20241502 Ver 1_SIGNED_R-008_MCDC_and_ProjectCommitments_20241104

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
WBS No.: BP 10-RO08
Project Location: Bridge No. 146 carrying SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over Little
Richardson Creek in Union County
Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
Division 10, plans to replace Bridge No. 146 carrying SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over Little
Richardson Creek in Union County, North Carolina. The existing bridge is an
approximately 42-foot timber deck on I -beams constructed in 1939. It has two 8 '/z-foot
travel lanes and an approximately 2-foot shoulder on the northbound side and 1-foot
shoulder on the southbound side but has been signed as a one -lane bridge. The existing
right-of-way of SR 2102 (Medlin Road) is approximately 60 feet wide. Little Richardson
Creek flows out of Lake Monroe, located west of the project.
The proposed prestressed concrete cored slab bridge will be 30 feet wide, with two 10-
foot travel lanes and four -foot shoulders. The proposed horizontal alignment would be
approximately eight feet off the existing alignment and the vertical alignment would be
approximately two feet higher than the existing bridge. The proposed right-of-way width
along the project varies from 60 to a maximum of 120 feet in width. Additional
improvements include a tie in to an existing dirt road; further coordination may be
required with the property owner to ensure property access. The project was scheduled
for right-of-way in September 2019 and has a LET date of November 2024.
SR 2102 (Medlin Road) is classified as a minor collector with a 45-mile per hour design
speed. An off -site detour of approximately 5-miles will be required for the full duration
of construction. The detour route will take vehicles on SR 2138 (Belmont Church Road),
SR 2115 (Stack Road), and SR 2134 (Charlie Williams Road).
Purpose and Need: NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 146
has a sufficiency rating of 60.36 out of a possible 100. The bridge's status is identified as
Functionally Obsolete in the Structure Safety Report published by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) on 06/18/2018. The purpose of the project is to replace the
functionally obsolete bridge.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: A Nationwide Permit (NWP)
No(s). 3 and/or 14 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are anticipated to
complete the work. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be
required to authorize project construction. The Section 404 Regional General Permit
(RGP) No. 201902350 (RGP 50) would likely be utilized. This RGP authorizes NCDOT
permanent impacts of up to 500 linear feet of stream and/or up to one acre of
wetlands/open waters for each single and complete linear project and is designed for road
widening, and/or construction, maintenance, and/or repair of bridges. The USACE holds
the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction.
11 /04/24

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
Floodplain: This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA-
regulated stream, Little Richardson Creek, which is classified as an AE floodplain and is
at high risk of flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program. Consequently, the
Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (IMP), to
determine status of project regarding applicability of NCDOT' S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Cultural Resources: On December 7, 2021, a Historic Architecture and Landscapes,
"No Survey Required" form was provided by an NCDOT Architectural Historian. On
January 4, 2022, a "No Archaeological Survey Required" form was provided by an
NCDOT Archaeologist.
Threatened and Endangered Species: As of September 12th, 2024, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorate),
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinizii), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii) within the study area, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
An on -site investigation indicated the study area does suitable habitat for the Carolina
Heelsplitter in the form of perennial streams within the project areas. A mussel survey
was conducted by Dewberry Engineering in October 2024, and a Freshwater
Mussel Survey Report was prepared on October 24, 2024. The results of the mussel
survey indicate that the study area is not suitable habitat for freshwater mussels, no
mussel species were observed during the survey. Based on the survey results it was
determined that impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter are unlikely to occur in the study
area and the recommended biological conclusion is `May Affect -Not Likely to Adversely
Affect'.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the maintained overhead utility
corridors and roadside areas. A pedestrian survey was performed on September 12th,
2024 of the suitable habitat areas, where no individuals were observed. A review of NHP
records (updated July 2024) indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study
area. As no individuals were observed during on -site surveys, and no populations have
been reported within 1 mile of the PSA, it is recommended that this project will have No
Effect on this species.
An on -site investigation indicated the study area contains suitable habitat for Michaux's
Sumac in the form of sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils, often
with a relatively consistent disturbance regime. The area was surveyed on September
12th, 2024, and found no individuals. A review of NHP records on or updated July 2024
indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. As no individuals were
observed during on -site surveys, and no populations have been reported within 1 mile of
the PSA, it is recommended that this project will have No Effect on this species.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act: The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for
11 /04/24 2

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large bodies of open
water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0
mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile
radius of the project limits, was performed on September IOth, 2024 using recent color
aerials. Lake Monroe is large enough or sufficiently open to be a considered potential
feeding source. Since there was foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the
project study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was conducted, but no
nests sufficiently large were observed. Additionally, a review of the NHP database on
(updated July 2024) revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact
anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this
species.
Special Proiect Information:
Environmental Commitments: Green sheet Commitments are located at the end of the
checklist.
Estimated Costs (FY 2024):
Utility $0
Right -of -Way $7,000
Construction $ 2,000,000
Total $2,007,000
Traffic Information:
Current (2019)* 1,100 vpd
Year (2045)* 2,200 vpd
Trucks** 6%
(Source: *STV Bridge No.146, Medlin RoadIR No. 17.BR IO.R.127 AADT Growth Memorandum, June 2019
* * National Bridge Inventory Structure Inventory and Appraisal, November 18, 2018)
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: There are no pedestrian or bicycle
accommodations for this project. SR 21002 (Medlin Road) is not an NCDOT bike route
and there are no existing pedestrian facilities.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build — The no build alternative would not replace a functionally obsolete
bridge, and thus is not a viable option.
Rehabilitation — Rehabilitation would not address the functionally obsolete
nature of the bridge.
Onsite Detour — An ofsite detour was not evaluated due to the feasibility of the
offsite detour.
11 /04/24

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
New Alignment — Given that the alignment for SR 2102 (Morton Road) is
acceptable, a new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Offsite Detour — An offsite detour of approximate 5-miles is required for the full
duration of construction. The detour route will take vehicles on SR 2138
(Belmont Church Road), SR 2115 (Stack Road), and SR 2134 (Charlie Williams
Road).
Other Agency Comments:
A School Input Form was sent to Union County School System Transportation Director
on 4/16/2019 and 5/18/2019. No comments were received.
An EMS Input Form was sent to the Union County Emergency Services Management
Coordinator on 4/16/2019 and 5/18/2019. Comments were received 6/24/2019. The
project is anticipated to have a low impact on EMS services in the project area.
Response: Comments received.
A Planner Input Form was sent to Union County Planning on 4/16/2019 and 5/18/2019.
Comments were received on 5/31/2019; the input form was received with no special
concerns or comments regarding the project. The City of Monroe Planning department
was contacted on 4/16/2019 and 6/13/2019 with regards to Lake Monroe and accessibility
concerns; no comments were provided regarding lake access.
Response: Comments received.
A tribal coordination letters was sent out on October 2, 2024 to the representative of the
Catawba Indian Nation, per NCDOT Tribal Coordination Guidance (dated April 2024). A
response from the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer was not received.
Right of Way: The project is anticipated to require right-of-way acquisition from the
City of Monroe (0.11 ac) and two (2) private property owners (0.10 ac and 0.13 ac).
Minor impacts relating to right-of-way acquisition and temporary construction activity
are anticipated.
Public Involvement: Public involvement was not requested by NCDOT Division 10 for
this project.
11 /04/24

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
Item I to be completed by the Engineer. YES
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? #9 (Reconstruction of existing crossroad or
railroad separation and existing stream
crossings, including, but not limited to,
pipes, culverts, and bridges.)
If either category 98, 912(1) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
Items 2 — 4 to be completed by the Engineer. I
YES
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
❑
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
❑
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
Item 5-8 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. A
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; ❑
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the ❑
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
NO
r4l
0�
//
11 /04/24

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
YES NO
El Z
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Items 9-12 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. I
YES NO
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
® ❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
® ❑
fill in waters of the United States?
11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
Items 13 —15 to a completed by the Engineer.
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
❑
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the ❑
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of ® ❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Response to Question 9:
Under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS lists Carolina Heelsplitter, Schweinitz's
Sunflower, and Michaux's sumac within the study area.
An on -site investigation indicated the study area has suitable habitat for the Carolina
Heelsplitter. A mussel survey was conducted in October 2024. The results of the mussel
survey indicate that the study area is not suitable habitat for freshwater mussels, no
mussel species were observed during the survey. Based on the survey results it was
determined that impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter are unlikely to occur in the study
area and the recommended biological conclusion is `May Affect -Not Likely to Adversely
Affect'.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the maintained overhead utility
corridors and roadside areas. A pedestrian survey was performed on September 12tn
2024 of the suitable habitat areas, where no individuals were observed. As no individuals
were observed during on -site surveys, and no populations have been reported within 1
mile of the PSA, it is recommended that this project will have No Effect on this species.
11 /04/24

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
An on -site investigation indicated the study area contains suitable habitat for Michaux's
Sumac. The area was surveyed on September 12th, 2024, and found no individuals. As no
individuals were observed during on -site surveys, and no populations have been reported
within 1 mile of the PSA, it is recommended that this project will have No Effect on this
species.
Response to Question 10:
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) Nos. 3 and/or 14 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) are anticipated. It is estimated that there will be 192 linear feet temporary
wetland impacts and 75 linear feet of permanent wetland impacts. Stream relocations
and/or channel modifications are not anticipated. Permanent fill impacts due to bridge
construction may occur to Little Richardson Creek but will be minimized.
Response to Question 15:
The project is anticipated to require 0.11 ac of right-of-way acquisition from the City of
Monroe. Minor impacts relating to right-of-way acquisition and temporary construction
activity are anticipated. The City of Monroe parcel within the study area borders Lake
Monroe, which is immediately northwest of the project area; the parcel is on the western
side of the bridge along SR 2102 (Medlin Road). The parcel was not identified as a
Section 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Fund site. The City of Monroe was contacted
and informed of the anticipated minimal right-of-way impacts and provided no concerns.
The City expressed no concern over the potential for limited access to Lake Monroe
during construction.
11 /04/24

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
Prepared by
Reviewed by
Ii u(7Signed by:bllll
Date:
11/4/2024
Jacob Elliott, AICP
S o V�n4ineers Inc., Transportation Planner
L
11/4/2024
Date:
Yanwei Ma, PE
Division Project Engineer
Docu igned by:
�ba (�bwa4 Date: 11/4/2024
aeFFee�a�xs�
Joel Howard
Division PDEA Engineer
11 /04/24

Docusign Envelope ID: 7B9EC599-25CA-43EE-954D-BB9375EF6875
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge No. 146 carrying SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over
Little Richardson Creek in Union County
BP10.R008
City of Monroe Right -of -Way Acquisition
The project is anticipated to require 0.11 acres of right-of-way from property
owned by the City of Monroe. Minor impacts relating to right-of-way acquisition
and temporary construction activity are anticipated. Additional coordination with
the City of Monroe may be required through the right-of-way acquisition process
and project construction.
FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program
(IMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT' S
Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This project
involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the
Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the
drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-
year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally
and vertically.
Property Owner Coordination
Continued coordination may be required with a property owner for a tie-in to an
existing driveway on SR 2102 (Medlin Road).
Section 404 Mitigation
A Section 404 Individual Permit may be required if the project impacts can't be
reduced below the permitting threshold. If mitigation is required, then it is
anticipated that the Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) will be used.
Stormwater
NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will
be utilized throughout the life of the project. Erosion and sediment will be
controlled through the specification, installation, and maintenance of more
stringent erosion and sedimentation control methods.
11 /04/24