20150719 Ver 1_PCE B-5243 Final Doc 3-05-14_20150828

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-5243
W.B.S. No. 42845.1.1
Federal Project No. BRSTP-1008(23)
A. Proiect Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Union County Bridge No. 258 located on
SR 1008 (Indian Trail Road) over South Fork Crooked Creek (see Figure 1).
Bridge No. 258 will be replaced on the existing location while traffic is detoured
offsite during construction. In order to handle the additional traffic, the
intersection of Old Monroe Road and Southfork Road must be improved as part
of the project (see Figure 1).
Replacement of Bridge
The replacement structure will consist of a two barrel, 12-foot wide by 7-foot
high reinforced concrete box culvert. The culvert size is based on preliminary
design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The roadway grade
of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 580 feet from the southwest
end of the new culvert and 380 feet from the northeast end of the new culvert.
There is an existing left turn lane onto Coventry Drive that will be extended to
the northeast into a center turn lane creating more storage and allowing
service to Keowee Circle as well. The cross section will include a 12-foot
center turn lane, 14-foot outside lanes to provide sufficient width far bicycles,
curb and gutter and a 10 foot berm on both sides with a sidewalk on the
northwest side. The existing pedestrian bridge will be removed and the new
sidewalk carried across the box culvert. The roadway will be designed using
Sub Regional Tier Guidelines with a 40 mile per hour design speed.
Offsite Detour and Intersection Improvement
Traffic currently using the bridge will be detoured off-site (see Figure 1)
during construction utilizing Southfark Rd. (SR 1371) and Old Monroe Road
(SR 1009). Because of the detouring an additional 15,000 vehicles per day,
the intersection of Southfark Road and Old Monroe Road will need to be
improved to handle the additional volumes. A temporary three phase turn
signal and opposing left hand turn lanes will be added on Old Monroe Road.
(see Figure 3). The total length of improvements as shown in Figure 3 is 660
feet along Old Monroe Road. The intersection improvements are to be
complete before road closure begins. All other aspects of the detour are
acceptable as they are.
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 258 has a
sufiiciency rating of 6.13 out of a possible 100 for a new structure.

The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to superstructure condition
appraisal of 3 out of 9 according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
standards. The bridge also meets the criteria for functionally obsolete due to deck
geometry rating of 2 out of 9.
The superstructure and substructure of Bridge No. 258 have timber elements that
are fifty-one years old. Timber components have a typical life expectancy
between 40 to 50 years due to the natural deterioration rate of wood.
Rehabilitation of a timber structure is generally practical only when a few
elements are damaged or prematurely deteriorated. However, past a certain
degree of deterioration, most timber elements become impractical to maintain and
upon eligibility are programmed for replacement. Timber components of Bridge
No. 258 are eXperiencing an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer
be addressed by reasonable maintenance activities; therefore the bridge is
approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge No. 258 carries 15,000 vehicles per day with 19,000 vehicles per day
projected for the year 2035. The increasing traffic, the substandard deck and
deteriorating timber components warrant the replacement of the bridge.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
proj ect:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
£ Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail

d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
£ Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety unprovements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
d�. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
Approvals for changes in access control.
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
10. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
11. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and

protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
12. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
13. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitaring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
The estimated costs, based on 2013 prices, are as follows:
Replacement of Bridge with Box Culvert
Structure — RCBC $ 168,000
Removal of Bridge No. 258 23,000
Removal of Pedestrian Bridge 6,000
Roadway & Approaches 353,000
Misc. & Mob. 147,000
Eng. & Contingencies 103,000
Total Construction Cost $ 800,000
Right-of-way Costs 233,000
Right-of-way Utility Costs 401,000
Total $ 1,434,000
Modification of Intersection
Roadway Approaches $ 341,000
Three Phase Traffic Signal 90,000
Misc. & Mob. 126,000
Eng. & Contingencies 93,000
Total Construction Cost $ 650,000
Right-of-way Costs 96,000
Right-of-way Utility Costs 20,000
Total $ 766,000
Total Pro'ect Cost $ 2,200,000
0

Estimated Traffic:
Current - 15,000 vpd
Year 2030 - 19,000 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 4%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and
found 42 accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project. Four were directly on
the bridge but none appear to be associated with the geometry of the bridge or its
approach roadways.
Design Exceptions
There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The CTP for this area is not complete but the old thoroughfare plans suggests
widening in the future. After coordination with the Town Shallotte, Division
and Roadway Design it was agreed that only two lanes with provision for
bicycles and for future pedestrian accommodations is appropriate for now.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations
The Town of Indian Trail has identified this portion of Indian Trail Road
(SR 1008) as appropriate for both bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There is an
existing pedestrian bridge parallel on the northwestern side of the vehicular
bridge. The Town also proposes a greenway along South Fork Crooked Creek.
The Town has indicated that there is very little current usage by pedestrians of
the sidewalk and that accommodations during construction are not required.
The vehicular offsite detour will work for bicycles as well during construction.
Greenway Considered
The town has a proposed greenway but it is not funded. In more detailed
discussion with the town, the clearance under the bridge is currently six feet
above the water. Typically, if a graded shelf is viable it will be several feet
above the water surface and then a minimum of eight feet is desired between
the greenway surface and the low steel of the new structure. The Town was
not interested in the resulting impacts and has indicated that an at-grade
crossing in the future will be acceptable.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 258 is constructed entirely of timber and steel and should be
possible to remove with no resulting debris in the water based on standard
demolition practices.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build — The no build alternative would result in eventually closing of this
section of the road which is unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by
SR 1008.

Rehabilitation — The bridge was constructed in 1963 and the timber materials
within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life. Rehabilitation would
require replacing the timber components which would constitute effectively
replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour — Bridge No. 258 will be replaced on the existing alignment.
Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the construction period.
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge Replacement
Projects considers multiple project variables beginning with the additional time
traveled by the average road user resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite
detour for this project would include Old Monroe Road (SR 1009) and
Southfork Road (SR 1371). The majority of traffic on the road is through
traffic. The detour for the average road user would result in approximately five
minutes additional travel time (.63 miles additional travel). Up to a 6-month
duration of construction is expected on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of delay
alone, the detour is acceptable. Union County Schools has expressed a major
concern regarding an offsite detour. In response, NCDOT will set the closure
period for 120 days to begin in April and to be completed by the end of August
to ininiinize impacts to the schools and take advantage of school being out
during the summer. Union County Emergency Services has indicated that the
detour is acceptable. With the proposed improvement to the intersection of
Old Monroe Road and Southfork Road NCDOT Division 10 has indicated the
condition of all other roads, bridges and intersections on the offsite detour are
acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of the detour.
Onsite Detour — An alternative was studied for an onsite detour to the
southeast side. The cost of the onsite detour alignment with construction, right
of way and utilities combined is $653,000.
New Alignment — Given that the alignment for SR 1008 is acceptable and the
right of way and utility impacts would have been very high, a new alignment
was not considered as an alternative.
Alternate Selection
Both alternates propose to replace the bridge with a culvert on the existing
location. They differ in what must be done to maintain traffic. The Offsite
Detour Alternate requires improvement of an intersection at a cost of $653,000.
The onsite detour requires the construction of a temporary alignment and
bridge at a cost of $766,000. Although it costs $113,000 more, the Offsite
Detour with improvement of the intersection was selected because it represents
a permanent improvement whereas the $653,000 for the onsite detour bridge
would be for temporary use only with no permanent utility.

Study to Extend Project
At the request of the town, NCDOT studied extending the new alignment to
Indian Trail Elementary School. The resulting cost estimate was $590,000.
Based on the cost, the town has decided they do not want to pursue the
extension any further.
Structure Type
The current structure is a timber deck bridge built in 1963 and has a drainage
area of 1.3 square miles. The stream carries a best usage classification of "C".
Based on the drainage area and design discharges, a 2@ 12 foot wide by 7 foot
high reinforced concrete box culvert was determined to be adequate from a
hydraulics standpoint. The culvert will be buried below the streambed. In
accordance with the Culvert Avoidance and Minimization Desi�n Guidance,
the culvert will be designed such that the slope, low flow velocities and low
flow channel designs are consistent with the existing stream. During the final
design, the use of sills and baffles will be evaluated for use in maintaining flow
dimensions and streambed material. Because of the required structures size,
stream classification, construction and maintenance costs as well as life
expectancy, a culvert is the preferred structure type.
Agency Comments:
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) and U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service in standardized letters provided a request that they prefer any
replacement structure to be a spanning structure. Response: See discussion of
Structure Type in previous section
In 2011 scoping comments the N.C. Division of Water Quality indicated
these waters are listed on the Fina12012 303(d) List for turbidity and therefore
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds (DSSW) should apply. It was later
clarified that while the waters are on the 303(d) list, it is for aquatic life, not
turbidity. Therefore DSSW do not apply to this project.
The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency had
no special concerns for this project.
The Town of Indian Trail has been involved with the development of the
project from the outset. Coordination has taken place regarding the cross
section, school concerns, traffic control and public involvement. They support
the project as proposed.
Public Involvement:
A letter notifying property holders was sent in March 2011 to those having
properties affected by the bridge replacement on Indian Trail Road. No
comments have been received to date.

E.
With the addition of the improvement to the intersection, NCDOT in
coordination with the Division and Town sent newsletters to property holders
affected by the proposed improvements in November 2013. To date no
comments have been received.
Based on lack of responses from the letters to property holders, both the Town
and Division agreed that a Citizen's Informational Workshop was not
necessary.
Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL
(1)
��)
(3)
Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource?
Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
Will the project affect anadramous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
(5)
(6)
��)
�g)
(9)
Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Resources Waters (ORW) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
�
YES
�
�
�
11
�
�
❑
�
YES
�
NO
X
X
�
X
X
X
X
X*
NO
N/A

(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Could the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns ar community cohesiveness?
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23)
(24)
Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes?
Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
❑
�
�
�
X
X
X
YES NO
� X
� X
� X
�
� X
� X
� X
X �
� X
X �
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its eXisting ]ocation (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
9
�

(26)
���)
Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project?
Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project?
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
❑ X
X �
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are �
important to history or pre-history?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(� resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as deiined in Section 4(� �
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(� of the Land and Water Conservation Act �
of 1965, as amended?
X
X
X
X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 2
Habitat for the Michaux's sumac and Schweinitz's sunflower are present on both
project areas. A walking survey of the study area around the bridge was
conducted on September 13, 2011 by NCDOT biologists. On October 3, 2013
another walking survey was conducted within the original project area around the
bridge as well as the new area at the intersection of Old Monroe Road and
Southfork Road. Neither species was found during the survey. The biological
conclusion is No Effect, but Habitat Present.
Response to Question 9
At an intersection several hundred feet away from the project limits there is a dry
cleaning business along with a gas station; both with underground storage tanks.
It is not anticipated that the proj ect limits will extend any further in that direction
and therefore there will be no impact on the UST's from the project.
Response to Question 13
Union County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program.
South Fork Crooked Creek is included in a detailed flood study, having a
regulated 100-year floodway. The Hydraulic Unit will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to determine if a Conditional Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)
are required for the project. If required, the Division will submit sealed as-built
construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon project completion certifying the
project was built as shown on construction plans.
l0

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-5243
W.B.S. No. 42845.1.1
Federal Project No. BRSTP-1008(23)
Project Descri�tion:
The purpose of this project is to replace Union County Bridge No. 258
located on SR 1008 (Indian Trail Road) over South Fork Crooked Creek
(see Figure 1). Bridge 258 will be replaced on the existing location while
traffic is detoured offsite during construction. In order to handle the
additional traffic, the intersection of Old Monroe Road and Southfork
Road must be improved as part of the project (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Approved:
2^��-i�
Date
a
ate
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
ect Engineer
ect Development & En iro
1-, � _ �o� _ �' `
Analysis Unit
Yi•o�ect Ylanning �;ngineer
Project Developinent & Environmental Analysis Unit
For Type II(B) projects only:
.- j
�'1,
Date
)�A /'
V�l.�`-�..��.r�,t.�' U (�:�� 4
� John F. Sullivan, III,�P
��°� Federal Highway Adm
�
on Administrator

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Union County
Bridge No. 258 on SR 1008
Over South Fork Crooked Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1008(23)
W.B.S. No. 42845.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-5243
Division Ten Construction, Resident Engineer's Office — Offsite Detour
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, Union County Schools will be
contacted at [phone] at least one month prior to road closure.
Union County Emergency Services will be contacted at [phone] at least one
month prior to road closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary
response units.
Hydraulic Unit — FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT' S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Division Construction-FEMA
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics
Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and
roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were buil� as shown
in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
January 2014

1365 �NDIAN�
TRAI L
�
� Pap. 26,954
� � ��7 �
.,, ,
` \ Indian Trail
� �9� Elementary School
1 �
1
�� '� � �9� ,
� V �� Bridge
<�'t +�
Replacement ����
Limits �— � „
1391
1_
��
�
i�,��`
ti
,�°.�
�
��?
.
�'�`
� -ra.
2fi43
�
137
� `� E�?���sa�a�7
G,..,`��
� ��
o�e� �
tFy�r \ �
�
\ �
4°
i
�
0
�
o �
���o�,.oe �. _
�a. �
1371 �
— �
Intersection � � �
Improvement
Limits � ���
�--� Studied Detour Route
4l k'�Mews � P•, ..
. u�
a
..ar��� � .. ..
a�i - . �� � f2p5i
� ��, U i,� N i I O 1�
� €��r��5 _.�. Moarae+ : �s,
�. ; W nRale;fi Marsnvill
gr 15 �
Minera
.'WOSh�w �� Spnn�g ,J9'�
�: WhiSr.
?Z
a' N.�'C,IROLlN�`�",
\��
���F�NopFti ���� NOR'CH CAROLINA DF,PAR7'MF,NI' OF
qa i� �y. "CRANSPORTATION
�
• � ' DIVISION OF HLGHWAYS
� b �� PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 81,
t ,�2
9��F Q`� ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
� `�OFTaP,'�'4�
UNION COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 25g ON SR 1 OO8
OVER SOUTH FORK CROOKED CREEK
B-5243
FIGURE 1

J .�,
��} !
�4a
� .. , ,,��t
a �'��
� - _ ' _. , - i -
4
� .
p� �'' `.i � .f.��^ � .- -: {}�
,� � * Y� �' �TM.l�
,,•� _;� ,� .
i�� ��w�r . � .. . . _�µ�� ,�
R1 K~-pr�- Y / .-^� . k4 �' �, k�-
,fi ��. .Y f A _, . s .
I' ~ t�' t '' . J. I
�' _p � . .r 1. - � sr � i
! .a�, R��,'g�";` � �' `��� ,� �, � ef � `",,,�_ _ ' �,''
�; � .M{ � �� - �. ; �.
�.._,�f _. � `g -..� ��'., R- �.
,r ��R l
� r�,�� � . � .
f� . �r ✓ �d'f �!' .'.�i' T.�'-F '�4 �`.P . J-
�,p iC �
�� r ♦1��f �� . ', � < _ )�t +• �
4: ��,, � � � �����.so - � . .. �^II
_ �
� � � ' �
- -. -- -- -- �- .- _ r � �.
. _
f= ' r' "��� - L° �
:.4 �, `zt r�� �� � - . .1 _
, �� � �• � � � � �� � �
.;�. � F,� , . •���. ' ,�:: .s ' - � '� . �a�
• s � +. ! '�. 'n` -� ,p 3
r '�t 'd � ..-.;( .r�,.' a
. � . " �.'�'' i'� . _. � .:.r `''�;_: �
" 'a�; � � �`�,
i�!.� � .' � • ��" , ,��1! �
C'� ., . : t {t ' � � � c ' .� . �� � ��
i � �'� '�
' Z l��''. A�' . �,k� .i��'� `Y. ibi'.
�, i^� .�� a .. ; 1� 'C � F ,�:.
s 1 .._- -t_ �+t
� � -��. � . r ,,,,,� .
� �� � - ..g
�/�}!� '� � , . . �T �� ,. � 3
r. r. . . - � +± . ,. ' .
���'�,_ . � '� ; � �:
��� , ��� ��\
�y� '�F � •�w��
' -� . _ , ���
!.. , �°--
'����
� �. �_ '`�
. . .. . __ y c,r _ � . �+�,p �;�
i
� � ..- � ly .I , - `" �' ?� ' . I _ a� i�_!- 'r '1 � ��( y�� � • 4� ~7
. �� ��� � � - } w.. Pi � 'W: ��•
s 7� �
� a �., t
, , .. .
.
;: "
� �
,. . .'� tl;� �. s .' � ., _ �� .,r .�.. �.;',:, S.� -.' -. ... �,'. � .r,�saf� -'� � �
�„ .t°+3'���,� ';�- s _d ;�'��;� - - , .� ,� w _ - _ r., - ` -:7� '�� � �c'.� fY `;.� �"�^ , �.�i�iS�
� y,� .,,• � -� � -�'� y� '�M r
.:,�w. .���• v. _"'�' '� �� �� �'. . . i�✓;��• ��'�•r:�
� '�.i �.�i '� t+ y,iN` i�E� - _ �.�� . � Y .'#� y . 1 �. .
,�� , - �, .F - � ry+�� �� ''rp"`' '� �--k..��.—. _ ' . . ' __ Q:.n���
� V - ,: r � .' I _ � �i,,, . -.a�--:�z�'.�• , • _� c
- - t. . -� .. ! � X'.►- . ,/' "1�.. _ , � � . �v� . - >."
" .
m .
' + �
..,�'' _. �"; �� � '1p''�''�a�-`-�'_ - . �y�' _ � y ' �i�", ' '.
.
� ��wZ, !�� � � y�� ~ � � � ` .
r f .`_ �ti"� Y'1M-� - � C_ ' ' f . . . � i�'� ��
.. � '*� �.� : - � . T�- � . � �;�
Z ' � � £ - �. w#�,�,_ . �,� � - • :,� �+T { �� � � �
'��- ir _ �, .z . �� � . . . �,,,�.
- i ��`1 - �:i� -' " �. l��a : ' � i . . ' s: _ ,�. d �I'� - �i1g4 : �i�`.� � � +�ra
��' �' . �i � "�.��� �: i U- .. . . ' i ,3 L oyiC:� . rRr� � �
.
�
,
.
", ,4r � . � � . {( .. \ .� �, t�i d , Y4'i� � °� 5�►� � y 1
, Y" l _
. •
.
��, ._ � .t 5 ���� , •, -• ;h .� __ � ,
}: _
. ' �
� . ,. ; .. : • ! . , t--y� .
; - - -T--�.,.,��_._� _ � ' y * d s' ��
a '�~—a-��. __ --- - _ �, - - -� . . . _ _ . ���� " >.� `' _ _
i i a 7� 3 iqfi�6+ ��` '�' �-
' t- � :��������� , .). i!
� .' "7 . . ` �� t. ', .
> � LI._ �
$
� f�
. . �2 . _ SV � .. .?'�
`_:�� �'� ; r'�
- �r��.' I � :�; z��
- �. '�' .,�
� � ��
i -.
' r ' '�' :�, , �: , `
. �- >r _.X - 1 .
�1 •Y
� ; ,; - �w,�
i �
. . c'�� . . ��.
- --,�� -
�' �r� �., .
. J N..� � �► >
7'�-} . ,,) �` I��'�, fr��
, 4�„ ��
;^�� �
� ' �► . : �s' "' �'.c�iR
i7� '� .`Sr� i� q':.�i� . �,F,rh''� �t �
" s+et `.4 t ~ .
s�' �t�'. ;ti ��ni�' � ��
r �- ,.- .� ,�
� t�� �. ;+s'.-
,, .- . ♦. q. _
r � .
� �! - ' � t
. , °Y'�` } '�'�
�,�, - t
. � ��� r
� .:. .�,,,
� .�.._ �� �.�.
,��_, .
� r _ - �� — ' ..
�
l� : _ ..i ��;- .
� •� �
ti �
�
. .'-f/;^4 �' � � � , : . � /� r �ir. y . .
.. . i � }. � • +'.yf9� �.. � 1� .. 1 A _.:
✓( _ .� .�. ' , � Y .� - 'rb�±���,�' �y ' 'F � ./ - �. 1
_ :� _ `�� -_ ,.� . , � 'y �;.: '�
FI �/TM,. _ _ . �`,/ 'a�'•�'�wlr. _
\ �I'. -/� � � 3 - }�� �� f.il }�.
s` '�'.�' ' -!�� • � - � �b'' 1 � -
K ' .� F � � ; l�' : � � i,
.� ' �1r�=�'' , ,:��� _ ' � � `; ;�`
r Y } . �I � � � .�"'�J �I' .,, � � V "
� �: � ��,' — • " ' �' � 'a
� , ��.,.� .� r.' �
�Y . ,� i , `` a�;.` ' , • '' r _ -
' �� �'� - , . . "i�
} N _
_. �, -�' __.'.--/,.e'f'���� _ . -� . . `)��; .. ..��'. . .
.� � �
rr � � r
/ � '
- - f .
a c• ►
�, ..,,,.
�� .��.i
' ;'i �
F.1 }'
��
��
. i �� �` �
��
r o: ,�i ,
�' _ �
���a, ' .�
�
3� —
. <
�� §,
�� .'� ��..'i1..
1 , { "
� �'� k �
f�:
Proposed Improvement at Site of
Existing Bridge
Fi ure 2
g

� � �r��� � � �,`, � ��� 1" s
� ; . - � � W 1 - � • . '+
r � � [ t'..~. . . ! . ' _� 'a
`!� '_ ' 1 .l },� . �..�
. : '-: _ F �� '
� � �---� '��f.�l�i
' �� - � � � !'�v''.�G + `.-�. � . �.►
'� �.. - � .. � . ( y�'.
I. _ � - ` . i� I� � .. . , �•f- , j���r , �t•
�:., , .- . -= 1 •�_.- '� - . _„�4 - � - ' �
- � � + ' �. • - . .. . ,.. _.._ . . '
. � � _ -� -_'�' �� _.. .
: 1�
ii y - . 1 _ '� * ` _
� .
. ,�� r . ._..,� • . . F , �, :
' . . � � { , Y „ .
- � . . -i.a • ' �
, ,�,
��
. C r• . _ ' . � • � ' i
' . :l�i -,'r � . �
� � {�f
-_ � �r ,
f � � — ,
d' ' � - � r
� i
, ��
�
_� , + ': i e �' _ ; �
� �
- 'i � ~�
� � `� , ` � �� '� �f . r �� �
� l' � �y � a�-- � . ���L�y �'+�` �" .
, � ! �' 4 �, � :• ; ' �'� -` ( �JJ1r1'
� , � 1, • - � �� � � ��r� �� . - !
� � ''� • � `r
�� � � �:.
t � � L,{,-'�/ ,� . J_ �
� I_ � py ' �Y� • � "_ _6,� � . L l. - �' �Y i�
� I �� � ,1 �. ,�� � ^ � �_
�S� .. I � � �_ . , /i�- . '� ~L'
-� � --,��i i� � �tK.. ��F� ` � ��.�� �. �
3.-..�'y'�.k. ��' �s�... � :. . .�' � � .. '� . ��
. �F _ _ _.'�6y. y`�, �i; IIP � �E• _ `• . - u �
� � I - .�y� . � 4 � �. �M .
' �� �.y �(• ..I4 . '.'_-=-���, � - -� �." -�r,�.�_��
- Ir .�
��-- - `��. `_ . ' . :�__ _ �� � . - . . - _
* - ` �` . � .'°'Y', - -� � - _ -'
f. -� ti'�� �.. S + . � � � it� - ��
i
� L _ J .�` t��� �� � � � � )' J
,.,.. '. �� /.
.,� ., '� � _' f �
�` ,� , � ,
� , .,.
J� �� --
� �..,. �!. ' ,
��
+� ' _ " �
y1 r
i
,�� ��� ��
� ; t��.•
�
t� i
_ - , �� � �-
:i � �- �t. ' -._Y
� _ . -- —
� :����;� � -
� � ,�� � �,� � _ -;�a•�•.�
�l .A � :� -. —� —
� , � __ -�--�•�..�
Y �r
�� � . ��� � �;�+ . .
_,
� � �;���;
i r , � , �
�� '�"� A�.
��� ,� ' ��r : ' +-:. . _
��— -- - � - = ='�"_-._�

NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
PROJECT INFORI�IATION
Project No:
/t i
F.A. No.
B-5243
42845.1.1
BRSTP-] 008(23)
Federal (USACE) Permit Required?
Counlv:
Document.
Projec[ Tracking Na.A��ern¢1 Use)
10-12-0009
Union
PCE or CE
Fui�ding: ❑ State
❑ Yes ❑ No Permit Type:
��
Project Description: Replacement of Bridge No. 258 on SR 1008 (Indian Trail Road) over South Fork
Crooked Creek in Union County.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAI, RESOURCES REVIEW
Briejdescnption o/reviewnctrvities, results ofreview, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, historic designations roster, and indexes was undertaken on 28 January 2011.
Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS properties in the Area of Potential
Effects (APE). Google Maps "Street View" and current Union County GIS Mapping and tax informa[ion
indicate that there are several structures present within the APE. Several houses constructed in the 1940s
are located east of the bridge within the APE (Parcel ID# 07114067, 07114066, 071 14068) and after
viewing the properties on "Street View" it was concluded that they not meet the criteria for listing on the
National Register. Parcel ID# 07114064A, constructed in 1958, also does not meet the criteria for listing
on the National Register based on viewing the propeRy on "Street V iew." Other properties within the
APE are less than fifty yeazs old and do not meet Criteria Consideration G for listing on the National
Registec In addition, Bridge No. 258 is less than fiRy years of age and is not eligible. No survey is
required.
Bnef Exp/anation of why the nvailable information provides a reliable basis for rensonably predicting
that there are no unidentified histnric properties in the APE:
HPO quad maps recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the Union County survey, Union
County GIS information, Union County Tax Information, and Google Maps "S[reet View" are considered
valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There aze no
historic resources present and no survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Maps, Tax Parcel Information
FINDING BY NCDOT CULTURAI. RE � ESSIONAL NO SURVEY REOUIRED
ARGHAEOLOGY ISTORIC ARCHITEC7URE � (CIRCLE ONE�
Resources Specialist
"No Jurvel' Requirrd"%orm Jar Minor hnruponntion Projecls ns Qun/ifed m Uie -'007 Programma(ic Agreement.
NCDOTArdmeoingv & Hb(oric.Ardiitechve Gro¢ps
Date

_^...,.�, ��,�,,,.�
��"�t� "�,�
_�,� r,
^�,i�� �.
.� ._a ry �
Project Trackeiig No. (Internal Use)
10-12-0009 ,
�
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDS A �� �
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-5243 Counry: Union
WBS No.: 42845.1.1 Document PCE or CE
Type:
Fe�i Ai�l No: BRSTP-1008(23) Funding: ❑ State � Federal
Fe�lernl � Yes ❑ No Perrnit
Permit s : Type(s):
Prolect Descrintion:
Supplemental request to replacement of Bridge No. 258 to study associated offsite detour improvement at
the intersection of Old Monroe Road and South Fork Road.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on Januaiy 2, 2014. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is approximately 1400 feet of the intersection. There
are one-story ranch houses built c. 1960s in the APE based on Union County GIS/Tax information.
Google maps Street View shows that the houses within the APE are unremarkable, common brick ranch
houses that are not eligible for National Register listing. There are no National Register listed or eligible
properties within the APE and no survey is required. If design plans change, additional review will be
required.
Whv the available informntion provi�les a reli�rble basis for reasonablv nredictin,� that there
are no unidentire�l si�ni�cant historic architectural or landscnne resources in the proiect
�rea:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the Union County
survey and Google Maps are considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic
resources being present. There are no National Register listed or eligible propei�ties within the APE and
no survev ts
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
�Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. �Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
Historic A
,
,�
��
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
and Landsc�pes -- NO,-SURVEY REQUIRED
, I ;,
NCDOT Architectural Historian
� 1 ��1�.
Date
Hisroric Architectiu•e and /.nndscnpes NO SURVL• Y RI3QUIR/�D Jorm jm• Mnior 7ransporration Prajects as Qualified in the 2007 Progranunatic Agreeu�enr.
Page 1 of 4

I wL� �4..�ik�� !r LaJ.:�C�'4�I1l1�..4.J �'�fAkl�
P���r:C:!' �''�1i�C��;MATIC�I�
����; ;�.°�x
l�k�£i.�' :�''r��
�,��. ;�'rr
fi- �' ��7
#?���.�_1
r�t��`r �>- t��;���' �}
�-'�r%���t � (.•',�', � C,:f:; �'c�rrxi.r R�r�:rr��
{�r���r
£��rr���
F�l�fdf8'{'� Jl�fif A��1:ti_ .���(l. i i1�il'f'F�!�? 5,:�.5�i�,�
1C',1�°,��'��
L.«ii�a�
I'�'�: o�- �:f:
�'IGFX�;' � �l�ift° `� I"etia'�f
[� �'�s � i'�� !�'���r�; Ty�a�: Unkrt����T�
I'r��`�t: D�cr�l�rcxx°'�fC1�C�)']' irnt°r���� ��a rer�lz�� eiae sTnli.ai,r�l�k� c��ric.ient Br-i��r� �c�. ?5� c?��et-Sc�u�i� �c��-�,
C:r�c�laea C��k ���j :�K 1���, �t� prelinv�Yu��� ��u-�w ti,,��ra• ���y�i��l?le <�t rli� ���t�• �ai tlic ��,�e�•, ���•etl�ick•ss. tar
�I,e p�u�c�scs c�f m,��i�'w, tlae �i[��d.v c��r�irl�ir u;u c:c�:=,,�ici�r�:c� the prcFj�t-� .�l'E�- �i�i.��-?1�:� ���:�t, _�.�71 ;�.:��s'}.
�L:T"vl.."�'I.i�.Y [)�� �.:[,T�_TLJ�'t..a1L C�..�.�C)t.:KC:E°::� Ri�,VIE'��
�'7°T�f ��['SC77�1d?�L.�3 C� T�'�'C:'E.'6iC?ti,2f,'i�F 7�'41�"�1 (� X;.':dL at'j e#fXa'� tiRd�.�'.*d.�1�iC;
P�i 1��'1��74'{]� L}Z� Sli� C1Yd�ti :.utij f�t�i:a a3T X}]� �CsELiI ��'tt'[l�l[]"l ��fl��: Cj� �Xsiit ,�ItES;3C`t1jC)�Y�,.�S C.D11C�llCi�sf C']C7
Jarie�ar� 27. ��1!_ T�'npr�vii��.��y r�cc�r�{�� a��c�t;�:.�rlc��ic;i� �i�c��s ��re [n�at�r� �.i[I�ir� �C��e cusr�nt sLti�iyr�.�,
l Icau�ver, �1 �at�17,1��[ �ic;� s4�n�cy'�� �.ai���act�ci ailc�n� C-�•��I+��l �C:reek iri �4t7� ��w•P�eter P. Cix,�rer sf�c��
passed tlu-�u�ki 21Y�. �ria. i�r.} ��z���er z�rE3lec�l���i�;�f i���,�<��t���a�ic�n ;� rece��t�E�,c;n���� f�?�-tl�i:� l�r��c��ct �a.��l,�c.er�nt
as �u�r�t�i.l;,���rr�€�t�sc'ci. P�l� pr�ject c�;c�uyci bt�:;r��i��;�ered Se�rtican lv�f, ;�r�t' l��S 1?1-3?(:�� c't�rnE�?k-uit.
Sh�au€d r}tc� }�r����s�;c� bn+��e re�itt.�cji�•nt �-E3an�e in sec��> tur-tE�c�r r�'�•i����•sha�1� ��.��ac{�ic-tec{.
I�r���':.���r�xaar,� c�� r;lry �: ,�;��1rat�e ��rr����rnzr��i� r r�i::z��c �r��i{:,{�+° �z;cx xz�ty,����.�� �r t�'� r��: rr�
r��'�f���str�ai��xrr�x�uii zn�c°r�I'E:
I1z� 1�78 C�y�,{tu�}��. t�r�Il��� sun�e;�� tnr -?'+:;•l 1i�';�tt��iter F�i�iti�s a]c�r��, ��Yxa�d Cr�ec:k :��c�? ��r}�{ ��rk isi��ca[�r��l
��f�e c�xzuz7i� �,��;�.3r�� ��tci "s�t~.aach c�ueut:s" in ;� 3�n�eter ��i�e �r•��:�. ��t�r,�lle.l tc� tli� ��°�e�s. ,��1�{iti�r�ally> p�:�77��
s��iI��ia15 .�r�ci ,��ija.c:e�t �ri�±€li�e lae��€ic�tic, ,Y��.-�yfrr�rn the e����s v��ere s;.arw•e}�ed. �iateei� ixrc:P�a:c��lca�ic�l siees
werti i��c�a��ifi�.�ci i.}�� C=�ape�'� �r°���� (r�tc:�t,�}� rac�n� inthe �u�7-ea7t st��c-���•,�r��.�j� n�cast nt ����kai4:fE ���;xre�[ ta �c:
�nii�c��ci litl�iti se�zrte�s, r�z �C:����xr ���°I�€°��cci. t� b� �rc�i:�ec�lra�ia�xil4• �ir�nif:c;u�t_ ��� �-;�r� k}e seen in th� :�:na.@
}y}��tc��e-��h of tltie �+rc��c:t ;�n�.� �,r,t� th� soi.f n�.��� ft-r€� i?�ric�rt C:�tar�ey, p�t�ic�rL� c�� the. :211r'Z locz�ted C�.�nl1.•r {l�ni
the aokrr.Ei �'ot�k �f �C:r��nl�c��3 C.:e�e�.k izar�e ��n s�:vz���[�� cfis.�ar�7e� b;.°ci�+��c9s ��>�r,t:•�t and �ubsec��ent c�r��s�c�n.
The e�itvi��e Enr �11�� ff�-e 1i.�;�ble ar.�li�se�ln�it:�l n:��c}urc�s �a k�.a+�e ;ur�=i�=�4:1 sn t}ae plojeee arr.�t �� �:�rr,.�ici��ed €�
be ex�r�r�c.�y (j�rc:�l,if�itr����y�j ��mote.
��T'I'C�L�.T L��.�:f�ri�i�,'�'?+k`�iC�1�
�t:;�. ��t:�c.-he�€; �rnje��t la�,��i�E� r�ss�}a; ta��rial �k3ot���i�}�h �� t.l,c' �i=��'��:� �irr��ct �n::3-; �etail �f the'���trthe��s, ;�i�
��.�71j 7.5-niur�re trr��a.��,�:���k�it: rr,��; 4-��t��i1 oF �llc� L�'s�i�ar� ('��snty soil n�l�� �trc����
� ��' �:l 1 `��� � �c�� �.� ��� �,�T�. w�,�: r��J.s,� ��_������� l ,��S�i ).
FT�iUi�2C.� �i7'" i���}�T �"LTLl�.+�I� I�F:���LTR�ES �'���=1�:��j�?I'+1:��.I�C�:��JR��'!;Y �.�.(�[1IE�Y I]
?�Ti�:� 7-�Y: t�71.C�7C �':' HT 4�I��)I�I C: ±�s�t� II'I'�E[: [��i ��.
�, � �
o��ti°c'� .5�*�.•Ci
fc;iltt��[: C�'�•r}
�rY3!--r!
..�4'er 4irn��1' H�inrz'ei"' fcsrrr� ,+ir !.ldnrJ� !"rans, rr � rf.'�ar�' f�2j e c� ers �)iurl!firzf in 11ir, a fail- ,� � t r, �:Irn,hr � �. .:.,rr.e r,rri!
. . - ,ti'{.'iJ��TrPteJuare::us�s � l�ur��rie drr8i�rr7r�r.• iCit�t�r�;a

Pr•oject Tracking No.:10-12-0009
11-12-0009
'��� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM ��'�'�,
�Q ay-���� �,.��y;� This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not ��`��
�S '�i .� �`°:I 1'� C7 {
�„�, ��,� valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the ���� ���
�:.. �_�'��Y His taric Arc hi tec ture an d Lan dscapes Group. ��,�.:� ���„'���
PROJECT INFORMATION
ProjectNo: B-5243 (update)
IdVBS No:
F.A. No.
Federal Per�nit Kequired?
42845.1.1
BRSTP-1008(23)
County:
Document.•
Funding.•
Union
CE or PCE
❑ State � Federal
❑ Yes ❑ No Perrnit Type:
ProjeetDescription: NCDOT intends to replace the structurally deficient Bridge No. 258 over South Fork
Crooked Creek on SR 1008. While this project is underway, traffic will be detoured along SR 1371,
Southfork Road, and SR 1009, Old Monroe Road. As a result of this detour, improvements to the
intersection of SR 1371 and SR 1009 are required. According to the preliminary plan sheets provided, these
improvements appear to consist of added turn-lanes on SR 1009, which will necessitate a slight widening of
the road and right-of-way (RO�.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAI. RESOURCES REVIEW
Briefdescriptlon ofrevrewactivrties, results ofrevrew, and conclusions:
The original archaeological review for the replacement of Bridge No. 258 was completed on January 31, 2011.
At that time, no further archaeological review was recommended for the nearly 3.5-acre APE because it had
been surveyed in 1978 as part of the archaeological investigations for the 201 Wastewater Facilities along
Crooked Creek and Dry Fork. No archaeological resources had been identified at that time. Additionally,
much of the vicinity was mapped (on the Union County soil maps) as areas that have been disturbed by urban
development and erosion.
A review of the site files and maps archived at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology was conducted
on January 13, 2014 by NCDOT staff archaeologist, Brian Overton. No previously identified archaeological
sites are recorded in the proposed APE. No further archaeological investigations are recommended for the
project as currendy proposed. Should the footprint of the proposed intersection improvements expand
further outside existing ROW, additional archaeological review will be required.
This area of the intersection improvements does fall within the study area for the proposed widening of SR
1009 for a 6.5-miles stretch from SR 3448/SR 3474 in Matthews (Mecklenburg County) to SR 1337 in Indian
Trail (U-4714). That project proposes to upgrade the highway faciliry to a four-lane divided highway
(effectively doubling the width of the existing facility). At the rime of this review, the SR 1009 widening
project is awaiting preliminary designs before determining the nature of any further archaeological
investigations. The recommendations for the proposed improvements to the SR 1371 /SR 1009 intersection
should not be considered to apply directly to the unrefined proposal (as no preliminary designs yet exist) to
widen SR 1009 through this area.
BrlefExplanatton ofwhy the aVailable information provYdes a relr'able basis forreasonably predicting
that there are no unidentifred hrstoric properties in the APE:
The current area under consideration, an area roughly 1400 feet (nearly 427 meters) long that encompasses a
ROW expansion from 60 to 75 feet (roughly 18 to 23 meters), falls within areas mapped as eroded soils. As
is the case with upland areas overlooking the South Fork of Crooked Creek, the area surrounding the
inteYSection of SR 1009 and SR 1371 is mapped as `Badin channeYy silt clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded". Aerial photographs of the APE su�est a significant degree of landscape development
"No ARCffAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUlRED "form for� Minor� Transportakion Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4

Pr•oject Tracking No.:10-12-0009
in the viciniry of the intersection. Addirionally, areas of eXposed subsoil can be seen along the existing ROW.
It is very likely that these areas have been subjected to a significant amount of landscape disturbances. Intact
National Register-eligible archaeological resources are considered to be unlikely to be encountered in the
proposed APE.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: � Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
� Other: NRCS web soil survey information (htt�://websoilsurvev.nres.usda.gov/a�/);
preliminar�� plans.
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
1�T0 AKCHAEOLOGY SUK V�Y KE;'�UIK�'D
Shane C. Petersen
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II
January 30, 2014
Date
"No ARCffAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUlRED "form for Minor� Transportakion Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreemertf.
2 of 4