terrestrial communities and their associated wildlife
during the proposed bridge replacement project. Impacts to terrestrial
communities will occur in the form of habitat reduction. However, because the
project is located primarily within a disturbed area, minimal impacts to terrestrial
communities are anticipated.
Because this project consists of the replacement of an existing bridge with a
Conspan bridge within the same footprint as the existing bridge, aquatic impacts
should be minimal and. with the exception of the area of streambed under the
Conspan bridge, temporary. These temporary impacts to the aquatic community
associated with Stewarts Creek may occur as a result of increased sedimentation
and siltation from construction activities. Sedimentation may result in oxygen
depletion. coating of gills on fish, siltation of filter feeding structures, reduced
solar radiation, and interference with spawning activities. Impacts are especially
detrimental to less mobile benthic organisms. Many fish will exhibit an avoidance
response and leave the immediate area.
7
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
phase of the project.
3. Wetlands
Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)(33 CFR 328.3) as:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three essential parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1987). Besides providing valuable habitat for a diverse number of plant and
animal species, wetlands also control floodwaters and erosion, replenish groundwater,
filter contaminants and excess nutrients from runoff, and protect municipal water
supplies.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the disposal of dredged or fill material into
"waters of the United States." The term "waters of the United States" incorporates both
surface waters and wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates
development activities within waters of the United States. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for water quality standard compliance in the state and for
Section 401 Water Quality Certificates of the Clean Water Act.
Currently the COE is using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
when performing wetland delineations in North Carolina. The 1987 Manual was the basis
for evaluating wetlands within the project area during field review conducted on July 29,
1999.
No wetland areas were identified within the project area. The only COE and NCDENR
jurisdictional areas would be associated with construction activities within Stewarts
Creek.
a. Permitting Requirements
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, permits will be required
from the COE for any activities that encroach into jurisdictional waters or "waters
of the United States." In addition. Section 401of the Clean Water Act requires
each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated for
activities that: (1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license or (2) require
discharges into "waters of the United States." A 404 permit for construction
activities from the COE is not valid until NCDENR issues a 401 Water Quality
Certificate.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certificate, administered by NCDENR -
DWQ, will also be required for any activities, which may result in a discharge into
Stewarts Creek. In addition, and erosion and sedimentation control plan will need
to be submitted and approved by NCDENR -DWQ prior to initiation of
construction.
b. Mitigation
Typically, projects authorized under Nationwide permits do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1939 Memorandum of Agreement
(1IOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and tile COE.
However, final permit and mitigation requirements will be determined during the
permit review process based on the amount of impact to the stream.
4. Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1943) mandates that federal
agencies ensure that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency do not
jeopardize the "continued existence" of listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536). North Carolina laws grant
protection to rare plants and animals that are endemic to the state or whose populations
are in severe decline.
a. Federally-Protected Species
Federally protected species designated as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened (PT) receive protection under
the Endangered Species Act. Written correspondence, included in Appendix A,
from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service state that there are no records of known rare species, high quality natural
communities, or substantial natural areas occurring in the project area.
It was also noted that no systematic inventory has been undertaken for the project
area. A complete list of protected species known to occur in Union County is
included as Appendix A. If suitable habitat for these species exist in the project
area, a field survey for these species may need to be conducted. The agencies also
stated that due to the lack of data available for the project area, surveys for the
federally endangered Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata); the Carolina
darter (Etheostoma collis collis), a species of federal concern; and three mussel
species of Federal concern are recommended. Tim Savidge of NCDOT conducted
the mussel surveys on December 8, 1999 and September 28, 2000. Based on the
surveys, it is apparent that mussels are generally uncommon throughout the creek
and that the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in Stewart's Creek. Therefore, it is
concluded that no impacts will occur to mussel species as a result of construction.
Table 2 shows the species that are known to occur in Union County and are
federally and/or state listed as either threatened or endan?zered.
Table 2
Federally Protected Species for Union County
Scientific Name
Lasmigona decorata
Helianthus schweinitzii
(as of July 1999)
Common Name
Carolina Heelsplitter
Federal Status
LE
Schweinitz's Sunflower
LE
"LE" denotes listed endangered (a species is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
Carolina Heelsplitter
The Carolina Heelsplitter is a small, freshwater mollusk with a greenish-brown to
brown outer shell. It has been historically documented from small to large streams
and rivers as well as millponds along streams. Typical substrate is mud, muddy
sand, or muddy gravel along stable, well shaded stream banks. Known populations
exist only in three small streams and one river in the Pee-Dee and Catawba River
Basins. The Carolina Heelsplitter is not documented from Stewarts Creek. A
mussel survey was conducted for the project and no species that were not
previously recorded in the creek were found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Schtiveinitz's Sunflower
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb 3.3 - 6.6 feet (1 to 2 meters) tall with
small yellow flowers. It is typically found in clearings and woodland edges and
several populations are known from roadsides and utility right-of-ways.
Populations are known from Union County but there is no documentation of the
species within the project area. Pete Romano, Environmental Scientists with
Kinley-Horn and Associates, Inc conducted on-site surveys for this species on
November 15, 2000. No suitable habitat was found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
b. State Listed Species
Rare plant and animal species are also granted limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. Species given the state classification of endangered (E)
and threatened (T) have been granted protection. The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture are
responsible for enforcing and administering species protection. NCDOT projects,
however. are not subject to these Acts. Table 3 summarizes the state-protected
species (those threatened or endangered) and Federal Species of Concern in Union
County.
Table 3
State Protected Species for Union County
Scientific Name
Fusconaia masoni
Strophitus undulatus
Toxoplasma pullus
Aster georgianus
Cotnnton Name Federal Status State Status
Atlantic Pigtoe FSC T (PE)
Squawfoot ---- T
Savannah Lilliput FSC T
Georgia Aster FSC T
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"PE" denotes Proposed Endangered (a species which is thought to be endangered).
"FSC" denotes a species of federal concern (a species that is of concern in which
further biological research and field study are necessary to resolve the
conservation status of the taxa).
"SC" denotes Special Concern (a species that merits further study to determine its
status)
*Denotes species account that is a historic record over 50 years old
Georgia Aster
The Georgia Aster is a protected plant species known to occur along roadsides and
forest openings. It typically flowers in September and October.
Others
The remaining state listed species are mussels found within the Pee-Dee River
drainage in North Carolina. Mussel surveys were conducted in the project area.
The results of the surveys indicate that mussels are generally uncommon
throughout the creek and that the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in Stewart's
Creek. The following is an excerpt from a letter dated December 12, 1999
regarding the mussel survey conducted by NCDOT Environmental Specialist Tim
Savage.
"The project site was surveyed for the presence of mussels on December 7-3,
1999, and it was stated that additional surveys would be needed to determine the
presence/absence of the Endangered Carolina heelsplitter from Stewart's Creek
(Ref.). Stewart's Creek was revisited on September 23, 2000 by NCDOT
Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge, Jeff Burelson, Mike Wood and Larry
Thompson, and US Fish and Wildlife biologist John Fridell. Surveys were
conducted by wading using view buckets from NC 200 upstream for approximately
1/4 mile, and also at the proposed Monroe Bypass (R-2559) crossing of Stewart's
Creek, between INC 200 and US 601. A total of 3 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.)
were found durimi 2 hours of survey time. Shells of elliptios were also found.
Tim Savidge. alike Wood and Matt Smith (from ESI) surveyed Stewart's Creek on
October 25, 2000 from the bridge crossing downstream of the project (SR 1501)
working upstream for approximately ?1s mile. A total of 5 live and 4 shells of
elliptio mussels, and 1 shell of eastern floater (Pyganadon cataracta) were found
in 1.5 hours. No species that were not previously recorded in the creek were
found. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) is abundant in the creek.
Based on the recent and previous (Ref.) surveys in Stewart's Creek, it is apparent
that mussels are generally uncommon throughout the creek and that the Carolina
heelsplitter is not present in Stewart's Creek. It can be concluded that project
construction will not impact the Carolina heelsplitter."
5. Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials within a project area can impose substantial cost and liability to the
property owner as well as substantial delays in a project schedule. A review of the project
area was conducted to identify obvious indications of hazardous materials that may be
located within the project area. This general screening of hazardous materials included a
limited field review for obvious signs of hazardous materials and a limited review of
current land uses in the immediate project area. No obvious sources of potential
environmental concern were observed in the immediate project area.
According to John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality, since there are no catch
basins associated with the existing bridge, hazardous spill catch basins are not required
for this project.
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources
a. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified
as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and
to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
b. Historic Architecture
NCDOT staff architectural historian, ;Mary Pope Furr, conducted a field survey of
the APE on December 16.1999. The investigation determined that there are no
properties over fifty years old, or properties less than fifty years old which are
considered to meet Criterion Consideration G, or National Register-listed
properties located within the project's APE.
A copy of the concurrence form signed by NCDOT is included in Appendix B.
12
C. Archaeology
According to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, there are no
known archaeological sites within the proposed area. Based on their 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.
VIII. ENVIRONivIENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and minimal
environmental consequences.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
Union County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The approximate limits
of the 100-year floodplain are shown in Figure 7. The proposed structure is not expected to
adversely affect existing floodplain conditions. The studied crossing of Stewarts Creek is within
a designated flood hazard zone.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
All utility conflicts will be coordinated with the NCDOT and the City of Monroe prior to the
construction phase. An 8" (0.2 meter) ductile iron pipe sanitary sewer line will be permanently
relocated. A description for the sewer line relocation is included in the roadway design plans
and bridge replacement plans. An 8 " (0.2 meter) PVC water line is located approximately 9 feet
(2:7 meters) north of the existing bridge and is currently underneath the streambed. In order to
construct the Conspan bridge, the water line should be permanently relocated outside the
wingwalls of the Conspan bridge. Before Conspan bridge construction begins, the waterline
should be relocated to provide uninterrupted service. The required amount of additional water
line is approximately 150 feet (45.7 meters).
Currently, the utility contract for this project has not been finalized. However, this project
commitment shall be implemented during construction of the project.
Additional utility conflicts include the relocation of four power poles.
Since the bridge deck, superstructure and substructure for Bridge No. 446 are composed of
timber, steel, and concrete sills. there is not potential for components of the deck, superstructure
or substructure to be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction.
13
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 300. Section 106
requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed
on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer
(see Appendix A) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located
within the area of potential effect (APE). There are no structures over fifty years of age in the
APE.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural
resources, is required.
The Schweinitz's sunflower is a federally protected species listed for Union County. It is
typically found in clearings and woodland edges and several populations are known from
roadsides and utility right-of-ways. Populations are known from Union County but there is no
documentation of the species within the project area. Pete Romano, Environmental Scientists
with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc conducted on-site surveys for this species on November
15, 2000 and no protected species were identified in the project area.
The project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land protected under
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. No publicly-owned parks,
recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refines of national, state, or local significance
are found in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies and their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. This project is located in an urban area and is exempt from further
consideration of this Act.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and project level analysis is not required. Traffic volumes will not decrease
or increase as a result of the project.
The existing street traffic noise levels are not expected to change substantially, therefore no
impacts will occur. Noise levels may temporarily increase during construction. This evaluation
completes the assessment for highway traffic noise of Title 23. CFR Part 772, and for air quality
(1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional
reports are required.
14
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable
local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC2D.0520.
As described, no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites were observed in the
immediate project area.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
IX. RESPONSES TO AGENCY CONINIENTS
US Denartment of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service: (letter dated 9-16-99)
Item A: Mussel surveys were conducted in the project area. The results of the surveys indicate
that mussels are generally uncommon throughout the creek and that the Carolina heelsplitter is
not present in Stewart's Creek. The following is an excerpt from a letter dated December 12,
1999 regarding the mussel survey conducted by NCDOT Environmental Specialist Tim Savage.
"The project site was surveyed for the presence of mussels on December 7-3, 1999, and it was
stated that additional surveys would be needed to determine the presence/absence of the
Endangered Carolina heelsplitter from Stewart's Creek (Ref.). Stewart's Creek was revisited on
September 23, 2000 by NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge, Jeff Burelson, Mike
Wood and Larry Thompson, and US Fish and Wildlife biologist John Fridell. Surveys were
conducted by wading using view buckets from NC 200 upstream for approximately 1/a mile, and
also at the proposed Monroe Bypass (R-2559) crossing of Stewart's Creek, between NC 200 and
US 601. A total of 3 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.) were found during 2 hours of survey time.
Shells of elliptios were also found. Tim Savidge, Mike Wood and Matt Smith (from ESI)
surveyed Stewart's Creek on October 25, 2000 from the bridge crossing downstream of the
project (SR 1501) working upstream for approximately '/a mile. A total of 5 live and 4 shells of
elliptio mussels, and 1 shell of eastern floater (Pyganadon cataracta) were found in 1.5 hours.
No species that were not previously recorded in the creek were found. The introduced Asian
clam (Corbicula fluminea) is abundant in the creek.
Based on the recent and previous (Ref.) surveys in Stewart's Creek, it is apparent that mussels
are generally uncommon throughout the creek and that the Carolina heelsplitter is not present in
Stewart's Creek. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact the Carolina
heelsplitter."
Item B: Bridge design will follow NCDOT B,)vIPs for stormwater and instream work. This
project will replace an existing bridge with a Conspan bridge. For description of utility
relocation see Section VIII.
IS
Item C: Bridee construction will follow NCDOT BINIPs for bridge construction, which will not
allow for wet concrete to contact stream.
Item D: Since the bridge deck, superstructure and substructure for Bridge No. 4,46 are composed
of timber, steel, and concrete sills, there is not potential for components of the deck,
superstructure or substructure to be dropped into Waters of the United States during
construction.
Item E: The issue of coffer dams will be addressed during permitting.
Item F: No temporary access road is required due to off-site detour.
Item G: Utilities will be coordinated with City staff and will be worked out during the
construction phase of the project. For a description of utility relocation see Section VIII.
NC Department of Cultural Resources: (letter dated 10-13-99)
Item A: On December 16, 1999, a determination was made by the NCDOT and S1-1P0
representatives that there are no National Registered-listed properties located within the project's
area of potential effect. See Appendix B for Concurrence Form dated December 16, 1999.
NCDENR: (letter dated 10-11-99)
Item A: A Conspan bridge is proposed for this bridge replacement as opposed to a culvert,
because it does not have a bottom, therefore, providing less of an impact to the open water and
streambed. The No build alternative is not feasible due to the structural deficiency of the
existing bridge.
Item B: The purpose of the Fowler Secrest Street bridge project is to provide a safer structure by
replacing the existing 42 year-old bridge with a Conspan bridge. The bridge sufficiency rating is
29.9. The roadway at the bridge location would be raised three feet (0.9 meters) to improve the
vertical alignment.
Item C: Water resources see Section VI-1. Wetlands see Section VI-3.
Item D: Mitigation may be required for stream impacts in excess of 150 linear feet (45.7 meters).
A mitigation strategy shall be approved by COE and DWQ prior to submission of permit
documents to ensure concurrence of all agencies.
Item E: Construction will adhere to B,*vIPs and "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (see
Section VI).
Item F: Fowler Secrest Street will be closed and traffic will be detoured around the project
location. see Figure 5. Remediation measures will be followed in accordance to NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification.
Item G: According to John E. Hennessy. NC Division of Water Quality, since there are no catch
basins associated with the existing bridge, hazardous spill catch basins are not required for this
project.
16
Item H: The bridge is being replaced by a Conspan bridge.
Item I: Although no permanent impacts to water quality should occur as a result of the bridge
replacement, precautions will be taken to minimize temporary construction related impacts.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be implemented during all phases of construction to avoid
adverse impacts to water quality in the study area as well as downstream of the study area.
Item J: No wetland areas were identified within the project area.
Item K: A Conspan bridge will replace the existing bridge.
Item L: Foundation test borings were conducted on October 26, 1999. The Geotechnical Report
of Subsurface Exploration dated December 7, 1999 can be provided upon request.
Item M: No wetland areas will be impacted by the proposed project. Stream impacts are not
anticipated to exceed 150 linear feet (45.7 meters). The proposed project will impact
approximately 145 feet (44.2 meters) of stream including 70-foot (21.3 meters) bridge and
placing riprap along the stream channel. It is acknowledged that since less than 150 linear feet
(45.7 meters) of Stewarts Creek is to be impacted by the proposed project, mitigation will not be
required.
Item N: No wetland areas were identified within the project area. However, the project will
follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Sediment Erosion Control guidelines.
Item O: Bridge design will follow NCDOT BMPs and will address stormwater management.
Item P: On-site wetland delineations were conducted on 07/29/1999 by Ginger Tennant and Beth
Reed, Environmental Scientists with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. No wetlands were
identified.
Citv of Monroe: (letter dated 3-13-99)
Item A: Utilities have been coordinated with City staff and will be worked out during the
construction phase of the project. For a description of utility relocation see Section VIII.
17
Figures
B-3544
Title: Vicinity Map
I7??
ect: Fowler-Secrest Road Br
over Stewart's Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
nt
Project Development and Environmental :analysis Branch
MONROE, BRIDGE;946, UNION
COUNTY. REPLACE BRIDGE ON,
FOWLER SECRET ROAD OVER
STEWART'S CREEK.

< 1

- - ;?_ -
-- _
•x'901
?:
- •
_-
•• _-?_
. .. . ;
._
_
_
?
7

•1
/
r//
1
\ a`
.i. ' ?? 'r
'
_ `
,' t -
- ..601 •
li
'
• ``\ .-- '
l? =/
I51 t
i.
._
Morning Star Ch
Watts Gruer 0
ht P
j'$19?\, ?--- - - - _ ° 1 It •
'

I i 1510

0 1514

645

- _ ?<
• l' 5.9
: i . ? PROJEC'T' ?; ?? •
Cern
---.
-
%Grace Ch

'L
1
1 i , M, __ • • __ - _
1

;% ? • !65
,-
14 _ : - '
Bakers . • '
-

• ?. ..?.
?
?' •677 .
\
•7
Y
UU
- d

'
6<
° ?,.
:\
? R011-n
R011mg Hills
A
\
_
g
?
\\ Country Club
1
- 1
•i
?
` `
~
;
• _ ?
. .
z '
' i Rolling
-
?
_ - • Hills Ch•• \,
8ra
. -
1991 \'.
\
..
027 ^._ _ -

ra; CA1vary
l Ch 0-
. Y8
1 \
Title: USGS Topographical Map
Project: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
' ?•" ` over Stewart's Creek
? Monroe, North Carolina
'^ ?..••• Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Late: Scale: rrc eet No. r;gure:
10/10199 121000 011851001 2
I I
it
II
$
II

II
v

1i? 470 n O?J
- - - - -- ---
?
- -
0M0

. 10.
__-
_

I
I Nb? ?
?
I
to I I ?I oLn
1ln
y
LA
g I
l? I I
I, n'I n Ln
z
I

N I N I I ?
rn N T
V ,p r1 O

y
y
? I

N
A
I
I
n v O C m
12
?>N

I
I rn
r
0 A N Z m
N I I b N O
l
r>>L '? O
=° I I ? /
o I
I
co
/
V,
^
l 1
D
r
m
II
CJl
O
_TI
C
?jj
rrl
Z
O
O
z
n
C
Z
n
n
O
C

\ II? I ?
\ ?I I r I
\? I, s I a I

\ I I
? l
?
?
\
\ ?
• ?
I
r- tU S
rq ul ?i
i, //),ja?
c /

F yp ~ I ? 11 mp z J I
I I

?
I
?
I r m
p
?
I
15.00 ? /
^ fl W
[1
m
r
? it2 I :c
?
? ? m f
p U ?

/ 1
`
C I I J
r
l

I
t
?1 Lf)
I

in
I? o
m
I \
? ,.? ?
I
-1 p __ CYl Cn n?JJ IlHi 1
l
I
.-

I
N

f r1C,
0
-
+? z
C, ic
/ / / \ C m
O
a A
I /
/ ? C r
i
Oi CI [? A A A
r?

\ A
06 O

r /
i
-9 F
::E D
/

(>
F-
1119x.7 ?? - r
Iq / ? /
\
Cf) ?:u 02C Le
=
„•

Z
n D -- -
D
Q ?u ?7 O Z om?-l?op?
• -i m -Tj
U) U ' NN nNO?p
{
?
0
W n ;T7
U?:17-0?
l-rl
r
maiz`;
rv
gU?2?
f- lr-IO? -I v 1nv00o
.?? FI U r1
F 'l _1 N.A i n In y
14 in n1 to
ti
Li ?A?m A D
00
? r? ?a??N
rn -1
A r: o
?
I_rl o !
o
o rn o 0

Ul
(
EXISTING
GROUND -
- T- -
ZZ wIGUARCRAIL
EXISTING
-GROUND
GRACE TO THIS UNEJ
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
WIDEN/OVERLAY EXISTING
L -L-
EXISTING
GRCLND -
W
GRACE TO THIS UNE-J
TYPICAL SEt.TION NO. 2
NEW CONSTRUCTION
VARIADLE
SLOPE
EXISTING
?GRCUND
VARUCLE \
SLOPE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 446
FOWLER SECREST ROAD OVER
STEWARTS CREEK
TIP NO. B-3544
MONROE, N.C.
SCALE = NONE
UNION COUNTY
FIGURE: 4
llorrinc Star Ch -
Watts Grocr ch•
• • Idol - -t • ?Y ...
, 1:- - `.,009 ? . \- ?. G"'. ..•
? • `Y? , 1511 ? - ! ' I -` _ ^--\.. ? • .I .
? • • • jets o • t _ _? .- ,- _ t•/ \\?-- ? ? ? - -_
PROJECT Bridge . - ??^
- V _ ?'11p AA6-
• :Grace ch)
11007, <7.
i ,Pr l .?
o; -7
;. Bakers
=-Detou.r Route _ - - `
r uS 74,-
,
• -Roll ^i; Hills
HH ,I
'cour••y cluC -
Rollins .
ills Ch%
?. E E71
Title: Detour Routing
_ Project: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
%•' "+ over Stewart's Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
Ilo j
Project Development and Environmental Analvsis Branch
Date: sme: rrc;ea i 0. rgure:
10110.59 1'2I000 011851Col 5

Photo 1: Looking southwest along Stewarts)) ``Creek from Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge
I. v,
Photo 2: Looking southeast along Stewarts Creek from Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge
Title: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
Project: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
,• "ba over Stewart's Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ate: Scale: ro?ect o. Figure:
10/10/99 NIA 011851001 6
rubMh?•
Gil. 4
r f i li ;,Sdbststiotf / ? •- _ .
,`.°s :?:' PU6HA1 -.? I ?I J\ .::/(' 1 , r •{p:aa 1, \ ,'",'?? `
{? ?/?a?---Putitill „?? ; °• j-` `??IA '°?. ?PfOI
h ;?1 }•? 6a0
..? ? ,'??,-??. ?' ?'•,?' ( /;/ ,^?N?`?'l?F?????_bF01A1,? ?J?ii \ ni?l? \'?:, • ?c'?1 ?. ? ?? ?,\
7 in
'IJ
6s PUBH?, PUBN „PI:
PUSH
•?' ( 1501 !r- _? ° .?`=--QVBN?'. r;?_ `? 58A _ ?.
PUB 1. i ../ G
650
(^Y. _ o LG ON
W& ?/ y
?` 0 6?9 ?i? i .
t?is ?OOran
s.
• ?: PUBNIi; 1610 R ;.-PUB.Nti?. _ ,. `•. PUgHh •-.a' 1 ?? ,,,? ( •-r'
1 •PFOIR 't? '` »'4--_ - ?a`?_ ?? r' ??• '? •?l 1 ::' ?,. 8H>''-;`°?1??••pUBH?'_C
s..
# - -
e1,.?? .J ?^0, IR'' ? ? • ?V,?H??? I ?\ Iy h M 1 ?J. ,i-?: O r.r_.
61
p 1S1 ?1? (i Je e \ ?'.?\\ . n' 1 ?' j4
e' WO
?.:Ol' . , ' • "-; ? rl;, I ?. - •• • ???.`. '` _• k.?;- `, PUeft?J./'C./ . `= PUBH?
rStl _! ?r, .? .app...- '??°?. ?•?li( p ?c^=.?:,
.
-.0, r. I-C
04A .
. ? •`d. P K' n /j/ ?? f?.'. = '??• ?V r(' ? - - ,,QU?; '''Gr?e`s CA _
1001
GO,
// - - _1•• '. ,./ ,.-. .?/ ` _/ //s• 1 i • /' (ice: i.•., 'i? - - •a. _ ••..- ... -
?.4ut3Hh; - - •-y i Q?-':u ° ..;.?%. / ?s1o ^^ '•_.l-\ ??? i %f ,??.".• ? ? ,?-? -- -_
,akers. ??:.?.; ,y :i . = aev6+ '/, ''''??•? ?= ti ^''I-%? ?i
? / \ • • i` \??? "bra '. ^ 1i1 ? ? '? ?`? ? /?• - . ? • (. ? -
41
? `•• ? a ?? r.,l'\.a.'?\•, y;?' ,• ' ?. y•''? .% int. ? ? ? ? °°?' -
. 3 7
!'UBHh • ia• •? ?? l b .° ^.!z_.,,? DpUllind HfU)
•$ o CCntr w
b '?'- tr-
vl?
° - ,+_- L?tl? ?..' a :`.? l.•'• H s ?w•. „41 QUBV??.
Title: NWI Map - Bakers, NC Quadrangle
roject: Fowler-Secrest Road Bridge Replacement
over Stewart's Creek
9 Monroe, North Carolina
a „?,,r Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Title: Union County Soil Survey Map
over Stewart's
Monroe, North
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
i I f 11 1 6 t-341111!. 1 i
Appendix. A
Agency Comments
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 23801
September 16, 1999
Ms. Ginger M. Tennant
Environmental Analyst
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3068
Dear Ms. Tennant:
Subject: Proposed Bridge Replacement, Bridge m446 over Stewarts Creek, ?Monroe, Union
County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3544)
In your letter of July 27, 1999, you requested our comments on the subject project with regard to
potential impacts to federally listed species. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The proposed project will involve the replacement of Bridge #446 on Fowler Secrest Road over
Stewarts Creek, in Monroe, Union County, North Carolina. The existing bridge, built in 1958,
consists of a timber floor on steel stringers, with timber posts and concrete sills.
Enclosed is a list of the federally endangered and threatened species known from Union County.
This list also includes species of Federal concern that are currently under status review by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which may occur in the project impact area. Species of Federal
concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We
are including these species in our response to give you advance notification.
The immediate project area has not been surveyed for listed aquatic species. We have records of
a mussel--the Savannah lilliput (Toxclasmm pullus)--in Richardson Creek, to which Stewarts
Creek is a tributary. We are concerned about the potential effects that could occur to aquatic
resources as a result of the proposed construction and related activities at the site. We
recommend a survey for fish and musse!s in the project area.
The bridge design should provide for the deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer
before it reaches the affected stream. We prefer a bridge design that does not alter the natural
stream morphology or impede fish passage. Any new piers or bents should be placed outside the
bankfull width of the stream. Erosion and sedimentation control measures should be in place
prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet concrete should never be allowed to come into
contact with the stream. If any in-stream work is planned, it should be scheduled during periods
of low flow. Please address the demolition plans for the existing bridge in any environmental
document prepared for this project, as well as any temporary access roads or coffer dams. Will
other utilities require relocation because of the new bridge?
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Mark Cantrell of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-99-247.
Sincerely,
i
.? Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kemersville, NC 27284-9180
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Union County, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbariums, literature, and personal
communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records
being added and old records being revised as new information is received. Please note that this list cannot
be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
Sea turtles: Sea turtles occur in coastal waters and nest along beaches. This list includes sea turtles
in the counties where they are known to nest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
jurisdiction over sea turtle issues on terrestrial systems; the National Marine Fisheries
Service has authority over sea turtles in coastal waters.
Manatees: Manatees occur throughout North Carolina's coastal waters; this list includes manatees
in counties where there are known concentrations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
consultation and recovery responsibility for manatees.
COI'vBION NA,tiEE SCIENTIFIC NAI'V E STATUS
UNION COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Invertebrates
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactvloct-there peedeensis FSC*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Carolina heelsplitter Lastnigona decorata Endangered
Savanna lilliput Tosolasma pullus FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster .4stergeorgianus FSC
Schweinitz's sunflower Heliatrthus schtiwinit_ii Endangered
August 17, 1999 Page ! of
CONUVION NAiI E SCIENTIFIC NA?NJ E STATUS
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A talon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
FSC A Federal species of concern-a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
August 17, 1999 Page 2 of
RECEIVED
OCT 1 ? 199°
N-1- -T-r;CRI l
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources ENIAR.
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 13, 1999
Ginger Tennant
Environmental Scientist
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 32068
Raleigh, NC 27638-3058
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 446, TIP No. B-3544, Union County, ER 00-7635
Dear Ms. Tennant:
We have conducted a review of the project area and are aware of no properties of architectural, or historic
significance within the project area. However, since the project area has not been comprehensively
surveyed in over a decade there may be structures of architectural of historic significance of which we are
not aware.
We recommend that an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department of Transportation
identify and evaluate all properties over fifty years of age within the project area and report the findings to
us.
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.
Sincerely,
C L*ro ok
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:ldb
cc: W.Gilmore
B.Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina '_7601-?S07

NCDEN130%
JAMES S. HUNTJR. MS. Glnaer M. Tennant
GOVERNOR
Kimlev-Horn and Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 33063
Raleigh, NC 27636-3063
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
August 12, 1999
WAYNC MCDEVI'"
SECRCTARY SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas at the Sites of Two
Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects in Monroe, Union
County, North Carolina: NCDOT TIP: B-3543
DR. PHIUP K. McKNELLY, NCDOT TIP: B-3544
DIRECTOR
Dear Ms. Tennant:
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) does not have a record of rare species,
high quality natural communities, state park and recreation areas, or Significant
Natural Heritage Areas at or within a 1.0 mile radius of the proposed bridge
replacement projects B-3543 and B-3544 at Bearskin Creek and Stewarts Creek
respectively in Monroe, Union County, North Carolina. However, because Union
County has not been systematically inventoried, this is not a definitive statement that
rare species do not exist in the area.
Enclosed is a list of rare species known to exist in Union County. If habitat for any of
these species exists at the site, the; may be present there. Consultant acquired
knowledte of the existing habitat should determine if a survey is necessary.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below or call me at (919) 715-
3703 if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Susan Retce Giles
Info „ ation Specialist
Natural Heritaile Program
Enclosure
27659-1615
P.O. `JOX 17417. RALEIGH NC - ONE 919-'7]•4191 FAX 719-715-JOt15
=- f •:!•
AN EQUAL O?PO RTUNITr I AF1IRI.A TIVC ACTT O"L RCCYCLL D/1O i POST-CONSUMER PAPER
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRA-M COU`1TY STATUS LIST COVER SHEET
The county status list of the NC Natural Heritage Program is a listing of the C!ements of nanrrd diversity (rare plant and animal
species, exemplary natural communities, and special animal habitats) !crown to cc= in all North Carolina counties. Tne
information on which this list is based comes from a varier, of seurccs, inc!uding fie!d surveys, museums, herbaria, scien[itic
literanse, and personal communications. This list is dynamic, with new records continually being added and old records being
revised as new information is received. As a result, the enc!esed list cannot be considered a definitive record of natural heritage
eiC-nen[s present in a given county and should not be used as a substitute for fie!d surreys.
When this information is used in any document, we request that :he date this list was compded be given and that the NC Natural
Heritage Program be credited.
STATE STATUS
CODE STATUS CODE STATUS
E Endangered SR Significantly Rare
T Threatened Eat Extirpated
SC Special Concern D Delisted
C Candidate P_ P.cpcsed (E. T. SC, EX or D)
Plant statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (INC Department of Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage
Program (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources). E, T. and SC species are protected by state law (Plant
Protec:ion and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designations indicate rarity and the Aced for population monitoring and
conservation ac:ion. Note that some plants have a double smnLs (e.g., E-SC, indicates that while the plant is endangered, it is
collected or sold under re;uladon). See the Natural Herita;e Program List of the Rare P'.art Species of North Carolina for fitrther
explanation of these statuses.
Animal statuses that indicate state protection (E, T, and SC) are published in Endangered Wrldlife of Vonh Carolina, March 16,
1992, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program (NC Department of Eavironmc: t and Namml Resources). SR and E.K statuscs
are Natural Heritage Program designations. SR indicates rarity and the need for populadon monitoring and conservation action.
Sea the Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina for further explanation of these statuses.
I VEDFRAL STATUS
These stances are designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally lured E^.dange:.3 and Tnreateaed spec es are
protec.ed under [he provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 1COth Congress. Unless ether-,vise
noted, definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1941 (SO CF R Part 17).
CODE STATUS DEFINITION
LE Endangered A Saxon 'in flange: of extinct!on throuQ eu[ all of a significant : ortien of i[s range."
LT Threatened A =on 'likely to became an a^dange:cd spec-es within the foresecabie future throughout all of a
significant portion of its ran__°_e.'
C Candidate A [axon under consideraticn for which these is suffc=t i_fernnar,'oa m succorr lisj;n2. This category was
formerly designated as a Candidate I (C 1) species.
FSC F_de:nl 'Species of Ccnccrn' (also called 'Scccies at Risk'). Fattr:c:iy defWed as a taxon under
considmEicn for which there is insufficient mfo=tion to Succort listing: fortr.C:!;J designatcd as a
Candidate 2 (C2) species. Currently, the US Fish and Wildlife Ser:ice dces :e[ recognize this as an
oft,c-al designation.
T(S; A) hreatened due to Similarity of Appearat:ce. Tee E^dargcred Scec`cs Ac: aui( cr,:.cs 'd a trea[me.^.[ of a
species (subspecies or population set resit) as (hrrte Cd even hou?z it 's cot ctre^,vize listed as :1`nreatened
if: (a) r+e species so c!esc!v .ese:nbies :n aDcear=ce a :hrcatencd species ;t:at enicrce cent persorre!
wcuid'have substandal dift:cliry in direren[iating 'se:'.veCn :he fisted rind uruisted scec:Cs; (b) the effec: of
SIIDSIan[SSI dllIlclIEv is an adGSCcnal :fir."at to 1 :hreatenel :CC::CS; a.^.G i.^) SLCn Irea(.ue^[ OI an llnllsteQ
'.viii substantially faciii(a(e :he _^fercc^ e^t -,-.d urtl er ,he pei:c.J of :he ?.c:. 7.,.e Arncrican
A,!igater has his designation duC :o si niiar:[.' of acceara: ce :a a(i C: acre -.cecdi!iars. The Beg Turtle
kscumem CCDulalhon) has :,1:5 ?_"e :0 a: .21::7 J[ 'DCC--r:.. _ :0 ?Cg T units :n (hC
ncrt.".e n COCll11I:Cn.
P? Scec.CS has bC_^. ^rCCose1 :cC dC :SS::
r

SC?::7T2F=C ice= C:.`ldcu IAt"-V STATTIS STAT'Js RANK RANK
Union-Cs=tent
Vertebrate Animal
v?tcma t ' cc_?e_.. :^.o__ Sa_=arcer SC - S: G?
. _..eostcma cc___s ca_..__..a Ja==__ Sc - S'_ G=
Z ve=tebrate Animal
.usccnaia Cason: S. G2
Lasmicona deccrata Caro__na Si
Strochi.us undula__s scuawfcot T - S.S2 GS
Toxolasma pul'_l.5 Savarnain . (?_)
?• ?Sc S_ G3
Villosa constr__ta Notc::ed Rai..--cw S= (?SC; - 53 G3G4
villcsa C=eekshe__ SR - S3 G

villosa vauctan_ana -oekS e._
_?rol_;.a C_ c..
(.-, „V
c
S-
G2
Vasc^-la= Plant
aster ceorcianus Georgia :.seer = =SC 52 G2G3
Aster laevis var ccrcinnus Narrow-leaved Aster C - S2 G5T4
Aster mirabil_s ?iedmcnt aster C - S2 G2G3
Bapt_sia albescers Thin-pod White Wild =..._go SR - S2 Gd
Gnan:a'__um he!_e=- var Heller's Rabbit Tocacco SR - S2?
G;GST3?
Hel_anthus laev_catus Smcot: Sunflower SR - S2 Gf
elianthus schwei.._t_-- Sc!:weinit:'s Sunflower T S2 G2
Lctus heller_ Carolina 3 rd_cot-tre=.__ C :Sc S3 G3
?orterarthus st_cula_us _ndian ?hys=c SR - S2 G5
Nat•,i=al Cc wZi V
y
Basic Oak-- ic.,ccry forest - - SI G4
Dry Oak--Hickory :crest - - S4 G5
:{eric Hardpan Forest - - - S3 G3G4
Union-H'_storic
Vasc:la= Plant
Ccelc_achis cv'indrica Carolina Joint^rass C - S G,GS
:scetes v_- V__.._a Qu='-''w
-c==
.SC
S1
G3
NIC NA71 _-A ,,:.v -390
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
October 11, 1999
IMENinRA NDUM
C ??a3fl,
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Proje fevelopment & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Qualit
f' 9q6 SreuwCri
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No.over Besrslcfrt Creek, TIP B-
3544.
Reference your correspondence dated July 27, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for the
replacement of bridge number 446 (TIP B-3544). Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the
proposed bridge will span Stewarts Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The stream is classified as
WS III waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental
issues for the proposed project:
A. Review of the proposed project reveals the potential for impacts to a Water Supply III. Prior to
selecting a preferred alternative, the DOT needs to assess and document all other reasonable and
feasible alternatives. The NCDWQ cannot permit impacts to valuable drinking water supplies that
are otherwise avoidable. Prior to issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT will
need to demonstrate the rationale for the selected alternative and all efforts undertaken to ameliorate
impacts.
B. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
C. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
D. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required.
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 27699.1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Ernplcyer ?u recycled/ 10010 pcst-ccnsumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/1-3499
Page
E. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters. Body
Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However.
impacts to waters classified as Water Supply III will be impacted. The DWQ requests that DOT
strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0021) throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply for
any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water),
HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications.
F. When practical. the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 101 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
G. The DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing
directly into the stream.
H. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
1. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
J. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
K. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
L. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
M. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
N. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
0. The 101 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
desiened stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
P. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/1-499
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is rcminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information.
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox. NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
CAncdot%TIP 8-3544\ccmmcnLs\B-3544 scoping comments.doc

CITY OF 1M0NR0E
P.Q. BOX 89 • MONRCF- NORTH CAROUNA 28111.0089
FAX [phone]
August 13, 1999
Mr. Michael M Rutkowski, PE
Kimley-Hoen and Associates, Inc
P O Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Re: Bridge #446 Fowler Secrest Rd and Stewart Creek
Bridge 9107 Miller Street and Bearskin Creek
Dear Mr. Rutkowski:
This letter is in response to your request for comments in reference to possible conflicts with the
City of Monroe Water Resources Utilities. We have several items that need attention before
design of the bridges gets to far ahead. At both locations at bridges 446 and 107 we have water
and sewer mains that will be in direct conflict of demolition of the old and on construction of the
new. I list these possible conflicts below.
Bridge m107 on Miller Street has an existing 8" cast iron water main located in the floor
and steel beam section of the bridge. This main is approximately 9'- 0" from the West
side wall back into the bridge. Also a 24" sewer main is located approximately 30' - 0"
South of the South end wing walls.
Bridge 9446 on Fowler Secrest Road has both water and sewer mains located on the
upstream and downstream sides of the bridge. The lines run parallel to Fowler Secrest
Road. Both are 8" size and are materials consisting of 8" PVC and 8" ductile iron pipe.
I request through your firm that we be provided with a scope of work plan diving some general
layout dimensions of the bridges proposed and the approach and exit points of both locations.
Until we have some type of knowledge as to size, length, width, etc of the bridges and road way
improvements it is extremely difficult for the Water Resources Department to give any type of
solid plans for removal of the old lines or to the replacement of the new lines.
We also will request what type of funding will be used to reimburse the department for removal
and replacement costs.
I will be glad to meet you or a representative of your firm on site to review these items and
discuss possible alternatives of location etc. Please contact me at [phone] office, (704)
232-9210 mobile, and [phone] fax.
Sincerely,
C W Snipes, Jr.
Water Resources Construction Manager
C: Russ Colbath
Duane Wingo
James Pope
Jim Loyd

Appendix B
Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects
Federal.aid 413RZ-1015(9) TIP ;B-3544 County: Union
CONCURRENCE FORIM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Renlace Bride No. 446 on Fowler-Secrest Road over Stewart's Creek in Monroe
On December 16, 1999, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
01?-< Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review sessiotvconsultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representady
WA, ,p Ac Division Adm
i
ell;7
sentative, SHPO
ate Historic Preservation Officer

, or other Federal Agency
C,
Date
ZZ
Date
A, ?l
Date
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
. M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 01, 2000
Memorandum To: Tom R. Kendig, Project Manager
Consultant Unit
From: Tim Savidge, Regional Environmental Coordinator
Environmental Unit
Subject: Mussel survey for proposed replacement of bridge no.446 over Stewart's
Creek on Fowler Secrest Road; Union County, B-3544.
Reference: January 03, 2000 Survey Mussel Report for B-3544.
The project site was surveyed for the presence of mussels on December 7-8, 1999,
and it was stated that additional surveys would be needed to determine the
presence/absence of the Endangered Carolina heelsplitter from Stewart's Creek (Ref.).
Stewart's Creek was revisited on September 28, 2000 by NCDOT Environmental
Specialists Tim Savidge, Jeff Burelson, Mike Wood and Larry Thompson, and US Fish
and Wildlife biologist John Fridell. Surveys were conducted by wading using view
buckets from NC 200 upstream for approximately''/4 mile, and also at the proposed
Monroe Bypass (R-2559) crossing of Stewart's Creek, between NC 200 and US 601. A
total of 3 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.) were found during 2 hours of survey time. Shells
of elliptios were also found. Tim Savidge, Mike Wood and Matt Smith (from ESI)
surveyed Stewart's Creek on October 25, 2000 from the bridge crossing downstream of
the project (SR 1501) working upstream for approximately'/4 mile. A total of 5 live and 4
shells of elliptio mussels, and 1 shell of eastern floater (Pyganadon cataracta) were
found in 1.5 hours. No species that were not previously recorded in the creek were
found. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula flundizea) is abundant in the creek.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Based on the recent and previous (Ref.) surveys in Stewart's Creek, it is apparent
that mussels are generally uncommon throughout the creek and that the Carolina
heelsplitter is not present in Stewart's Creek. It can be concluded that project
construction will not impact the Carolina heelsplitter.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Manager