20210145 Ver 2_Cover_Letter Signed_20221220

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 10
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968

Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001

December 20, 2022

Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

SUBJECT: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit 14
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge No. 329 on SR 1315 (New Town Road) over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek (Class
C), Union County, NC
WBS Number: 17BP.10.PE.141

Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:

We are requesting a Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 for work associated with the replacement
of Bridge No. 329 with a new culvert at the same location within East Fork Twelve Mile Creek (Class C)
on SR 1315 (New Town Road) in Union County. This project was previously authorized under a NWP 14
(SAW-2021-00931). The project has been Let by Division 10 under the existing NWP authorization and
utility relocations have commenced. The permit is being resubmitted in the event that all authorized
impacts cannot be completed prior to the NWP 14 expiration in March 2023. Permanent impacts totaling
111 LF are necessary for bank stabilization of East Fork Twelve Mile Creek, the installation of the
aluminum box culvert and excavating accumulated sediment in East Fork of Twelve Mile Creek.
Temporary impacts outside of previously reported permanent impacts total 17 LF and are necessary for
the demolition of the existing bridge and the dewatering of the stream for the construction of the proposed
bridge replacement. A lateral 'V' ditch will be created on the northwestern side of New Town Road which
will result in a permanent wetland excavation impact of < 0.01 acre. On the northeastern side of New
Town Road there will be < 0.01 acre of permanent wetland impacts due to roadway fill. There will be
0.02 acre of wetland impact on the southeastern side of New Town due to roadway fill (See Attachment
A). Additionally, there is to be a 16 inch water line installed along the south side of New Town Road
which will be installed within the limits of previously reported permanent impacts. Mitigation was
previously provided by NCDOT for permanent impacts to stream and wetlands resulting from the project
via payment to the N.C. Division of Mitigation Services.

The existing bridge has two nine-foot lanes with two-foot shoulders and is an approximately 26 feet-long
channel beam structure. The replacement structure would be a 25-foot wide and 54-foot long aluminum
box culvert, including two 11-foot travel lanes. The proposed right-of-way would be 127 feet at its
widest point. A delineation of Waters of the U.S. was conducted on March 22, 2016 and delineation
materials are included (See Attachment B). As part of the environmental review, a Minimum Criteria
Determination Checklist was completed for the project (See Attachment C).

Section 106

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed
the project for Historic Architectural and Archeological Resources. A Historic Architecture and
Landscapes No Survey Required Form was provided by a NCDOT Architectural Historian on January 29,
2019. A No Archaeological Survey Required Form was provided by the NCDOT Archaeologist on
October 08, 2018 (See Attachment D).

Protected Species

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
website lists Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) as endangered and tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus)
as proposed endangered within the study area. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database, accessed October 26, 2022, found no occurrences of Schweinitz’s sunflower,
Michaux’s sumac, Carolina heelsplitter, or tricolored bat within 1.0 mile of the study area. Mussel
surveys were completed June 14, 2016, and October 16, 2018. No mussels were found during either
mussel survey. The Freshwater Mussel Survey Report results indicate that the survey location does not
support Carolina heelsplitter due to the high silt load, unstable substrate, and cattle disturbance . There is
habitat in the study area for Schweinitz’s sunflower and Michaux’s sumac. No Schweinitz’s sunflowers or
Michaux’s sumac were found during field surveys of the study area conducted on October 3, 2018, and
October 18, 2022. A biological conclusion of “No Effect” was reached for Schweinitz’s sunflower,
Michaux’s sumac, and Carolina heelsplitter (See Attachment E).

Review of the NCNHP records obtained on October 26, 2022, revealed no known occurrences of
tricolored bat within the study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area. Currently there is not a protocol
for the tricolored bat as it is proposed for listing and is not yet afforded protection under the Endangered
Species Act. The tricolored bat was proposed for listing as endangered by the USFWS in September
2022. If required, the tricolored bat will be revisited under new guidance set forth by the USFWS.
NCDOT is committed to completing a bat assessment of appropriately sized structures within 30 days of
removal. Due to the anticipated future listing the project has a biological conclusion of ‘Unresolved’ for
tricolored bat.

Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A desktop-GIS assessment of
the study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits
was performed. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding
sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the
NCNHP database on October 26, 2022, revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of
the study area. Due to no nests or eagles being identified during the survey, no known occurrences within
1.0 mile, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not
affect this species.

If you have any questions, comments or need additional information after reviewing this material please
contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Joel Howard
PDEA Engineer, NCDOT Division 10

Attachment A – Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan
Attachment B – Delineation Materials
Attachment C – Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
Attachment D – Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form; No
Archaeological Survey Required Form
Attachment E – T & E Supplemental Information

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge No. 329 on SR 1315 (New Town Road) over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
PCN for NWP 14

Attachment A

Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan
(Version 2.08; Released April 2018)
17BP.10.R.141 TIP No.:SF-890329 County(ies):Union Page 1 of 1
TIP Number:Date:
Phone:Phone:
Email:Email:
County(ies):
CAMA County?
Yes
Design/Future:Year:2025 Existing:Year:
Aquatic T&E Species?No Comments:
No No
No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
None
None
Supplemental Classification:
Wooded
E. Fork Twelve Mile Creek 11-138-2
0.33
0.12
Project Description
Proposed Project
CatawbaRiver Basin(s):
City/Town:
0.48
Typical Cross Section Description:
Surrounding Land Use:
General Project Narrative:
(Description of Minimization of Water
Quality Impacts)
No
[e-mail]
Address:
2/1/2019
UnionMonroe
Luther G. Haywood
Albemarle, 28001
WBS Element:
Bridge ReplacementWBS Element:
STV Engineers, Inc. / Shirshant SharmaNCDOT Contact:
(704) 983 - 4400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Contractor / Designer:
[phone]
900 West Trade Street, Ste. 715
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
Project Type:
716 W Main St.Address:
General Project Information
SF-89032917BP.10.R.141
Impairments:
Other Stream Classification:
Primary Classification:
Project Built-Upon Area (ac.)
The existing 25' 6" single span bridge over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek on SR 1315 (New Town Rd) is being replaced with 25' 5" X 10' 2" aluminum box culvert buried to a
depth of one foot. The road will be normal crown at 2% with 11' travel lanes and 3' shoulders. The existing bridge structure will be removed. Overall drainage patterns will be
maintained. There are roadside ditches that flow towards the culvert on both sides of the structure. The proposed design will interfere with existing ditches flow patterns.
Proposed revisions to the existing ditches will be performed to maintain flows. Class-I rip rap abutment protection on both banks of the stream is also proposed to prevent future
erosion and stream migration. Deck drains are not required for this culvert. Impervious dikes will be used around the culvert and open cut water line to prevent the sediment
from entering the stream and will be dewatered as needed.
N/ABuffer Rules in Effect:
None
6500
Culvert : Two 11' lanes, 3' shoulders
Approach: Two 11' lanes, variable shoulders
Waterbody Information
2013
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NRTR Stream ID:
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Existing Site
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
ac.
Surface Water Body (1):
Class CNCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
ac.
Bridge: Two 9' lanes, 6' shoulders
Approach: Two 9' lanes, 2' unpaved shoulders
13000
[e-mail]
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?No
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
SR (1315)NEWTOWN RD
S
R
(
1
0
0
8
)
W
A
X
H
A
W

I
N
D
I
A
N

T
R
A
I
L

R
D
SR (1388)
WILL PLYLER RD
S
R

(
1
3
3
9
)
LE
S
T
E
R

D
A
V
I
S

R
D
S
R

(
1
3
2
2
)
B
YR
U
M

R
D
1
2

M
I
L
E

C
R
E
E
K
S
R (
2
9
9
2)
O
P
E
N
G
A
T
E
L
N
PROJECT
BEGIN
PROJECT
END
S
R(1
0
0
8
)
WAXHAW INDIAN TRAIL RD
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STATE PROJ. NO.F. A. PROJ. NO.DESCRIPTION
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
PROJECT ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES
PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
D
E
P
A
R
T
MEN
T
O
F
TRA NSPORTA
T
IO
N
S
T
A TE O F NORT
H
CAR
O
LI
N
A
1020 20
2001020
4 2 0 4 8
PLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY:

VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
40
P.E.
40
PROJECT LENGTH
DHV
D
T
V
=
=
=
=
=MPH
ADT
=ADT
DESIGN DATA
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
P.E.
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
SIGNATURE:
ENGINEER
DESIGN
ROADWAY
NC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DETOUR
NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE
PROJECT DESIGNER
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURE
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
:
NORTH CAROLINA

N/A
N/A
-L-
TO HWY 75 (WAXHAW HWY)
2011
2025
7%
45
CLARK E. GROVES
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
Scale : 80
UNION COUNTY
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.141 = .123 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.141 = .005 MILES
LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.141 = .118 MILES
13,000
6,500
MAJOR COLLECTOR
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
T
O
H
W
Y
16
(
P
R
O
VI
D
E
N
C
E
R
D)
-L- STA. 18+56.29
BEGIN CULVERT
-L- STA. 18+81.71
END CURLVERT
-L- STA. 15+50.00
BEGIN PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.PE.141
-L- STA. 22+00.00
END PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.PE.141
SR 1315 (NEW TOWN ROAD)
See Sheet 1B For Standard Symbology Sheet
See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II.
ROW & UTIL
GRAPHIC SCALE
80'0'80'
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
ON SR 1315 (NEW TOWN RD)
LOCATION: BRIDGE #329 EAST FORK OF TWELVE MILE CREEK
SITE 1
of1 7
Permit Drawing
Sheet
Division Bridge Manager
GARLAND HAYWOOD, PENCDOT CONTACT:
S
a
u
c
i
e
S
L
r
:
\
h
y
d
r
a
u
li
c
s
\
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
_
e
n
v
i
o
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l\
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
p
r
m

s
h
t
\
R
.
14
1_
h
y
d
_
p
r
m
_
p
s
h
0
1_
t
s
h
.
d
g
n
3
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
TW
ELVE
M
ILE
C
REEK
EA
S
T
FO
RK
O
F
17BP.10.PE.141
17BP.10.PE.141
17BP.10.PE.141
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

W
B
S
:

17
B
P
.
10
.
P
E
.
14
1
SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
AUGUST 16, 2019

N
A
2
0
11
N
AD

8
3
IMPERVIOUS DIKE, (TYP.)
IMPERVIOUS DIKE, (TYP.)
15" CMP
GR
SOI
L
10' UTIL
IT
Y

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
N 09°26'
2
7
"

W
SOIL
SOIL
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
6
0
.
0
0
'
SOI
L
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
T
W
E
L
V
E

M
IL
E

C
R
E
E
K
E
A
S
T

F
O
R
K
O
F
E
A
S
T

F
O
R
K

O
F

T
WE
L
V
E

M
IL
E

C
R
E
E
K
GV
G
V
PWM
1
1
1
1
17
+
0
0
-L-
(NEW TOWN ROAD)
SR 1315
2
0
+
0
0
16
+
0
0
18
+
0
0
19
+
0
0
2
1+
0
0
LEGEND
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES PERMANENT IMPACTS IN
AREA (AC)LENGTH (FT)
SW IMPACTS
TEMPORARY 0.02 17
SW IMPACTS
PERMANENT 0.01
E E IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
-
0.02 -
IN WETLANDS
EXCAVATION
IN WETLANDS
PERMANENT FILL
<0.01
PERMIT IMPACT
111
NC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8
/
1
7
/
9
9
3
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
r
:
\
h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
_
e
n
v
i
o
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
p
r
m

s
h
t
\
R
.
1
4
1
_
h
y
d
_
p
r
m
_
p
s
h
0
2
.
d
g
n
S
a
u
c
i
e
S
L
Scale : 20 217BP.10.PE.141
of2 7
Permit Drawing
Sheet
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'40'40'
SITE 1
TEMP. FLEXIBLE HOSE
PUMP-AROUND PUMP
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN WETLAND - W1
EXCAVATION
IN SURFACE WATER - S2
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN WETLANDS - W2
PERMANENT FILL
IN WETLANDS - W3
PERMANENT FILL
IN WETLANDS - W2
PERMANENT FILL
IN SURFACE WATER - S3
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S3
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S2
PERMANENT IMPACTS
N
AD

8
3

N
A
2
0
11
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
F
F
C
F
C
F
C
F
C
F
F
F F
C
IMPERVIOUS DIKE, (TYP.)
IMPERVIOUS DIKE, (TYP.)
TEMPORARY PIPE, (TYP.)
PUMP AROUND OPERATION
TOE PROTECTION
15" CMP
GR
SOI
L
10' UTIL
IT
Y

E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
N 09°26'
2
7
"

W
SOIL
SOIL
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
6
0
.
0
0
'
SOI
L
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
T
WE
L
V
E

M
IL
E

C
R
E
E
K
E
A
S
T

F
O
R
K
O
F
E
A
S
T

F
O
R
K

O
F

T
WE
L
V
E

M
IL
E

C
R
E
E
K
5
6
0
565
565
565
56
5
565
565
5
6
5
5655
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
570
570
570
5
7
0
5
7
0
5
7
0
5
7
0
570
5
7
0
5
7
0
575
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
575
575
575
5
7
5
5
8
0
5
8
0
5
8
0
580
580
5
8
0
580
5
8
0
5 8 0
5
8
5
585
5
8
5
5
9
0
GV
G
V
PWM
1
1
1
1
17
+
0
0
-L-
(NEW TOWN ROAD)
SR 1315
2
0
+
0
0
16
+
0
0
18
+
0
0
19
+
0
0
2
1+
0
0
LEGEND
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES PERMANENT IMPACTS IN
AREA (AC)LENGTH (FT)
SW IMPACTS
TEMPORARY 0.02 17
SW IMPACTS
PERMANENT 0.01
E E IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
-
0.02 -
IN WETLANDS
EXCAVATION
IN WETLANDS
PERMANENT FILL
<0.01
PERMIT IMPACT
111
NC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8
/
1
7
/
9
9
3
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
r
:
\
h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
_
e
n
v
i
o
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
p
r
m

s
h
t
\
R
.
1
4
1
_
h
y
d
_
p
r
m
_
p
s
h
0
3
.
d
g
n
S
a
u
c
i
e
S
L
Scale : 20 317BP.10.PE.141
of3 7
Permit Drawing
Sheet
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'40'40'
SITE 1
IN WETLAND - W1
EXCAVATION
IN SURFACE WATER - S2
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN WETLANDS - W2
PERMANENT FILL
IN WETLANDS - W3
PERMANENT FILL
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN WETLANDS - W2
PERMANENT FILL
IN SURFACE WATER - S3
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S3
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S2
PERMANENT IMPACTS
N
AD

8
3

N
A
2
0
11
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
F
F
C
F
C
F
C
F
C
F
F
F F
C
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8
/
1
7
/
9
9
3
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
r
:
\
h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
_
e
n
v
i
o
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
p
r
m

s
h
t
\
R
.
1
4
1
_
h
y
d
_
p
r
m
_
p
s
h
0
4
.
d
g
n
S
a
u
c
i
e
S
L
Scale : 20 417BP.10.PE.141
22+0020+00 21+00 23+00 24+00 25+00
17+0015+00 16+00 18+00 19+00 20+00
562
566
570
574
578
582
586
590
594
598
NC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
554
558
562
566
570
574
578
582
586
590
594
554
558
562
566
570
574
578
562
566
570
574
578
582
586
590
594
598
7of4Sheet
Permit Drawing
EL = 584.48
STA. 22+00.00
END PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.141
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
BL-3
(+)4.9785%
EXIST (+)4.7025 %
EL=567.0'
PI=20+00.00 LT
E
L
=
5
7
1.4
'
P
I=
2
0
+
5
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
7
6
.0
'
P
I
=
2
1+
0
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
8
0
.1'
P
I=
2
1+
5
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
8
3
.7
4
'
P
I=
2
2
+
0
0
.0
0

L
T
(+)8.80%
(+)9.20%
(+)8.20%
(+)7.29%
-L- STA 18+56.29 -L- STA 19+81.71
E
X
IS
T

(-)
5.
6
9
8
8 %
EL = 585.09
STA. 15+50.00
BEGIN PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.141
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING STRUCTURE
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
B5797-2
BM-2
PI = 18+75.00
EL = 568.30'
(-)5
.16
6
2%
(+)4.9785%
VC = 650'
K = 64
DS = 40 MPH
LOW POINT
ELEV 576.54
STA 18+81.01
BEGIN CULVERT END CULVERT
E
L
=
5
8
2
.9
4
'
P
I
=
15
+
5
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
7
9
.9
0
'
P
I=
16
+
0
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
7
6
.3
0
'
P
I=
16
+
5
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
7
1.9
0
'
P
I=
17
+
0
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
6
9
.10
'
P
I=
17
+
7
3
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
6
6
.0
0
'
P
I
=
18
+
0
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
6
3
.5
0
'
P
I=
18
+
5
0
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
6
3
.3
0
P
I=
18
+
5
8
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
6
2
.0
'
P
I=
18
+
8
6
.0
0

L
T
E
L
=
5
6
2
.6
'
P
I=
19
+
0
0
.0
0

L
T
EL=565.5'
PI=19+50.00 LT
E
L
=
5
7
0
.5
0
'
P
I
=
17
+
5
0
.0
0

L
T
P
I=
15
+
5
0
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
8
4
.15
'
P
I=
16
+
0
0
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
8
0
.9
'
P
I=
16
+
5
0
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
7
8
.1'
P
I=
17
+
0
0
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
7
5
.2
'
P
I
=
17
+
5
0
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
7
2
.0
'
P
I
=
17
+
6
0
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
7
1.7
'
P
I
=
17
+
9
6
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
6
9
.5
'
P
I
=
18
+
0
0
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
6
9
.3
'
P
I=
18
+
5
0
.0
0

R
T
E
L
=
5
6
2
.5
'
EL=567.0'
PI=20+00.00 LT
300
420
100
3000
25
565.5
566.2
576.5
563.1
05/03/2018
DESIGN DISCHARGE
DESIGN FREQUENCY
BASE DISCHARGE
CFS
YRS
YRS
BASE FREQUENCY
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE CFS
CFS
YRS
FT
FT
FT
DESIGN HW ELEVATION
BASE HW ELEVATION
CULVERT HYDRAULIC DATA
DATE OF SURVEY
W.S. ELEVATION
AT DATE OF SURVEY FT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
500+
(
-
)
6.
50%
(-
)6.
0
7%
(-)5.6
0%
(-
)
7.
20%
(-
)5.
8
0%
(-)
8.
80%
(
-
)
6.40%
(-
)2
.80%
(-)3.00%
(-)5.00
(-)11.48%
(-
)6.
09%
(-)13.60
%
(-)5
.0
0%
(-)2.50%
(+)4.29%
(+)5.80%
(+)3.00%
CULVERT
PROPOSED
IMPERVIOUS DIKE, (TYP.)
IMPERVIOUS DIKE, (TYP.)
TEMPORARY PIPE, (TYP.)
PUMP AROUND OPERATION
TOE PROTECTION
SOIL
SOIL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
DB 6280 PG 58
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
15" CMP
SOI
L
E
A
S
T

F
O
R
K

O
F

T
W
E
L
V
E

M
IL
E

C
R
E
E
K
E
A
S
T

F
O
R
K

O
F

T
WE
L
V
E

M
IL
E

C
R
E
E
K
GR
1
1
1
(NEW TOWN ROAD)
SR 1315
-L-
19
+
0
0
LEGEND
TS TS
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
S S SURFACE WATER
DENOTES PERMANENT IMPACTS IN
AREA (AC)LENGTH (FT)
SW IMPACTS
TEMPORARY 0.02 17
SW IMPACTS
PERMANENT 0.01
E E IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL INFF
-
0.02 -
IN WETLANDS
EXCAVATION
IN WETLANDS
PERMANENT FILL
<0.01
PERMIT IMPACT
111
NC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8
/
1
7
/
9
9
3
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
1
r
:
\
h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
\
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
_
e
n
v
i
o
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
\
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
p
r
m

s
h
t
\
R
.
1
4
1
_
h
y
d
_
p
r
m
_
p
s
h
0
5
.
d
g
n
S
a
u
c
i
e
S
L
Scale : 20
SITE 1
GRAPHIC SCALE
0'20'20'
of5 7
Permit Drawing
Sheet
517BP.10.PE.141
WETLANDS - W1
EXCAVATION IN
IN SURFACE WATER - S2
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S1
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN WETLANDS - W3
PERMANENT FILL
IN WETLANDS - W2
PERMANENT FILL
IN SURFACE WATER - S3
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN WETLANDS - W2
PERMANENT FILL
IN SURFACE WATER - S3
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER - S2
PERMANENT IMPACTS
N
AD

8
3

N
A
2
0
11
F
F F
C
C
C
F
C
FFF
C F
F
F C
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.NAMES ADDRESS
1
PROPERTY OWNERS
3/22/2021
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
#
SHEET 6 OF 7
of6 7
Permit Drawing
Sheet
UNION COUNTY
DONALD L. DAVIS, ET AL
WAXHAW, NC 28173
5806 NEW TOWN ROAD
(NEW TOWN RD)
ON SR 1315
TWELVE MILE CREEK
EAST FORK OF
BRIDGE 329 OVER
PROJECT: 17BP.10.PE.141
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fill In Fill In in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No.(From/To)Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp.Design
(ac)(ac)(ac)(ac)(ac)(ac)(ac)(ft)(ft)(ft)
S1 18+58.13 / 18+81.83 25'-5" X 10'-2" ALUMINUM BOX CULVERT 0.01 0.02 55 17
S2 18+66.82 / 18+71.36 Channel Excavation
<0.01 45
S3 18+81.16 / 18+91.53 Bank Stabilization <0.01 11
W1 18+04.34 / 18+39.69 Excavation in Wetland <0.01
W2 18+97.55 / 19+20.59 Permanent Fill in Wetlands <0.01
W3 19+95.30 / 20+58.57 Permanent Fill in Wetlands 0.02
TOTALS:0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.02 111 17
NOTES:
1 TEMPORARY IMPACTS LENGTH TOTAL = 73' (56' TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN PERMANENT IMPACTS)
2 PERMANENT SURFACE WATER BANK STABILIZATION IMPACT TOTAL = 38'
(27' TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN PERMANENT CHANNEL EXCAVATION IMPACTS)
ATN Revised 3/31/05
CULVERT #329 OVER EAST FORK OF TWELVE MILE
CREEK ON SR 1315 (NEW TOWN ROAD)
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
3/22/2021
17BP.10.PE.141
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
SURFACE WATER IMPACTSWETLAND IMPACTS
SHEET 7 of 7
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge No. 329 on SR 1315 (New Town Road) over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
PCN for NWP 14

Attachment B

Delineation Materials

0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Fairview
Monroe
Unionville
Wesley Chapel
Mineral Springs
Wingate Marshville
Legend
Study Area
FIGURE 2SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, WAXHAW, NC
B-5797BRIDGE NO. 329 ON SR 1315 OVER UT TO E. FORK OF TWELVE MILE CREEKUNION COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYSPROJECT DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
USGS STUDY MAP
1
17BP.10.PE.141
BRIDGE NO. 329 ON SR 1315 OVER
EAST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK
UNION COUNTY
C h A
T b C 2
B d B 2
B a B
T b C 2
T b B 2
Approved By:Drawn By:Checked By:
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No.
JLK
NRCS SOIL SERIES MAP4019433
BJP MAI
FIGURE 2
Sources: NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board; NRCS Soil Series DataUnion County, NC (2019)
Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopesBaBBadin channery silty clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately erodedBdB2Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently floodedCHATarrus gravelly silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately erodedTbC2
Mapped Soil Units Within the PSA
.
0 100 20050Feet
Monday, December 19, 2022
S R 1 3 1 5 (N e w t o w n R d )
Division 10Bridge ReplacementSR 1315 Over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
17BP.10.PE.141Bridge No. 329Union County, NC
Union County, NC
^_
§¨¦85
£¤601
§¨¦485 £¤74
§¨¦77
£¤601
£¤74
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Legend
Project Study Area (~2.1 Acres)Monroe
U
.
T
. t
o

E
a
s
t
F
o
r
k

T
w
e
l
v
e

M
il
e

C
r
e
e
k
E
a
s
t
F
o
r
k
of
T
w
e
lve
M
i
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
S R 1 3 1 5 (N e w t o w n R d )
S A
WA
WB WC
NC OneMap, NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911 Board
Ü
0 50 10025Feet
Legend
Study Area
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
Delineated Wetland
FIGURE 3
B-5797BRIDGE NO. 329 ON SR 1315 OVER UT TO E. FORK OF TWELVE MILE CREEKUNION COU NT Y
NORTH CA ROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT IONDIVISION O F H IG HWAYSPROJECT DEVELOPMENT &ENVIR ONME NTAL A NALY SIS UN IT
JU RISDICTIONAL FEATURES
Fairview
Monroe
Unionville
Wesley ChapelMineral Springs
Wingate Marshville 17BP.10.PE.141
OVER EAST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement October 18, 2022
Bridge 329 on SR 1315 over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
PCN for NWP 14

Photograph 1 – A view of the SR 1315 (New Town Road) crossing of East Fork Twelve Mile
Creek looking to the east.
Photograph 2 – A view of the SR 1315 (New Town Road) crossing of East Fork Twelve Mile
Creek looking to the west.
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement October 18, 2022
Bridge 329 on SR 1315 over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
PCN for NWP 14

Photograph 3 – A view of East Fork Twelve Mile at the SR 1315 (New Town Road) bridge
looking downstream to the south.
17BP.10.PE.141
17BP.10.PE.141
17BP.10.PE.141
17BP.10.PE.141
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge No. 329 on SR 1315 (New Town Road) over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
PCN for NWP 14

Attachment C

Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist

06/11/19 1 of 8
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST

WBS No.: 17.BP.10.R.141

Project Location: Bridge No. 329 on SR 1315 (New Town Road) over East Fork of
Twelve Mile Creek in Union County

Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division 10,
plans to replace Bridge No. 329 carrying SR 1315 (New Town Road) over East Fork of
Twelve Mile Creek in Union County, North Carolina. The existing bridge has two nine-
foot lanes with two-foot shoulders and is an approximately 26 feet-long channel beam
structure. The existing right-of-way of SR 1315 (New Town Road) is approximately 60
feet in width and is a two-lane structure constructed in 1968 with no existing sidewalk or
bicycle facilities.

The proposed project is state funded. The length of the project is approximately 650 feet
and proposes to replace the existing two-lane structure in-place. The replacement
structure would be a 25-foot wide and 54-foot long aluminum box culvert, including two
11-foot travel lanes. The proposed right of way would be 127 feet at its widest point.
Residential and business relocations are not anticipated. The project is scheduled for
right-of-way in May 2019 and has a LET date of April 2020.

Bridge No. 329 carries 10,000 vehicles per day with 14,800 vehicles per day projected
for the future. SR 1315 (New Town Road) is classified as a major collector with a 35-
mile per hour design speed. An approximately 0.9-mile off-site detour would be required
for the full duration of construction. The detour route will take travelers traveling on SR
1315 (New Town Road) onto Will Pyler Road and SR 1008 (Waxhaw Indian Trail
Road).

East Fork Twelve Mile Creek and the U.T. to East Fork Twelve Mile Creek have been
designated as Class C waters from their sources to the confluence with the Catawba River
basin. There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds
(WS-I or WS-II) within or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The North
Carolina 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies no waters within the study
area.

The proposed project would not result in any impacts to floodplains regulated by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bridge is located within Zone X
of the FEMA floodplain map. Areas designated as Zone X are classified as containing
minimal flood hazard and are located outside of the 500-year floodplain.

Purpose and Need: NCODT Bridge Management Unit records indicate that Bridge No.
329 has a sufficiency rating of 22 out of a possible 100. The bridge’s status is identified
as Structurally Deficient in the Structure Safety Report published by Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) on 05/04/2016. The purpose of the project is to replace the
deficient bridge.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E

06/11/19 2 of 8

Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: A Nationwide Permit (NWP) No.
3 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is anticipated. It is estimated that
there will be 56 LF of permanent stream impacts, and 74 LF of temporary stream
impacts. Stream relocations and/or channel modifications are not anticipated. The
USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
construction. If a Section 404 NWP No. 14 is required, then a Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification No. 4135 from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) would also be required. In the event that project impacts to waters of the U.S.
exceed 300 linear feet, or 1/2 acre in area, then a Section 404 Regional General Permit
No. 198200031 may be required which will allow for 500 linear feet of stream impacts
and up to 1 acre of impacts to waters of the U.S. If the project impacts can’t be reduced
below the permitting thresholds, then a Section 404 Individual Permit may be required.
If mitigation is required, then it is anticipated that the Department of Mitigation Services
(DMS) will be used. Union County is not one of the twenty counties under the
jurisdiction of the Costal Area Management Act (CAMA). A CAMA permit from the
North Carolina Division of Costal Management (NCDCM) will not be required.

Cultural Resources: NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed the project for Historic
Architectural and Archeological Resources. A No Survey Required Form for Historic
Architecture and Landscapes was provided through ETRACS by a NCDOT Architectural
Historian on 2/16/2016. Additionally, a No Archaeological Survey Required Form was
provided by NCDOT Archaeologist on 2/15/2017.

Special Project Information:

Environmental Commitments: Greensheet Commitments are located at the end of the
checklist.

Estimated Costs (FY 2018):

Utility: $ 158,500
R/W: $ 25,000
Const: $ 875,000
Total: $ 1,058,500

Traffic Information:
Current (2016) 10,000 vpd
Year (2040) 14,800 vpd
TTST 1.0%
Duals 5.0%

(Source: M. Orr, Traffic Forecast for STIP Project B-5797, February 23, 2016.)

Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E

06/11/19 3 of 8
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: There are no pedestrian or bicycle
accommodations proposed for this project. SR 1315 (New Town Road) is not an NCDOT
bike route and there are no existing sidewalks. Evidence of bike and pedestrian activity
was not observed during site visit. Input from the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation in 2016 indicated that the Charlotte Regional Transportation
Planning Organization (CRTPO) recommends greenway accommodation along SR 1315;
due to lack of funding for a greenway (based on CRTPO 2045), NCDOT Division 10 is
unable to accommodate future greenway. CRTPO also recommends sidewalks along SR
1315, however, based on the CRTPO 2045, there are no funded bicycle or pedestrian
projects along SR 1315.

Alternatives Discussion:

No Build – The no build alternative would not replace a deficient bridge, and thus
is not a viable option.

Rehabilitation – Rehabilitation would only provide a temporary solution to the
structural deficiency of the bridge.

Onsite Detour – An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the planned staged
construction.

New Alignment – Given that the alignment for SR 1315 (New Town Road) is
acceptable, a new alignment was not considered as an alternative.

Offsite Detour – An approximate 0.9-mile offsite detour is preferred and would
be required for the full duration of construction. The detour route will take
travelers traveling on SR 1315 (New Town Road) onto Will Pyler Road and SR
1008 (Waxhaw Indian Trail Road).

Other Agency Comments:

A School Input Form was sent to the Union County Schools Transportation Director on
01/25/2019 and 02/26/2019. Comments were received on 03/01/2019. The Union County
School System indicated that approximately 35 to 40 busses, or a total of approximately
70 trips are made along the corridor. Union County Schools indicated that SR 1315 (New
Town Road) is heavily utilized for carpooling to and from the schools, noting that the
Elementary, Middle, and High Schools are within three (3) miles of the project area. The
School System indicated that a potential road closure would cause a high impact and
recommended that the work be done between June and August.

Response: Comment noted.

An EMS Input Form was sent to the Union County Emergency Management Coordinator
on 01/25/2019 and 02/26/2019. No comments were received.

A Planner Input Form was sent to the Union County Planning and Zoning Department on
01/25/2019 and 02/26/2019. No comments were received.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E

06/11/19 4 of 8
Public Involvement:
Public involvement was not required for this project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E

06/11/19 5 of 8

PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA

Item 1 to be completed by the Engineer. YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?

If the answer to number 1 is “no”, then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.

If yes, under which category? #9 (Reconstruction of existing crossroad
or railroad separation and existing
stream crossings, including, but not
limited to, pipes, culverts, and bridges.

If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.

PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS

Items 2 – 4 to be completed by the Engineer. YES NO
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?

3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?

4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?

Item 5-8 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands;
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?

6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?

7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E

06/11/19 6 of 8

YES NO
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats

If any questions 2 through 8 are answered “yes”, the proposed project may not qualify as a
Minimum Criteria project. A state environmental assessment (EA) may be required. For
assistance, contact:

Manager, Environmental Analysis Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
(919) 707 – 6000
Fax: [phone]

PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Items 9- 12 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. YES NO
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?

10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
fill in waters of the United States?

11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?

12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?

Items 13 – 15 to be completed by the Engineer.
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?

Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an “effect” on a property or site listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?

15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E

06/11/19 7 of 8
Response to Question 9:
Three federally protected species are listed for Union County; Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata), Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthis schweinitzii), and Michaux’s
sumac (Rhus michauxii). A review of the NC National Heritage Program (NCNHP)
records, last accessed September 2016, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile
of the study area for both Schweinitz’s sunflower and Michaux’s sumac. NCDOT
Biological Surveys Group (BSG) provided a biological conclusion of no effect for the
Carolina heelsplitter.

Response to Question 10:
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is
anticipated. Potential permanent fill impacts due to bridge construction may occur East
Fork of Twelve Mile Creek but will be avoided if possible and minimized if necessary.
Temporary impacts from debris may result from the demolition of the existing bridge
which will occur after traffic has been routed to the detour.

Questions in Part “C” are designed to assist the Engineer and the Division Environmental
Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource
agency may be required. If any questions in Part “C” are answered “yes”, follow the
appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project construction.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E

06/11/19 8 of 8

PART D:( To be completed when either category #8, 12(i) or #15 of the rules are
used.)

Items 16- 22 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.

16. Project length:

17. Right of Way width:

18. Project completion date:

19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:

20. Total acres of wetland impacts:

21. Total linear feet of stream impacts:

22. Project purpose:

If Part D of the checklist is completed, send a copy of the entire checklist document to:

Don G. Lee
State Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mail Service Center 1557
Raleigh, NC 27699-1557
[phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Prepared by: Date:
Marissa Lenoce
STV Engineers Inc., Transportation Planner

Reviewed by: Date:
Larry Thompson, PWS, LSS
Division Environmental Officer

Date:

Garland Haywood, PE
Division Bridge Program Manager

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E
6/11/2019
6/11/2019
6/11/2019
MCDC Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
April 2019
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
R-141

Section 404 Mitigation
A Section 404 Individual Permit may be required if the project impacts can’t be
reduced below the permitting threshold. If mitigation is required, then it is
anticipated that the Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) will be used.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B8BE5F2-7B53-4FFF-A941-F78A8A05B75E
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge No. 329 on SR 1315 (New Town Road) over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
PCN for NWP 14

Attachment D

Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form; No
Archaeological Survey Required Form
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4
16-02-0050

NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Br. No 0329 County: Union
WBS No: 17BP.10.R.141 Document: Libr Or Mcc
F.A. No: Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: nwp 3
Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 0329 on SR 1315 (New Town Rd.) over
East Fork of Twelve Mile Creek northwest of Mineral Springs in Union County. This is revised
archaeological assesment tracked under the same PA # but without the previous TIP # designation (B-
5797). Detailed design mapping was not available at the time of the review. This is a relatively small
bridge project which may be a candidate for replace-in-place construction with a short, offsite detour.
However, the new bridge, which will likely feature a wider deck or may be higher, may require new
ROW and/or construction easements for fill, cuts and drainage. For purposes of this archaeological
review, the maximum archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) is approximately 100 feet to either
side of the bridge centerline. A maximum project length of about 600 feet along SR 1315, centered on
the bridge, will taper back into the existing roadway facility at each end. While the entire APE is
considered, the construction footprint is likely to be smaller than the description above. This is a state
funded project though a Nation Wide Permit 3 is anticipated from USACE, therefore, this is a federal
undertaking and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act applies for archaeological review.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
USGS mapping (Waxhaw) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). The immediate
surroundings along SR 1315 and Bridge No. 0329 are undeveloped, rolling pasture land. This Eastern
Fork of Twelve Mile Creek is narrow and Bridge No. 0329 is wider than it is long.
Virtual drive-by was examined using Bing and Google Maps. No cemeteries were noted during that
viewing, on USGS mapping or the cemetery database maintained by NCDOT archaeologist Paul Mohler.
The Office of State Archaeology was visited in February, 2016, to review archaeological mapping and
reference any known archaeological surveys and sites. A new electrical transmission facility was
reviewed for archaeology (ER 06-1607). USGS quad mapping which shows archaeological surveys and
sites indicate that a survey was conducted about 1200 feet west fo the project bridge (at SR 1315 and SR
1388 to the west) but no sites were found. Environmental review notes indicate that the project was
cleared for archaeology with no comments due to a low probability. It is possible that the contradiction
instead refers to a small area immediately southwest of bridge being studied and not the larger facility
which has since been built. The OSA recommendations and results, that the location had a low
probability for affecting significant archaeological sites, and that sites were absent when surveys were
conducted nearby is noted at this location. A good bit outside of the project area and west of the new
electrical transmission facility, a historic site has been recorded (31Un334) but will not be affected by
the current undertaking.
Soils present inside the APE for this undertaking are generally considered to have a poor probability to
contain intact, significant archaeological remains. This is due to sloped, gravely and eroded nature of
the terrain approaching the bridge (Badin channery silt loam [BaB], Badin channery silty clay loam
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 4
16-02-0050
[BdB2] and Tarrus gravelly silty clay loam TbC2]) and the regularly flooded and moderately drained soil
(Chewacla silt loam [ChA]) in the lower landform by the bridge.
For this undertaking, the proposed bridge replacement project is expected to have a confined construction
footprint. If new ROW or easements are required resulting in a somewhat expanded construction
footprint, however, it should be minimized. No survey is recommended for this undertaking as currently
proposed.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
This project involves constructing a new bridge. Replacement at the same location is an option, though
other alternatives may be developed in the near future. While some new ROW and easements may be
required, existing disturbances associated with the construction of the current road and bridge crossing
have diminished the potential for archaeological integrity. Soils are unlikely to have been heavily utilized
by Native Americans or after contact in the past few centuries, and, if used, may be less likely to contain
intact, preserved soils. There are no known sites within the APE. Nearby archaeological reviews have
either been cleared as not requiring survey or yielded no sites. No archaeological survey is
recommended. Therefore, this federally permitted undertaking should be considered compliant with
Section 106.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
10/08/2018
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 4
16-02-0050

Figure 1. Vicinity of PA # 16-02-0050 on USGS topographic mapping (Waxhaw), showing Bridge No. 0329 on SR 1315 over East Fork of
Twelve Mile Creek. A black circle shows the project location.
Waxhaw
890212
890329
890313
890312
890222
890221
890220 890216
890215
890213
UNION
S R -1 3 1 5
SR-1008
S
R
-
1
3
2
9
S R -1 3 2 1
S R -1 3 3 9
S R-1336
SR-26
03
SR-3142
S
R
-
1
3
28
S
R
-
3
6
0
0
SR-1341
S
R
-
3
6
0
1
S
R
-
3
3
4
2
SR-3141
SR-1388
SR-2991
SR-3145
S
R
-
2
9
9
6
S R -2 8 2 3
SR-1322
S
R
-
2
9
4
7
SR
-2999
SR-3665
SR-2822
SR-3148
SR-3259
S
R-3
6
2
5
SR-3378
SR-2604
S R -3 6 0 6
SR-2820
S R -3 1 4 4
SR-3201
S
R
-
3
6
6
6
SR-3655
SR-3656
SR-1323
S R -3 6 0 3
SR-3143
SR-2821
S
R-3
8
3
0
SR-3372
SR-3133
SR-3338Mundys R
un
P ric e M ill C re e k
W est Fork Twelvemile Creek
M
o
l
l
y

B
r
a
n
c
h
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community
´
0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 4
16-02-0050
Figure 2. Aerial map of PA 16-02-0050, Bridge No. 0329 on SR 1315 over E. Fork of Twelve Mile Creek. The APE is shown in yellow.
Waxhaw
890329
UNION
S R -1 3 1 5
S
R
-
1
0
0
8
SR-1388
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community
´
0 300 600150 Feet
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge No. 329 on SR 1315 (New Town Road) over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
PCN for NWP 14

Attachment E

T & E Supplemental Information

Supplemental Information – Union 329
T&E Supplemental Information
ePCN – NCDOT Division 10 – SR 1315 (New Town Road)
over East Fork Twelve Mile Creek
Project Number 17BP.10.PE.141

STV Engineers, Inc. (STV) conducted field reviews of an approximate 2.1-acre study area on
October 3, 2018, and October 18, 2022. Prior to the field reviews, STV reviewed U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online
databases for information related to the occurrence of federal and state protected (threatened or
endangered) species in Union County. The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) was used to obtain an official species list on October 26, 2022. IPaC lists three federally
protected species as occurring or having the potential to occur in the study area (Table 1) as well
as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) which is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. Additionally, the Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) has been proposed
endangered and is included although the species is not currently protected. As of October 26, 2022,
the NCNHP lists no occurrences of federally protected species within the study area but has
identified Michaux’s sumac as occurring within one mile of the study area. A brief description of
each species, including habitat requirements and physical characteristics, and biological
conclusion rendered based on surveys of the study area follow. Habitat requirements for each
species are based on current available literature and/or the USFWS.

Table 1. ESA federally protected species potentially occurring within the study area
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower E Yes No Effect
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E No No Effect
Perimyotis subflavus Tricolored bat PE Yes Unresolved
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E Yes MA-NLAA
E - Endangered
PE – Proposed Endangered
MA-NLAA – May Affect Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Schweinitz’s sunflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late August-October

Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of North and South
Carolina. The few sites where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural
vegetation are found in Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights-of-
way, maintained power lines and other utility rights-of-way, edges of thickets and old pastures,
clearings and edges of upland oak-pine-hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and
other sunny or semi-sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow
downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for sunlight. This sunflower
is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other vegetation. Schweinitz’s sunflower
occurs in a variety of soil series, including Badin, Cecil, Cid, Enon, Gaston, Georgeville, Ired ell,
Mecklenburg, Misenheimer, Secrest, Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion, among others. This plant is
Supplemental Information – Union 329
generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor, clayey
hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks.

Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area along roadside shoulders.
Plant by plant surveys were conducted by STV environmental scientist Joshua Kotheimer, PWS
throughout areas of suitable habitat on October 3, 2018, and October 18, 2022. No individuals of
Schweinitz's sunflower were observed and field surveys were conducted during the flowering
season and USFWS-designated optimum survey window. A review of NCNHP records on October
26, 2022, indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the PSA and no effect to Schweinitz’s
sunflower is anticipated.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Carolina heelsplitter
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round

Habitat Description: The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations
within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah
River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system in South Carolina. In North Carolina, the
species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Pee Dee and Catawba River systems.
The Carolina heelsplitter exists in very low abundances, usually within six feet of shorelines,
throughout its known range. The general habitat requirements for the Carolina heelsplitter are
shaded areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed into clay banks between the root
systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with moderate current. Per the USFWS’s Carolina
Heelsplitter Five-Year Review: (2019), eleven populations of Carolina heelsplitter are known to
exist, three of which occur within North Carolina. Specifically, two small remnant populations
exist in Union County within the Catawba River system including one within Waxhaw Creek and
one within Sixmile Creek. Another small population is known to exist in Union County within
Goose Creek, a tributary to the Rocky River, located within the Pee Dee River system.

The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group qualified consultant conducted a habitat assessment and
mussel survey for Carolina heelsplitter on June 14, 2016, and October 16, 2018, and prepared a
Freshwater Mussel Survey Report. No mussels were found within the study area during either
survey event. The survey results indicate that the survey location does not support Carolina
heelsplitter due to the high silt load, unstable substrate, and cattle disturbance. A review of the
NCNHP database on October 26, 2022, indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the
study area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: Undetermined

The Tricolored bat is one of the smallest bats native to North America with a body length of 3-3.5
inches. The Tricolored bat is distinguished by its unique tricolored fur that is dark at the tip and
base and lighter in the middle. Tricolored bats often appear orange to a pale yellow but may also
appear black, chocolate brown, or silvery-gray. Young Tricolored bats appear much darker than
Supplemental Information – Union 329
the grayer adults. The range for the Tricolored bat stretches from Central America to Canada
including central and eastern United States. During the winter, Tricolored bats are found in mines
and caves. Where caves are sparse like the southern United States, Tricolored bats have been found
roosting in road-associated culverts, tree cavities and abandoned water wells. During the fall,
summer, and spring Tricolored bats are found in forested habitats. Tricolored bats primarily roost
among dead and live leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. In the
southern portion of their range Tricolored bats will roost in Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides)
Other roosting spots include, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), barns, beneath porch roofs,
bridges, and concrete bunkers. Female Tricolored bats often return to the same summer roosting
locations year after year. In early evenings Tricolored bats forage at or above the tree level. Later
in the evening the Tricolored bat is more commonly found foraging over waterways and forests
edges.

Review of the NCNHP records obtained on October 26, 2022, revealed no known occurrences of
Tricolored bat within the study area or within one mile of the study area. Currently there is not a
protocol for the Tricolored bat as it is proposed for listing and is not yet afforded protection under
the Endangered Species Act. The Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) was proposed for listing
as endangered by the USFWS in September 2022. If required, the Tricolored bat will be revisited
under new guidance set forth by the USFWS. NCDOT is committed to completing a bat assessment
of appropriately sized structures within 30 days of removal. Due to the anticipated future listing
the project has a biological conclusion of ‘Unresolved’ for Tricolored bat.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved

Michaux’s sumac
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May-October

Habitat Description: Michaux’s sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont,
grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well-drained sands or
sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or
submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings
along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of-
way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage; small
wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or
pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings
undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from
mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g.,
mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains an open habitat.

Suitable habitat for Michaux’s sumac is present in the study area along roadside shoulders. Plant
by plant surveys were conducted by STV environmental scientist Joshua Kotheimer, PWS
throughout areas of suitable habitat on October 3, 2018 and October 18, 2022. No individuals of
Michaux’s sumac were observed and field surveys were conducted during the survey window. A
review of NCNHP records, updated October 26, 2022, indicates a known occurrence of Michaux’s
sumac within one

Supplemental Information – Union 329
mile of the study area. Based on the field review inside the fruiting season, the available databases,
and the limited area of proposed disturbance, it is determined that this project has a biological
conclusion of “May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for Michaux's sumac.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

Bald and Golden Eagle
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do not nest
in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to
large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites,
typically within one mile of open water.

A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a one-mile radius
of the project limits, was performed on October 26, 2022, using the latest NC OneMap
Orthoimagery color aerials. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered
potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review
area, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted.
Additionally, a review of the NHP database on October 26, 2022, revealed no known occurrences
of this species within one mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known
occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this
project will not affect this species.