20010026 Ver 1_Complete File_20010108

r
(__;) 1 ( ,( ) ,'_,_(-.('

Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
July 27, 1999

...... K

Ms. Cyndi Bell
North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management
4401 Reedy Creek Drive Olt,
2 S ??
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Seeping Letter, July 29, 1999, Page I
¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
Re: Miller Street over Bearskin Creek
Bridge Replacement (Bridge # 107)
NCDOT TIP No. B-3543 /?S f
Categorical Exclusion
Dear Ms. Bell: fl(
, D
The 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
Miller Street Bridge (Number 107), which crosses Bearskin 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 Miller Street Bridge is located 0.5 miles south of US 74 and 0.45 miles
north of Franklin Street in Monroe, Union County. The attached USGS map
(Monroe quadrangle) shows the proposed project's location. The current length
and width of the two-lane bridge are 41.0 feet and 29.0 feet, respectively. The
bridge, which was built in 1955, consists of steel plank floor on continuous steel
girder floorbeam system and a reinforced concrete abuts and solid web pier
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.
Please provide us with maps and other documentation regarding stream
classifications, water quality, and/or wetlands.
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Scoping Letter, July 29, 1999, Page 2
If you have any questions concerning this project, please call me at (919) 677-
2157.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ging . Tennant
Environmental Analyst
I:APN\ 1 1 8 5 1 0000\CorresponclenceAScoping.doe
4854 // SE CONCORD Jr Ml.
CHARLOTTE 22 Ml. 601
(BAKERS) BAKERS 32'30" 542 543 9 Ml. TO N. C 218
9 I 4ML ?-_
1619 J .ter 6 ?•'7(. .. i• _ 8 1', _ ;'?1 •1;
/ Tank = c J Dnve•m
• 61 Theater i
6P ? 162
Al N
,?'_ e ? ? ?\? ? ? ? /' _'\?' f\, Rl =__ l?l?ff .?7'/? `•' ? I/•I"8 ??.C L'?.?? ?•,I - I, /.' l ?. 1'?, '` (l '
I y?. ?/???OJ ?/, yp??i _ LY_f _ t_=r.' -- •1 ' • ? "•?h. ?P¢. 16 d?'
Drive-in
illcrwV1 ?v,/ qTheat r
- -? •_ ??.: Al ??? ?? , _ - 1 SUBJECT Il
C rd r,_ - Pa PROPERTY 4i
'1 / •?l .\ I \, 1 - III
` rt - ? ? ??59 `;L ?I??? I ? ? ,_a, 8?? w ? wl? I <'/ r ???• ?? R ? r
11 1, I J l ) I ` ?y ? .
1• .? p ?• ,J'?8r"1 1 •I ?? ?-i. -.II '"_NS4 E II _?L q j%'? %`? - ' \\L
,i `? L • j i'Ol I??_ {\I^1I'j/1Ii?'"1?? \ f-¦ ?a - _l ?j'?_ 1? • J? C__'I !??,r?? j "!f`. ?\ j 74
U s ..- I `'lY ,'YJI =,? \ - _ F 50?,'? .?: 57 it II? _ _ L? J / ?) r i? • MaryP.,4
IV, g \ II `J i ?t J ?f ? (? Il?sra F Itfatio l? - ,? ]' !! \ `? -Fo
?r r r l _ a
\cko
wil
iI welch Il G
r
, II
_J?'_ ., '? 1 I 6 1171601
?LJ(_:J'
rqs
` • U4?
? __ ,, ?? •\
200 ??`J? _ ^, `\? • i -,, ?,, 6
?/? 1. ??. _ ?? •.? ,' ill i ? ,I' i?? ? ??? ? ?.
-602
/ \\ i . Liekelantl // ' 2102 \?
%
' ???,• - MQjnvr- f-ark I` i; ?n • ,.?? ??? !0'a
fRadio
%.; Tower
•.. ?. rt >>•' I ? ? ? it ? i
X'I
616-
i
jet
600
r, `
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
A*A
NCDENR

t wl-, A
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
i
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 107 over Bearskin Creek, TIP B-
3543.
Reference your correspondence dated July 27, 1999, in which you requested Scoping comments for bridge
replacement of Bridge Number 107 over Bearskin Creek (TIP B-3543). Preliminary analysis of the project
reveals that the proposed bridge will span Bearskin Creek in the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin. The DWQ
has classified Bearskin Creek as C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider
the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. 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.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, 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.
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
10/12/91)
Page 2
E. 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.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, 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.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. 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.
1. 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.
J. 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.
K. 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.
L. 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.
M. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
N. 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.
0. 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/ 12/99
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, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Ginger Tennant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP B-3543\comments\B-3543 scoping comments.doc
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
4
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 21, 2001
Union County
DWQ Project No. 010026
APPROVAL of 401Water Quality Certification
Mr. James Lloyd, Jr., P.E.
City of Monroe
300 West Crowell Street
Monroe, North Carolina, 28111
Re: Bridge Number 107 over Bearskin Creek in Union County
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
You have our approval, as described in your application dated January 4, 2001, and its subsequent
addendum dated March 9, 2001, and in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
place fill material in 142 linear feet of streams for the purpose of replacing Bridge Number 107 over
Bearskin Creek in Union County. The project should be constructed in accordance with your application
dated January 4, 2001, except where the addendum dated March 9, 2001 supercedes it. The design of the
project shall be constructed as presented in the March 9, 2001 application. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3197.
Certification 3197 corresponds to Nationwide Permit Number 23 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In
addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified
below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby
responsible for complying with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future)
exceed one acre, or of total impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). ). This approval shall
expire with the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General
Certification. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed.
The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the
Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
Wetlands/401 Unit 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
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely,
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
DWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
c:\ncdot\TIP B-3543\wqc\010026wgc.doc
I
e sevens
Wetlands/401 Unit 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
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director I',
4 •
OW% 000M
;1k -2-- -
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER 23 (APPROVED CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 for the discharge of till material to
waters and wetland areas as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (23). This Certification replaces
Water Quality Certification Number 2670 issued on January 21, 1992 and Water Quality Certification
Number 2734 issued on May 1 1993. This WQC is rescinded when the Corps of Engineers reauthorize
Nationwide Permit 23 or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate applicable
portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
L Proposed fill or substantial modification of waters or wetlands for this General Certification requires
written notification to the Division of Water Quality regarding the extent of impact to waters and
wetlands;
2. Two copies shall be submitted to DWQ at the time of notification in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
.0501(a);
3. Fill or alteration of more than one acre (0.45 ha) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15A NCAC .0506 (h). Written DWQ approval is required for this mitigation plan
which may utilize the State's Wetland Restoration Program;
4. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) or streams may require compensatory
mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h). Written DWQ approval is required for this
mitigation plan which may utilize the State's Wetland Restoration Program;
5. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those outlined in the
most recent edition of the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design
Manual" or "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual" (available from the Division of Land Resources
in the DEHNR Regional or Central Offices) are utilized to prevent exceedances of the appropriate
turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout by DWQ; 25
NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
6. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be removed and the
natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project;
7. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a FONSI or ROD is issued
by the State Clearinghouse;
Wetlands/401 Unit 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
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
1 ITk?WAA •
ANN fth on ON 1911 MIN11 low 11doft
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
8. That additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects proposed under this Certification in
order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent standards;
9. If the project is not completed within three years from the date of the first notification to DWQ, then
the applicant will again need to notify DWQ.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific fill project shall result in
revocation of this Certification for the project and may also result in criminal and/or civil penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a formal
application for individual certification for any project in this category of activity, if it is determined that the
project is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing
uses of the wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a Certification
decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality.
Effective date: 11 February 1997.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.,
Director
Wetlands/401 Unit 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
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
DWQ Project No.:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification:
A I L19WAA
•
T
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
County:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1621. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the
project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Agent's Certification
Date:
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Engineer's Certification
Partial Final
Date:
I, , as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of
the project,for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in
the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature Registration No.
Date
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1 62 1
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO;, REP. NO. Olt ROOM, BLDG.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM. SLOG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE - ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND $EE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
J
.
arm?? f?j p .
_ J

oUr -
RAY
? .

IM -
r Ai1t
F J_% -
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDEWR
Sherri Evans-Stanton, Acting Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
January 19, 2001
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P n. Box 25?01
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Re: Permit Application for construction of the Miller Street Bridge (Bridge Number 107) in Union County
DWQ No. 010026; T.I.P. No. B-3543.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
The impacts as presented will result in impacts to 244 linear feet of streams. As a result, the proposed
Nationwide Permit 23 will require written concurrence from the NC Division of Water Quality. Please
note that beginning January 1, 1999, the N.C. General Assembly passed legislation requiring payment
of a fee for processing of this application. Since no payment of fee accompanied your application, we
are returning to you. In order for DWQ to review and process your request, you must send a check in
the amount of $475.00 made payable to the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Also, seven copies of all
application materials are required. We also suggest that you provide a cover letter describing the work
proposed.
Since the magnitude of the impact to the referenced stream is greater than 150 linear feet, mitigation for
the stream impacts will be required. You're permit application will need to present a complete stream
mitigation plan for the referenced impacts.
The present extent of, 1p rap proposed for die piojeci secmb to be ca%?essivc. vr'c request 61,1i your
reexamine the need for the proposed rip rap. A justification for the need for the proposed rip rap
should accompany your permit application.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the NC
Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Centcr Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%n recyc1ed/1017o post consumer paper
-_ z
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources At '
Division of Water Quality
2Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENK
Sherri Evans-Stanton, Acting Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely.
Phn.
Certation Program
cc: Steve Parker, DWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Steve Lund, USAGE Asheville Field Office
Central Files
C:Ancdot\13-3543\cotrespondenceA0I 00261i1d.doc
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer50°I, recycled/10% post consmncr paper
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc,
March 9, 2001
John Hennessy
NC DENR-DWQ
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Re: Revised Application for NWP # 23
Miller Street Bridge (#107) replacement
Miller Street (Lat 34° 59' 22"/ Long 80° 32' 50")
State Project No. 8.2692201, TIP B-3543
Monroe, Union County, NC
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
Attached is a revised Pre-Construction Notification Application for a Nationwide
Permit #23 (Categorical Exclusions) and 401 Water Quality Certification for the
replacement of the Miller Street Bridge (#107).
Based on our phone conversations and our February 23`d meeting with you and
Todd St. John, we have revised our design plans to decrease impacts to Bearskin
Creek. The revised design has further minimized stream impacts to less than 150
linear feet of stream. The culvert will be buried to a depth of 1 foot in order to
maintain aquatic life passage and would impact 64 linear feet of stream. Rip-rap
placed on the upstream bank to protect the structure has been reduced to impact
only 37 linear feet of stream. Rip-rap placed on the downstream bank has been
reduced to impact only 41 linear feet of stream. Total stream impact would be
142 linear feet.
As discussed at our meeting, calculations show that the replacement of the Miller
Street Bridge with a culvert would make no significant changes to existing
hydraulics. The culvert has been designed carefully to ensure negligible changes
in shear stress, velocity, sediment transport, and projected flood elevations.
Tables 1 and 2 below illustrate the continuity between the existing conditions and
proposed design. Please refer to the attached figures for locations of upstream
and downstream segments.
As requested, I have also included cost estimates for a bridge and the proposed
culvert for your reference (Table 3). As you may see from the tables below, not
only is the cost more favorable for the culvert, but the culvert would also
preserve the existing stream conditions.
¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
C M„ Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Table 1
Upstream Station - 685
Shear Stress Velocity 25 yr Flood 100 yr Flood
(lb/ft2) (ft/s) Elevation Elevation
25 yr floods 25 yr flood (ft) (ft)
Existing Structure 0.12 1.94 565.85 567.11
L?
Proposed Culvert Y'' 0.19 , yy 2.45 564.53 567.11
Difference 0.07 0.51 1.32 -
Yl ?' Table 2
Downstream Station - 557
Shear Stress Velocity 25 yr Flood 100 yr Flood
Ohm) (ft/s) Elevation Elevation
25 yr flood 25 yr flood (ft) (ft)
' EACt
Existing Structure 2.34
?b 7.93 562.23 564.57
,
Proposed Culvert , q4 1.65 6.87 562.33 564.50
Difference 0.69 1.06 0.10 0.07
Table 3
Cost Analysis
Culvert Bridge
Design Cost * 10,000 50,000
Structure Cost 269,000 304,097
Total Cost 279,000 354,097
*Structure design only excluding permitting, etc.
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Thank you very much for your attention to this project. Please don't hesitate to
call me at [phone] if you require additional information.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
/,O? - -?:
Colleen Dunlevy
Environmental Analyst
Enclosures
Cc: Steve Lund, US COE- Asheville Field Office
'I
pRAj

j
?' S I

1
'

t
/ I 1
// I

rtl
?

to
/ / j
f[r?
l:7
N 1 I Q
R n ? / / o

350
M

rn

° NC
a 4 ?

, 1
y
?
a
r ?e
O
c'.7
C:..7
V}
rn
Q
s
4L Ri Q?
11
rT?
7
1
1 1
C?31 ? O
O O O O O O
?I
11
?I
II o
II o CY)
+
I o? ?rr,?
o I Ln M O
N it or-u
Ln 11 11 I
bol Ln N 0)
r
1-n?
g
4 tp N m
n FZ 00
?o N 4 ° v
I
J -
I
I
II rTl --
k
+
00
I CYJ C) II
II
? ? II ?? ?Wr
N o?
mac cFEi? \\ ?-4G,
U4
n Arno n • \
L)) \
°c N oro= \
O N ?Cy\
4 \
? rrl 2 \\ O
O
t4- Ul Gk rri
\ N
DWQ ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) 23
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
i. 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 # 107 over Bearskin Creek, Miller Street, Union County.
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) (WORK) 561-713-6824
4. 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
919-6784155
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 Miller Street
Brigdge (#107) is located 0.5 miles south of US 74 and 0.45 miles north of Franklin Street in Monroe,
Union County, NC.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Bearskin 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 ? NO N IF YES, EXPLAIN:
(b) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?
YES 0 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 0 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 INTRACT OF LAND: N/A
(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
N/A
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0
FLOODING: 0
DRAINAGE : 0
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
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: 141 FT AFTER: 141 FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 6-10 FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 2 FT AFTER: 2 FT
(b) (2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: X PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: X-( for realignment)
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING: X_ (temporary)
OTHER placement of rip-rap in channel
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?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (ATTACH PLANS; 81/2 BY 11 DRAWINGS ONLY)
Bridge #107 will be replaced in the existing location with a 4 cell reinforced concrete box culvert,
buried to a depth of 1 foot. The stream channel will be realigned slightly (approximately 10' shift) as
it enters and exits the culvert to prevent erosion around the structure. Thirty-seven feet of rip-rap
will be placed along one side of the stream to reduce scour as it flows into the culvert (see
construction plans). Additionally, 41 feet of rip-rap will be placed on the stream banks of the
downstream side of the culvert in order to prevent erosion to the downstream banks. The culvert
itself will impact 64-feet of stream. Total impact from rip-rap and the culvert will be 142-feet of
perennial stream. Rip-rap has been reduced to the minimum necessary to protect the structure. The
bridge replacement will not place significant amounts of fill in the floodplain area, and will not raise
the 100 year flood elevation. Probable equipment used for the construction include a crane, backhoe,
and grading equipment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the existing
Miller Street Bridge determined to be structurally deficient in August 1996 during a NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance 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, 1999
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 OR 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®NO?
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
YES ® NO ? CE Submitted previously
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: N/A
(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.
(c) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
(t) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM,
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).
e
27
-44
J /??'.,.G'zv C/ ?y.G??r?G? ?,c-G[??? ? `??:ZGvG _i:2Q1vC• G'ci,Z/'?cyf:?'uc??` G'CcG"ccc,:?. _
/ I
,?-6C.[4 _-'e[.1C4G`C/ Clt'.'tcc-,L<•,
17
/? d ? f L
..?` G.'i'S?:?Z' C ?i?GLCt-L ? t `r Lcv2• (/..zLCltc.-L;j, _ d TK?:u'CG
/a C) 0 C)
7,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor ?
L+r
Sherri Evans-Stanton, Acting Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
January 19, 2001
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Re: Permit Application for construction of the Miller Street Bridge (Bridge Number 107) in Union County
DWQ No. 010026; T.I.P. No. B-3543.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
• The impacts as presented will result in impacts to 44 linear et of streams. As a result, the proposed
Nationwide Permit 23 will require written concurrence rom the NC Division of Water Quality. Please
note that beginning January 1, 1999, the N.C. General Assembly passed legislation requiring payment
of a fee for processing of this application. Since no payment of fee accompanied your application. Nve
are returning to you. In order for DWQ to review and process your request, you must send a check in
the amount of $475.00 made payable to the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Also, seven copies of all
application materials are required. We also suggest that you provide a cover letter describing the %vork
proposed.
• Since the magnitude of the impact to the referenced stream is greater than 150 linear feet, mitigation for
the stream impacts will be required. You're permit application will need to present a complete stream
mitigation plan for the referenced impacts.
• The present extent of rip rap proposed for the project seems to be excessive. We request that your
reexamine the need for the proposed rip rap. A justification for the need for the proposed rip rap
should accompany your permit application.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the INC
Division of Water Quality, Nve request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place
the permit application on hold.
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 507o recycled/107c post consumer paper
14
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources a
Division of Water Quality`
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Sherri Evans-Stanton, Acting Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely,
l1inn
y
ater Quality Certif ation Program
cc: Steve Parker, DWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Central Files
C:lncdot\B-3543\cores pondence\010026hld.doc
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer50°o recycled/109o post consumer paper
STA / 44/25 -L- _
G E POINT E _ 567J2 .
SCALE: SKEW= l 5'00.0; -L-.
h50 HOR/Z 4 1 a U x 12' RCBC
l:10 VERT W.BEV LED 'INLET EXI BRIDGE
l W _ I 2.07 v 2` :
050 WS.E = 56555 ORMAL TO BC I - - - - / N RMAL TO -L EV2
i.. i
/N.
ATURAL GRO
ND
0/0 W L= 562.42 RIGHT
TOP OF BANK
:

-NATURAL G ND
NORMAL W L= 55288 - 1
7 6 LEFT TOP OF BANK

INV =
_
? CRE
---K.
lNV OUT= 5 7 ..
9 .4'
I 5509

FIEL
FIELD 1

f.
p0

2A'
ONC. S/LC 5 ;..

? --TOB
-r-
- in 97 r ry
.
1
_
_ ..: EOW
.
.
:
L-A
K

?.
a

..:

-- _.r c _
N

:

/O , ' I .
ss

v
N3? ?£ ?..
/
CUL
l0
AT/ON

STA 4441
-L-
:
: .

ELD
1
R5? ga
?' , \ R5 6T 7:

1

Miller Street over Bearskin Creek subcrit,D.S. KWS/U.S.norm d,prop miller 6/29/00
Legend
WS 10 Year
WS 25 Year
-- -- WS 50 Year
-- - D
WS 100 Year
Ground

-_• II

Ineff

0
0
Cl)
O
O
0)
N

L
Q?
E
m
O
L
CL
E
L
O
C
Y ?
(AUc
N
N
... co
L II _ _
U
.0 rn
O 4.'
N
Y
Iv
U
L
U_
C
Y
N
(U
U
m
L
U
O
0
O
'L^
L
(li
G
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
O
C
O
O
0
O
0
0
co

(};) UCIIene13
O
O II
r
N
C
O
O
O e-
O II
w
fJ
O
C
U)
0
Ql O 10 N O 1 C® C
-i U)
3 1 ? 3: (D co
°
O
O
a)
N
0
0
L ?
Q?
O ~?a?a
C.
a
E ~? O
O
C *"
U
Cy
(n to ??¦ O°
I
U _ j
y
Y /
N /
U °
0
C
Y /
N
L
N /
O n
O 03
L /
O
C)
C) u
ti
t
a
c
L
c
c
o
o u
EO co U') f?
`n `n `n o
(u) Uol;ena13
'a W a) Q)
a >- >- >- 'c ? ,
cm O LO O LO O 1 N O y
CL)
R: C13
0
0
c7
O
O
N
ccn
0
0
? r
U
a
0
0_
0 S o0
(n
)
>
(n ? o
? u o °
o
U)
U -
0
o
co
> C ;
Cl)
o
O
O
0
j
c
O
O
o o Ln o cD
rl to (D Ln L
LO U') LO to LO LO
J
(u) Uol;ena13 `

?
N C C

i

Q) p Q)
CD C)
QI O 0
LO U')
N O? C® C
J 3: 3:
i co
O
O
c7
O
O
N ,
O
°
0

CL
O
a
a
o
c ; •-
? I
D /

0
0 v p o
0 II °o

U rr
r?rr c
p
N ?
Y
O

°O

o"
0 °.
co

O
° LC
I I
f`
t
c
C
C
O
to
O O
L L
N LO

tp OCD

N
LO 11

N
O
(u) u011ena13
t&
0 Kimley-Horn
C? and Associates, Inc.:
January 4, 2001
John Dorney
NC DENR-DWQ
4401 Reedy Creek Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: Application for NWP # 23
Miller Street Bridge (#107) replacement
Miller Street (Lat 34° 59' 22"/ Long 80° 32' 50")
State Project No. 8.2692201, TIP B-3543
Monroe, Union County, NC
Dear Mr. Dorney:
o -1 0 0 r
Attached is a Pre-Construction Notification Application for a Nationwide Permit
#23 (Categorical Exclusions) and 401 Water Quality Certification for the
replacement of the Miller Street Bridge (#107). The bridge is located in Union
County 0.5 mile south of US 74 and 0.45 mile north of Franklin Street in Monroe
and spans Bearskin Creek on Miller Street (see attached vicinity map). The
bridge, shown on the attached USGS map (Monroe quadrangle), was built in
1955, and consists of a two span steel plank deck on steel beams supported by a
reinforced concrete substructure. It is a two-lane bridge 41 feet long and 29 feet
wide.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of
Bridge #107 was 30.3 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 and impact 244 linear feet of stream. The bridge will be replaced in its
existing location by a new 4-cell (4-10'x12' ) reinforced concrete box culvert
with beveled inlet. One box will contain a 2 foot concrete sill in order to
maintain current stream width and depth and allow for aquatic life movement.
The bridge is located within the 100-year floodplain, but significant fill will not
be placed in the floodplain. The 100-year flood elevation will not be increased
(see construction plans/ CE).
A field review was conducted on July 29, 1999 by KEA scientists during which
it was determined that no wetlands are located in the project area. Therefore, the
project will have no wetland impacts. Minimal stream impacts to Bearskin Creek
will occur. The stream channel will be realigned slightly (an approximate shift of
10 feet) alit enters and exits the Culver. o prevent erosion aro>1nd the structure.
Fifty feet of rip-rap wi e place a Ong ones e stream on the upstream
L
a
P.O. Box 33068
Ra!e gh, North Carolina
27636.3068
0
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
side of the culvert (see construction plans). Additionally, 112-feet 140-feet of
rip- ra will he laced on the stream banks of the downstre m side of the culvert
in order to prevent erosion tote owns ream an s an improve water quality.
Rip-rap p acement wil be limrte o e minimum necessary to protect t le
structure and stream banks. The culvert itself will impact 64-feet of stream.
Total impact from the project will be 244-feet of perennial stream. Aquatic life
movement and current flood water levels will be maintained through the use of
the four-box culvert with raised sill. Temporary impoundment of the stream will
occur during culvert placement.
The Miller Street bridge replacement has been classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion" as no substantial environmental impacts are anticipated
as a result of the project. Two courtesy copies of the Categorical Exclusion
document are included for your review.
Thank you very much for your attention to this project.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Colleen Dunlevy
Environmental Analyst
Enclosures
r

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: Alonroc STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 28111
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
Bridge # 107 over Bearskin Creek, Miller Street, Union County.
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) (WORK) 561-713-6824
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENTS NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
Kimley-horn and Associates, Inc.
Attn: Colleen Dunlevy
P_0_ Rnr 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
919-6784155
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 Miller Street
Brigdge (#107) is located 0.5 miles south of US 74 and 0.45 miles north of Franklin Street in Monroe,
Union Comity, NC.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Bearskin Creek RIVER BASIN: Yadkin-Pee Dec
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 ? NO ® IF YES, EXPLAIN:
(b) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTII 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?
YESEJ 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:
N/A
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0
FLOODING: 0
DRAINAGE : 0
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED
(b) (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: 244 FT AFTER: 244 FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 6-10 FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 2 FT AFTER: 2 FT
(b) (2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: X PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: X-( for realignment)
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING: X (temporary)
OTHER placement of rip-rap in channel
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?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (ATTACH PLANS; 81/2 BY 11 DRAWINGS ONLY)
Bridge #107 will be replaced in the existing location with a 4 cell reinforced concrete box culvert.
The stream channel will be realigned slightly (approximately 10' shift) as it enters and exits the
culvert to prevent erosion around the structure. Fifty feet of rip-rap will be placed along one side of
the stream to reduce scour as it flows into the culvert (see construction plans). Additionally, 112-feet
and 140-feet of rip-rap will be placed on the stream banks of the downstream side of the culvert in
order to prevent erosion to the downstream banks. The culvert itself will impact 64-feet of stream.
Total impact from rip-rap and the culvert will be 244-feet of perennial stream. Rip-rap placement
will be limited to the minimum necessary to protect the structure. The bridge replacement will not
place signiticant amounts of fill in the floodplain area, and will not raise the 100 year flood elevation.
Probable equipment used for the construction include a crane, backhoe, and grading equipment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the existing
Miller Street Bridjje determined to be structurally deficient in August 1996 durinll a NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance 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, 1999
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 OR THE USE OF PUBLIC
(STATE) LAND?
YES ® NO Q (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 ® NO ?
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
YES ® NO ? CE Attached
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: N/A
(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?
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM,
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE DATA' 7-
(AGENTS 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 Miller Street bridge (#107) on Bearskin Creek, Union County, North
Carolina.
December 20, 2000
es Loyd Jr. PE
City of Monroe
Miller Street Bridge Miller Street Bridge P;" o Scale: NTS
Replacement ®o 71 Date: 12J15/00
City of Monroe Kmlo?tes, Ix
Union County, NC Vicinity Map
Figure: 1 of 4

Nr.
y w: ru
'!.5
so
r a .l ` 1 r ? ?,t?Y ? ` r ?jf? ? ??? t ?tl? /? r ., I 1 t '? ?_-.,1 f.. If I ,ra ? pb Y? r ,? ? I ? w` •Mi.`'.
- ! w+: f ? i, ? @?y , ''-rta f I 9'R'•EY 'ti,v 1 (, I y C r .it I r i ? ? ' .. 1 ?(.51 ? ? FI ,A' ? i
1
Y7
r„i? ?"? } ? ? r / hkwa+frhdl..4n /-. ?r„ r ! \1 } .1 {S r? ? "15? l -' N I ?. ? w . _ .`?1 I
?. i?' k ?' ? ???" +}? ? t.•?ti"`Z ? ? ? % +? , I III ' 1 ? Ir i? fl /,.? . ? ? ? ???? ?
?.^3± ! ? f ????J7,? l ; ff. ' .j f t I f of. ? ` f i' ibl + ?" I c1 ? '? ?•'•• ti ?y?
Talk
*I f 1fi r 9: AAl g! .. +rk?? •? s?.,.,??76''4 r it I/••'? d ! ',.? 4 1 ?,?I ! r iN '. 3. I? % I?,r:Y frr''`
1
r ) ?, Sf :J?' .l dt I
? ' y ?(? ? t ' ? 9 7? 1 ? , ? rtr • ? ?f ? _? r3 f,,.l' t 'i r I
? ? f I LI ter:
!f a?. ?r+ !>? ? !'., ?rP' ? '. 1 ??'7. r,? Y?l-'-???t? C.,17''v?? ?? .:h 1'.MI Y. :. '•"r?1?. ?1i?
1000 0 1000 Feet
Miller Street Bridge Miller Street Bridge _ Scale: 1:24000
Replacement Date: 12115/00
City of Monroe USGS Map KMWY-Flom
Union County, NC (Monroe Quadrangle) and Associates. Inc.
Fioure: 2 of 4
f ?.
l '
-j? CQ
r ?Q
J/SS ?Y
J
i
k O
r? << +
.? P 1
U
Z1

V
O
N CC) %
O
W
? I
r
i?
t
J /11 It
fI
O
ti
O
U I
J
? I
11 q Ln
i Co ' ?
Q) vi
Os?
/,r
r rC ?` ?
1 1
I
J ? Ir
Ql?? LC)
LC)
i%

\ jil
\ as
a

N
JOW

\
W ==
cn ?

Z
\ zt LL-
o

Q
C) C)
\
r
E2
C?

\ L4j
?
VW
\f51 j
?
Q ? N
C7
?:
?
\
\ zz Qj O N O
?
\ LC) Q:?M
(.D LLJ

ry)
tOr)
\\ ?.
0 j W
??OIP W \ QOII
a
It t jLn II O u0
O Z
I ? II II
C??
II ?
? I
I d
O J

-
W \
I I
I '
G
I
-1-
m L I
I

L
Q: ? I
In n @j j O
II N
Q Ln
Lr)

O
?
uu Lr)
°°-?
II•

zz!
?p ?
U.J I.
(-D L

w
L
? n
o
1q:

a-
I C?
(,0
U O
O N II
W N \j
QI?NI?
N ? t
Ln c Ico
j ti ?
`? I I tl II LO
O tl JjY W In I` O
O
?W ?'
°
I

<O o

O
I
I `1J
II
?l
? O O
G)

A
Monroe
3 iCQi Bridge No. 107
Miller Street over Bearskin Creek
Union County, North Carolina ?-1
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (3)
State Project No. 3.2692201
TIP B-3543

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. 107
Miller Street over Bearskin Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (3)
State Project No. 3.2692201
TIP B-3513
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 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 Manager
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
James Loyd, Jr., P.E.
City Engineer
City of Monroe
John 1NI. Penney
Project Development Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit
NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJEJ CT COM-MITTIIE, NTS
Bridge No. 107
Miller Street over Bearskin Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (3)
State Project No. 8.2692201
TIP Project Number B-3543
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

- Design Services 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. w '.

Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch/Design Services Unit . ;,
An 8" water line is located in the middle of the southbound lane approximately 6' `8' from'the
edge of pavement. The utility contract shall include the following replacement measures for the
water line. Water service shall be maintained by rerouting ezistms line around the southbound '
:'lane to the west of the 'structure.' A permanent replacement water line shall be placed on the'
?ahoulder of the southbound lane. .. - ` `

Green Sheet
Preconstruction Page 1 of 1
November 5, 2000

Table of Contents
Paee
I. Summary of Recommendations .......................................................................................1
II. Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................................1
III. Alternatives ......................................................................................................................2
IV. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................3
V. Recommended Improvements ..........................................................................................3
V1. 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 ..............................................................................................................12
VIII. Environmental Effects ....................................................................................................13
IX. Responses to Agency Comments ...................................................................................16
Tables
Table 1 Cost Breakdown of Recommended Alternate .....................................................3
Table 2 Federally Protected Species for Union County ...................................................9
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 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
Figure 8 National Wetlands Inventory Map -Monroe, NC Quadrangle
Figure 9 Union County Soil Survey Map
Appendices
Appendix A Agency Comments
Appendix B Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects
Appendix C Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval
Monroe
Bridge No. 107
Miller Street over Bearskin Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (3)
State Project No. 3.2692201
TIP B-3543
The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 107, and associated approach roadway improvements,
which carries Miller Street over Bearskin 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."
1. SUNMIARY OF RECOAMIENDATIONS
A new structure on existing alignment is recommended to carry Miller Street over Bearskin
Creek (See Figure 2).
The proposed grade of Miller Street will be raised approximately three feet (0.9 meters). The
proposed improvements will require approximately 340 feet (103.6 meters) of improvements on
each roadway approach. As shown in Figure 3, the project ties into each approach using
guardrail.
The new roadway approaches will have a 26-foot (7.9 meters) travelway with 2'-6" (0.8 meters)
curb and gutter on each side (see Figure 4).
The proposed structure will be a reinforced concrete box culvert. 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 replacement cost is $429,000 which, includes $40,000 for right-of-way acquisition
and 5389,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 2000-2006 TIP is 5393,000
including 532,000 for right of way acquisition and $361,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Miller Street is classified as a local access street in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Miller Street is also designated as a local access street in the 1997 Monroe Thoroughfare
Plan and serves local residential traffic.
Near Bridge No. 107, Miller Street is a 24-foot (7.3 meter) wide, two-lane paved road with 6-foot
(1.8 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. 107 is 15 feet (4.6 meters) above the streambed. Water is approximately 1
feet (0.3 meter) deep in the project area. See Figure 6.
Bridge No. 107 was built in 1955. The bridge has a 3.5 inch (8.9 centimeter) asphalt wearing
surface. The bridge includes a two (2) span - steel plank deck on steel beams supported by a
reinforced concrete substructure (see Figure 6). It is 41.0 feet (12.5 meters) in length and has a
23.0 feet (7.0 meters) wide roadway. It carries two lanes of traffic, with posted load limits of 9
tons (8164.7 kilograms) for single vehicles and 18 tons (16,329.3 kilograms) for Truck-tractor
Semi-trailers (TTST).
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 107
was 30.8 of 100.0 in March 2000, when the latest bridge inspection was performed; this means
the bridge was structurally deficient. Based on NCDOT's records, the estimated remaining life
of the bridge is to the year 2004.
According to a traffic count performed by the City of Monroe in September 1999, the traffic
volume was 1,177 vehicles per day (vpd) along Miller Street near the bridge. The design year
(2020) traffic at the Miller Street Bridge is projected to be 2,200 vehicles per day (based on a 3.0
% growth rate). The truck percentage is five percent (4%-Duals and 1%-TTST) based on
NCDOT counts. The speed limit in the project area is 35 miles per hour (55 kilometers/hour).
Accident Records indicate that no accidents occurred in the vicinity of Bridge No. 107 between
July 1, 1996 and January 31, 2000.
The Transportation Director for Union County
daily school bus crossings on Bridge No. 107.
crossings if the bridge is replaced.
Schools indicated that there are currently two
However, there will be an estimated three bus
III. ALTERNATIVES
The 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 reinforced concrete box culvert located on the
existing alignment (see Figure 3). The typical sections are shown in Figure 4. The proposed
grade on Miller Street will be raised approximately 3 feet (0.9 meters). This alternative will
require approximately 340 feet (103.6 meters) of improvements on each roadway approach. The
proposed structure will be a reinforced concrete box culvert. 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 $ 50,000
Structure Removal $ 24,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 30,000
Engineering and Contingencies $ 60,000
Construction Total 5389,000
Right-of-Way Total S40,000
Project Total $ 429,000
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 107 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. 107 will be replaced with a four-cell reinforced concrete box culvert. The box
culvert is the most cost-effective alternative due to its simple form of construction, low long term
maintenance costs, and it provides an adequate hydraulic opening.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 30 miles per hour (48
kilometers per hour). The new roadway approaches will have a 26-foot (7.9-meter) travelway
with 2'-6" (0.8 meter) curb and gutter on each side. The new roadway approaches will be raised
approximately three feet (0.9 meter).
There are no future plans for bicycle lanes on Miller Street. 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 (Figure 7). 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 1.8 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.
An 8" (0.2 meter) waterline is located in the middle of the southbound lane approximately 6'-8'
(1.8 - 2.4 meters) from the edge of pavement. Water service should be maintained by rerouting
existing line around the southbound lane to the west of the structure. A permanent replacement

water line should be placed on the shoulder of the southbound lane. Currently, the utility
contract for this project has not been finalized.
Additional utility conflicts include the relocation of four power poles. Also, there is a 24" (0.6
meters) sewer line (see Figure 6A) that crosses Bearskin Creek 40 feet (12.2 meters) from the
end wing walls on the east and west side of the bridge. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
(BMPs) will be followed for the minor channel relocation. No negative impact to the sanitation
sewer line is expected. As such, relocation of the sewer line is unnecessary.
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 (Monroe, NC quadrangle) (Figure 2), the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map
(Monroe, 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 scoping letter responses
from the USFWS and NCDENR. 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 culvert span Bearskin Creek, which
is located within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Bearskin Creek flows west to
east until its convergence with Richardson Creek approximately 0.9 miles (1.5
kilometers) east of the project area. The channel is approximately six to ten feet
(1.8 - 3.0 meters) wide and approximately two feet (0.6 meters) deep in the
vicinity of the bridge with a sand/silt 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. Bearskin Creek
is designated as a class "C." This classification denotes waters suitable for
-t
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
28, 1999, there have been no benthic macroinvertebrate surveys done in
Bearskin 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 culvert. The use of riprap along the stream
channel on both sides of the culvert will effect water quality by removing
some of the vegetative buffer along the stream banks but will serve to
stabilize the banks as well. 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 and superstructure for Bridge No. 107 are composed
of steel, there is not potential for components of the deck and superstructure
to be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction.
The substructure for Bridge No. 107 is composed of concrete. The interior
bent and end bents are reinforced concrete. NCDOT has indicated that the
two end bents can be removed without the potential for components of the
end bents to be dropped into the waterway. However, the center in-bent has
the potential for components to be dropped into Waters of the United States
during construction.
The maximum potential fill is approximately 27 yd3. It is the intent not to
drop any components into the water.
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 Bearskin 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
geological activity along with the topography of an area. According to the Soil
Survey of Union County (1996), the project area extends through two main soil
associations, the Badin-Urban land complex and the Chewacla silt loam
association (Figure 9). The soils within the Chewacla Association are nearly level
and poorly drained and are found within the Bearskin Creek floodplain. The
Badin-Urban soils, which are upland well-drained soils, are disturbed by
development and have a severe risk of erosion.
According to the USGS map (Monroe, North Carolina quadrangle), land elevations
within the project area range from approximately 500 feet (152.4 meters) near the
edge of the stream bank to 480 feet (146.3 meters) within the stream channel
(Figure 2). The land within the project area is generally level.
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, two
terrestrial communities as well as an aquatic community associated with Bearskin Creek
were identified in the project area. The terrestrial communities include riparian forest
and maintained communities.
a. Terrestrial Communities
1. Riparian Forests
A narrow band of riparian forest occurs along the streambanks within the
floodplain of Bearskin 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 (Salix nigra) and box elder (Acer
negundo). The area is significantly disturbed and only represents a narrow
band of vegetation within a maintained community.
Riparian forests provide habitat for wildlife due to the presence of food and
cover and the proximity of water. This community, however, is isolated
and significantly disturbed thereby providing only minimal habitat for those
species which tolerate such conditions. Mammals such as raccoon
(Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and feral domesticated
animals would likely occur in such an area. The diversity of amphibians
and reptiles is probably low but could likely include water snakes (Nerodia
spp.), snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina), and various frogs species
(Rana spp.). Bird species would likely include those species suited to
disturbed or urban settings including cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis),
mourning doves (Zcnaida macroura), and song sparrows (Melospica
melodia).
2. iti'laintained Communities
The majority 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.) and large shade trees such as southern red oaks
(Quercus rubra) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, associated with Bearskin
Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. The stream was overgrown with
algae and other emergent aquatics such as smartweeds (Polygonum spp.) and water
plantain (Alisma subcordatum). 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 platyrhyncus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), common carp
(Cyprinus carpio) and creek chub (Semotihis atromaculatus). Due to the low
water levels and presumably low oxygen levels, fish species more tolerant to these
conditions would probably occur.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Clearing, grading, and creating borrow areas as well as placement of the culvert
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 arc anticipated. The majority of the impact
resulting from the proposed project will occur in maintained communities.
Because this project consists of the replacement of an existing bridge with a
culvert within the same footprint as the existing bridge, aquatic impacts should be
minimal and, with the exception of the area of streambed under the culvert,
temporary. The temporary impacts to the aquatic community associated with
Bearskin 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 Metlands 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.
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
Bearskin Creek. In addition, an erosion and sedimentation control plan will need
to be submitted and approved by NCDENR -DWQ prior to initiation of
construction.
Impacts to Bearskin Creek from the proposed project are approximately 300 linear
feet (91.4 meters) . This project, due to the amount of stream impact, will require
pre-construction coordination with COE and DWQ for permitting and will likely
require mitigation.
8
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 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. The stream was found to be extremely
degraded and not to offer suitable habitat for mussels in the project area. No
mussels were found. 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.
Table 2
Federally Protected Species for Union County
(as of August 1999)
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Lasmigona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter LE
Helianthus schweinitzii 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 Bearskin Creek and is
unlikely to occur there due to the urbanization of the creek and seemingly poor
water quality. Surveys were conducted for this species and no suitable habitat
was found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Schlveinitz'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.
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. See Appendix B for a complete list of State protected species. Those
species with other state designations such as special concern or significantly rare
are included in Appendix B but are not discussed below as they are not afforded
the same level of protection.
10
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
This 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 Bearskin 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 relocations 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.
An 8" (0.2 meter) water line is located in the middle of the southbound lane approximately 6'-8'
(1.8 - 2.4 meters) from the edge of pavement. Water service should be maintained by rerouting
existing line around the southbound lane to the west of the structure. A permanent replacement
water line should be placed on the shoulder of the southbound lane. 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. Also, there is a 24" (0.6
meter) sewer line (see Figure 6A) that crosses Bearskin Creek 40' (12.2 meters) from the end
wing walls on the east and west side of the bridge. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
(BMPs) will be followed for the minor channel relocation. No negative impact to the sanitation
sewer line is expected. As such, relocation of the sewer line is unnecessary.
Since the bridge deck and superstructure for Bridge No. 107 are composed of steel, there is not
potential for components of the deck and superstructure to be dropped into Waters of the United
States during construction.
The substructure for Bridge No. 107 is composed of concrete. The interior bent and end bents
are reinforced concrete. NCDOT has indicated that the two end bents can be removed without
the potential for components of the end bents to be dropped into the waterway. However, the
center in-bent has the potential for components to be dropped into Waters of the United States
during construction.
The maximum potential fill is approximately 27-yd 3 (20.6 M3). It is the intent not to drop any
components into the water.
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation's
13
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. 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.
It has been determined that there are no properties within the APE currently listed on the
National Register or North Carolina State Study list. However, the study indicated that there is
one property within the APE that is considered eligible for the National Register, the Piedmont
Buggy Factory. To comply with Section 106, a coordination meeting with the SHPO was
conducted on July 7, 2000 to determine the impact, if any, of the proposed project on this
resource. The meeting resulted in a "No Adverse Effect" determination for the Miller Street
Bridge replacement.
The construction will have an impact to land protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966. The project will require right-of-way (ROW) acquisition and a
temporary construction easement from the adjacent Jaycee Park (City owned) due to the
implementation of guardrail for the culvert replacement. The guardrail is a safety and design
issue required to meet current NCDOT design standards. Proper design places the guardrail
slightly outside the existing ROW. In order to provide the City access to maintain the guardrail,
additional ROW must be provided. The impact to the Park from the proposed project is the
taking of approximately 0.13 acres (0.05 hectares). The total area of the park is currently 3.48
acres (1.4 hectares). No structures or public facilities associated with the Park will be impacted.
There are no other reasonable and feasible alternatives to replacing the bridge structure. Since
the bridge is classified as structurally deficient, the structure must be replaced with a properly
designed and safe bridge or culvert, including the implementation of guardrail. Also, the section
of roadway associated with the bridge is in a tangent section. Shifting the roadway alignment
and bridge away from the Park would impact the adjacent Piedmont Buggy Factory property.
This property is listed as eligible for the National Register for its significance in industry and
architecture. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to shift the alignment of the roadway in order
to avoid the impact to the Jaycee Park. Coordination with the City of Monroe has been
conducted regarding this issue.
Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land from a publicly owned public
park and meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register (December 23, 1986), a programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the public park, have been fully evaluated: (a) do
nothing; (2) improve the highway without using the adjacent public park; and (3) build an
improved facility on new location without using the publicly owned public park. These
alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the public park has been incorporated into this project.
The officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property have agreed, in writing, with the
assessment of impacts resulting from the use of the Section 4(0 property and with the mitigation
measures to be provided (see Appendix C).
Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal Highway Division
Administrator is included in Appendix G of this document.
14
Based on a response letter from the USFWS, stream surveys for the endangered Carolina
Heelsplitter and other state listed mussels, including the Savannah Lilliput, as well as the
Carolina Darter, a federal species of concern, were recommended. Tim Savidge of NCDOT
conducted these surveys in October of 1999 and no protected species were identified in the
project area.
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 11/15/2000
and no protected species were identified in the project area.
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 under 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 this 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 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.
If vegetation is disposed 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 15NCAC2D.0520.
As described, no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites were observed in the
immediate project area.
There are no practicable alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in a crossing of about the same magnitude of impact. 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.
15
IX. RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS
US Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service: (letter dated 9-16-99)
Item A: Mussel surveys were conducted in the project area in response to a request by the Fish
and Wildlife Service. The following is an excerpt from a letter dated December 12, 1999
regarding the mussel survey conducted by NCDOT Environmental Specialist Tim Savage.
"The creek at this location appeared to be extremely degraded, has been channelized and was
choked with algae and aquatic vegetation. The stream does not offer suitable habitat for mussel
species at this location. Bearskin Creek was also visited approximately 1.5 miles (2.4
kilometers) downstream at the NC 200 crossing. At this location the stream is a naturally
meandering stream with a rock/cobble substrate. Surveys for mussel fauna were conducted at
this site. Survey time was one man-hour and methodology involved wading and using a view
bucket from the bridge to approximately 300 yards upstream of the bridge. No mussels were
found. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) is abundant in the creek."
Item B: Bridge design will follow NCDOT BMPs for stormwater and instream work. This
project will replace an existing bridge with a culvert. For description of utility relocation see
Section VII.
Item C: Culvert construction will follow NCDOT BMPs for bridge construction, which will not
allow for wet concrete to contact stream
Item D: Since the bridge deck and superstructure for Bridge No. 107 are composed of steel, there
is not potential for components of the deck and superstructure to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during construction.
The substructure for Bridge No. 107 is composed of concrete. The interior bent and end bents
are reinforced concrete. NCDOT has indicated that the two end bents can be removed without
the potential for components of the end bents to be dropped into the waterway. However, the
center in-bent has the potential for components to be dropped into Waters of the United States
during construction.
The maximum potential fill is approximately 27 yd'. It is the intent not to drop any components
into the water.
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 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.
NC Department of Cultural Resources: (letter dated 9-09.99)
Item A: Historic preservation survey, see Section VI-6. For survey report see Historic
Architectural Resources Survey Report, Bridge No. 107. NCDOT, March 2000.
16
NCDENR: (letter dated 10-11-99)
Item A: The purpose of the Miller Street bridge project is to provide a safer structure by
replacing the existing 45 year-old bridge with a culvert structure. The bridge sufficiency rating is
42.1. The existing 23-foot (7.0 meters) wide travel lanes would be widened to 26 feet (7.9
meters), which would improve safety. The roadway at the bridge location would be raised 3 feet
(0.9 meters) to improve the vertical alignment.
Item B: Water resources see Section VI-1. Wetlands see Section VI-3.
Item C: 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 D: This item does not apply to the Miller Street Bridge project.
Item E: Miller 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 F: This item does not apply to the Miller Street Bridge project.
Item G: The bridge is being replaced by a culvert structure.
Item H: 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 I: No wetland areas were identified within the project area.
Item J: The existing bridge will be replaced by a culvert. The culvert will be countersunk to
allow unimpeded fish and aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. The new culvert will
be countersunk a depth of 0.9 feet (0.3 meter) between the water surface and the invert.
Item K: Foundation test borings were conducted on October 26, 1999. The Geotechriical Report
of Subsurface Exploration dated December 7, 1999 can be provided upon request.
Item L: No wetland areas will be impacted by the proposed project. Stream impacts are
anticipated to exceed 150 linear feet (45.7 meters). The proposed project will impact
approximately 300 feet (91.4 meters) of stream including 70-foot (21.3 meters) culvert and
placing riprap along the stream channel. It is acknowledged that since greater than 150 linear
feet (45.7 meters) of Bearskin Creek is to be impacted by the proposed project, mitigation may be
required in the permitting process and coordination with the COE and DWQ will establish
suitable permitting and mitigation strategies.
Item NI: No wetland areas were identified within the project area. However, the project will
follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Sediment Erosion Control guidelines.
17
Item N: Bridge design will follow NCDOT BiVIPs and will address stormwater management.
Item O: 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.
l3
Figures
01
(B-3543
7t
51
162A
200 601 II
200 :'.
?o
b,S? n
MONROE
' 117A3 UNION COUNTY
.2]i
J H
M
C 2 .IS
FAU
FrOnl<rm St. .1 S - oc r
S2 ,
L
U
75 u L.
N ,J
b f,L
.15 .ao
? FAU X21]
1
ti
207
MONROE, BRIDGE -107, UNION
COUNTY. REPLACE BRIGE ON
MILLER STREET OVER
BEARSKIN CREEK.
Title: Vicinity Map
rolect: Miller Street Bndge Replacement over Bearskin
Creek
)Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Monroe, North Carolina
tale: sere: Pmecl No. 1-1gure:
10/1 1 9 NIA 011851600 1
i Water
,n Tank - J Dn.N.,n' ?? ?; I
•,\ • -? ,61 Theater _IJ ` w i:+ 1I.
e(?
Radio TQw - - 02/ . o
inn 9? __ /` '?, •i• '•? ??.. n ,: /? ?^?? ea
-
%c r ,.
coy ?4
`? i?'..• Il:.vtlun Ile7Rbf9 t' InJ ? J I -, j /; ?.CO?
• S?r,,S:..- ? _ ich'-.4.. 1 CCJJ I ' t.,Y• 11???'? ? / "' -mow
• ?`) -- S\ - / a _ `is Drive-Tin
eI^ -HiIICre•' L_ •/ .QTheatrr /' L •??•'?•'?'( S
Par! PROJECT' - " •?'IC1\',
..?rT:: ? n •;• t".: „ ? wrt?.::•.[?.re ,?I l_:11? 1 it-?;::?:
qI,
7 43
oil. a
_ Oo
_- I .,I rG07 _ c ? ? •?It', ;r. v'• _- 1 t)°1 v
-.. `; I
ry -? - 1.
_. -1• .. r .?i:T?^1 - l` 5 .F ^J ..r.,c sch i -
• •??. ..:::? ? - i I ??'° ?.:.. • , ..:c._? ; I ,-' asp+ta6-..., i
1 > III I, P? ?: ., I ;?'•:?:??:??, _ .
\' - y .-ti• ' i--60a `? I ice' _i? '. 1 t? _ V i 1?
)
.Lakeland ' /' ?J .. ,., J l ?,i :102 .. ?\Il • ?'f•
Memoi:er;?ark 1 '•T 'C , c `, ••' ? J : ?'°_`"". I ? - 1
Ower
_ •..r?. /•/? `• ?•///•r x'11 ??? •I J ?,'?- 1i i ? ?I_ I-1 -?•? Ji
• `. i ? ?-?_-' > .• I it fy ??. `? n? ??? (?` ?t
• _-?= ?. ? . •? \?-?i' y .f? ?_-I ? ' it j\ '1? ?? \ ?, 1 -' ??_ ?/? 1t1
: ?\ I .?JI J 59,
_J Ato
Title: USGS Topographical Map
Project: IMiller Street Bridge Replacement over Bearskin
;a -"'• ,+ Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
•?'^ .. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
10/105
011851000
2
\ o
? W
\ ?0W 4
t E,
\ ti V) Ln
\\ v'o¢
\ ?ou ?1
\
\ ?IWW ?12W
\ \ M18
?I tnna .Ot
• `- X177=15 1n07J- --???
v 1!
0
Z

O

O z
0
Z C)? O
W
W > Y
U
0
I- J
L Z
W ? ? O
-L Cn W U I Z

V) L7J
LL- (Y _m D
7 OI- YO
Cn
Q V) 7

CL I-
7_ Q(1
W. W W -
mF- z
W J W
U 5 O
Q Elf
r
l
C
L
C
u
?I
i
?a
o
y W V

J N LI i
( K U b
I
K ? d U I
4 # .0 a
K < ? q I
I U O
P N
a
R < co
z
?

V?
I I
I
r
u w
o?
x
o
a m
`V u
c°3
.o wa
u ?
v z ? +
z '? a o
3 = /- U

-- - - - - - --
- - _ - - - - _ - - - -. -
??6 tr

\ o>f N x
? ? N Q
oum'.T
O ~
U u

tJ
\
\ \ 'U

1 1 ,

' Iqh 7sr7 Ill tlln
\
? ? \ -?\,?
-
7I igi
- - - - - - -- -- - - - - __ - - - - -- -- - - - id tr tlJV JO .Ot
- - \
\V \
N
o
J
W ?
J
(

a3?o.u
v V,
.,

U N N? d
t
t h I

3
c
U
z mC ~
19-9 co W
g?m ° W
O

m
K U U O
JIL
r W U ?
- - -- - - __.- _ -- - _ _ - - -_ -- - I I n K Y d
? ? ? r a
MItl J?lnna .Or K W rV h
IlJtlis MOOTIM m I }? I O A Y
,/
----- -- ------------------ o? -? I O j ` U
z1)
?I
V)
o vii v?iau ?VU I -, I
ti<rN W 2;
J
QJ
U W U Ln rnn Co
?.ll l-
? ?2W I? III
-- -- ----- - - - - -- -- --- -- -- - - - - - - -- 137e15 r+nn- - - - - I r 0-O, -
J pp
a ? ? n u
O N N O t 0. t?
1 I au<?n I f
Mitl Jnnna.oc
1334 is 111Y314
• tank `--•r yx.
CFA
• ?? •\? ISr•ii:,n Illiwhn
fff .. ? tZPU
'rf,r,?'
1
Detour Roqt
17 1?
?'- v ---{
--- Mid ar./ .
???? r -eater %: ...?? ?-° .,? •\ ,,. -•
17
ra j
11 Y- r, 710
cem
Pa PROJECT
1TOL
.Na
_J c W
Har • !
ght? eul. '
-?- - `b \J l - t? n
1' ...- rare ? ------ _ -__ - - +? 1 ,
rroJS N S _ t- ~ -ter ?.• •?• _ ?\ :,` _ r7.
• ? 5? e-; ? . ? '- on
DO:
f 11
'. 1
i 612
= - ? •. -.7.?•7^- ? -? - ?`? '\ 1 , .i?• i• ? '?'•?? t.. :1122. ,`.• •'. \.
Title: Detour Routing
l;
Project Development and Environmental :Analysis Branch
Project: Miller Street Bridge Replacement over Bear:
Creek
Monroe. North Carolina
' CJ:(J rrclect No. r gure:
1^/1Ci?9 1'110120 011851000 I 5
P
Title: Miller Street Bridge Replacement
d \ Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
y Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
..J

Photo L. Looking south along Mille Jug.et at the Bridge

Photo 1: Looking east along Bearskin Creek from Miller Street Bridge.
Photo 2: Looking west along Bearskin Creek from Miller Street Bridge.
Title: Miller Street Bridqe Replacement
?? d 4\
`x
E'roject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ab
1011
Miller Street
Creek
'vionroe, Noi

,I
II I Y
it
WIC \1 ? "II II
I CII
in
I WI
I NII II
L_--_____L?
?II II JII ?"/? 1 i,
tl, II ??? yid ?\
i o W } ? II_
}?^1. YI /iyL,'ill NII,II W1 w STREET
1 ? a, O of
61)
?? , ri1 `I a cc)
W0
OJ
HQ
?w
7;,n
WI' I `
Z'
W
N1, ,I
1
3tRE°T - -- - - - --' -, - ' I
----7T-'
LU i
!
\ _ I W W
""2 0
\\\ // ~ Ir
U. a_
TZ L'. N Cr
W O
i/ 2 m \ U
o° o -? I \
I// W LL
I' II I II
ICI ?? ? I i
II
Title: Union County FIRM Map
Project: Miller Street
Creek
Monroe, Not
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
? 3
i -
Title: Union County Soil Survey Map
Creek `
?s Monroe, North Carolina
(???' " Analysis Branch
\„? r , J Project Development and Environmental
Appendix A
Agency Comments
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. [`forth Carolina 23801
September 16, 1999
1VIs. Gin!2,-r ?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 4107 over Bearskin Creek, Monroe, Union
County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3543)
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 4107 on Miller Street over Bearskin
Creek, in Monroe, Union County, North Carolina. The existing bridge, built in 1955, consists of
a steel plank floor on a continuous steel girder floor-beam system, with reinforced concrete
abutments and a solid web pier substructure.
Enclosed is a list of the federally endangered and threatened species known from union Counrv_ .
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 thev are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We
are including these species in our response to gzive you advance notification.
The immediate project area has not been surveyed recently for listed aquatic species. We have
records of a mussel--the Savannah lilliput (Toxolas»uz pullus)--in Richardson Creek, to which
Bearskin 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 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
328/253-3939, Est. 227. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-99-246.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
NIr. Ron Linville, Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3355 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27234-9180
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 23301-5006
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.
COMMON NAZI E SCIEINTIFIC NAIti1E STATUS
UNION COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Invertebrates
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dacrylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Atlantic pigtoe Fcsconaia masoni FSC
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
Savanna lilliput Toxalasma pullus FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster .4stergeorgianus FSC
Schweinitz's sunflower Neiianthusscinveinit_ii Endangered
August 17, 1999 Page 1 vy
COMMON NAIME SCIENTIFIC NAINJE 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 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 uidicate 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 1,-. 1999 P:: v 2 oli' ,
I ,
? I- bT
I? A
a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary RECEIVED trey J. Crow, Dircctor
September 9, 1999
3 1999
Ginger Tennant KIMLEY - HORN
Kimely-Hom and Associates, Inc. ENVIR.
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3068
Re: iViiller Street over Bearskin Creek Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 107), TIP No.
B-3643, Union County, ER 00-7334-A
Dear Ms. Tennant:
Thank you for your letter of August 10, 1999, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the project area. However, since a comprehensive historical
architectural inventory has not been conducted in over a decade, there may be structures of which we are
unaware located within the project area.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed area. Based on our present knowledge of the
area. it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction.
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project site. please send us
photographs (Polaroid type snapshots are fine) of each structure. These photographs should be keyed to a
map that clearly shows the site location. If there are no buildings over fifty years old on or adjacent to the
project site, please notify us of this in wi-itirg.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified
at 36 CFR Part 300, and to Executive Order 11593. "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning this comment.
please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator. at [phone]
Sincerely`
")'David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
10'? Eia t 1on?s Str;et • Ralri_h. \onh Carniina '7r,01-2307
r
cc: W. Gilmore
B.Church
NCDOT/PB,E ER,:+ll=H Fax: r94 Jun r 'U U 12:ur u2
Jr, sulr''
yyyy5 1n?. ?e ?
1. tom.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David. L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Sel~etar-j
.Lyiay 23, 2000
I
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Di, i?ion^i:?rcpiYes and Hiscory
,;C1;:'1,
-, tCrow, Director
,qz
r

Re: Historic Architectural Resources Report, Replacement of Bridge No. 107 on SR 101 o.,-er
Bearskin Creek, TIP No B-3543, Monroe, Union Countv, ER 00-9667
Dear Iv1r. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of April 24, 2000. transmitting the survey report by Mary Pope Furr
concerning the above project.
For purposes of eornpiiance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We corcTur that
the following eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Piedmont Buggv Factory is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion A because of its location in Nlonroe's forncr industrial center, an area d;veieped
north of the downtown and exemplary of the grovih of manufacturing from small buildings to
large industrial campuses. It is also eligible under Criterion C as the oniv intact exampie of a
manufacturing structure left in Monroc. We concur with the boundaries as noted on paces 12
and 13 of the report.
The following detemiint!d not elitazible for listing in the National Register o Historic Places:
Allen Strcct Mill Houses
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Histc-ic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulatiors for Compliance with Section 106 codifies
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Lac at luu \ idinC Adrlrc,i T.Iephnnc.Fjz
A0\IIYISTRATIU,\ Sill % 111m.n1 Sr. 0..,le,yn NC ??,' frail 5.+?,cc C.•nt:r, R-00 NC 270YI-41,17 '71'))
.\Ht:H,\EOLOCY 121 \. OlOmu St.. Rjj,j?h',C 1l, 1'r 1fa l 3eni?? Cerro. ftz1::4h V(' _"6t).}hly Idyl 713,7' 14: 15-:,71
RFSTOR,%TIUV <i5 N. 01„w11 S;.. R.llcibh "(7 'Ii ,IA Ser%1:o C,nis. 4jlclyh NC _"ouy.1?) t ]I.il ??__i,j17 ') j•?.fll
SLN'.F-Y & PLANNING CIS v. ;Jloant St.. .14164F `;C =„Ia `.1„1 3cf.,LC lcnt:r. dt:)Icish V(' al')) 713-(,?a: 715..;-
Nl LJU I lt-ut CI[Kil-r1 `d.X 717-I JJ J4 ..ui i r vk.) l- -V I r. vJ
page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you. have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
4 David Brook
U Deputy State: Historic Preservation Officer i
DB:scb
cc: W. Gilmore B. Church

u ?r
?CDF. R
JAMES S. HUNT-JR. 1V1s. Ginger 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
RE MCDEVITT
SEC SUBJECT: Rare Species. High Quality Natural Communities, and
SECRETARY
Significant Natural Heritage Areas at the Sites of Two
Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects in Monroe. Union
County, North Carolina: NCDOT TIP: B-353
DR. PHILIP K. MCKNELLY. NCDOT TIP: B-3544
DIRECTOR
Dear ivIs. 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-35q=1 at Bearskin Creek and Stetivarts 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, they may be present there. Consultant acquired
knowledee of the existint, 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 Reece Giles
Information Specialist
Natural Herital`e Pro,zram
Enclosure
27699-1615
PO. 30x 27687• RALCICH NC B ,t.. ONE 719.733.4181 FAX [phone]
-?•?? -y..4 ?,j.- AN RECYCLEO/f0 ; P
AN [DUAL OPOCgTUNITY / Af FIgMATIYC ACTt"y 03T•C0N1UMEq PAPF.q
INC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM COUNTY STATUS LIST COVER SHEET
The county status list of the NC Natural Heritage Program is a listing of the elements of natural diversity (rare plant and animal
species, exemplary natural communities, and special animal habitats) known to occur in all North Carolina counties. The
information on which this list is based comes from a varier/ of sources, including field 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 enclosed 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 field surveys.
When this information is used in any document, we request that the date this list was compiled be given and that the NC Natural
Heritage Program be credited.
STATE STATUS
CODE STATUS
E Endangered
T Threatened
SC Special Concern
C Candidate
CODE STATUS
SR Significantly
ESC Extirpated
D De-listed
P Proposed (E,
Rare
T, SC, SY or D)
Plant statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC 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
Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designations indicate rarity and the need for population 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). See the Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of ;North Carolina for further
explanation 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 Program (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources). SR and EX statuses
are Natural Heritage Program designations. SR indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action.
See the Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina for further explanation of these statuses.
FEDERAL STATUS
These statuses are designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are
protected under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress. Unless otherwise
noted, derinitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 156, No. 225, November 31, 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
CODE STATUS DEFINITION
LE Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range."
LT Threatened A taxon "likely ,o become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a
significant portion of its range."
C Candidate A taxon under consideration for which there is suffic ent information to support listing. This categorv was
formerly designated as a Candidate 1 (Cl) species.
FSC Federal "Species of Concern" (also called "Species at Risk"). Formerly dettned as a taxon under
consideration for which there is insufficient information to support listing; formerly designated as a
Candidate ? (C3) species. Currently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not recognize this as an
official designation.
T(S/A) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance. The Endangered Species Ac: authorizes the treatment of a
species (subspecies or population segment) as threatened even though it is net otherwise listed as threatened
if: (a) The species so closely resembles in appearance a threatened species that enforc--meat personnel
would have substantial difficulty in differe.^.tiatim, between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of
this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to a threatened species: and (c) such treatment of an unlisted
species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the Ac:. The American
Alligator has this designation due to similarity of appearance to other rare c:eccdiliars. The So; Turtle
(southern population) has this designation due to similarirr of aopearanc?.- to 30g Turtles in the threatened
rcrthern population.
PD Species has been proposed for de-listing.

'LOSAL STATE FED. STATE
SCIENTIFIC NAME CCI?=N NAI•'E STATUS STATUS RANK RANK
Unian-Current
Vertebrate Animal
A.-,=ystcma talooideum Mole Salamander SC - S2 G5
Ethecstcma collis Carolina Darter SC - S3 G3
Invertebrate Animal
Fusconaia masoni At'-antic Pictee (PE) FSC S1 G2
Lasmigona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter E LE S1 G1
Strochitus undulatus Scuawfoot T - S2S3 G5
Toxolasma pullus savannah Lilliput T (PE) FSC. S1 G3
Vil'_osa constricts Notched Rainbow SR (PSC) - S3 G3G4
Villcsa delis.^bi_s -astern Creekshell SR - S3 G4
Villosa vauchaniana Carolina Creekshel'_ SC (PE) FSC S2 G2
Vascular Plant
Aster ceorcianus Georgia Aster T FSC S2 G2G3
Aster laevis var cenc.nnus Narrow-leaved Aster C - S2 G5T4
Aster mirabilis Piedmont Aster C - S2 G2G3
Saptisia albescens '.hin-pod White Wild Indiao SR - S2 G4
Gnap'-ali,.:m helleri Jar helleri Hel'ler's Rabbit Tobacco SR - S2?
G4G5T3?
ielianthus laevicatus Snooth Sun--lower SR - S2 G4
e'-ianthus schwei..-t--, Sc:weinit-'s Sun"--ewer - LE S2 G2
Letus healer- Carc:_na Birdfoot-L efoi C _SC S3 G3
Porteranthus stipulatus Indian Phvsic SR - S2 G5
Nat::ral Ccm==nity
Basic Oak--Hickory Forest - - - S3 G4
Dry Oak--Hickory Forest - - - S4 G5
Xeric Hardpan Forest - - - S3 G3G4
Union-Historic
Vasc-.aar Plant `
Ccelcrachis cvlindrica Carolina Jointcrass C - SH G4G5
Iscetes v_-_inica Vi-_inia Quillwort C. FSC S1 G3
NC NA =kL !iE42:':AGE PRCGRAIM, D:V:J:CN OF PAF_KS AI70 OE:7R july 1999
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
\7 (T
,r
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
;?1114
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 107 over Bearskin Creek, TIP 13-
3543.
Reference your correspondence dated July 37, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for bridge
replacement of Bridge Number 107 over Bearskin Creek (TIP B-3543). Preliminary analysis of the project
reveals that the proposed bridge will span Bearskin Creek in the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin. The DWQ
has classified Bearskin Creek as C waters. The Division of Mater Quality requests that NCDOT consider
the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. 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.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, 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.
1621 ?,tail Serv.ce Center, Ralei,h, north Carclina 27699-1621 Te!echone 919 C3 SC3C ',AX 912-71 5-aC49
An C,;ual C`pprr'un ty Affirmat;ve Ac::cn Emclo` ?r ?Q°.i rQC' C:3tW 1(i°? ^CSi -CnSUfT+?f ^?C?f
Ntr. William D. Gilmore memo
1U/1-109
Pa_e '
E. 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/Niatiomvide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewaterinq,) must be followed.
Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, 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.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. 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.
I. 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.
J. 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.
K. 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.
L. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.05C6(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) 1, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
M. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
N. 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. stcrmwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
0. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (,`IWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsice wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. Wd iam D. Gilmore memo
10/12/99
Pace 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
Ginger Tennant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\T1P B-3543kommcnts\B-3543 scoping ccmmcnmdoc
CITY OF NICE OE
P.O. BOX 69 • MONROE. NORTH CAROUNA 28111-0069
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 jets 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 9107 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 ')0'- 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 3" 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 wav
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,
C W Snipes, Jr. 1
Water Resources Construction Manager
C: Russ Colbath
Duane Wingo
James Pope
Jim Loyd
Appendix B
Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects
Federal ,40 R BRZ-1015(3)) TIP M" B-3543 County: Union
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESS;vIENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 107 on Miller Street over Bearskin Creel in Monroe
On July 7, 2000, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Si_ned:

Rep resent?tive, NCDOT
FHWA, for the Division administrator, or other Federal Agencv
Date

zca
Re ',sentative.. 0 Date
ly D to
State Historic Preservation Officer
1?
Federal Aid BRZ-1015(8)) TIP rc B-3543 County: Union
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
no at?.u ewe &
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
SHPO
`?
Initialed: NCDOT 171-11MA
Appendix C
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS 14ITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project 1322 '10 t5 (8)
State Project $.Z(OCI ZZO I
T. I. P. No. Q- 35'43
Description: iz,i?T? rz~?LacEYncrT t?rrrrrEC.'r, Ci-r,r of MorlC(3
C;R i c ?? to la t Nlit??tt szrzee-r oygg- tiEH17-S_ki'-J
C C(SC_ ()iyIvrl ?ovrv-r? A10(z.;74 (/\/A
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities
? ?
on essentially the same location _
2. Is the project on new location? ?
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly cwned public park,
recreation land or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
?
h
hi
i
?
?
way
g
ng
located adjacent to the exist ?
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used
impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land,
in whole or in part, for its intended purpose?
l ?
ow)
(See chart be
Total size of section 4(f) site Maximum to be acquired
less than 10 acres ..................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................. 1 acre
greater than 100 acres .............. 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and habitat effects,
aesthetic values) on the remaining Section 4(f) land
i
i
d
d
? ,
?
nten
e
purpose
ts
imoair the use of such land for
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, vith the assessment
of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the
f
d
i
a
l
?
?
)
an
on
(
s
proposed mitigation for, the Sect
4
2
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or
improved with funds under the Land and Water
Conservation Act (Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands othergise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus
property)?
B. If the project involves lands described in Item 7
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object
to the land conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of an EIS?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
1. Do-nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or impacts
of extraordinary measure?
2. Imorovement of the highway without using the
adjacent oublic park, recreational land. or
wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management
measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
Yes No
?X
0 N
?X
Yes No
-L F?
? x
F-1
X ?
x?
6
3
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
using the public park, recreational land, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge. (This would be a localized
run around.") x El
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties
and (Sof such impacts, costs, or difficulties
truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
7

MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1.
2.
3.
4
The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm.
Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project
including sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, trees
and other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and habitat features,
where necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of the land and
improvements taken or improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation measures as
determined necessary based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
Yes No
X ?
A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
Na 071AGV, rA;- 16A-TIaN
MEASURES WE 2E: ;Z<3 u,vv "TU
C?e -?2W_OEN'r.
8

5
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies
C. US Coast Guard _
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved _
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criterial included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible or prudent
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are
assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
Date Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Date Division Administrator, FNWA
9

Monroe
Bridge No. 107 72:)a4LF?
Miller Street over Bearskin Creel:
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (3)
State Project No. 3.2692201
TIP B-3513
D
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
l
Monroe
Bridge No. 107
Miller Street over Bearskin Creels
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (3)
State Project No. 3.2692201
TIP B-3513
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 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 Manager
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
James Loyd, Jr., P.E.
City Engineer
City of Monroe
Jolla M. Penney
Project Development Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit
NCDOT - Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMi UTTINIEENTS
Bridge No. 107
Miller Street over Bearskin Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (3)
State Project No. 3.2692201
TIP Project Number B-3543
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
..-Design Services Unit
The construction contract shall include a notice for the potential for lead paint and creosote on thee-
project and shall include provisions for their disposal.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch/Design Services Unit
``An 8" waterline* is located in the middle of the southbound lane approximately 6' ' 8' from the
edge of pavement. 'The utility contract shall include the following•replacement measures for the
water line. Water service shall be maintained by rerouting existing line aiotind the southbound
lane to *the west of the structure. A permanent replacement water line shall be placed on the ;
.:shoulder of the southbound lane.

Green Sheet
Preconstruction Page 1 of 1
November 5, 2000
A
Table of Contents
Page
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 .....................................................................................................................8
4. Protected Species ...................................................................................................... ..9
5. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 12
VII. Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 12
A. Compliance Guidelines ............................................................................................ 12
B. Historic Architecture ................................................................................................ 12
C. Archaeology .............................................................................................................. 12
VIII. Environmental Effects .................................................................................................... 13
IX. Responses to Agency Comments ................................................................................... 16
Tables
Table 1 Cost Breakdown of Recommended Alternate .....................................................3
Table 2 Federally Protected Species for Union County ...................................................9
Table 3 State Protected Species for Union County ........................................................1 I
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 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
Figure 8 National Wetlands Inventory Map - Nlonroe, NC Quadrangle
Figure 9 Union County Soil Survey Nlap
Appendices
Appendix A Agency Comments
Appendix B Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects
Appendix C Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval
Monroe
Bridge No. 107
Miller Street over Bearskin Creek
Union County, North Carolina
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1015 (3)
State Project No. 3.2692201
TIP B-3543
The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 107, and associated approach roadway improvements,
which carries Miller Street over Bearskin 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."
1. SUILIIARY OF RECO?VLYIENDATIONS
A new structure on existing alignment is recommended to carry Miller Street over Bearskin
Creek (See Figure 2).
The proposed grade of Miller Street will be raised approximately three feet (0.9 meters). The
proposed improvements will require approximately 340 feet (103.6 meters) of improvements on
each roadway approach. As shown in Figure 3, the project ties into each approach using
guardrail.
The new roadway approaches will have a 26-foot (7.9 meters) travelway with 2'-6" (0.8 meters)
curb and gutter on each side (see Figure 4).
The proposed structure will be a reinforced concrete box culvert. 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 replacement cost is $429,000 which, includes 540,000 for right-of-way acquisition
and 5389,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 2000-2006 TIP is 5393,000
including $32,000 for right of way acquisition and $361,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Miller Street is classified as a local access street in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Miller Street is also designated as a local access street in the 1997 Monroe Thoroughfare
Plan and serves local residential traffic.
Near Bridge No. 107, Miller Street is a 24-foot (7.3 meter) wide, two-lane paved road with 6-foot
(1.3 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. 107 is 15 feet (4.6 meters) above the streambed. Water is approximately 1
feet (0.3 meter) deep in the project area. See Figure 6.
Bridge No. 107 was built in 1955. The bridge has a 3.5 inch (39 centimeter) asphalt wearing
surface. The bridge includes a two (2) span - steel plank deck on steel beams supported by a
reinforced concrete substructure (see Figure 6). It is 41.0 feet (12.5 meters) in length and has a
23.0 feet (7.0 meters) wide roadway. It carries two lanes of traffic, with posted load limits of 9
tons (8164.7 kilograms) for single vehicles and 1S tons (16,329.3 kilograms) for Truck-tractor
Semi-trailers (TTST).
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 107
was 30.8 of 100.0 in March 2000, when the latest bridge inspection was performed; this means
the bridge was structurally deficient. Based on NCDOT's records, the estimated remaining life
of the bridge is to the year 2004.
According to a traffic count performed by the City of Monroe in September 1999, the traffic
volume was 1,177 vehicles per day (vpd) along Miller Street near the bridge. The design year
(2020) traffic at the Miller Street Bridge is projected to be 2,200 vehicles per day (based on a 3.0
% growth rate). The truck percentage is five percent (4%-Duals and 1%-TTST) based on
NCDOT counts. The speed limit in the project area is 35 miles per hour (55 kilometers/hour).
Accident Records indicate that no accidents occurred in the vicinity of Bridge No. 107 between
July 1, 1996 and January 31, 2000.
The Transportation Director for Union County Schools indicated that there are currently two
daily school bus crossings on Bridge No. 107. However, there will be an estimated three bus
crossings if the bridge is replaced.
III. ALTERNATIVES
The 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 reinforced concrete box culvert located on the
existing alignment (see Figure 3). The typical sections are shown in Figure 4. The proposed
grade on Miller Street will be raised approximately 3 feet (0.9 meters). This alternative will
require approximately 340 feet (103.6 meters) of improvements on each roadway approach. The
proposed structure will be a reinforced concrete box culvert. 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 S50,000
Structure Removal $ 24,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 30,000
Engineering and Contingencies S60,000
Construction Total $389,000
Right-of-Way Total S40,000
Project Total $ 429,000
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEitiIENTS
Bridge No. 107 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. 107 will be replaced with a four-cell reinforced concrete box culvert. The box
culvert is the most cost-effective alternative due to its simple form of construction, low long term
maintenance costs, and it provides an adequate hydraulic opening.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 30 miles per hour (48
kilometers per hour). The new roadway approaches will have a 26-foot (7.9-meter) travelway
with 2'-6" (0.8 meter) curb and gutter on each side. The new roadway approaches will be raised
approximately three feet (0.9 meter).
There are no future plans for bicycle lanes on Miller Street. 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 (Figure 7). 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 1.8 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.
An 8" (0.2 meter) waterline is located in the middle of the southbound lane approximately 6'-8'
(1.8 - 2.4 meters) from the edge of pavement. Water service should be maintained by rerouting
existing line around the southbound lane to the west of the structure. A permanent replacement
water line should be placed on the shoulder of the southbound lane. Currently, the utility
contract for this project has not been finalized.
Additional utility conflicts include the relocation of four power poles. Also, there is a 24" (0.6
meters) sewer line (see Figure 6A) that crosses Bearskin Creek 40 feet (12.2 meters) from the
end wing walls on the east and west side of the bridge. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
(BMPs) will be followed for the minor channel relocation. No negative impact to the sanitation
sewer line is expected. As such, relocation of the sewer line is unnecessary.
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 (Monroe, NC quadrangle) (Figure 2), the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map
(Monroe, 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 (NCDENR). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species was gathered from the US. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFtiVS) list of protected species for Union County, the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program database of protected species and unique habitats, and scoping letter responses
from the USFtiVS and NCDENR. 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 culvert span Bearskin Creek, which
is located within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Bearskin Creek flows west to
east until its convergence with Richardson Creek approximately 0.9 miles (1.5
kilometers) east of the project area. The channel is approximately six to ten feet
0.8 - 3.0 meters) wide and approximately two feet (0.6 meters) deep in the
vicinity of the bridge with a sand/silt 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. Bearskin Creek
is designated as a class "C." 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
Bearskin 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 culvert. The use of riprap along the stream
channel on both sides of the culvert will effect water quality by removing
some of the vegetative buffer along the stream banks but will serve to
stabilize the banks as well. 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 and superstructure for Bridge No. 107 are composed
of steel, there is not potential for components of the deck and superstructure
to be dropped into Waters of the United States during construction.
The substructure for Bridge No. 107 is composed of concrete. The interior
bent and end bents are reinforced concrete. NCDOT has indicated that the
two end bents can be removed without the potential for components of the
end bents to be dropped into the waterway. However, the center in-bent has
the potential for components to be dropped into Waters of the United States
during construction.
The maximum potential fill is approximately 27 yd'. It is the intent not to
drop any components into the water.
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 studv area.
The primary concern during construction is the movement of sediment from
land into Bearskin 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
geological activity along with the topography of an area. According to the Soil
Survey of Union County (1996), the project area extends through two main soil
associations, the Badin-Urban land complex and the Chewacla silt loam
association (Figure 9). The soils within the Chewacla Association are nearly level
and poorly drained and are found within the Bearskin Creek floodplain. The
Badin-Urban soils, which are upland well-drained soils, are disturbed by
development and have a severe risk of erosion.
According to the USGS map (Monroe, North Carolina quadrangle), land elevations
within the project area range from approximately 500 feet (152.4 meters) near the
edge of the stream bank to 480 feet (146.3 meters) within the stream channel
(Figure 2). The land within the project area is generally level.
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, two
terrestrial communities as well as an aquatic community associated with Bearskin Creek
were identified in the project area. The terrestrial communities include riparian forest
and maintained communities.
a. Terrestrials Communities
1. Riparian Forests
A narrow band of riparian forest occurs along the streambanks within the
floodplain of Bearskin 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 (Salbc nigra) and box elder (Acer
negundo). The area is significantly disturbed and only represents a narrow
band of vegetation within a maintained community.
Riparian forests provide habitat for wildlife due to the presence of food and
cover and the proximity of water. This community, however, is isolated
and significantly disturbed thereby providing only minimal habitat for those
species which tolerate such conditions. Mammals such as raccoon
(Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and feral domesticated
animals would likely occur in such an area. The diversity of amphibians
and reptiles is probably low but could likely include water snakes (Nerodia
spp.), snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina), and various frogs species
(Rana spp.). Bird species would likely include those species suited to
disturbed or urban settings including cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis),
mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and song sparrows (Melospiza
melodia).
2. Maintained Communities
The majority 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.) and large shade trees such as southern red oaks
(Quercus rubra) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, associated with Bearskin
Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. The stream was overgrown with
algae and other emergent aquatics such as smartweeds (Polygonzim spp.) and water
plantain (Alisma subcordatum). 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 platyrhyncus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), common carp
(Cyprinus carpio) and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus). Due to the low
water levels and presumably low oxygen levels, fish species more tolerant to these
conditions would probably occur.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Clearing, grading, and creating borrow areas as well as placement of the culvert
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. The majority of the impact
resulting from the proposed project will occur in maintained communities.
Because this project consists of the replacement of an existing bridge with a
culvert within the same footprint as the existing bridge, aquatic impacts should be
minimal and, with the exception of the area of streambed under the culvert,
temporary. The temporary impacts to the aquatic community associated with
Bearskin 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 Metlands 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.
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
Bearskin Creek. In addition, an erosion and sedimentation control plan will need
to be submitted and approved by NCDENR -DWQ prior to initiation of
construction.
Impacts to Bearskin Creek from the proposed project are approximately 300 linear
feet (91.4 meters) . This project, due to the amount of stream impact, will require
pre-construction coordination with COE and DWQ for permitting and will likely
require mitigation.
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.
-l. 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 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. The stream was found to be extremely
degraded and not to offer suitable habitat for mussels in the project area. No
mussels were found. 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.
Table 2
Federally Protected Species for Union County
(as of August 1999)
Scientific Name Contnton IVanre Federal Status
Lasmigona decomta Carolina Heelsplitter LE
Helianthus schweinitzii 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 Bearskin Creek and is
unlikely to occur there due to the urbanization of the creek and seemingly poor
water quality. Surveys were conducted for this species and no suitable habitat
was 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.
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. See Appendix B for a complete list of State protected species. Those
species with other state designations such as special concern or significantly rare
are included in Appendix B but are not discussed below as they are not afforded
the same level of protection.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
This 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 Bearskin 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 relocations 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.
An 8" (0.2 meter) water line is located in the middle of the southbound lane approximately 6'-8'
(1.8 - 2.4 meters) from the edge of pavement. Water service should be maintained by rerouting
existing line around the southbound lane to the west of the structure. A permanent replacement
water line should be placed on the shoulder of the southbound lane. 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. Also, there is a 24" (0.6
meter) sewer line (see Figure 6A) that crosses Bearskin Creek 40' (12.2 meters) from the end
wing walls on the east and west side of the bridge. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
(BN1Ps) will be followed for the minor channel relocation. No negative impact to the sanitation
sewer line is expected. As such, relocation of the sewer line is unnecessary.
Since the bridge deck and superstructure for Bridge No. 107 are composed of steel, there is not
potential for components of the deck and superstructure to be dropped into Waters of the United
States during conswction.
The substructure for Bridge No. 107 is composed of concrete. The interior bent and end bents
are reinforced concrete. NCDOT has indicated that the two end bents can be removed without
the potential for components of the end bents to be dropped into the waterway. However, the
center in-bent has the potential for components to be dropped into Waters of the United States
during construction.
The maximum potential fill is approximately 27-yd3 (20.6 N13). It is the intent not to drop any
components into the water.
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation's
13
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. 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.
It has been determined that there are no properties within the APE currently listed on the
National Register or North Carolina State Study list. However, the study indicated that there is
one property within the APE that is considered eligible for the National Register, the Piedmont
Buggy Factory. To comply with Section 106, a coordination meeting with the SHPO was
conducted on July 7, 2000 to determine the impact, if any, of the proposed project on this
resource. The meeting resulted in a "No Adverse Effect" determination for the Miller Street
Bridge replacement.
The construction will have an impact to land protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966. The project will require right-of-way (ROW) acquisition and a
temporary construction easement from the adjacent Jaycee Park (City owned) due to the
implementation of guardrail for the culvert replacement. The guardrail is a safety and design
issue required to meet current NCDOT design standards. Proper design places the guardrail
slightly outside the existing ROW. In order to provide the City access to maintain the guardrail,
additional ROW must be provided. The impact to the Park from the proposed project is the
taking of approximately 0.13 acres (0.05 hectares). The total area of the park is currently 3.48
acres (1.4 hectares). No structures or public facilities associated with the Park will be impacted.
There are no other reasonable and feasible alternatives to replacing the bridge structure. Since
the bridge is classified as structurally deficient, the structure must be replaced with a properly
designed and safe bridge or culvert, including the implementation of guardrail. Also, the section
of roadway associated with the bridge is in a tangent section. Shifting the roadway alignment
and bridge away from the Park would impact the adjacent Piedmont Buggy Factory property.
This property is listed as eligible for the National Register for its significance in industry and
architecture. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to shift the alignment of the roadway in order
to avoid the impact to the Jaycee Park. Coordination with the City of Monroe has been
conducted regarding this issue.
Since this project necessitates the use of a minor amount of land from a publicly owned public
park and meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Register (December 23, 1986), a programmatic
Section 4(f) evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the public park, have been fully evaluated: (a) do
nothing; (2) improve the highway without using the adjacent public park; and (3) build an
improved facility on new location without using the publicly owned public park. These
alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the public park has been incorporated into this project.
The officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property have agreed. in writing, with the
assessment of impacts resulting from the use of the Section 4(f) property and with the mitigation
measures to be provided (see Appendix ?).
Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal Highway Division
Administrator is included in Appendix G of this document.
14
Based on a response letter from the USFWS, stream surveys for the endangered Carolina
Heelsplitter and other state listed mussels, including the Savannah Lilliput, as well as the
Carolina Darter, a federal species of concern, were recommended. Tim Savidge of NCDOT
conducted these surveys in October of 1999 and no protected species were identified in the
project area.
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 11/15/2000
and no protected species were identified in the project area.
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 under 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 this 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 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.
If vegetation is disposed 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 15NCAC2D.0520.
As described, no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites were observed in the
immediate project area.
There are no practicable alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in a crossing of about the same magnitude of impact. 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.
15
IX. RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS
US Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service: (letter dated 9-16-99
Item A: Mussel surveys were conducted in the project area in response to a request by the Fish
and Wildlife Service. The following is an excerpt from a letter dated December 12, 1999
regarding the mussel survey conducted by NCDOT Environmental Specialist Tim Savage.
"The creek at this location appeared to be extremely degraded, has been channelized and was
choked with algae and aquatic vegetation. The stream does not offer suitable habitat for mussel
species at this location. Bearskin Creek was also visited approximately 1.5 miles (2.4
kilometers) downstream at the NC 200 crossing. At this location the stream is a naturally
meandering stream with a rock/cobble substrate. Surveys for mussel fauna were conducted at
this site. Survey time was one man-hour and methodology involved wading and using a view
bucket from the bridge to approximately 300 yards upstream of the bridge. No mussels were
found. The introduced Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) is abundant in the creek."
Item B: Bridge design will follow NCDOT BMPs for stormwater and instream work. This
project will replace an existing bridge with a culvert. For description of utility relocation see
Section VII.
Item C: Culvert construction will follow NCDOT BhIPs for bridge construction, which will not
allow for wet concrete to contact stream
Item D: Since the bridge deck and superstructure for Bridge No. 107 are composed of steel, there
is not potential for components of the deck and superstructure to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during construction.
The substructure for Bridge No. 107 is composed of concrete. The interior bent and end bents
are reinforced concrete. NCDOT has indicated that the two end bents can be removed without
the potential for components of the end bents to be dropped into the waterway. However, the
center in-bent has the potential for components to be dropped into Waters of the United States
during construction.
The maximum potential fill is approximately 27 yd3. It is the intent not to drop any components
into the water.
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 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.
NC Department of Cultural Resources: (letter dated 9-09-99)
Item A: Historic preservation survey, see Section VI-6. For survey report see Historic
Architectural Resources Survey Report, Bridge No. 107, NCDOT, March 2000.
16
NCDENR: (letter dated 10-11-99
Item A: The purpose of the Miller Street bridge project is to provide a safer structure by
replacing the existing 45 year-old bridge with a culvert structure. The bridge sufficiency rating is
42.1. The existing 23-foot (7.0 meters) wide travel lanes would be widened to 26 feet (7.9
meters), which would improve safety. The roadway at the bridge location would be raised 3 feet
(0.9 meters) to improve the vertical alignment.
Item B: Water resources see Section VI-1. Wetlands see Section VI-3.
Item C: 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 D: This item does not apply to the Miller Street Bridge project.
Item E: Miller 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 F: This item does not apply to the Miller Street Bridge project.
Item G: The bridge is being replaced by a culvert structure.
Item H: 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 I: No wetland areas were identified within the project area.
Item J: The existing bridge will be replaced by a culvert. The culvert will be countersunk to
allow unimpeded fish and aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. The new culvert will
be countersunk a depth of 0.9 feet (0.3 meter) between the water surface and the invert.
Item K: Foundation test borings were conducted on October 26, 1999. The Geotechriical Report
of Subsurface Exploration dated December 7, 1999 can be provided upon request.
Item L: No wetland areas will be impacted by the proposed project. Stream impacts are
anticipated to exceed 150 linear feet (45.7 meters). The proposed project will impact
approximately 300 feet (91.4 meters) of stream including 70-foot (21.3 meters) culvert and
placing riprap along the stream channel. It is acknowledged that since greater than 150 linear
feet (45.7 meters) of Bearskin Creek is to be impacted by the proposed project, mitigation may be
required in the permitting process and coordination with the COE and DWQ will establish
suitable permitting and mitigation strategies.
Item Nl: No wetland areas were identified within the project area. However, the project will
follow NCDOT's Best iVlanagement Practices for Sediment Erosion Control guidelines.
17
Item N: Bridge design will follow NCDOT BPYIPs and will address stormwater management.
Item O: On-site wetland delineations were conducted on 07/29/1999 by Ginger Tennant and Beth
Reed, Environmental Scientists with Kinley-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.
tS
Figures
01
B-3543
J 7A
V
10o 601 I
100
?o
MONROE
7
UNION COUNTY
.11/
•? M
Yo
c 1 .IS
FAU =
F}onklm 15
Sf. _SJ OC r
710, • y y
N V
.15 .a0
6 FAtJ 'I71
1 N
107
MONROE, BRIDGE X107, UNION
COUNTY. REPLACE BRIGE ON
MILLER STREET OVER
BEARSKIN CREEK.
Title: Vicinity Map
roject: rtililler Street Bridge Replacement over Bearskin
Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
zs;
?`'?•,.. •'' Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
I I ate: scare: rc;ect No. Figure:
10110 09 NIA 011851000 1
t
i W •' T ; ater
' ?- -\?, > j%'•'11
\ tl lank © ?I Dnve-in
•,? • ,.? 61 Theater
\ ?RadiaTgwetL y - yi '?? - - 6i1 0(1
CIA
yl/cal / .,a?
r` .- •' (/??l-I:. riLm fl. rKbt3-`? ? --_? - / / !gyp ' ` 1J •-?.`? ? ; ?? ?• f?
`S`Qt5"^"' ?`/?li\\\' ' / ? ham". 1' ? I .•JI•? i?i '•/f /'?7:???? Ir^'?? ?`?C '?'??' •-??? ??
Drive-in 11 /? •II' •\ .. j
A ?Hillcre•I I % ;ZTheatat _•
Par - PROJECT
_ --r I -? r\• - 59' I• r'?:I' 1J 3 I IJJ? A. \\r? , \• r'II?
,??7 ? a-? ` .. Mary
? •_ ? •J -'IC- lJE {''"rr?l 1 ? rl .l ?? - - ?-I npl. ? '\: :°?
?? ?r`_--? .: i- ll `r1 r 1 , -cu ,v- - ! _ II • p ?.l' 1
;'
- j_ .+t Sch i
:e 2110
won
RRRasprtaL
//? .\ .?Tr, ? - ?_" 11 ;? •??II?t _T 1 f ,,I?' ovl:??r.?l '--- ?.`'ll
jC_
_ ??'`` ?, iv ?•' ?? . , 1? !'? l"-?..,\ •\ \i?',r 6/d l ?i ' ? I Sri \ ' (?..?,?? J• .\\ ',•
-76C4 .7
?J akelanC ,- _- -, ? -? ' -. ? ,- ?' J .?,,., - J 1 t:..; I ClC1 _ \ \, ?•
% MemorCer=Aark
,' n •.1, ?^ LTower il. J Wit''
616
A10 59,
Title: USGS Topographical Map
Project: Miller Street Bridge Replacement over Bearskin
"•' Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Late: Sca,e: rrc;ect No.
r.gure:
10/10,59 1:24C00 011851000 2
o
W
o
\ u,Z,Q Lj
n) f- 7 b
\ j Q^o
\ tr)2m ?Q7?
tiVq ~?u
\ W W 2 41
\ "N >17r7nd,pf,
• ?_ -1 Jlgts LV?o I?•-- --1?

O >-

M

00
z
o
z? o
o
< W U
W > Y

Z r?
CO
I- WS Z
o
Er
w
T n
(DwU , Z
C/') w m
lLCY7_
O I- Y O
Q V) U) Z
_)
EL I-- Clr? U
7 < [L
W W Z
J m -
I- -
L1J J W
U -'?i O
Q cr
l w
Y cl-I
I , W I
? 3 n a
No
U Z A"
° m U
I Z ?
JC I
I I
II V, I
? Ja
U N u
oo•sr
v O J d
3??am
JU7 - - -g-= o - - -
-- ?_ -
-----
?O u
cr o
cc
U ° Or .2
\ ; r g m
\ i.;I
\ \ ? RI
\ 1
\ 2
• \ U
•\ \ \ W
- - - \? \
t )I ?Ond 1?y 3477 or
m
Y)
•"
O
)- Z J
J < W ?
n

?a !
??
u a
lj < r yl 1'1
V o V p1 ? QJ i
o U
z
? 47
?
a
? a
a

Lij Q
R

ti

M 7r 1lP1d.Cm
I33y15 M001'3W U
11.1
m
1
? ? u
o n O ? I

4
ov ?aa tr VU
? o'
2 U
rv
N p
a
" QN
6
6? V-
?
U I -

UO jPm
W
ti
?
- ? I
a
O ? m 6 °
? [[
??
? r1 cu Q1
I
z? ? al

?
? ?
?
I
? II
- -- --- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- -- - - - - -'1 241 -- -- -- - - - -?
I
w
h
h
? a
R 3U?n
4 ~ R7 U
? W ry Y
U ? m r
z ' 7 cmi
?I °
_.-- -- - -- -- '--- -- -- `- - -- idyls N11b - - I?I r 00or
I a
V< rv n I t
, Cc
U
Z r m ?
M/tl O"Old?Of
17Jy 15 M1311
i rr
LL
Q'
LL
C
if )
u
u
w
J
Q
U
cn
I.
EXISTING-
GROUNO
L -L-
2r 2r
i
6 z rJ' !J' _
T ./GR. I GRADE 9' ricR.
POINT
/YIN I f Y!N
cot _ EX157lNG
oc _ CC2. CCZ.. `? GRp/NO
1 ?
\
2'
GRACE TO THIS UNf- SLOPE
StDPE
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
WIDEN/OVERLAY EXISTING
? •L
EXISTING
GROUNO
•.r
9 w1GA I I I 9 w/GA
GRADE
CC2 OC2 /pOa27- _CC2_ EX/S r?NC
_ - - ?\ IC GROUND
I Li
,
GRACE TO THIS LINE-! VARIA&I,
SLOPE
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2
NEW CONSTRUCTION
TYPICAL SECTIONS
REPLACEilvIENT OF BRIDGE NO. 107
MILLER STREET OVER
BEARSKIN CREEK
TIP NO. B-3543
VONROE, N.C. UNION COUNTY
SCALE = NONE I FIGURE: 4
• lank
• 1}-J?• -enter 1
Radio T?wel - `? _ w
74
-IA
17
• ^li.•iit.m IIviitht.9--' _? / :COi' I` ?, `'. _?•) /.l
S. il? r .?• I //"
V• no
Dnve-m '7 •n
4 r?4 - - - M w , . .. Ja!`\? I 3: /-'?i! Hlllcrr: ' - - Y TheatNr-?- L,'7 ,.
?? • -` ?? I PROJECT 436d'
e
• --- _ ??? ? " - -110 ? L - - f' -
-' • .. I 1 EF. 2sI rr??4 r - 9ft T ? _ _ '.bi ?d'
a it - I 1V I' ..Fu ?\ •-1 - ' - a - 11'
\\\\\ l' _ r ' 1 - ?_ rare -- _? „J l -
'IT
?(\1/?-?. Ffut Bch •?
'\• ^ _ 5_ ?<ti? Ip6}'-,l .`? ?_?c. \,?l J r? 'yl O?? `lYl
? ' ' • r .I`??' ?dc< ?? ??? '"J ''i/ I ter"' !' - - '1 7^%'?_
'Irk
?. - Aw I ' • r.-a
Title: Detour Routing
Project: `filler Street Brid
Creek e Replacement over Bearskin
'
Monroe. North Carolina
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
r, "U', "A.). r:gure:
1Ci10?9 12?fC0 011951000

Photo 1: Looking west along Bearskin Creek at the Millet

Photo 2: Looking south along Miller Street at the Bridge

Title: Miller Street Bridge Replacement
Project: Miller Street Bridge Replacement over Bearskin
Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
6
II ? IIC;,? ??I1 I ? II; `I
I I
I I
WIC
Q:
mi
II
I`I
W1(
I
`1V
\t
r
I I ?' I
01c,
11 't I I
CI I WI 1r_. -
II W1
II Nil

W1
y.'
Z i
r.
W.
1 71
I

e;
•r 1

1!
,I
Title: Union County FIRM Map
Project: Miller Street Bridge Replacement over Bearskin
Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
HJ?
7
W
4 F-
LL q Y n
Cr
Q : ?.
Z an
I? r O \
n

Title: Union County Soil Survey Map
Project: Miller Street Bridge Rer
Creek
Monroe, North Carolina
fs
,?` Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
AppendLY A
Agency Comments
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Ofticc
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. [north Carolina 23301
September 16, 1999
-NIs. 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 4'107 over Bearskin Creek, Monroe, Union
County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3543)
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 x107 on ;Miller Street over Bearskin
Creek, in Monroe, Union County, North Carolina. The existing bridge, built in 1955, consists of
a steel plank floor on a continuous steel girder floor-beam system, with reinforced concrete
abutments and a solid web pier substructure. '
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 live you advance notification.
The immediate project area has not been surveyed recently for listed aquatic species. We have
records of a mussel--the Savannah lifliput (Toxo1asina pullus)--in Richardson CCCek. to which
Bearskin 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 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 4-2-99-246.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27254-9180
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28501-5006
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.
CONDION NANI E SCIENTIFIC NAIME STATUS
UNION COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Invertebrates
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dacnnlocvthere peedeensis FSC*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
Savanna lilliput Toxolasma pullus FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster 4ster0georgianus FSC
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus scinveinit_ii Endan zered
August 17. 1999 Page I vl
COMMON NACNIE SCIENTIFIC NAINM 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 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.
***IncidentaUmigrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
.tu.;ust 1 099 P;tge'ot ,
STA7F o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor Division of.lrchives and History
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary RECEIVED tfrcy J. Crow. Director
September 9, 1999
;i31M
Ginger Tennant KIMLEY - y0RlV
Kimely-Horn and Associates, Inc. ENVIR.
P.O. Box 33063
Raleigh, NC 27636-3063
Re: Miller Street over Bearskin Creek Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. 107), TIP No.
B-3543, Union County, ER 00-7334-A
Dear Ms. Tennant:
Thank you for your letter of August 10, 1999, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the project area. However, since a comprehensive historical
architectural inventory has not been conducted in over a decade, there may be structures of which we are
unaware located within the project area.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed area. Based on our present knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction.
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project site. please send us
photographs (Polaroid type snapshots are fine) of each structure. These photographs should be keyed to a
map that clearly shows the site location. If there are no buildings over fifty years old on or adjacent to the
project site, please notif;; us of this In a„neg.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106. codified
at 36 CFR Part 300. and to Executive Order 11593. "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment.
Thank you for vour cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning this comment.
please: contact %Is. Renee Gledhill-Earley. em ironmental review coordinator. at [phone]
Sincerelu`\
1 f
David Brook
Deputy State: Historic Preservation Officer
lo'? East Jones Str::t • Ral?i_h. Nonh Carolina-'7(,,o l-=307
cc: W. Gilmore
B.Church
NCDOT/F&E EFHNi_H f-ax 1--4 1 y-??J-yry4

JLIn f 'i u 11 ur i'. V2
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David. L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
fay 23, 2000
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bem Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Di:i?;on--:A.rc•piYes and History
•.>'r r? r
?efii?,?? Crow, Director
Re: Historic Architectural Resources Report, Replacement of Bridge No. 107 on SR 1015 over
Bearskin Creek, TIP No B-3543, Monroe, Union County, ER 00-9667
Dear Mr. Graf.
Thank you for your letter of April 24, 2000, transm, ittirg the survey report by Mary Pope Furr
concerning the above project.
For purposes of eompiiance with Section 106 of the National Historic Pre!ic.rvation Act. we concur that
the following eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Piedmert BuaRv Factory is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion A because of its location in floc roe's forner industrial -center, an area dcv-ieped
north of the downtown and exemplary of the growth of manufacturing from small buildings to
large industrial campuses. It is also eligible under Criterion C as the only intact exampie of a
manufacturing structure left in Monroe. We concur with the coundaries as noted on pages 12)
and 13 of the -eFOrt-
The following determined not eligibla for listing in the National Register of Historic Placcs:
Allen Street Mill Houses
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Histe-,'c Preser,-ation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Complianc; with Section 106 codifie+
at 36 CFR Part 800.
AD\1IN ISTIZAT(U.7%
%HCHAEOLOCY
RESTOR,1T'1014
5UR'r FY 4 rL,l`.11NG
Lucatluu
?IaillnC .lddrea,
Sill N 111-w sc. R..1"6.1 NC 4-1" `fail Sar...c: CcnWr• R..i?'Sh NC -"p"-4(,j7
1'I N.
Olu,nu $l.. R11ci h \t s:,l'f .eta I .Ser„?c lcr.ter. Ralayh `J (' :'?•iq.}?Iq
<!$ V. aluunl 5:.. 3 kl
h -c 461? Mid Scn.;c l'cnt,:r. ;l.tlctsh NC
?13 N. Jlount tit.. 2ulcich NC 1'1 .`.1ad scr,.,c Ccniir. Aalctyh V(" _' ion-snl.l
T.IL,phnnc!F2s
i1i'll 713-4701 -7 3
NL_DU1/1-ut tt1H 1_ri d'< '?17-r•?? r?? 1)u1 i r w 1_•Qr r-. 111D
page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you. have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 9191733-4763.
Sincerely,
j David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:scb
cc: W. Gilmore
B. Church

NCDENR
JAMES E3. HUNTJR. iMs. Ginger 1VI. Tennant
GOVERNOR
Kimley-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
WAYNE MCDEVITf
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
'
1
OR. PHILIP K. MCKNELLY. NCDOT TIP: B-')544
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 anv of
these species exists at the site, they may be present there. Consultant acquired
knowled/le 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-
8703 if you have any questions or need turther information.
Sincerely,
?-K C
Susan Reece Giles
Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
Enclosure
27699-1615
PO. OOI -27637. RALCII- NC O°SNE 'JI 7..733--11131 FAY 717-715.30015
i':?',g.:
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFCIRr..ATIVC ACT ,4 ..f,?
T - O RCC YCLLD/IO j P03T.CC1N7UMER PAPCR
INC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM COUNTY STATUS LIST COVER SHEET
The county status list of the NC Natural Heritage Program is a listing of the elements of natural diversity (rare plant and animal
species, exemplary natural communities, and special animal habitats) known to occur in all North Carolina counties. The
information on which this list is based comes from a variety of sources, including field 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 field surveys.
When this information is used in any document, we request that the date this list was 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 EX Extirpated
SC Special Concern D De-listed
C Candidate P_ Proposed (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
Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designations indicate rarity and the need for population 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). See the Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina for further
explanation of these statuses.
Animal statuses that indicate state protection (E, T, and SC) are published in Endangered Wildlife of Norrh Carolina, March 16,
1992, Nengame and Endangered Wildlife Program (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources). SR and EX statuses
are Natural Heritage Program designations. SR indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action.
See the Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina for further explanation of these statuses.
FEDERAL STATUS
These statuses are designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are
protected under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 1001h Congress. Unless othervise
noted, definitions are taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21. 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
CODE STATUS DEFL fITION
LE Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all of a significant portion of its range."
LT Threatened A taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a
significant portion of its range."
C Candidate A taxon under consideration for which there is sufficient information to support list;-^.g. This categori was
formerly designated as a Candidate 1 (Cl) species.
FSC Federal "Species of Concert" (also called "Species at Risk"). Formerly defined as a taxon under
consideration for which there is insufficient information to support listing; formerly designated as a
Candidate 2 (C2) species. Currently, the US Fish and Wildlife Service does not recognize this as an
official designation.
T(S!A) Threatened due to Similarity of Aoceararce. The Endangered Species act authorizes the treatment of a
species (subspecies or peculation se,mert) as threatened even though it is riot otherwise listed as threaten d
if: (a) The species so clcseiv resembles in appearance a threatened species that enforcement personre!
would have substantial difficulty in differentiating between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of
this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to a threatened species: and (c) such treatment of an unlisted
species will substantially facilitate the e^.forc.-ment and further the policy of the .-pct. The American
Alligator has this designation due to similarity of appearance to usher rare crecediiians. The Bog Turtle
(southern population) has this designation due to similarity of appearance to Bog Turtles in the threatened
northern ooculaccn.
PD Species has been proposed for de-!isttn;.

• ?LOSAL STATE FED. STATE
SCIENTIFIC NAI-M CC2-2dCN NAME STATUS STATUS RANH RANK
Union-Current
Vertebrate Animal
;?:=vstcma talnoide._m mole Salamander SC - S2 G5
E`hecstcma collis Carolina Darter SC - S3 G3
Invertebrate animal
Fusconaia mason- Atlantic Pictoe (FE) FSC Si G2
Lasmiaona decorata Carolina Heelsplitter E LE S1 G1
Strochitus undulatus Scuawfoot T - S2S3 G5
Toxolasma pullus savannah Lilliput T (PE) FSC S1 G3
Vil'_osa constricta Notched Rainbow SR (PSC) - S3 G3G4
vil'_csa delu.:.-_s Eastern Creekzhe'_1 SR - S3 G4
Villosa vauch aniar.a Carolina Creekshel'_ SC (PE) FSC S2 G2
Vascular Plant
Aster ceorgianus Georgia Aster T FSC S2 G2G3
Aster laevis var ccncinnus Narrow-leaved Aster C - S2 G5T4
Aster m_rabi'__s Piedmont Aster C - S2 G2G3
Baptisia albescens Thin-pod White Wild Indigo SR - S2 G4
Graoiali= he'_leri var helleri Hel'_er's Rabbit Tobacco SR - S2?
G4G5T3?
Helianthus laevigatus Smooth Sunflower SR - S2 G4
:ie'__anthus schwe?.._t__? Schwe_nit_'s Sunflower _ LE S2 G2
Lc::--,s he_ler- Carolina B4rdfoot-trefo_4 C FSC S3 G3
Porteranthus st culatus Indian Phvsic SR - S2 G5
27at_ al Community'
Basic Oak---ickorv Forest - - - S2 G4
Dry Oak--Hickory Forest - - - S4 G5
Xer_c liar oan Forest - - - S-, G3G4
Union-?iiztoric
Vasc---lam Plant
Cce'_crachis cv'_indrica Carolina Jointcrass C - SH G4G5
iseetes v. inica Vi__inia Quillwcrt C FSC Sl G3
NC NA=?,i:_ HERITAGE PRCGRAM, DT.V:S:CN OF PAP-KZ A! D iP-E._ ZATIC.N, DE:7R Jul.1999
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
N, 1 MORANDUNM

To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 107 over Bearskin Creek, TIP B-
3543.
Reference your correspondence dated July 37, 1999, in which you requested Scoping comments for bridge
replacement of Bridge Number 107 over Bearskin Creek (TIP 13-3543). Preliminary analysis of the project
reveals that the proposed bridge will span Bearskin Creek in the Yadkin Pee Dec. River Basin. The DWQ
has classified Bearskin Creek as C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider
the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. 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.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. 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.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, 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 (Hi =h Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (She!lfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
1621 jlaiI Sernce Center, Raleigh, `Jcrh Carclina 27099-162 i Telepnone 919-733 =Cd3 FA l\ 919-715-60,43
An x.,.:31 oppcr:unity A!tirmative Act:en ",,CIo'v?r :i;°', rec'jc!ed/ 10°i ,^,cst -Cns'..C'dr ^dG?r
dir. William D. Gilmure memu
10/ 11'x9
Pa_e 2
E. 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/NLationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, 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.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. 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.
1. 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.
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.
K. 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.
L. 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 ( I5A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) I, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
M. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
N. 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 stcrmwater detention facility/apparatus.
0. While the use of National Wetand 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.
Nlr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/12/99
Paze
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
Ginger Tennant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TP B-35431commeats\B-3543 scoping comments.doc
CITY OF MONROE
P.O. BOX 69 - MONROE. NORTH CARCUNA 28111-0069
FAX [phone]
August 13, 1999
Mr. Michael M Rutkowski, PE
Kimley-Hoen and Associates, Inc
P O Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636-3063
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 7107 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 3" 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,
C W Snipes, Jr.
Water Resources Construction Nfanager
C: Russ Colbath
Duane Wingo
James Pope
Jim Loyd
Appendix B
Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects
Fecleral.licl R BRZ-1015(3)) TIP M" B-3543 County: Union
CONCURRENCE FOR-NI FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Reolace Bridge No. 107 on Miller Street over Bearskin Creel: in Monroe
On July 7, 2000, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Shined:
.kU-.X-
Represent-itive,'NCDOT
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Rer--?--sentative. '
State Historic Preservation Officer
1
/T(
I?
•RU
Date
1 z_/ Z;-el
Date
7-L I C
Date
r
Dke
Federal Aid n BRZ-1015(8)) TIP # B-3543 County: Union
Properties ?vithin the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
- no a&ueA ewe c?
rnq ? C
D
-Fi ec4rno A- ?u
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT ?-lp? FH1%VA SHPO
Appendix C
Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project L5(ZZ - 10 1 '5 ($)
State Project a.Z.(o`l ZZO I
T. I. P. No. Q- 3S'g3
Description: ?iz,c?TE 2V? t.AcEr'I t? 7T-EC.'r. Cof Nloricce
? ?i i,?c T. 1a to t Nl? u..? fL S?rtE er ayFrz >?H f?Skt.?
C2C?k (1N1or1 Coviv-ry /10(t ;4 ?R2QL(;v4
Yes No
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or
physical condition of existing highway facilities
on essentially the same location?
?
ti
2. on
Is the project on new loca
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly owned public park,
recreation land, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge
?
h
hi
way
g
located adjacent to the existing
4. Does the amount and location of the land to be used
impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land,
in whole or in part, for its intended purpose?
(See chart below)
Total size or section 4(fl site Maximum to be acouired
less than 10 acres ..................10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres .................. 1 acre
greater than 100 acres .............. 1 percent of site
5. Do the proximity impacts of the project (e.g., noise,
air and water pollution, wildlife and habitat effects,
aesthetic values) on the remaining Section 4(11) land
i
?
i
d
d ,
El
purpose
nten
e
ts
impair the use of such land for
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) land agree, in writing, with the assessment
of the impacts of the proposed project on, and the
d
a
l
?
ti
an
on
s
proposed mitigation for, the Sec
(f)

2
Yes No
7. Does the project use land from a site purchased or
improved with funds under the Land and Water
Conservation Act (Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act), the Federal Aid
in Wildlife Act (Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherNise encumbered with a
Federal interest (e.g., former Federal surplus
F-1
X
property)?
8. If the project involves lands described in Item 7
above, does the appropriate Federal Agency object ?
to the land conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of an EIS? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to b e feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do-nothina. x ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? Y
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? ?

or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ?
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or impacts
e?
di
nary measur
of extraor
2. Imorovement of the hiahwav without usina the
adjacent public nark, recreational land, or ?
wildlife waterfowl refuse. _
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in standards,
use of retaining walls, etc., or traffic management ?/
?
measures been evaluated? /?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
( i ) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
6
3
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are of
extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an imoroved facility on new location without
using the public park, recreational land, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge. (This would be a localized
run around.") El
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties
and (Sof such impacts, costs, or difficulties
truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.

MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
I. The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm. IU
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location and of at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted by the project
including sidewalks, paths, benches, lights, trees
and other facilities.
C. Restoration and landscaping of disturbed areas.
d. Incorporation of design features and habitat features,
where necessary, to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
e. Payment of the fair market value of the land and
improvements taken or improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation measures as
determined necessary based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over the parkland,
recreation area, or wildlife on waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
MC 07-lG{t? ?A tT1 GAT ION
MEASu2E5 WE ME F:::<3U"J0 'T-'?
(3s TQU-0ENT.
4
8

5
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over the
Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies
C. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are involved
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria] included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project. There are no feasible or prudent
alternatives which avoid use of the Section 4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are
assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the
project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
Date Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Date Division Administrator, FHWA
9