19920410 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19930521

M1
1
' ENGINEERS

-„4 (g)
cU
£anstruction ,cranes F!'O,gram
RE: Amendment - Union County
201 Facilities Plan
Richardson Creek/Bearskin Creek Parallel Interceptor Sewer
City of Monroe
Gentlemen:
We are submitting for review and comment sixteen (16) copies of the Draft
Amendment to the Union County 201 Facilities Plan to cover the
Richardson Creek/Bearskin Creek Parallel Interceptor Sewer Project, City
1 of Monroe. As you will note, this Facilities Plan Amendment includes a
complete Environmental Assessment document and supporting
documentation.

SURVEYORS
September 8, 1992
M&C0458.0004.OW(l 1)
SEP 15 1592
ARCHITECTS
N.C. Department of Environment, Health
PLANNERS and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
P O Box 29536
Raleigh NC 27626-0536
ATTENTION: Mr. Dan Blaisdell, P.E.
Because of the stringent schedules on this project we are proceeding with
preliminary design of the proposed lines based on the information discussed
with you on August 28, 1992. We would appreciate your early review of the
technical details so that we may make proper adjustments in our design.
243 NORTH FRONT STREET
If you have questions or need additional information regarding the 201
WILMINGTON, NC 28401 Facilities Plan Amendment, please let us know. We look forward to
receiving comments from you as soon as you have had an opportunity to
919/343-1048 complete your review.
FAX [phone]

Very truly yours,
MCKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, P.A.
William S. Riddick, Jr.,
Project Manager
bbs
' pc: Jerry Cox
Wilson Crook

jai McMM&CR M
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
AMENDMENT TO
UNION COUNTY
201 FACILITIES PLAN

u

RICHARDSON CREEK/BEARSKIN CREEK
PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR SEINER
CITY OF MONROE
SEPTEMBER 1992

t
McKM&CRffD
4

PRELIMINARY DRAFT
AMENDMENT TO
UNION COUNTY
201 FACILITIES PLAN
RICHARDSON CREEK/BEARSKIN CREEK
PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR SEWER
CITY OF MONROE
SEPTEMBER 1992
MCKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, P.A.
243 NORTH FRONT STREET
WILMINGTON, N. C. 28401
Mq<T\4&CREED

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION Paae
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Scope of Services 2
1.3 References 3
SECTION 2 - EXISTING FACILITIES
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 System Deficiencies 6
SECTION 3 - FLOW PROJECTIONS
3.1 Introduction 8
3.2 Service Area 8
3.3 Population Projections 9
3.4 Flow Projections 10
3.5 Analysis of Existing Capacity 12
_SECTION 4 - ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Introduction 14
4.2 Design Criteria 14
4.3 Alternatives 15
4.4 Cost Analysis 18
4.5 Present Worth Analysis 19
4.6 Evaluation of Interceptor From Rays Creek 20
4.7 Recommended Alternate 21
SECTION 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
5.1 Environmental Assessment 22
5.2 Results 22
5.3 Permits 22
MCMM&CREM

k

1
1
11

SECTION 6 - DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
6.1 Description
6.2 Construction Materials/Details
6.3 User Charge System
6.4 Public Hearing/Comment
SECTION 7 - SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Summary
7.2 Recommendations
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
FIGURES
Population Projections
Flow Projections
Cost Analysis-Alternatives
Environmental Assessment
Section 401 Permit
Cost Estimate-Selected Alternate
Public Hearing Minutes
Figure 1 Existing Facilities
Figure 2.1 Sanitary Sewer Service Areas
Figure 2.2 Distribution of Flows
Figure 3.1 Capacity Analysis
Figure 3.2 Vector Sizing Diagram
Figure 4.1 Preliminary Design Alternatives
Figure 4.2 Preliminary Design Alternatives
23
23
24
24
26
27
McKM&CRUD

AMENDMENT
' UNION COUNTY 201 FACILITIES PLAN
RICHARDSON CREEK/BEARSKIN CREEK
PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR SEWER
CITY OF MONROE
SECTION 1
' INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Monroe owns and operates a wastewater collection, transportation, and
treatment system which serves residential, commercial and industrial customers.
The system consists of a network of collection sewers, interceptor and interceptor
sewers, pumping stations and force mains, and a wastewater treatment plant
1 which discharges treated wastewaters into Richardson Creek which is tributary to
the Rocky River basin.

In July 1991 the City of Monroe annexed an area known as the Northwest
Annexation Area Corridor and under NC statues has an obligation to extend
municipal services to this area. The City embarked on a plan to extend municipal
water and wastewater facilities into the area and currently has under construction
a network of collection sewers, pumping stations and interceptor sewers. The
estimated project cost of the current sewer construction program is about
$8,900,000.

One of the interceptor sewers serving the annexed area has been determined
eligible for funding underthe North Carolina State Revolving Fund (SRF) program.
This project, known as the Bearskin/Dry Fork Interceptor will be funded under
i
ilit
thi
f
t
b
t f
CS 37056402
Th
i
d
projec
s
num
er
or
ac
y
project cos
s
.
mate
e est
1

' approximately $1,600,000 and represents about 18 percent of the overall cost for
the Annexation Area Sewer program.
During the course of updating the Union County 201 Facilities Plan for the
Bearskin/Dry Fork Creek Interceptor the existing sewers along Bearskin and
Richardson Creeks were evaluated for capacity. It was determined that some of
the existing sewer components were subjected to periodic hydraulic overloading
and do not have the additional capacity needed to fully serve the annexation area.
Asa condition of approval and funding for the Bearskin/Dry Fork Creek Interceptor,
the N.C. Division of Environmental Management directed the City to upgrade all
inadequate segments of the existing system. McKim & Creed was retained to
provide the planning, engineering and construction services associated with
upgrading the capacity of the Richardson Creek and Bearskin Creek sewer
facilities.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City will pursue funding for the upgrade of the Richardson Creek/Bearskin
Creek Parallel Interceptor Sewer through the North Carolina SRF program.
Requirements of this program include preparation of a 201 Facilities Plan
Amendment and an Environmental Assessment to address the impacts of this
significant project.
The scope of services of this amendment to the Union County 201 Facilities Plan
includes the following:
1. Describe existing facilities.
2. Review service area, population, and flow data to estimate existing flows
and to project flows for a 20 year planning period.

2

L?

1

1

11

1

I
3. Evaluate existing facilities and define existing operating deficiencies.
4. Describe alternatives to meet the needs of the service area for the 20 year
planning period.
5. Prepare cost estimates and a present worth analysis of system alternatives.
6. Select recommended alternative.
7. Prepare a detailed Environmental Assessment (EA) for the selected
alternative.
8. Describe the recommended alternative and a phasing plan for required
improvements.
9. Prepare this report describing the work accomplished.
1.3 REFERENCES
The following documents were used as references in the preparation of the
Facilities Plan Amendment covering the Richardson Creek/Bearskin Creek Parallel
Interceptor Sewer project:
1. "201 Amendment Monroe Portion of the Union County 201 Facilities Plan",
Hazen and Sawyer, March 1992.
2. "Sewer System Evaluation Survey and Rehabilitation Program", Harwood
Beebe, December 1980.
3. "Water Resources Management Study", Jordan, Jones & Goulding, August
1991.
4. "Union County 201 Facilities Plan" Henningson, Durham & Richardson,
1976.
3

I
I
I

PJ

SECTION 2
EXISTING FACILITIES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The City owns and operates a system of interceptor sewers which collect and
transport wastewaters from the City's service area to the Richardson Creek
wastewater treatment facility. This section describes the existing facilities and
operational deficiencies which have been identified.
Interceptor sewers extend from the Richardson Creek treatment plant upstream
along Richardson Creek, Bearskin Creek, and other tributaries to transport
wastewater generated in the City's service area to the treatment plant. Figure 1
illustrates the location of these major interceptor sewers.
The existing Bearskin Creek Interceptor follows on the southeast side of the creek
from Charlotte Avenue downstream approximately 10,200 lineal feet (LF) where
it makes an aerial crossing of Bearskin Creek to the northwest side. The
interceptors continues along the northwest side of the creek to its confluence with
Richardson Creek. The Bearskin Creek line makes an aerial crossing to tie into
the Richardson Creek Interceptor which then follows along the southeast side of
Richardson Creek to the wastewater treatment plant.
The Bearskin Creek Interceptor from Charlotte Avenue to US 74 was originally an
18" pipe. Segments of this line have been replaced with a 24" pipe. Downstream
of US 74 to Richardson Creek, the existing line is 21" diameter pipe. The
Richardson Creek Interceptor is a 30" diameter pipe for its entire length.
4.

Extending upstream Bearskin Creek from Allen Street is the proposed line known
' as the Bearskin/Dry Fork Creek Interceptor. This line which ranges in size from
24" to 10" in diameter- will extend the City's interceptor sewer system into the
Northwest Annexation Area Corridor up to a point along Rocky River Road near
its intersection with Old Charlotte Highway. At this point the line will terminate and
an existing pumping station which will be taken out of service.

L1

Service has been extended into the Stewarts Creek basin which is located
generally northwest of the treatment plant. There are numerous small pump
stations in this basin which discharge to the Bearskin Creek basin. Several
projects are nearing completion in the Stewarts Creek basin which for the purpose
of this Amendment will be assumed to be existing. These include:
1. Stewarts Creek Interceptor Pump Station, located on Stewarts Creek near
Stafford Street will convey wastes through a 12-inch force main to an
existing sewer on Stafford Street.

2. System of 24-inch interceptors along Stewarts Creek west of the pump
station. These lines extend to the Annexation Area.
The upper Richardson Creek system extends up Richardson Creek from the
intersection of Bearskin Creek to serve the service areas south of the treatment
plant. The existing 24" to 21" lines extend to the upper end of Lake Lee.
5

1

2.2 SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
There are several operational problems associated with the existing interceptor
sewers. These include inadequate hydraulic capacity to handle peak wet weather
flows and areas where existing pipe is deteriorated. The analysis of hydraulic
capacity is covered in Section 3.
Because of operational problems with the influent pumps at the Richardson Creek
wastewater treatment plant wetwell liquid levels are allowed to rise to a point were
major sections of the Richardson Creek interceptor operate in a submerged
condition. This condition makes internal inspection of the line impractical and the
exact condition of the pipe is not known. However there are no reports of
deteriorated concrete pipe in this section of line.
According to historic reports, some of the lines along Bearskin Creek date back to
the 1940's. The original pipes were vitrified clay (VCP) and there have been
numerous reports of pipe failure resulting from poor bedding and deterioration of
the joints. The City has replaced several sections of this line with ductile iron pipe
(DIP) although some of these repairs were made under emergency conditions and
careful control of horizontal and vertical alignment was not maintained.
6

i
L
From historical reports there are a number of locations where hydraulic capacity
is not adequate to meet existing flows and City staff have resorted to the practice
of bolting down manhole lids to minimize the occurrences of overflow conditions.

I
11

k

1

7.
1

0

SECTION 3
FLOW PROJECTIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
To evaluate the capacity of the existing sewers, McKim & Creed prepared a vector
analysis which included determining existing flows by sub area and comparing
these flows to the hydraulic capacities of the interceptor sewers serving these
areas. Flow projections by sub area were prepared for a 20 year planning period.
The flows were used to evaluate existing and future system needs.
3.2 SERVICE AREA
The service area included in the preliminary design is based on;
1. Topographic conditions in and around the City of Monroe.
2. Current wastewater collection systems and planned extensions.
3. The City's zoning jurisdiction (ETJ).
4. Input from City staff on anticipated growth areas.
The City of Monroe, including the 1991 Annexation Area covers approximately
12,000 acres and is zoned predominantly residential. Exceptions include the
downtown Central business areas, commercial zoning at main roadway
intersections, highway business zones on thoroughfares including the Highway 74
corridor, heavy industry bounded by Richardson Creek, Walkup Avenue, Secrest
Avenue and US Highway 74, general industry near the Airport and general industry
north of Bearskin Creek near Morgan Mill Road and Stafford Street.
Areas outside the City which were included in the potential service area due to
topography and predicted growth patterns are generally zoned residential with lot
8

' sizes of 20,000 and 40,000 square feet. Additional highway business areas were
included along Highway 74 west of Monroe. Figure 2 illustrates the service areas
defined for the Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor.
3.3 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
' Monroe's current population is 19,611 based on updated estimates including the
' 1991 annexation along the Northwest Corridor. A report prepared for the City and
Union County by Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc. includes information on historical
' population estimates and projections of future population. From 1950 to 1990, the
growth rate for the City of Monroe was approximately 12.4% compounded every
ten years. This rate is considered appropriate for the areas inside the current
corporate limits.
Areas outside the current city limits were reviewed with the City planning staff to
estimate growth potential. Much of the growth will be influenced by transportation
considerations. Very little growth was projected for the areas south of the City due
to limited thoroughfares through the City to the North and West. Areas between
US 601 South and US 74 West are planned for 20,000 square foot lots and are
projected to grow approximately 25% in the 20-year planning period.
' Areas North of Highway 74 West are planned for 40,000 square foot lots and the
projected growth is 50% to 75% in 20-years. This higher rate of growth is
' anticipated due to accessibility to US 74 and the proposed northern bypass to be
completed within the next 10 to 12 years. Commercial acreage was also expected
to grow at rates relative to projected population growths for these areas.
' Ultimate growth projections are based on current zoning and allowable densities
within the potential service area. Appendix A includes a summary of the
population estimates for current 1992, 20-year and ultimate development by sub
1 s
0

' areas shown on Figure 2.
3.4 FLOW PROJECTIONS
I Projected average wastewater flows were developed using the population
' projections and information obtained from City flow records for current flows to the
wastewater treatment plant and water use records for industrial customers.
' Residential wastewater flows were estimated to be 68 gallons per day per capita
based on a sewer billing study prepared for the City by Hazen & Sawyer.
By subtracting residential and industrial flows and estimated dry weather
' infiltration/inflow (1/1) from plant records, the balance was assigned as commercial
flow. Based on the areas developed commercially, the flow attributable to this
' source is estimated to be 2000 gallons/acre/day. This figure was used to project
future flows.
An allowance for future industrial wastewater flow is also included. This allowance
t is based on 10% of the projected residential and commercial plus 10% of existing
industrial flow for unspecified industrial growth.
1
Flows from the Union County service areas in the Wingate and Marshville areas
' account currently for approximately 1.4 MGD. These flows are pumped directly
to the screening building at the treatment plant and do not affect the sizing of the
t influent sewers.
Allowance for wet weather inflow/infiltration was included in the flow projections
based on an estimate of .34 MGD included in the December 1980 SSES
performed by Harwood Beebe. This allowance was escalated 20% for new
collector sewers in the potential service areas for the 20-year planning period. A
' summary of existing and projected 20-year flows is shown in Table 3.1.
10

t
TABLE 3-1
Average Wastewater Flow Projections
(MGD)
1992 2012
Residential 1.30 2.70
Commercial .66 2.40
Industrial 3.50 3.50
Sub Total 5.46 8.60
Industrial Allowance -- .86
Dry Weather 1/1 .34 .41
TOTAL AVG DRY
WEATHER FLOW 5.80 10.01
Design flows were computed by incorporating a peaking factor of 2.5 for average
flows plus an allowance for wet weather infiltration based on information included
in the referenced SSES. The 1/1 allowance was escalated 20% for the 20-year
design flow. The Table 3.2 summarizes the peak or design flows for the
Richardson Creek/Bearskin Creek basins. Appendix B includes detailed flow
information, by sub area for these basins.
11

0

n

I

TABLE 3.2
Design Flow Projections
(MGD)
1992 2012
Residential 3.25 6.75
Business/Commercial 1.65 6.00
Industrial 8.75 10.90
Sub Total 13.65 23.65
Wet Weather 1/1 2.90 3.50
TOTAL DESIGN FLOW 16.55 27.15
Existing peak or design flows tributary to the interceptor system are estimated to
be 16.55 MGD. The peak flow is expected to increase to about 27.15 MGD over
20 years. These values do not include flow from the east side of Union County
since this flow is pumped directly into the treatment plant.
The above total flows are tributary to the lower section of Richardson Creek.
These flows have been allocated throughout the drainage basins allow for
evaluation of sub area. These are tabulated in Appendix B.
3.5 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CAPACITY
The capacity of the various existing pipe segments from the treatment plant
upstream to a point where the proposed Bearskin/Dry Fork Interceptor joins the
existing line has been performed. The results of this analysis are shown on Figure
3 a vector analysis. These data are also tabulated in Table 3.3.
12

TABLE 3.3
Capacity Analysis
Segment
H-1
G-H
F-G
E-F
D-E
C-D
B-C
A-B
Capacity
MGD
10.50
10.50
4.10
6.50
4.40
4.40
5.00
2.10
3.00
Peak Q, MGD
1992 2012

16.55 27.15
14.33 24.15
6.90 13.85
6.90 13.85
6.90 13.75
5.42 9.07
3.16 5.57
2.62 4.73
Exist
Capacity
Overloaded
Overloaded
Overloaded
Overloaded
Overloaded
Overloaded
OK, except
one section
OK
As shown six (6) of eight (8) segments are currently hydraulically overloaded, and
all but a portion of segment B-C is overloaded based on the 20-year design flow.
13

4.1 INTRODUCTION
SECTION 4
ALTERNATIVES
The Richardson Creek/Bearskin Creek Interceptors have been evaluated to define
alternatives for improvements to meet existing and 20 year needs. Alternatives
which are described include allowances for transporting wet weather flows to the
wastewater treatment plant.
4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
Alternatives for increasing the capacity of the Richardson Creek/Bearskin Creek
Interceptors are based on the following design criteria:
1. System sized for 20 year peak flow with new and existing pipe flowing half
full.
2. Existing capacity will be used except where deteriorated pipe require
replacement.
3. New lines will be sized based on a Mannings n = 0.013.
The design criteria selected for this project for the new interceptor is based on the
20 year design flow with the gravity pipes flowing one-half full. This will allow
' some capacity for flows beyond the 20 year time frame as well as providing some
factor of safety for changes in growth rates. It should be noted that the industrial
growth rate included in the projections is modest and any accelerated growth due
to industry could drastically alter flow projections.
The existing interceptor sewers will be interconnected with the proposed lines to
eliminate surcharging in existing lines.
14

4.3 ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives for location and pipe size have been identified. The sizes on
Bearskin Creek range from 24" at the upstream end near Charlotte Avenue to 42"
at the downstream end of Bearskin Creek depending on the selected alternative
and up to 54" for the Richardson Creek Line.
In general, the proposed interceptors will parallel the existing interceptor with the
existing interceptor to remain in service. The exception to this is a segment of
existing 18" pipe near Stafford Street which will be abandoned by new
construction due to deterioration. The alignment from Charlotte Avenue to US 74
will follow the existing pipe alignment. At US 74, Bearskin Creek flows under the
parking lot and building of a shopping center via twin corrugated metal culverts.
This will limit routing options for in construction of the new interceptor.
Three (3) optional alignments for this area have been reviewed. The first involves
paralleling the existing 21" diameter pipe which is in the traffic lanes of US 74 east.
Several difficulties have been identified with this option including conflicts with the
electrical substation, existing interceptor on the east bank of Bearskin Creek,
negotiating an encroachment agreement with NCDOT, the cost to disturb existing
lanes of US 74, landscaping, signage, and entrances to numerous active
businesses between Bearskin Creek bridge and Second Street. The District
Engineer for NCDOT would not recommend approval of this routing if other options
exist.
The second option reviewed involves crossing Bearskin Creek east of Stafford
Street to avoid conflict with the electrical substation on the east bank of the creek.
The interceptor would be tunnelled beneath US 74 west of the Bearskin Creek
Bridge. The possibility of the line turning east and crossing the culverts through
the shopping center parking lot were investigated. It was determined, based on
15

elevations and the condition of the pipes that this option was not feasible.
The third option, also involves crossing the Bearskin Creek east of Stafford Street
and crossing US 74 by tunnel. From this point the interceptor would angle to the
northwest and be routed around the shopping center buildings. At the rear of the
building the line would turn east, following a tributary to Bearskin Creek to its
confluence. The line is proposed to be on the northwest side of the creek for the
segment behind the shopping center. This option is considered the most feasible
and is included in the costs of the other alternatives described below.
The alignment of the proposed interceptor will fall to the north of Bearskin Creek
from the US 74 to its confluence with Richardson Creek. This alignment will
parallel the existing interceptor.
Two (2) design conditions were reviewed with respect to sizing the lower portion
of Bearskin Creek and Richardson Creek Interceptors. These two (2) conditions
are the location of the tie in from Stewarts Creek and the design slope of the
Richardson Creek Interceptor.
Two (2) alternatives are based on the Stewarts Creek Interceptor force main tie-in.
The current location is west of Morgan Mill Road (NC 200) and the proposed point
is on Richardson Creek. Relocating this tie-in point will include construction of a
12" diameter gravity interceptor from Richardson Creek along an unnamed
tributary to Olive Branch Road. The existing 12" force main would be rerouted to
extend eastward along Stafford Street to the terminus of the gravity interceptor
near Olive Branch Road. Pipe sizing between the existing tie-in point and the
proposed tie-in point would be adjusted as shown on Figure 4.
The sizing of the lines is based on the design slope. One option is to maintain a
grade consistent with the natural grade of Richardson Creek to the WWTP. This
16

I
I
I

J

will minimize the depth of the line as much as practicable. This will dictate that the
crossing of Richardson Creek be either an aerial crossing or an inverted siphon
design to maintain a minimum depth of the influent pump station. The aerial
crossing presents several concerns including the large diameter pipe falling in the
flow line of the creek.
The second option is to increase the slope sufficiently to reach a depth to cross
beneath Richardson Creek at the treatment plant. By increasing slope the pipe
size would be decreased. These alternatives are combined and shown on Figure
4 and identified as follows:
1. Alternate A: Stewarts Creek Interceptor tie-in remains at current location,
Richardson Creek Interceptor at minimum grade and depth
with inverted siphon crossing of Richardson Creek.
2. Alternate B: Stewarts Creek Interceptor tie-in remains at current location,
Richardson Creek Interceptor at steeper grade and greater
depth with gravity subaqueous crossing of Richardson Creek.
3. Alternate C: Stewarts Creek Interceptor tie-in relocated downstream to
Richardson Creek, Richardson Creek Interceptor at minimum
grade and depth with inverted siphon crossing of Richardson
Creek.
4. Alternate D: Stewarts Creek Interceptor tie-in relocated downstream to
Richardson Creek, Richardson Creek Interceptor at steeper
grade and greater depth with gravity subaqueous crossing of
Richardson Creek.
In each of the alternatives reviewed, the proposed alignment of the Richardson
17

I Creek Interceptor is located on the west and north side of the creek, opposite the
existing line. This routing was chosen due to several factors. This alignment will
allow for future service to undeveloped areas without the need for numerous creek
' crossings; constructing the new interceptor between the existing interceptor and
the creek would be environmentally objectionable; and constructing the new line
adjacent to the existing line and further from the creek would in many cases be
impractical where rock is encountered without damaging the existing pipe and
1 would be more expensive due to the greater depth of excavation in many areas.
' The alignment of the pipe in relation to the creek will reflect environmental
considerations. A buffer will be maintained where possible. The right-of-way width
of 40 feet will be maintained to reduce impacts to wetlands and vegetation.
A plant species which is a candidate for special concern status, the Piedmont
Aster has been identified within the proposed corridor. It is proposed that these
' plants be relocated prior to beginning construction.
r 4.4 COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Cost estimates of the entire project have been prepared including the various
alternatives. The costs have been estimated based on the preliminary plans
without complete survey and design. These costs are based on 1992 prices and
include 20% contingency, 15% for engineering, inspection administration and legal
' costs, and cost of right-of-ways at a rate of $3.00 per lineal foot. Table 4.1 is a
summary of probable construction costs for the various identified alternatives.
Additional details on estimated costs are included in Appendix C.

1 18

TABLE 4.1
Summary of Probable Costs
Alternate
A
B
C
D
Project Cost
$ 5,508,000
5,919,600
5,507,400
5,823,300
4.5 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Each of the four (4) alternates have been compared on the basis of Present Worth
(PW) as follows:
a. Phase I construction is immediate with Phase II deferred for 20-years.
b. O&M costs were not included since these costs are expected to be equal
for all alternates.
C. A discount rate of 8% was used.
The Present Worth of each alternate is shown on Table 4.2.
19

' TABLE 4.2
Present Worth Analysis
Alternate Present Worth
A $5,349,700
B
5,761,200
i C 5,349,000
' D 5,664,945
Alternate C has the lowest present worth of the four considered.
4.6 EVALUATION OF INTERCEPTOR FROM RAYS CREEK
Rays Creek is a tributary to Richardson Creek flowing from south to north in Union
' County between Monroe and Wingate. A portion of the Rays Creek drainage
basin is currently served by the County, which operates a pump station discharging
' by force main into the Richardson Creek treatment plant.
' McKim & Creed has reviewed topographic mapping of the area to determine the
feasibility of providing gravity sewer service from Rays Creek service area to the
t Richardson Creek treatment plant along Richardson Creek. The current average
flow for this area is approximately 1.40 MGD. The County currently desires to
' expand this capacity to 1.9 MGD. The respective peak flows would be
approximately 4.8 MGD. This area could be served by 8800 LF of 24" pipe at a
' grade of 0.08%. The depth of the sewer interceptor would range from
approximately 6 feet at the upstream end to 14 feet near the treatment plant. The
cost of constructing this line approximately $718,000.
11
20

4.7 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE
Based on both capital and PW costs, Alternate C is the selected alternative to
provide adequate capacity for the Richardson Creek/Bearskin Creek basins.
Details of this alternate are included in Section 6. This alternate is slightly less
expensive than Alternate A. In addition to cost considerations, Alternate C is
preferred because trenching depths are minimized. This will minimize short term
disruption to the environment and will reduce contingencies related to cost.

?I
F

J

Li
21

I

SECTION 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A detailed environmental assessment (EA) of the alternatives was undertaken.
In-house resources as well as three (3) environmental consultants evaluated the
impact of these alternatives. A complete EA is contained in Appendix D.
5.2 RESULTS
Since all alternatives involve the same basic facilities, the EA did not serve as a
factor in alternate selection. The field surveys did however identify several specific
concerns to be addressed during design/construction.
One area along Richardson Creek was identified as having a population of
Piedmont Aster, a flower which is of special concern. Protection of this population
' will involve transplanting where construction would endanger existing plants. This
concept was found to be acceptable as evidenced by the response from the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (see Appendix D).

11

5.3 PERMITS
An application for a Section 401 Permit for the project has been submitted. A copy
of the letter approving the project is included in Appendix E.
22

SECTION 6
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
6.1 DESCRIPTION
The proposed Richardson Creek/Bearskin Creek Parallel Interceptor will consist
of approximately 35,000 LF of 24" up to 54" interceptor sewers, paralleling the
existing lines. The current phase of construction will include all segments except
approximately 4500 LF of 24" pipe at the upper end of the Bearskin basin. The
estimated cost of Phase I project is $ 5,062,200. The balance of the project will
not be required for the next 20 years.
6.2 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/DETAILS
Pipe will be the single largest expense for the project. While a detailed analysis
of pipe materials has not been completed, the following materials will be evaluated
and appropriate specifications developed.
TABLE 6.1
Pipe Materials
Pipe Materials
24" PVC
RCP
DIP
30"-54" RCP
DIP
Manholes will be used at all changes in alignment based on the following criteria.
23

n

TABLE 6.2
Manhole Design Criteria
Pipe Size Manhole Type
24" 4' precast
30"-42" 5' precast
4811-54" pipe elbow/tee
Manhole SRacing
300'
1000'
1000'
As shown, the maximum spacing will be 300' feet on 24" pipe and 1000 feet on
larger sizes.
6.3 USER CHARGE SYSTEM
The impact of this project on the City User Charge System has been evaluated.
The City implemented a rate adjustment in July 1992 which included the
annualized cost of about $ to cover the expected cost of paralleling
the Richardson Creek line.
The current proposed project has increased in scope beyond the amounts
projected in the rate adjustment. It is estimated that the current proposed project
' will result in an increase in cost equivalent to $0. /1000 gallons on the City's
sewer charge. The estimated resulting rate will be $ /1000 gallons.
6.4 PUBLIC HEARING/COMMENT
On March 31, 1992, a Public Hearing was conducted to review the planned
' upgrade and expansion of the Richardson Creek treatment plant, the construction
of the Bearskin/Dry Fork project, and this project the Richardson Creek/Bearskin
Parallel Interceptor. Attached in Appendix G is a copy of the minutes of the City
24

1 Council meeting covering the Public Hearing. There were no adverse public
I responses to any of the planned projects.

1

iI

25
11

SECTION 7
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 SUMMARY
The City of Monroe is installing a sanitary sewer system to extend sewer service
to the Northwest Corridor Annexation Area. The estimated project cost is
$8,900,000. Part of the project includes extending an interceptor sewer along
Bearskin/Dry Fork Creek at an estimated cost of $1,600,000. This project is to be
funded under the North Carolina SRF program.
A condition of the funding involves completion of an analysis of the existing
t interceptor sewer system and upgrading all existing lines which are overloaded.
' McKim & Creed was retained by the City to manager the planning, design and
construction services related to this project.

J
1
d

The capacity analysis of the major interceptor sewers on Richardson Creek and
Bearskin Creek demonstrated that approximately 31,500 feet of existing 30" - 24"
lines do not have adequate capacity to handle existing peak wet weather flow.
Flows for a 20-year planning period were projected. Peak flows in the existing
lines at the treatment plant are expected to increase from about 16.55 MGD in
1992 to 27.15 MGD.
Several alternatives to parallel/upgrade the capacity of the existing system were
reviewed. These include alternate points of connection for the Stewarts Creek
Pump Station and alternate slope designs on the Richardson Creek line.
Alternates were compared on the basis of cost (capital and present worth) and
environmental impact. The selected alternate will involve construction of 35,000
feet of 54" through 24" parallel sewers. The total capital cost of the selected
26

alternate is $5,507,400. The estimated cost of the initial phase of construction is
$5,062,200.
An environmental assessment document was prepared and several issues of
concern identified. These will be addressed during the detailed design phase.
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this analysis the following recommendations are offered to the City:
1) Approve this Facilities Plan Amendment
2) Submit this document along with a letter requesting North Carolina SRF
funds to the NC Division of Environmental Management.
3) Proceed to complete detailed designs for the parallel interceptor sewers.
27

C

1
APPENDICES
4A? NfKM&CREID

APPENDIX A
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Ivf TmV1EsCREID
4 P4

--------------------------------------------------
W f v O .? O O O O O O N O r .0 N O -- ----------------
•- N P ? OON ?^ 00000000 O^ -----

0
-- -------

m
n y v ? A ?/f N I? A? .^ v
v O. V
VJ ?
N ?I t7` I? pp
N P I"f O ? N ?
?
? N "'• f" ?
' O N
N A v
w ? ??

•Y •- v n O N ? P N
n

---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
r v 0 ^ O O v 0 0 0 0 1 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 +
ss - -- --t -
` -- -- - -
C, ?
' imp ?
•ti v
?

N ?
P
?7C •
••
•/f •V .?.. _ m
2 O

m
-- W -- .
-
AA--------------Ny----p-
N Co er?? .o m r8? y a rs ?.y? w e a..?..r .
A .P. e l f N .:? ?A.+ wAi ? ?l N
4 %0 ---------

H ----.?---

O ------

p p
N r N w ?A
[ ?
.•
_N .p cf .
N??A...• ?N ?10?. W"? T A NN?O? h??•Ad?"O'?A^ O
?flD A
?: N O
~'.?
?
w w w .r A N N w w .+ O
M M n> a
0 M M
?- m .O O N I? f?^? O A N pm A
? y????HA ???@@O ?wpOw?
?N
tx?NP ?a
A
wO

.riA N r-

N
' .
.•
.
.•

.W op
- - - - -- -p- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
OC N A N OM •M? w N? M O
• O O SIc
- -- -- -- --

---
-- --

-----
w
x x x x
J-P W vwf O x M
pp N
Z ~

V G
t p o o
• O X?
V O
AC .r w ?
at

' O ••x'f C p x X N x M p M .M N M
N M H MM
-+ N O?I?? S A P O? :9a
?O- r0-

N
. x
O? px a ?xf x . O •xi? ux'? px O.. ?
O (1D S .O I? N O
' ? CC
W
OvC
x_ x x

ti
P N •? .p ? -.• CD .? O •ff Oi !? w A r -r N O A

.O M v v O .O v <'9 .•r I? t'9 •ff N A O. P N w N v
N N O 8
P
CO N v N •I'! v N N •A .... •ff A ?f> l'f
r

W
O
. S _S

Q ?pC
v ••• ? N A Q v •Pl co
A O Q ..• N o r ?/! d A m A O .r N Q Af r ?/'?

W "'? ? "? "'• w..? w w.?.rNNN NNN N K 9t
? ?.
N 410
i
i
i
CALCULATION
PROJECT / 0 OF: 0 A1406f PRCJ. NO.
CUENT DATE
SUBJECT S M-141141 Z O V IN6 1ILISION DES. BY
CHK. BY

REMARKS
2 7.5 / 43 2S1-- RinwE.5s.

/ R-1v
¢) 106
s 601-A-1 lZ • 2 Yo -/s, R-??ox'
'
6 7.5
/ k-lo - s? - 8 is / a 1-1s1Ness
? SD e R -i p? Sp ?? G_
00
[ 0? yC, / 6 --L- l U Y R-10
104) - V , ,G_ 1.30 9-3 R-20

L
. O -

ZI) __100_ ?-?o? _

=-
_ A Nn/dd _ A? ?A. _ _

4 A_
,,&,?-NFKlr\4&CRE8D
i
i
i
APPENDIX B
FLOW PROJECTIONS
NfMM&CREM
4&
y
i.
J 3^ CD ? .? ?p OD O M M i .p

O W S
.... ? .-ti O N ? O
O
N
1
1
n
.?
1
/
1
1
1
1
/'- ? CD M ?O ??pp pp 1

O O O O .-+ O O O O ! M
1
3 t
t
1
1
1
¢ 3
O G .O-? ? CD
Cis S7o
O M O a S ? i te
_ ? O r
-.
d W S ?+ O O ? O O .O O N i v
v / r,a
1
1

1
1
Q O O Q N .?-? n ' .M-1 S n Q 1 ? -.
r-- J O

O ?
W O O O O O O N O
?„?
;
u'f
1
1

1
t
i
pp
Z 33 p
O t7 M
?'! O S ? S S .
p
OD O O t uM'f
a-t J v
t1 O O O O O O .-+ O r•1 ?
1 M
X 1
1
W 1

- 1

"Q"1 ?^ O pp..
O .p
O pp
N ? p
O M S ?

? O O
W ? O O O O O O O O O ; O
1
1
U 1
• • i
1
1
¢ t/Y ^ N N .O.1 .?-? O S aef S O i M -
2 O O O O O O O O O .-?

1
v? 1

0
I
~ ? O
• U O
X Q 1!f
W sT
kn W Q
2 W r?
m Q O
? U
? d
Q ('
co
O
d
Q
W
Q
eb
i
1
1
1
1
t
1
?` O O ? O O ? O O i
st N 1
Ov .01 N O OV' O r- O O
? O O N ?' O O? O O
e
CD
n

O
N
M
T
1 J
1 Q
1 / -
m t? C W U- L7 S /--1 O

J
p '
t
i ` r
+ .-. O a"+ cT' O O O M 1 t?
?- 1 N
1
1
1
t
1
1
CC co rr <X.

Q O O O O ?.. O O O O t M
1
W /
3 t

t
t
t

-+
pp.. cw>
t
91
Z2 3 C:J
O E
t-r O O O O O O O O O t N
? t

O 1

t
1
t
Y 3^ M N M O P M 'fit N 1 P
d O Q v .? P N O M N n 1 ?O
d
Li nc: N .-a O N M O OO O N .--t
t N
1
1
1
1
i

O
? O ? V` v N •r N O M .
•a O t `O

LA-

t
1
1

1
1
1 1
C ---? O O •mr Q O OO p
O O 1 ?
o.-. i O O O O O O ..r O .•-t ; M

X 1

1
1

J 33 cr-I
pp
p

J O O O O O O O O O It
N
1

1
• 1
1
N N CC! O f? O 'n

Z?? O O O ,O O O O O O ? N
/
a

1
o

1
1
t

1
1
1
1
N 1
1
v O O O O O
w4m- cpl v .

N i ^

¢
? 1
t
X 1
W 'I-
1
?
1
a!f W d O O M a,l? OO O OD O O t '.qr
<D lm_
N ?r
O
O
N Cyl
M
Q
oD
W
N
?
.?
j
N
' .
t
N
Q O
=
O
D
1

1
'
OD 1 00

o.- c=p L9
O
rr
P
Q . 1 M
J O 1
d 1
1
p
1
Q
W 1
t

m , J

Q 00
U
D
W
LL
C7
=.
a-t
?.
O

CALCULATION
PROJECT C fi y -Of 1.7,71 0r PROJ. NO.
CUEW DATE 3
SUBJECT t'XIS7,146 ?,pr ?F c DES. BY /
CHK. BY
• Pr11C:llltl
fir= '?:P.::b1ErZ Sc
_ NEt DES/b+l!
06Alrl f fLOw _: Y _ Fix
?yZ c?ct1.- - -
A
04 i TO?! Z p
--..30n
C •
r
J._1. .!y _: 30
32
r i

JOAF- i .
vx,lf'F4

REMARKS
MM]M&CZED
y s `` CALCULATION
PROJECT 1T7 at AMROC PROJ.N0.
CLIENT I CN. ??' c??±? CV 7 f-, t l DATE
.: SUBJECT f z 1??? ATE S i E , lA9Tc c ?E E? Pf DES. BY ?j
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REMARKS
. % ri Tf Ft Otnls rt?GA1 f T0.....
..
t elf T
^a

2,1

5,12 < I.

9
'

t .
J
Aw. 1V1`1V1V1C.'3L.RGGL.I

CALCULATION
PROJECT 071 AON,Qy PROJ. NO.
CLIENT DATE
s/
SUBJECT RELDC A%t <1fP_1_ 0h, F40W DES. BY
. CHK. BY
N-fl(4 -t f (-aWS fib o/e c

Nt:'f X916
Clow
NEW
kAftccL -
/ ALfgutr
SCOPE .ALT,
PRt1L"t
? oc-4 i FucL S1-oPE )f 4m . .

1

1-J4 9... 42

73,1

1

REMARKS
IVxIQM&CRE8D

N

A
CRM
O MEW
D
1 1 11 V 1V
V
'

O iH EPHOPE

MI EERS O FHA REFaORf

PLANERS 0 CONFERENCE
' SURVEYORS DME: TME:
AUTHOR:

PROJECT. C I T E OF
Af 6 R 0
CLIENT-
sue, tr: EX 1- T/A1 G FL O L?l t M A N? PROJ
NO
-
,

` ZP0Gf)A 4sGn cr)q yOf.4
c1 ! ?
?
?
?rtK '
7flfia

vc?(,?w/
AcfiES •
fill rt
Lo cJ, - i
. rzsrJ : -

-
- 42 1 .r is 3
; -- - -
1

71
/VF
3

-? -r 17- --- - --= -- - ' ?
-
_
-
-

. .1 3
-
---1Q -

?. ----
240
S
o
s' ---

..
..
' } ' .' 1
1

3$ __ _4

t 1 ° ? ( j 1 I f ? i I ! i
NFKIN4&CREOD o MEMO
44 AW", o 7ELEPHONE
1
ENGINEERS O FN3D REPORT
PLANNERS 0 CONFERENCE
1 SURVEYORS DATE: 71ME:
AUTHOR:
1 PROJEM - CLIENT:
SURJECr: EfiILTMIG C [ %Iv6 FLD S PROD. NO.
1 _ E? rrPE - -- -
'D iE.1 16 A
[OCgTId.j rtc o ?!A .9 ?,.. ?•
A
2? 3.0 - __-_- -- ---___--
?? o
Z.1 ?t
b r 4 j0,f
?I 7I 4r 6, j R P DACE M IMI
I ,
4.1 - - em! Cg
30" 5?
14.1
Z s 30... a>..1 arc c ; p t
Pt Atir
k

1
1
CALCULATION
PROJECT C!T V Or- ?IO.d/iDE PROD. NO.
CUENT - DATE_
SUBJECT C N? / H S DES. BY
&r l AVrl(I7 CHKBY

-;-- ? -- _-1 ' i REMARKS

` -? to' owe
It
o

f ( Z v .

-
i ?
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c re
1
1
1
1
1
CALCULATION
PROJECT Af ti ROB -1w-WT" PROD. NO.
CLIENT DATE
SUBJECT UNION CO clot/! A F Q WS DES. BY
JA/To pLlVJT CHK. BY
NFKIM&C?=

APPENDIX C
COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVES
& MMQM&CRFM
' s16.66H
RICHARDSON'S CREEK OUTFALL
' ._.':" MON.R --E
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS 8127/92
BASE ALTERNATE W/ INVERTED SIPHON CROSSING
' 20-k- PROJECTED-50% FULL FLOW
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
PRICE TOTAL
PRICE

' 1. 60' RCP OR DIP L.F. 100 1185.00 $18,500.00
00-:11! IUD)
' 2. 60' RCP OR DIP
INVERTED SIPHON L.S. 1 $50;000.00 : $50,000.00

3. 54' RCP OR DIP
(0'-8' DEEP) L.F. 6,490 1130.00 $843,700.00
4. 4' RCP OR DIP L. F. 5,020 $105.00 $527,100.00
DEE:
5. 42' RCP OR DIP L.F. 2,750 $90.00 $247,500.00
' (01-8' DEEP)
5. 20' RCP OR DIP L.F. 12,665 $70.00 $886,550.00
• (0'-S" DEEP)
7 30'
P
. RCP OR DI L.F. 1.400 $85.00 $119r'000.00
i8'-12' DEEP)
8. 30' RCP OR DIP L.F. 575 $100.00 $57,500.00
(121-16' DEEP)
'
9.
30 RCP OR DIP
, -.
-
2
00 $1t.0.00
:
$.1,000.00
(15'-18' DEEP)
' 10. 24° RCP OR DIP L... 3,355 $60.00 $201,300.00
(0'-e' DEEP)
21. 24' RCP OR DIP L. F. 11100 $66.00 $74,800.00
' (12'-26' DEEP)

' 12. 8' PVC
(0'-8' DEEP) L.F. 4,400 $23.00 $101,200.00
TO STEWARTS CREEK.
' 13. EROSION CONTROL L.S. 1 $95,000.00 $95,000.00
1

14. 48" TUNNELLING L.F. 150 $450.00 $67,500.00
15. 60' TUNNELLING L.F. 150 $750.00 $112,500.00
16. 4' MANHOLES EA. 63 $2,000.00 $126,000.00
17. 5' MANHOLES EA. 21 $2,700.00 $56,700.00
18. 6' MANHOLES EA. 15 $3,000.00 $45,000.00
19. 54' x 48" TES EA 6 $3,500.00 $28,000.00
20. ASPHALT REPAIR S.Y. 2,000 $25.00. $50,000.00
21. INTERCONNECTIONS EA. 8 $5,000.00 $40,000.00
22. SEEDING AND CLEANUP LS 1 $ 160,000.00 $160,000.00
SUB-TOTAL $3,918,850.00
CONTINGENCY $783,770.00
TOTAL COSST. COSTS $4,702,620.00
ENGR., ADMIN., & LEGAL $705,400.00
RIGHT-OF-W $100,000.00
PROJECT TOTAL $5,508,020.00

r
i
i
i
RICHARDSON'S CREEK OUTFALL
CITY Or MONROE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS 8/31192
BASE ALTERNATE W/ SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING
20-YR PROJECTED
ITEM ESTIPATED UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION--- UNIT QUANTITY PRICE PRICE
1. 54' RCP OR DIP L.F. 150 $130.00 $19,500.00

2. 54' RCP OR DIP L.S. 1 $50,000.00: $50.000.00
INVERTED SIPHON
3. 48' RCP OR DIP L. F. 11.510 $105.00 $1,208,550.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
4. 42' RCP OR DIP L. F. 2,750 $90.00 $247,500.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
5. 30' RCP OR DIP L.F. 12,665 $70.00 $886,550.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
6. 30' RCP OR DIP !.?. 1,400 185.00 (119,000.00
(81-12' DEEP)
7. 30' RCP OR DIP L. F. 575 $100.00 $57,500.00
(121-16' DEEP)
8. 30' RCP OR DIP L. F. 100 $110.00 $11,000.00
(161-18' DEEP)
9. 24' RCP OR DIP L.F. 3,355 $60.00 $201,300.00
(01-8' DEEP) -
10. 24' RCP OR DIP L.F. 1,100 - $68.00 $74,600.00
(121-16' DEEP)
11. 8' PVC L.F. 4,400 $23.00 $101,200.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
TY STEMAM- RcE
12. EROSION CONTROL ?.5. 1 $95,000.00 $95,000.00
13. 48' TUNNELLING L.F. 150 $450.00 $67,500:00
14. 60' TUNNELLING L. F. 150 $750.00 $112,500.00
}
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
40-
15. 4' MANHOLES EA. 63 $2,000.00 $126,000.00
16. 5' MANHOLES EA. 21 $2,700.00 $56,700.00
17. 6' MANHOLES EA. 15 $3,000.00 $45,000.00
18. ASPHALT REPAIR S.Y. 1,500 $25.00 $37,500.00
19. INTERCONNECTIONS EA. 8 $5,000.00 $40,040.00
20. ROCK EXCAVATION C. Y. 5000 :1 !+?, `0
21. SEEDING & CLEANUP L.S. 1 $160,000,00: $160,000.00
SUB-TOTAL $4.211,100.00
CONTINGENCY $943,420.00
TOTAL CONTT. COSTS $5,1160,520.00
ENGR., ADMIN.. & LEGAL $159,100.00
xIGHT-OF-NAY $100,000.00
PROJECT TOTAL $5,919,620.00

t
s16.66H
1
i
RICHARDSON'S CREEK OUTFALL
CITY OF MONROE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS 8/31/92
ALTERNATE W/ INVERTED SIPHON CROSSING & RELOCATED STEVARTS CREEK P.S. TIE
20-YR PROJECTED
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE PRICE
1. 60' RCP OR DIP L.F. 100 $185.00 $18,500.00
(01-$' DEEP!
2. 60' RCP OR DIP L. S. i $50.000.00'. $50,000.00
INVERTED SIPHON
3. 54' RCP OR DIP L.F. 6,490 $130.00 $843,700.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
4. 48' RCP OR DIP L.F. 5,020 $305.00 #521,100.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
5. 36' RCP-OR DIP L. F. 2,750 $82.00 $225,500.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
6. 30' RCP OR DIP L.=. 12,565 $70.00 $886,550.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
7. 30' RCP OR DIP L.F. 1,400 $65.00 $119,000.00
(81-12' DEEP)
8. 30' RCP OR DIP L.F. 575 $100.00 $57.500.00
(121-16' DEEP)
9. 30' RCP OR DIP L.F. 100 $110.00 = $33.000.00
(161-18' DEEP)
30. 24' RCP OR Dir" .F. 3,355 $60.00 $201,300.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
11. 24' RCP OR DIP L.=. 1.100 $68.00 $74,800.00
(121-16' DEEP)
12. 12' PVC L.F. 4.400 $25.00 $110,000.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
RELOCATE STEW. CRK TIE
13. 12' FORCE MAIN L.F. 1000 $18.00 $18,000.00
RELOCATE STEW. CRK, TIE

14. EROSION CONTROL L.S.
' '
15. 48
TUNNELLING L.F.
' 16. 50' TUNNELLING L.F.
17. 4' MANHOLES EA.
' 18. 5' MANHOLES EA.
19. 6' MANHOLES EA.
' '
0
20. 54
# 48
TEES EA
' 21. ASPHALT REPAIR S.Y.
22. INTERCONNECTIONS EA.
' 23. SEEDING AND CLEANUP L.S.

1 $95.000.00 $95,000.00
150 $450.00 (67,500.00
150 $750.00 $112,500.00
63 $2,000.00 $126,000.00
21 12,700.00 $56,700.00
15 $3,000.00 $45,000.00
f $3.5:*,i.00 $ 3'000.0.0
1,500 $25.00 $37,500.00
8 $5,000.00 $40,000.00
1 $160,000.00 $160,000.00
SUB-TOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COSST. COSTS
ENGR., ADMIN., & LEGAL
R16HT-OF-WAY
PROJECT TOTAL
$3,911,150.00
$782,230.00
$4,693,380.00
-------------
$704,000.00
$110,000.00
$5,507,380.00

_i
RICHARDSON'S-CREEK OUTFALL
CITY OF MONROE
OPINION OF PROBABLE CELTS 8/31/92
ALTERNATE W/ SUBAQUEOUS CROSSING A RELOCATED STEVARTS CREEK F.S. TIE
20-YP PROJECTED
ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT TOTAL
QESGRiPTiOR 4 T QUANTITY PRICE PRICE
1. 54' RCP OR DIP _.?. 100 $130.00 $13,000.00
(or-4f Dp-p,
2. 54' RCP OR DIP i. S. 1 S50,000.00: $50,000.00
INVERTED SIPHON
3. 48' RCP OR DIP L.F. 6,490 $105.00 $681,450.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
4. 42' RCP OR DIP .;. 5,020 $90.00 $451,800.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
5. 36' RCP OR DIP L.F. 2,750 $82.00 $225,500.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
6. 30' RCP OR DIP 12,665 $70.00 $886,550.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
7. 30' RCP OR DIP 'L.F. 1,400 $85.00 $119,000.00
(81-12' DEEP)
8. 30' RCP OR DIP L.F. 575 $100.00 $57,500.00
(121-16' DEEP)
9. 30' RCP OR DIP L.F. 100 $110.00 $11,000.00
(16'-18' DEEP)
10. 24' RCP OR DIP _.". 3,355 $60.00 $201,300.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
11. 24' RCP DR DIP L.F. 1,100 $68.00 $74,800.00
(121-16' DEEP;
12. 12' PVC 4400 $25.00 $110,000.00
(0'-8' DEEP)
RELOCATE STEW. CRK TIE
13. 12' FORCE MAIN 1000 $18.00 $18,000.00
RELOCATE STEW. CRK TIE

'
14. EROSIBN CDKTROL
' 15. 48' TUNNELLING
16. 609 TUNNELLING
' 17. 4' MANHOLES
18. 5' MANHOLES
19 6' MANHOLES
.
' 20. ASPHALT REPAIR
21. INTERCONNECTIONS
' 22. ROCK EXCAVATION
23. SEEDING AND CLEANUP

1
L.S. 1 $95,000.00 495.000.00
L.F. ISO $450.00 $61.500.00
L.F. 150 $750.00 $112.500.00
EA. $2,000.00 $126,000.00
EA. 21 $2,100.00 $56.700.00
EA. 15 $3;000.00 $45,000.00
S.Y. 1,500 $25.00. $37.500.00

.
EA.
L
S5, O
CIO ,
$40.000.00
G.Y. 5000 $100.00 $500.000.00
L.S. 1 $160,000.00 $160,000.00
SUB-TOTAL $4,140,100.00
CONTINGENCY $828,000.00
TOTAL CON ST. COSTS $4,468.100.00
ENGR., 0NIK, n LLEneL $745,200.00
Ri6itT-OF-WAY ' $110.040.00
PROJECT TOTAL $5,823.300.00
t,

i

1
E
1

7

_ CALCULATION
PROJECT t?Af?%SGN CRfZ PROJ. NO.
CLIENT DATE
DES. BY
SUBJECT
CHK. 8Y
_

r

ell

tom! l!J Q

v o crk o
N
r
CIO z
r

y
U) Q ?

N ?
NJ ?
l0 cr
CC` Ta
fw

'
• QN. N ?o
1 ? ?

Ll -Lrl a
W ? N ti

w
41
-zm
T
n
C
Z
b

REMARKS
44 Aov;;-?r, 1V1-1V1v1& C jZ EM
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX D
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1VMM&CREM
i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
BEARSKIN/RICHARDSON CREEK
INTERCEPTOR LINE
UNION COUNTY, CITY OF MONROE
J U LY/1992
Prepared By:
Margaret Gray
McKim & Creed Engineers, P.A.
243 North Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
M&C# 0458.0004
919/343-1048
McMM&CRUD

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section.
1. Project Description and Purpose
II. Existing Environment
A. Topography
B. Soils
C. Land Use
D. Ground Waters
E. Surface Waters
III. Need
IV. Alternative Analysis
V. Envi ronmental Consequences
A. Changes in Land Use
B. Wetlands
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
D. Public Lands
E. Scenic and Recreational Lands
F. Historic and Archaeological Sites
G. Air Quality
H. Groundwater Quality
1. Noise Levels
J. Water Supplies
K. Fish and Their Habitat
L. Wildlife and Their Habitat
M. Flora and Their Habitat
N. Introduction of Toxic Substances
0. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
VI. Mitigative Measures
Pane
1
1 -2
2
2-3
3-6
6-7
McfJM&CREM
i
i
i
VII. Comments and Coordination
A. Interagency Coordination
B. Written Comments Received
VIII. Appendices
A. Flora Environmental Assessment
B. Invertebrate Assessment (classes Amphibia & Aves)
C. Inventory of Molluscan Species
D. Fishes & Water Quality Assessment
IX. Figures
A. Vicinity Map
B. Topographic Map Index
C. Corridor Route/Topographic Maps
D. Aerial Map Index
E. Corridor Route/Aerial Maps
F. Restoration/Mitigation Plan
8
Mq<M&CRffD

' I. Proiect Description an
and Purpose
The Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor Line project involves the extension of
' large diameter pipe to provide adequate flow capacity for 4600 acres of recently
annexed property for the City of Monroe. Presently large diameter pipe is located
on the southeastern bank of the Bearskin/Richardson Creeks. However, it will not
' accommodate the anticipated additional flow.
Consequently 35,000 linear feet of pipe ranging in size from 24" to 54" diameter
is proposed, predominately along the northwestern bank of the
Bearskin/Richardson Creeks. Three stream crossings are anticipated. Two will
be designed as above grade crossings. One, due to pipe size, will be buried
' below the channel bed. This will occur at the final crossing adjacent to the
wastewater treatment facility. The project will begin within the City of Monroe in
the vicinity of Allen Street and extend east to its terminus at the City's wastewater
L treatment facility.
1 II. Existing Environment
A. Topography: Elevations within the project corridor vary from 460 feet to
560 feet above mean sea level. Slopes vary dramatically from 1:25 to 2:1
along the creek banks. The average slope along the creek itself averages
0.2%.
B. Soils: The predominate soils are Chewacla and Badin. Chewacla is the
' major soils series occurring within the flood plain of the creeks. Urban
complex series adjacent to the flood plain include Badin and Cid. Small
pockets of Goldston occur as well.
' C. Land Use: Approximately 6000 linear feet of the project corridor occurs
' within the City of Monroe. This area is well developed. The remaining
23000 linear feet of the project corridor occurs along an undeveloped
floodway. The area is heavily wooded with minimal agricultural use.
&,,McMM&CF-,EM

D. Ground Waters: Regionally the project corridor is mapped as
Metamudstone or Meta-Argillite - Cid Formation. (Reference "Geologic Map
of North Carolina
1985")
The Tuffaceaus Ar
illite Unit is referenced
,
.
g
because it has similar hydrologic characteristics. (Reference "Geology and
' Ground-Water Resources of the Monroe Area, 1965").
The Tuffaceaus Argillite Aquifer has a general yield of 0.11 gallons per foot
of well drilled. The range of capacities is from 0.5 gallons per minute to 200
gallons per minute. Present water needs for the City of Monroe are met by
surface waters from three City-owned reservoirs in and around the City, and
a few individual wells.
E. Surface Waters: The project corridor follows a portion of Bearskin Creek
to its confluence with Richardson Creek. It then follows Richardson Creek
' and discharges into the City's wastewater treatment facility.
The water supply source for the City is Lake Twitty which is located on
Stewarts Creek. The confluence of Stewarts Creek with Richardson Creek
is approximately 3.5 miles downstream from the wastewater treatment plant.
The intake for the filtration plant is located on Stewarts Creek upstream
t from this confluence.
'
Ill. Need
With recent approvals of the collection sewers for the Northwestern Corridor
Annexation Areas the need for additional capacity is imminent.
' The land use and development objectives for the City were endorsed by consent
to annex additional area. These objectives cannot be fulfilled through the use of
septic tanks. Major concerns with the use of septic tanks and pressures for local
package treatment plants could be ameliorated.
The proposed interceptor line would be environmentally prudent and would
facilitate serving present and future needs.
' IV. Alternative Analysis
' The two alternatives are to take no action at all or to proceed with the interceptor
' line as proposed.
' 2
At?

n

t

The "No Action Alternative" would leave the Northwestern Corridor Annexation
Area inoperable due to the current lack of capacity. This is not desirable from an
environmental or financial outlook. Environmentally it would not meet state design
criteria. Financially it would result in costly infrastructure improvements which
could not be fully utilized. In addition portions of Richardson Creek outfall
experience surcharging during periods of peak flow. A negative potential exists
which could impact the environment.
The "Proactive Alternative" would include construction of the interceptor line.
Conversely this choice is desirable from an environmental and financial outlook.
Environmentally the use, and often time failures of septic tanks would be
eliminated. Also, the state design criteria could be met and the recent investment
on infrastructure improvements could be fully utilized.
V. Environmental Consequences
A. Changes in Land Use: The subsequent change in land use would not occur
within the project area. Basically it would be temporarily altered for a 40'
wide utility corridor with a permanent construction easement limited to 10'.
A more significant change would occur within the annexed area wherein
single family, commercial and institutional uses could occur in accordance
with the City's development guidelines.
B. Wetlands: Wetlands within the project corridor are associated fringe
wetlands of Bearskin and Richardson Creek.
An investigation of preliminary SCS soil maps show the drainage ways
dominated by Chewacla Soil Series. Although Chewacla is not listed as a
hydric soil it is described as a poorly drained soil on flood plains. Chewacla
soils are flooded frequently for very brief periods. Depth to seasonal high
water table is about 1-1/2 feet.
The fringe wetlands do not run the full length of these creeks. Some
urbanization has occurred which has altered the wetlands. In other
instances the bank side slopes are so severe both the hydrology and
organic soils are absent.
Wetlands which will be impacted occur in the broader flood plain areas. In
accordance with the Corp of Engineers General Permit for Subaqueous
Utility lines a maximum corridor width of 40' with a 10' permanent
construction easement will be adhered to. Finish elevations will be restored
back to pre-existing conditions and erosion control measures will be utilized

3
McK M&CREED

as directed by State requirements. In addition a 401 Water Quality
Certification will be obtained.
Wetlands will suffer a temporary loss of function until construction is
complete. 6,030 LF of wetlands will be effected with a 40' corridor. Of this
30' (4.15 Ac) will be temporarily disturbed and 10' (1.38 Ac.) will be
permanently altered for purposes of a construction access easement.
Based on 35,000 total linear feet 17% traverses wetland areas. The
magnitude of impacts are categorized temporary disturbance and
permanent disturbance as noted above.
The waters of Bearskin and Richardson Creeks are not subject to the ebb
and flow of tide. Nor are they presently used or have been used in the past
for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Therefore a Section 10
1 from the Corp of Engineers will not be applied for as it pertains to the aerial
stream crossings.
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands: The interceptor line is proposed along
a creek bank. Agricultural lands will remain essentially uneffected as the
majority are located further upland than the proposed routing.
D. Public Lands: There are no existing public lands that will be adversely
effected by this project.
E. Scenic and Recreational Lands: There are no areas designated as scenic
or recreational that will be adversely effected by this project.
F. Historic and Archaeological Sites: Agency response provided in Section VII.
No known archaelogical resources will be adversely effected by this project.
G. Air Quality: The majority of the interceptor line will be located underground
' assuring minimal air emissions. Stream crossings located above grade will
be through the use of ductile iron pipe in keeping with State standards.
Very little,if any, odors will be emitted into the air.

H. Groundwater Quality: Ultimately the project would improve groundwater
conditions as the volume of septic tank discharges would decline.
Otherwise no adverse impacts will result from this project.
1. Noise Levels: Associated construction noise will result from this project.
More than 80% of the corridor is located in an undeveloped stream terrace
resulting in negligible impacts to businesses or residences.
i
4
McK M&CREM

11

J. Water Supplies: The water supply for the City of Monroe is Lake Twitty
which is located on Stewarts Creek. The intake for the filtration plant is
located upstream from the project corridor and ultimate discharge. Quantity
and recharge will not be effected.
K. Fish and Their Habitat: Several invertebrate species are listed as
potentially occurring in Union County. The endangered Carolina Heelsplitter
and special concern species Eastern Fatmucket and Carolina Darter are all
receiving our attention as is the "State" threatened Savannah Lilliput. A
field survey was conducted to ascertain their presence. No endangered
species were found. The special concern Carolina Heelsplitter was not
found. Limited remnants of the special concern, Eastern Fatmucket and
"State" threatened Savannah Lilliput were observed. Refer to the appendix
for a copy of these reports. In the event of their presence habitat protection
will be provided through the use of erosion control measures and an
undisturbed bank buffer.
L. Wildlife and Their Habitat: Several vertebrate species are listed as
potentially occuring in Union County. Special concern species are listed as
the following; Mole Salamander, Snowy Egret, Little Blue Heron, Glossy
Ibis, Black Vulture, Cooper's Hawk, Northern Saw-whet Owl, Olive-Sided
Flycatcher, Golden-Crowned Kinglet, Loggerhead Shrike, Migrant
Loggerhead Shrike and Bachman's sparrow. Endangered species are listed
as the following; Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and Appalachian Bewick's
Wren.
All of these species are receiving our attention. A field survey was
conducted to ascertain their presence. No endangered, threatened, special
concern, or status review species were found. Refer to the appendix for
this report.
Habitat protection will be provided through minimizing the disturbed corridor
width to 40'. Of this only 10' will be maintained as a permanent
construction easement, the remaining 30' will be temporarily seeded with
annual millet to allow for non-competitive revegetation.
M. Flora and Their Habitat: Several plant species are listed as potentially
occuring in Union County. State listing candidates include Georgia Aster,
Smooth Blue Aster and Piedmont Aster. Endangered species includes the
Schweinitz's Sunflower.
All of these species are receiving our attention. A field survey was
conducted to ascertain their presence. No endangered species were found.
The Piedmont Aster, State listing candidate, was observed along a western
5
McK M&C UD
n
ridge area where Richardson Creek flows south to north. Refer to appendix
for this report.
In regard to the sightings of the Piedmont Aster we propose to have the
plants dug and relocated. Although this species is only listed as "special
' concern" we would like to give it due consideration.
We will request early coordination with N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission and U. S. Fish and Wildlife to ascertain the best course of
action. Dr. Jim Matthews suggests these hardy perennials can be
' transplanted in the fall. To accommodate this schedule a group field visit will
be coordinated during the month of August with a course of action set to
transplant in October/92.
It should be noted that consideration was given to re-locate the interceptor
on the opposite bank. This presents a problem with encroachment into the
existing interceptor corridor area. Two additional aerial stream crossings
would be required and blasting adjacent to this interceptor would introduce
safety and environmental concerns.
Our alignment will be approximately two feet deeper than the current line.
Blasting in a shared zone could result in cave-ins and ruptured lines.
Consequently relocating the plants results in the safest course of action.
N. Introduction of Toxic Substances: The collected wastewater will be treated
' at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. Effluent discharges will be
monitored and regulated by the State.
0. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters: Providing public sewers will decrease
the euthrophic process by eliminating malfunctioning septic tanks.
Wastewater and associated dissolved nutrients will be transported and
disposed of in accordance with the City's NPDES permit requirements
VI. Mitigative Measures
In order to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts we propose the
following:
t Where wetlands are transeoted limit the corridor to 40' in width of which
only 10' will be maintained as a permanent construction easement. The
remaining 30' will be temporarily seeded with annual millet to allow for
natural revegetation. Finish elevations will be restored back to pre-existing

6
A&P
Mq(U\4&CRUD

conditions and erosion control measures will be utilized as directed by State
standards. Temporary sidecast of trench material will not exceed 3 months.
The top 12" of the trench will be backfilled with topsoil from the trench.
Excess material will be removed to upland areas. No hydrologic
interference will occur.
Where mollusk or fishery habitat areas exist provide a 50' undisturbed
buffer along the creek bank. This will be accomodated by adhering to a 65'
offset from the top of the bank to center of interceptor line. Actually this
buffer will be maintained the full length of the corridor. In addition erosion
control features will be in place to prevent the threat of siltation.
Wildlife habitat areas will be preserved by limiting the disturbed corridor
area to 40' in width. As mentioned earlier 30' of this corridor will return to
its natural state by allowing for revegetation. 10' will be maintained as a
permanent construction easement with controlled and limited access.
Herbicides and pesticides will not be used as part of the maintenance
program. In addition land clearing and construction will be synchronized to
minimize disruption to wildlife during their breeding season. No activities
will occur during the months of April through July.
The special concern, Piedmont Aster will be transplanted directly to a
suitable site during the Fall/92. A suitable site will be determined by the
collective efforts of N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, U. S. Fish &
Wildlife and Dr. Jim Matthews. This will ensure preservation.
1

Stream crossings have been minimized as practical. Some connections to
the existing interceptor are required to facilitate a workable design.
Two crossings will be above grade. Care will be taken to ensure that
concrete is not discharged into the waters and erosion control measures
utilized.
One crossing will require an open cut channelization. Due to the size of the
pipe, 60", it cannot be suspended without conflicting with the flow course of
Richardson Creek at high flows. To minimize impacts a coffer dam will be
located upstream, banks will be stabilized, erosion control measures utilized
and construction completion will occur within 7 days. This crossing will
occur at the wastewater treatment plant where habitat areas have already
responded to mans encroachment, i.e. not a pristine environment.
7
j McM M&CRFFD

' VII. Comments and Coordination
A. Interagency Coordination: Agencies consulted include the following:
' North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives &
History - requested project input, response attached.
' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission - requested approval of
individuals retained to conduct various field surveys. Also requested
' endangered and threatened species information for the Union County area.
Corp of Engineers, Regulatory Branch - filed permit application for NWP12
for Utility Line Backfill and Bedding.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Planning - filed
permit application for 401 Water Quality Certification.
B. Written Comments Received: Follow this section as separate attachments.

8
%/ McMM& CREM
fl

11

11
t

VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
McKIM&CREM

1

DESCRIPTION OF STATUS CMES
Designation Description
LE or E Endangered Sc Special Comm
(State only)
LT or T Threatened
Species listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern are granted protection under the North Carolina
Endangered Species Act (N.C.B.S. t 113 Article 25) or, for federally listed endangered and threatened species,
under the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Designation Description
C1 USFWS has substantial data supporting listing as endangered or threatened but
proposed rules are not yet issued, though such rules are anticipated.
C2 USFWS reviewing status of species.
C3 USFWS reviewed status and found not needing federal protection.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ((!SEWS) and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NOM encourage your
consideration of federally designated Cl and C2 species in environental planning.
Designation Description
PE Proposed for endangered status.
PT Proposed for threatened status.
PSC Proposed for special concern status (state only).
Species proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern are not granted protection under the
North Carolina Endangered Species Act (N.C.B.S. i 113 Article 25). The KM encourages your consideration of
these species in environmental planning.
Designation Description
SR Significantly Rare. tw Unknown Status.
These species are designated by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Progrw as Significantly Rare or of Unknown
Status. These designations are not defined in legislation. The NCWRC encourages your consideration of these
species in environmental planning.

DESCRIPTION OF OCCURRENCE CUES
Y Present year-round and breeds in the county.
N Present year-round in the county, but does not
breed.
t3 Present only as a breeding resident in the county.
W Present only as a winter resident or visitor in
the county.
T Present only as a transient or non-breeding summer
resident in the county.

I
STATE & FEDERALLY LISTED VERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN UNION COUNTY
IEDERAL STATE OCCUR.
STATUS STATUS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME CODE
SC MOLE SALAMANDER
SR AMERICAN BITTERN
SC SNOWY EGRET
' SC LITTLE. BLUE HERON
SC GLOSSY IBIS
SC BLACK VULTURE
SR MISSISSIPPI KITE
IE E BALD EAGLE
SR NORTHERN HARRIER
SR
SC SHARP-SHINNED HAWK
COOPERS HAWK
SR GOLDEN EAGLE
LE E PEREGRINE FALCON
SR BLACK RAIL
SR PURPLE GALLINULE
SR CASPIAN TERN
SR BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO
' SC NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL
SR YELLOW-BELLIED SAPSUCKER
' SC
SR OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER
ALDER FLYCATCHER
SR BANK SWALLOW
SR COMMON RAVEN
E APPALACHIAN BEWICKIS WREN
SC GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET
SR HERMIT THRUSH
SC
SC LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE
MIGRANT LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE
SR WARBLING VIREO
SR BLUE-WINGED WARBLER
SR MAGNOLIA WARBLER
SR CERULEAN WARBLER
C2 Sc BACHMAN'S SPARROW
SR SAVANNAH SPARROW
SR HENSLOWIS SPARROW
SC CAROLINA DARTER

AMBYSTOMA TALPOIDEUM Y
BOTAURUS LENTIGINOSUS T
EGRETTA THULA T
EGRETTA CAERULEA T
PLEGADIS FALCINELLUS T
CORAGYPS ATRATUS Y
ICTINIA MISSISSIPPIENSIS T
HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS T
CIRCUS CYANEUS W
ACCIPITER STRIATUS Y
ACCIPITER COOPERII Y
AQUILA CHRYSAETOS W
FALCO PEREGRINUS W
LATERALLUS JAMAICENSIS T
PORPHYRULA MARTINICA T
STERNA CASPIA T
COCCYZUS ERYTHROPTHALMUS T
AEGOLIUS ACADICUS W
SPHYRAPICUS VARIUS W
CONTOPUS BOREALIS T
EMPIDONAX ALNORUM T
RIPARIA RIPARIA T
CORVUS CORAX T
THRYOMANES BEWICKII ALTUS T
REGULUS SATRAPA W
CATHARUS GUTTATUS W
LANIUS LUDOVICIANUS LUDOVICIAN Y
LANIUS LUDOVICIANUS MIGRANS W
VIREO GILVUS T
VERMIVORA PINUS T
DENDROICA MAGNOLIA T
DENDROICA CERULEA T
AIMOPHILA AESTIVALIS T
PASSERCULUS SANDWICHENSIS W
AMMODRAMUS HENSLOWII T
ETHEOSTOMA COLLIS Y
L N .C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
GAME & ENDANGERED WILDLIFE PROGRAM
05 FEB 1992 1

'STATE & FEDERALLY LISTED INVERTEBRATE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN UNION COUNTY
FEDERAL STATE OCCUR.
STATUS STATUS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME CODE

Le T ATLANTIC PIGTOE FUSCONAIA MASONI Y
C2 E CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER LASMIGONA DECORATA Y
' T SQUAWFOOT STROPHITUS UNDULATUS Y
T YELLOW LAMPMUSSEL LAMPSILIS CARIOSA Y
C2 T BROOK FLOATER ALASMIDONTA VARICOSA Y

F2 SC
T EASTERN FATMUCKET
SAVANNAH LILLIPUT LAMPSILIS RADIATA
TOXOLASMA PU Y
LLUS Y
I
1 N.C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
NONGAME & ENDANGERED WILDLIFE PROGRAM
f 5 FEB 1992 1

I

STATE AND FEDERALLY LISTED PLANT SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE
MONROE AREA OF UNION COUNTY
' GEORGIA ASTER (ASTER GEORGIANUS) - CANDIDATE FOR STATE LISTING
SMOOTH BLUE ASTER (ASTER LAEVIS VAR. CONCINNUS) - CANDIDATE FOR STATE
LISTING
L PIEDMONT ASTER (ASTER MIRABILIS) - CANDIDATE FOR STATE LISTING
t SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER (HELIANTHUS SCHWEINITZII) - STATE LISTED
ENDANGERED AND FEDERAL Cl SPECIES

DATA PROVIDED FROM N.C. NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM DATA FILES
N.C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
NONGAME & ENDANGERED WILDLIFE PROGRAM
05 FEB 1992 1

I
McKIM&CREBD
i
To LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
1
Drl s,otJ v? ??i2crV?b s 41s?
1 ?
DATE l e
ATTENTI ? /
LL
RE:
t?
G
,( _ 54
i? .
GENTLEMEN:
1 WE ARE SENDING YOU CQA#act5ed C Under separate oover via
? Shop drawings,+ ? Prints C Originals u Samples
Quan. Dwg. No. Description
1
? D/J s c N A-t
1
the following items:
? Specifications
Status
I
Status Code: A. Approved C. Rejected-Re-submit
B. Approved as noted D. Revise and Re-submit
REMARKS ?? ?.AQ 0 /%-Q( I) .P Lkr
1 _
?OA
1
1 _
w
1
E. For your information
F. Refer to remarks
I
d
Q/) 243 NORTH FRONT ST. WILMINGTON, NC 28401 9191343-1048
CC: MCKIM & CREED E GINEERS, PA
1 SIGNED
1
1
1

H

0

Received By
s
JUL 16 1992
McKim & Creed Engineer
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 10, 1992
Margaret Gray
McKim & Creed Engineers, PA
243 North Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Re: Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor,
Union County, ER 92-8524
Dear Ms. Gray:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 18, 1992, concerning the above
project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed
project area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be
affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection
with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the.Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have
' questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee
Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
' Sincerely,
' David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
K . 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

McK11\4&CRUD
To t
Q<3 Cli-_ F 2s
Gov rt q 6r fLo\?e
GENTLEMEN:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE ----
Z PROD.
,O
ATTENTION _
RE
G

' WE ARE SENDING YOU CLARd-ched E_ Under separate cover via
0 Shop drawings D Prints Z Originals
?er

Samples
the following items:
Q Specifications
Quan. Dwg. No. Description Status
1 K) a- P rT- PL

S N JIV& Z6-F r=. A,
GD

' Status Code: A. Approved
B. Approved as noted
REMARKS

C. Rejected-Re-submit
D. Revise and Re-submit
E. For your information
F. Refer to remarks
243 NORTH FRONT ST. WILMINGTON, NC 28401 919/343-1048
CC: ? o N-N boaosy /pmt ea MCKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, PA
SIGNED

i
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
REF: BEARSKIN/RICHARDSON CREEK . INTERCEPTOR
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
' NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890 NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890 P.O. BOX 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
t ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C: DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
' 1. OWNERS NAME: Ci t y of Monrc?
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: - po Rnx 69
Monma, N_C _ 28110
' 3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 704-283-9098
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:

' 5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP).
COUNTY: L1NTON
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: MCANRW..
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS
LANDMARKS
ETC
):
TTT
TTV
,
,.
.
[J
.
ADJAC` W In AT.T.F.N STREET THFN MT T,[YpS
RRARSKTN f? RT(?TARDSM rRF:F.KS rn WASTFWATF.R TRFATWNT F rTT TTY
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: RRARSKTN / RTMARDR(W
' 7. RIVER BASIN: YAnKTN - PRFTIF. F.
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES [ ] NO [X]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [. X]
' IF YES, EXPLAIN.
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
60.26
2/3/92
1
A
1
1
-2-
11. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED:
DRAINED: •FLOODED:
EXCAVATED: 5.53 _
TOTAL IMPACTED:5.53
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS): SrTRA<xiF?x1S
[YrTT.TTY T.TNF. RAMPTT.T. & BEDDING
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: WASTFNATF.R mT.T.RC'TTnm TTar,RATiF. WTT14. NFW
TNTERC EPTnR LTNR
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. mT.Trr-rTrw i T&=C rnT TlYd Cq ov AiA ncn,%c , .. Tn.r ATM-1 A c• •.Tvr r
Kr: h: t3A('K 7C) 1-XTSTTW, GRADE, TOPMRSS W412"- NATIVE SOTT, T TMTT
C )RRTDOR Tn 40' WTTH 10-' ACY_F:SS RSMT Am NO HYDROTMUC TNT.RFFRFNC'F
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REGARDING THE PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [ ] NO [ ] N/A
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT?
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [ ] NO [ ] N/A
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
17. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY. ATTACHED AERIAL MAPS
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY.
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? IMAM. ?MWSTTTCNAT EVELOPID
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
DATE

7
H

VIII. APPENDICES
McKIM&CREM

I I

Environmental Assessment - Flora
Richardson/Bearskin Creeks Interceptor
I July 1992

Prepared for McKim and Creed
' by
James F. Matthews, Ph.D.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

11

Richardson/Bearskin Creeks Interceptor

a

1

Field work was performed on July 6, with two
investigators. The right of way was walked from the waste
water treatment plant to the end of the interceptor at Allen
St. and Charlotte Ave.
Known populations of Helianthus schweinitzii were
checked five days before the field work so as to know the
height of this species during the investigation.
Photocopies of herbarium specimens, with descriptions of the
vegetative features of the three species of asters written
on the sheets, provided reference data on: Aster georgianus
(Georgia aster), Aster laevis var. concinnus (Smooth blue
aster) and Aster mirabilis (Piedmont aster).
'rhe R/W leaves the WWTP, crosses Richardson Creek and
passes into a young flood plain forest dominated by Acer
negundo (Box elder) and Juglans nigra (Black walnut), with a
dense subcanopy of Ligustrum sinense (Privet). Turning
west, the R/W passes along the border of a cultivated field
and the same flood plain forest, crosses a small tributary
and along the border of a pasture. A wider flood plain is
present, dominated by Betula nigra (River birch), Carpinus
caroliniana (Ironwood) and Fraxinus pennsylvanica (Green ash).

2
The pasture continues along the edge of the flood plain.
The R/W crosses a small tributary and passes along the edge
of a corn field, crosses an old road bed and crosses a steep
hillside, lying N-S. There is little flood plain as the
hillside drops to the edge of the creek. The hillside is
dominated by Quercus alba (White oak), Q. rubra (Red oak),
Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow poplar), Carya glabra
(Pignut hickory), with an understory of Acer saccharum ssp.
floridanum (Southern sugar maple). One very large Pinus
taeda (Loblolly pine) of 43" dbh is on the bank of the creek.
This slope has a large population of Aster mirabilis, of
I at least 100 stems.
The hillside turns west and the population of aster
diminishes. The R/W crosses a small tributary and passes
into a disturbed flood plain, with a dry hillside above it.
'T'here are no asters on this hillside. The dominant
vegetation is smaller, more disturbed and the soil less
mesic. This disturbed floodplain, with the R/W passing along
it, continues all the way to the junction with Bearskin Creek.
The R/W turns along the north side of Bearskin Creek,
crosses a power line R/W and passes along an existing sewer
line R/W. On either side of the existing R/W is a young
forest dominated by Liriodendron tulipifera (yellow poplar)
and Liquidambar sytraciflua (Sweetgum). This situation is
maintained until the R/W passes under NC 200. After NC 200,

3
a the RW continues along the existing sewer line R/W until the
line loops back toward NC 200, where the existing sewer line
crosses from the north to the south bank. From this point
to the shopping center, the interceptor line passes along a
very disturbed flood plain on the north bank with no large
trees, except on the immediate creek bank. A very scrubby
and dense vegetative cover is present on the flood plain.
The interceptor R/W parallels an existing power line R/W
which may dictate some adjustments in alignment. The R/W
passes under the shopping center, continuing along the creek
on the north side, passing through disturbed open ground
that is commercially developed, crosses Stafford and Miller
Streets through urban open land, into a small park and under
Skyway Dr. From Skyway Dr. to Charlotte Ave., the R/W
passes behind the Farmers' Market and through another park.
There are no habitats for these species within the city.
I Results of the Field Work
There were no sightings of Helianthus schweinitzii,
Aster georgianus or Aster laevis var. concinnus. The large
population of Aster mirabilis warrants consideration of
alternatives. These appear to be:
1. Since it is only a species of concern and is only a
1 candidate for state listing, the population can be ignored
and the interceptor line placed as planned. The habitat is
such that the entire hillside will have to be removed, thus
L

4

[J
A

destroying the population and the habitat that supports it.
2. The population could be transplanted since the species is
a perennial. If construction will begin during the summer,
the plants will have to be dug, cut back, potted and watered
in a botanical garden. Later, they may be replanted in a
more suitable site. If the population will not be disturbed
until the fall, the plants could be transplanted directly
into another site in the wild, but one comparable in soil,
moisture, exposure and vegetation. There are no sites
comparable along the R/W, this hillside being unique along
the creeks that were examined.
3. Leave the population and hillside undisturbed, move the
interceptor line to the south side, into the wide floodplain
that exists. Although there is another sewer line on the
south side, the floodplain is very wide. Also, along other
sections of the plan, the interceptor line parallels
the existing sewer line. The cost of crossing the creek
twice may be offset by the cost of blasting out the
hillside.
Respectfully submitted
s F. Matthews
Professor of Biology

Ci

1

1

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OF
SPECIAL CONCERN, STATUS REVIEW, AND ENDANGERED
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
FOR THE PROPOSED
BEARSKIN/RICHARDSON CREEK INTERCEPTOR LINE,
MONROE, UNION COUNTY
by
Richard D. Brown, Ph.D.
Environmental/Wildlife Consultant
2858 Clover Road
Harrisburg, NC 28075
12 July 1992
Prepared for
McKim & Creed
243 North Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401

L

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OF
SPECIAL CONCERN, STATUS REVIEW, AND ENDANGERED
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE
FOR THE PROPOSED
BEARSKIN/RICHARDSON CREEK INTERCEPTOR LINE,
MONROE, UNION COUNTY
SUMMARY
Field investigations were conducted on 21, 22, 24, 29, and 30 June, and
b and 8 July 1992 in order to assess the impact on special concern, status
review, and endangered wildlife (classes Amphibia and Aves) deemed by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to potentially occur in Union
County.
The proposed interceptor of 35,000 linear feet is located along Bearskin
Creek from near downtown Monroe, Union County, North Carolina, and flows
eastward to join Richardson Creek. The interceptor continues along Richardson
Creek in a northeast direction to the existing wastewater treatment plant.
All of the study area was walked and all habitat types were visited.
Most of the habitats are disturbed riparian that have been cleared for old or
existing sewer lines, power line right-of-ways, or for agriculture.
Commercial, residential, and agricultural activities are close by.
No endangered, threatened, special concern, or status review species of
wildlife were found. Some species are not expected to be found in the area.
Only one species, the Loggerhead Shrike, may most likely breed close to the
construction zone. Those species that may breed, migrate, or overwinter in
the area should not be negatively impacted provided the recommendations
contained in this report are conscientiously followed. Most wildlife of the
proposed sewer interceptor are common species that have long adapted to man's
encroachment. No critical wildlife habitats exist along the corridor. No
quality wetlands were found.

INTRODUCTION
Field investigations were conducted on 21, 22, 24, 29, and 30 June, and
' 6 and 8 July 1992 in order to assess the impact on special concern, status
' review, and endangered wildlife (classes Amphibia and Aves) deemed by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to potentially occur in Union
County.
The proposed Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor Line, consisting of
35,000 linear feet, starts at the Belk-Tonawanda Park on Allen Street near
downtown Monroe, Union County, North Carolina, and flows eastward. It joins
Richardson Creek and then heads in a northeast direction to join the existing

wastewater treatment plant.
Habitats were identified along the proposed sewer corridor that might be
favorable to and inhabited by wildlife designated as "Endangered," "Special
Concern," or "Status Review." I walked all of the line that is to be
constructed and am confident that all habitat types were located. Dr. James
F. Matthews discusses habitats and plant communities in another report.
This environmental assessment of wildlife for the proposed
Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor Line is submitted to meet guidelines
established by the N. C. State Environmental Policy Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act. This report is submitted with the understanding
that it is to be used exclusively by McKim & Creed or their assignees, within
a three-year period only for the Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor Line
I project.

Because the environment and wildlife populations are ever changing, this
report may be used three years after the submission date only with my consent
or after being amended or updated.
-1=
11

1 -2-
1 LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES
Attached to this assessment is a list of special concern, status review,
and endangered species of the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, and Aves that are
thought to occur or expected to occur in the area to be impacted by
' construction of the Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor Line. This list was
generated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission on S February
1992 and sent to McKim & Creed. I added the Bog Turtle to the list.
The state and federal status for eac h species occurs on the left margin.
Symbols for breeding, overwintering, and migrating for each species are given

before the common names. A status legend is given at the end of the list.
COMMENTS ON THE SPECIAL CONCERN, STATUS REVIEW, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mole Salamanders live most of the year underground in burrows in pine
d
savannas, har
wood forests, and swamps. Because of the difficulty in locating
this species, except during the breedin g season, there is always a remote
possibility that Mole Salamanders could occupy portions of the interceptor.
' However, based on the disturbance that I found, I doubt that any live in the
vicinity of the proposed interceptor.
Habitat
fav
bl
t
th
A
i i
s
ora
e
o
e
mer
can B
ttern, Snowy Egret, Little Blue

' Heron, and Glossy This do not exist in the area where t he interceptor is to be
constructed.
The Black Vulture most likely nests in Union County, but no suitable
nesting habitats were found along the interceptor. Based on distribution and
' abundance, there is a remote chance that Mississippi Kites nest in Union
County. The fact that none were seen along the interceptor does not mean that
they do not breed there. As a precaution, and to avoid negative impact to
' this species, the recommenda tions at the end of this report should be
followed.

-3-
Bald Eagles prefer to nest near large bodies of water. Bearskin Creek
and Richardson Creek are too shallow and too small. No suitable supercanopy
' trees for nesting were found, and habitats along the creeks are too disturbed
and unfavorable to the species.
Northern Harriers migrate through and overwinter in Union County.
However, the interceptor line passes through habitats that are not actively
used by Northern Harriers. This species should not be negatively impacted by
construction.
Sharp-shinned Hawks and Cooper's Hawks appear to me to be nesting more in
North Carolina than in the past. They also migrate through and overwinter
' here. The major negative impact to these species would be during the nesting
season. Therefore, the recommendations at the end of this report should be
' followed.
Habitats along the interceptor are not suitable for the Golden Eagle,
Peregrine Falcon, Black Rail, Purple Gallinule, and Caspian Tern. These
species will not be negatively impacted by construction.
The Black-billed Cuckoo breeds more in the mountains of North Carolina.
Although it is possible for it to breed in Union County, it is very unlikely.
If the recommendations in this report are followed, this status review species
will not be impacted.
The Northern Saw-Whet Owl breeds in our North Carolina mountains.
Individuals from northern regions may winter in Union County. Construction of
' the interceptor line should not adversely impact this rather rare species.
Drilling signs of the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker are rather commonly seen
in a variety of habitats including residential areas. This species
overwinters in Union County. Construction of the interceptor should not
negatively impact this species.

-4-
The Olive-sided-Flycatcher and Alder Flycatcher nests at higher eleva-
tions in the North Carolina mountains and is not expected to breed in Union
County. Migrating flycatchers will not be negatively impacted by construction
of the interceptor line.
' The Bank Swallow is not known to breed in Union County. There is a
remote possibility that it could. Nesting is usually in vertical banks. The
only place were nesting could occur along the interceptor line would be on the
' vertical creek banks. If this were so, construction should not impact them,
because the banks would remain undisturbed. In addition, recommendation given
later, if followed, will guarantee no impact.
' The Common Raven does not nest or overwinter in the proposed construction
zone and, therefore, will not be impacted.
It is remotely possible that the Appalachian Bewick's Wren may breed in
Union County. However, to my knowledge, no nesting records exist. Much needs
to be learned about this species that seems to have suffered from habitat
loss, but perhaps more importantly, to competition from close relatives. If
the recommendations are followed, negative impact would be low.
Both the Golden-crowned Kinglet and Hermit Thrush overwinter in Union
County. They do not breed there. Construction should not impact either of
these species.
Both the Loggerhead Shrike and Migrant Loggerhead Shrike winter in Union
County. Only the Loggerhead Shrike breeds in Union County. The habitats
along most of the interceptor line right-of-way do not seem to be what is
preferred by the shrikes. However, it is possible that they could nest close
to the outfall. Therefore, I suggest that the recommendations given later in
this report be followed carefully to minimize impact.
The Warbling Vireo, Blue-winged Warbler, and Magnolia Warbler migrate

i
fl

-5-
through Union County. Construction of the interceptor will produce no
negative impact to these species.
There are no known nesting records of the Cerulean Warbler in Union
County or outlying areas. However, it is remotely possible that they could
breed in the construction zone. Recommendations should be followed to prevent
negative impact to this species.
The nesting habitat of the Bachman's Sparrow and the wintering habitats
of the Savannah Sparrow and Henslow's Sparrow are not found along the
construction zone of the interceptor line right-of-way. These species will
not be negatively impacted.
Due to the recent Gaston County records of the Bost Turtle, I have added
this species to the list of possibly occurring in Union County. However, no
preferred habitats were seen along the interceptor right-of-way and,
therefore, this species will not be impacted.
GENERAL COMMENTS

0

Any time land is disturbed, there is obviously a loss of wildlife
habitat. Wildlife are, therefore, negatively impacted due to the loss of any
food, cover, and space. If the proposal is approved, the outfall will be
constructed along Bearskin Creek and Richardson Creek where there is a history
of corridor construction. I assume that the outfall corridor will be allowed
to grow back in natural vegetation and will be maintained periodically to
prevent the overgrowth of larger trees and shrubs. This type of habitat does
provide a good edge for wildlife, including food and cover. Habitats adjacent
to the corridor should not be impacted.
The clearing of land and construction of the proposed corridor should
pose no mayor threat to wildlife provided the recommendations in this
assessment are followed. Most species found in the area are ones which have

1

-6-
long adapted to man's presence. Ecological balances and food chains should
not be significantly disturbed. Reproductive success and behavioral patterns
should not be significantly affected provided recommendations are followed.
To my knowledge, there will be no attempts to kill and/or repel wildlife
by radiation, poison, pesticides, pollution, or sediment during or after
construction. Minor operational pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, gas, oil
spillage, etc., would at best have insignificant impact on the species present
if handled with care.
Erosion and sedimentation would most likely occur during the wet season.
Great care should be observed to minimize siltation of the wet areas,
tributaries, and Bearskin and Richardson Creeks. With standard practices of
erosion control being followed, this problem should be avoided.
Mechanical killing should not likely occur during construction. The
facilities to be constructed should not impose any mayor threat to migrating
birds.

1

RECOMMENDATIONS
Wildlife deserve our respect and protection. If the proposed
interceptor line is approved, I strongly recommend the following. Not
following these recommendations will cause negative impact to any special
concern, status review, or endangered species living in the interceptor zone.
1. That the time of land clearing and construction be synchronized to
minimize disruption to wildlife during their reproductive season.
Species are able to adapt behaviorally and physiologically to
changes in their environment, but they will have better reproductive
success if the disruption doesn't begin during April, May, June, and
July when the majority of wildlife are breeding. Young in nests
cannot escape from timbering and the clearing of land during
1
11
1 -7-
' construction. If construction begins before or after breeding,
different sites will be chosen for nesting by the adults and the
' young will avoid destruction. This is urgent!
2. That maximum care and consideration be taken during planning,
' surveying, and by workers during construction so that as little
' vegetation as possible is cleared, and that minimum land clearing is
done in order to preserve the existing vegetation and habitats
' (hedgerows, dead trees, low areas, etc.). Wildlife need as much
food, water, cover, and habitat as they can get.
' 3
That lar
e tr
d d
d t
b
id
d
h
.
g
ees an
ea
rees
e avo
e
w
ere possible and allowed
' to stand where they do not interfere with construction. These trees
serve as cover, food sources, nests, and roost sites to a variety of
' wildlife including those mentioned in this report.
4. That the buffer habitats between the outfall corridor and the creek
remain undisturbed.
' S. That good, courteous construction techniques and proper er osion
control be followed as provided by law.
5. That corridors be allowed to revert to natural vegetation. However,
if clearing of the corridors is required by law, that it not occur
' during the breeding season during April through July. It would be

' better to mow during August when most wildlife are finish ed breeding
and before migrating wildlife and over-wintering wildlife have
' arrived.
Respectfully subm
tted,
i
Richard D. Brown, Ph.D.
' Environmental/Wildlife Consultant
Adjunct Professor, UNCCharlotte
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
STATE AND FEDERALLY LISTED
VERTEBRATE SPECIES
POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Per North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Nongame & Endangered Wildlife Program
05 February 1992
CLASS AMPHIBIA
ORDER CAUDATA
FAMILY Ambystomatidae
SC Ambystoma talpoideum .............. (?) Mole Salamander
CLASS REPTILIA
ORDER CHELONIA
FAMILY Emydidae
TS Clemmys muhlenburai ............... (?) Bog Turtle
CLASS AYES
ORDER CICONIIFORMES
FAMILY Ardeidae
SR Botaurus lentiainosus ............. (?) American Bittern
SC Earetta thula ..................... (m) Snowy Egret
SC Egretta caerulea .................. (m) Little Blue Heron
FAMILY Threskiornithidae
SC Pleaadis falcinellus .............. (m) Glossy This
ORDER FALCONIFORMES
FAMILY Cathartidae
SC Coraayps atratus .................. (?) Black Vulture
FAMILY Accipitridae
SR Ictinia mississippiensis.......... (?) Mississippi Kite
E Haliaeetus leucocephalus.......... (n) Bald Eagle
SR Circus cyaneus .................... (w) Northern Harrier
SR Accipiter striatus ................ (b) Sharp-shinned Hawk
SC Accipiter cooperii ................ (b) Cooper's Hawk
SR Aquila chrysaetos ................. (n) Golden Eagle
FAMILY Falconidae
E Falco perearinus .................. (n) Peregrine Falcon
ORDER GRUIFORMES
FAMILY Rallidae
SR Laterallus jamaicensis............ (n) Black Rail
SR Porphyrula martinica .............. ... Purple Gallinule
ORDER CHARADRIIFORMES
FAMILY Laridae
SR Sterna caspia ..................... ... Caspian Tern
ORDER CUCULIFORMES
FAMILY Cuculidae
SR Coccyzus erythropthalmus .......... ... Black-billed Cuckoo
ORDER STRIGIFORMES
FAMILY Strigidae
SC Aeaolius acadicus ................. ... Northern Saw-whet Owl
ORDER PICIFORMES
FAMILY Picidae
SR Sphyrapicus varius ................ ... Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
-1-
4

-2-
ORDER PASSERIFORMES
FAMILY Tyrannidae
SC Contopus borealis ................. ...
SR Empidonax alnorum ................. ...
' FAMILY Hirundinidae
SR Riparia riparia ................... ...
FAMILY Corvidae
' SR Corvus corax ...................... ...
FAMILY Troglodytidae
ES Thryomanes bewickii altus......... Q )
FAMILY Muscicapidae
SC Regulus satrapa .••••••••••••'•••
.. •••
SR Catharus auttatus ................. Q )
' FAMILY Laniidae
SC Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus..
...
SC Lanius ludovicianus migrans....... (w)
FAMILY Vireonidae
SR Vireo ilvus ...................... (m)
FAMILY Emberizidae
SR Vermivora Rings ................... (m)
SR Dendroica magnolia ................ (m)
SR Dendroica cerulea................. ...
SC Aimophila aestivalis .............. ...
SR Passerculus sandwichensis......... (w)
SR Ammodramus henslowii .............. ...
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Alder Flycatcher
Bank Swallow
Common Raven
Appalachian Bewick's Wren
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Hermit Thrush
Loggerhead Shrike
Migrant Loggerhead Shrike
Warbling Vireo
Blue-winged Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Bachman's Sparrow
Savannah Sparrow
Henslow's Sparrow
11 Status for the vicinity of the Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor.
(?) = breeding questionable or most likely doesn't breed
' (b) = most likely breeds
(m) = migrates through the county and doesn't breed
(n) = doesn't breed or not likely to occur at all
(w) = overwinters (may occur all year, but does not breed)
E = Endangered (Federal and State)
ES = Endangered (State only)
SC = Special Concern (State)
SR = Status Review
TS = Threatened (State only)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
INVENTORY OF MOLLUSCAN SPECIES OF RICHARDSON CREEK,
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for McKim and Creed Engineers
243 North Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
By - Hugh J. Porter
Curator of Invertebrate Collections
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Institute of Marine Sciences
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
July 14, 1992
1

SAMPLING:
Upstream beginning at confluence of Bearskin and Richardson
Creeks and extending downstream to the city of Monroe waste
treatment plant. This encompasses the creek area of the formal
survey.
Four additional areas above the upper limit and four areas
below the lower limit of the formal survey were sampled.
Areas sampled are illustrated in the attached map.
[station #'s are in large print, whereas, road #'s are in
smaller print].
Station locations were based on observer accessibility to
site.
' stations at each area are:
STATION #: 39. Griffith Street (NC Road #2139) crossing of
Richardson Creek. Adams Branch joins just at sampled
area. South of Monroe.
7.5 miles upstream of Bearskin-Richardson Creeks
' confluence [upper project limit].
STATION #: 38. NC Rt. #207 crossing of Richardson Creek.
South of Monroe.
4.7 miles upstream of Bearskin-Richardson Creeks
confluence [upper project limit].
1 STATION #: 3. NC Road #6015 crossing of Richardson Creek
just below dam for Lake Lee.
1.8 miles upstream of Bearskin-Richardson Creeks
confluence [upper project limit].
STATION #: 2. Teledyne Alvac, Monroe City Plant. Sampling
done at water quality sampling area for above company.
' 2.5 miles upstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
0.5 miles upstream of Bearskin-Richardson Creeks
' confluence [upper project limit].
STATION #: 6. 50 yds. upstream from Walkup Ave. (NC Road
¦ #1751) bridge over Richardson Creek.
2.1 miles upstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
' 0.1 miles upstream of Bearskin-Richardson Creeks
confluence [upper project limit].
STATION #: 1. Richardson Creek crossing of Walkup Ave.
' (NC Road #1751). Slightly downstream of bridge.
2 miles upstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
2

i

E
e
L
1

140 IMRS

k

STATION #: 8. 2/10 - 3/10th mile downstream of NC Road #
1751 crossing of Richardson Creek.
1.7 miles upstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
STATION #: 9. 9/10th mile west of waste plant at
extension of Castle Road [remains of a bridge pier
noted] by big bend in Richardson Creek.
0.9 miles upstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
STATION #: 5. 4/10th mile west of waste treatment plant on
Richardson Creek.
0.5 miles upstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
STATION #: 4. Several hundred yards upstream from waste
treatment plant on Richardson Creek.
0.15 miles upstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
STATION #: 22.Richardson Creek waste treatment plant off
Walkup Ave (NC Road #1751) just below discharge flume.
0.0 miles upstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
STATION #: 23.
<0.1 miles downstream of city of Monroe waste
treatment plant [lower limit of project].
STATION #: 24. Olive Branch Road (NC Road #1006) crossing
of Richardson Creek.
3.3 miles downstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].
' STATION 41. Richardson Creek crossing of NC Road #1630.
5.9 miles downstream of city of Monroe waste treatment
plant [lower limit of project].

STATION #: 42. Richardson Creek crossing of NC Road #1645.
10.6 miles downstream of city of Monroe waste
treatment plant [lower limit of project].
At each station sampling was done primarily by myself. An
assistant aided greatly by finding each site, breaking trail to
each, getting permission to sample in restricted areas, watching
for snakes, etc. A variety of habitats were searched at each
sampling location. Searching involved looking for mussel
siphons, mussel or gastropod shell, and mussel trails, where
stream visibility permitted. It also involved searching through
mud, rocky sediment, and gravel with ones fingers. Fine sediment
[including mud], gravel, and detrital masses were frequently
screened for small mollusks using a 1/8th inch mesh box screen.
Stream characteristics were noted following each sampling.
3

Live mollusks collected at each station were pegged [when
' appropriate], preserved for later identification, and station
labeled. Dead shell was also station labeled.
Identifications are based on most recent standard texts.
' All mollusks collected are being processed for eventual
cataloguing into the University of North Carolina, Institute of
Marine sciences mollusk collection.
' Field data for each station, including a listing of all
molluscan material collected, is attached to this report.
RESULTS [see also Field Data sheets]:
' Almost all locations within the requested project area
contained rows of recently dead shell - mostly Corbicula. These
rows generally were above the present stream height. Occasional
' mussel and gastropod shell were present in these rows. It is
speculated that the mollusks represented had died recently and
were washed up during high stream conditions caused by major
' storms several weeks earlier. Death may have been caused to
toxic run-off during these storms, high turbidity, or low oxygen
levels. There was no indication that these mollusk shell rows or
piles were raccoon middens.
t RICHARDSON CREEK COLLECTIONS OF MOLLUSK SPECIES LISTED/PROPOSED
"ENDANGERED, THREATENED," OR "SPECIAL CONCERN" BY THE NORTH
' CAROLINA WILDLIFE COMMISSION WHICH ARE BELIEVED TO OCCUR IN UNION
COUNTY, NC ARE:
.CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER - Lasmigona decorata (I. Lea)
[proposed endangered status].
No living or dead shell of species found.
' ATLANTIC PIGTOE - Fusconaia masoni (Conrad)
[proposed threatened status].
No living or dead shell of species found.
' SQUAWFOOT - Strophitus undulatus (Say)
[proposed threatened status].
One dead shell was found at Station #5 - 0.5 miles
' upstream of City of Monroe waste treatment plant.
YELLOW LAMPMUSSEL - Lampsilis cariosa (Say)
[proposed threatened status].
No living or dead shell of species found.
t BROOK FLOATER - Alasmidonta varicosa (Lamarck)
[proposed threatened status].
No living or dead shell of species found.

4

SAVANNAH LILLIPUT - Toxolasma pullus (Conrad)
' (proposed threatened status].
One recent living shell was found at Station #1 -
confluence of Richardson and Bearskin Creeks. An
additional complete shell was found at Station #5 - 0.5
miles upstream of the City of Monroe waste treatment
plant.
' EASTERN FATMUCKET - Lampsilis radiata (Gmelin)
(proposed special concern status]
One fresh dead specimen (part of body still
' attached] was found at Station #8 - 1.7 miles above
city of Monroe waste treatment plant. Two complete
shells were additionally found at Station #5 - 0.5
miles above the waste treatment plant.
' Three of the above mollusk species, proposed as "Threatened"
or "Special Concern," are shown possibly to still exist within or
near the confines of the Richardson Creek project. Existing
populations of these, within and or near the project area, appear
to be small and threatened by existing conditions.
RICHARDSON CREEK COLLECTIONS - MOLLUSKS NOT LISTED FOR
' PROTECTION BY THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE COMMISSION ARE:
EASTERN FLOATER - Anodonta cataracta Say
' PAPER PONDSHELL - Anodonta imbecillis Say
Neither were found living above Lake Lee.
Below Lake Lee, both were found living downstream
to the confluence of. Bearskin and Richardson Creeks
1 with A. cataracta being found further downstream to
within a mile of the waste treatment plant.
Anodontas are soft sediment dwellers frequently
' found in ponds or lakes.
Neither species was found below the waste
treatment plant.
EASTERN ELLIPTIO - Elliptio complanata (Lightfoot)
SOUTHERN PONDHORN - Uniomerus obesus (I. Lea)
EASTERN CREEKSHELL - Villosa delumbis (Conrad)
' All three of these species are generally buried
within sand sediments but occasionally may be within
riffle areas.
' Both E. complanata and U. obesus commonly
occurred from just below the Lake Lee dam downstream to
within about 1/2 mile of the waste treatment plant.
V. delumbis was not as common and the up- and
downstream distribution of it was not as great as for
the former two species.
Difficulty is separation of E. complanata from U.
obesus is a problem here. A similar problem also
exists with the coastal populations of these two species.

5

~ None of the three species
were found above the
Lake Lee dam or below the waste treatment plant.
' ASIAN CLAM - Corbicula fluminea (Muller)
This non-native introduction to our fauna is a
resident of disturbed habitats, moderate to fast
running water, and/or relative high oxygen levels.
In Richardson Creek, above the Lake Lee dam, it
' was not found at Station #39 but was found at Station
#38. It was not found in the slow-moving waters just
below the dam but had become common downstream by
Station #2 - 1.3 miles downstream. It continued to be
' common downstream until about Station #4 [0.15 mile
above the waste treatment plant] where few living were
present but large numbers of dead shell were present.
Small populations of the clam reappeared below the
waste treatment plant at Stations #41 and #42 - 5.9 and
10.6 miles downstream from the plant.
1 STRIATED FINGERNAIL CLAM - Spherium striatinum (Lamarck)
This small clam, somewhat related to the Asian
clam, was found only at Station #39, the uppermost
Richardson Creek station - 7.5 miles upstream from the
Richardson-Bearskin Creeks confluence. Here it was
present in soft sediment detrital masses near clay
' banks.
POINTED CAMPELOMA - Campeloma decisum (Say)
The distribution of these snails mirrored somewhat
that of the previously discussed mussels. Living
specimens were common from Station #6 [2.5 miles above
the waste treatment plant] downstream to Station #1 at
the confluence of Richardson and Bearskin Creeks. Dead
shell were additionally common downstream to Station #5
- 1/2 mile above the waste treatment plant.
These snails, while showing a preference for near-
' bank sediments, were occasionally in riffle area.
MARSH RAMS-HORN - Planorbella trivolvis Say
TADPOLE PHYSA - Physella gyrina (Say)
MIMIC LYMNAEA - Pseudosuccinea collumella (Say)
The first two species were collected live with
11

living striated fingernail clams at the uppermost
Richardson Creek station [#1]. They likewise were
collected in shallow water among detrital masses along
clay banks.
Occasionally, shell of the marsh rams-horn were
also collected at Stations
station, a small shell of
found. No significance
collections at #8 and #5.
6
#8 and #5. At the latter
the mimic lymnaea was also
is attached these latter

CONCIUSIONS:
A small mollusk population containing three mussels on the
state endangered status listing and seven other mollusk species
of non-endangered status continues to exist in Richardson Creek
' beginning just below the Lake Lee dam and extending downstream
about two miles to just below where Bearskin Creek joins
Richardson Creek. At the lower end of the population, life of it
' may be affected by resident petrocarbon wastes and or unknown
factors from Lake Lee. At the population's lower end, unknown
quality water from Bearskin Creek plus chlorides and other wastes
from the city of Monroe waste treatment plant probably form a
downstream barrier to the population. Toxic run-off following
heavy rains may also be affecting the life of this molluscan
population. Upgrading the city of Monroe waste treatment plant,
particularly in regard to dechlorination, may yet save this
population and quite probably enable it to extend its existing
size.
' Above Lake Lee is an indication of an additional population
of a different species make-up. This population, containing
several small species, seems restricted to fine sediment detrital
deposits. None of its species are of those suggested as species
1 of possible endangered status.

t
fl

7

L

fl

11
t

FIELD DATA _ SURVEY OF MOLLUSCAN FAUNA OF RICHARDSON CREEK,
UNION COUNTY, NC. 11y HUGH J. PORTER, University of North
Carolina, Institute of marine Sciences Morehead City, NC
28557 hone 919 726 6841
[stations are listed going downstream from headwaters region
towards mouth of creek]
-------------------------------------------------------------
STATION #: 39 DATE: July 1, 1992
LOCALITY:
Griffith Street (NC Road #2139) crossing of Richardson
Creek. Adams Branch joins just at sampled area. South of
Monroe.
LAT. 34 53' 30" N. LONG. 80331 31" W.
7.5 MILES UPSTREAM OF BEARSKIN-RICHARDSON CREEKS CONFLUENCE
[UPPER PROJECT LIMIT].
STREAM WIDTH: 20 ft. SAMPLED AREA: About 100 ft.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 18 inches. DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 18 inches.
TURBIDITY: None. CURRENT: Moderate to slow.
BANK VEGETATION: Not noted.
VEGETATION IN WATER: Some brownish-green algae on rocks.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Clay banks with some overhanging roots and
plants.
GENERAL NOTES:
Very pretty stream.
SPECIES COLLECTED
Sphaerium striatinum (Lamarck)
Physella gyrina (Say)
Planorbella trivolvis Say
NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
- 6 live striated
fingernailclams.
- 7 live tadpole physas.
- 1 small live marsh
rams-horn.
[all above species collected from detrital masses and
sediment near clay banks]
8

' STATION #: 38 DATE: July 1, 1992
LOCALITY:
NC Rt. #207 crossing of Richardson Creek. South of Monroe.
LAT. 34 57' 13" N. LONG. 80 32' 41" W.
4.7 MILES UPSTREAM OF BEARSKIN-RICHARDSON CREEKS CONFLUENCE
' [UPPER PROJECT LIMIT].
STREAM WIDTH: 40 ft. SAMPLED AREA: About 100 ft.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 24 inches. DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 24 inches.
TURBIDITY: Almost none. CURRENT: Moderate.
BANK VEGETATION: Not noted.
VEGETATION IN WATER: Some brownish algae covering rocks.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Lawn on south side.
GENERAL NOTES:
Real pretty stream - looked real promising.
Owner of south side lawn had "No trespassing" signs up,
but will give you easy access to stream if you ask.
SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER LIVING DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Corbicula fluminea (Muller) - several live Asian clams.
6 inches stony, near bank light.
-------------------------------------------------------------
STATION #: 3 DATE: June 23, 1992
' LOCALITY:
NC Road #6015 crossing of Richardson Creek just below dam
for Lake Lee.
LAT. 34 58' 00" N. LONG. 80 30' 37" W.
' 1.8 MILES UPSTREAM OF BEARSKIN-RICHARDSON CREEKS CONFLUENCE
[UPPER PROJECT LIMIT].
STREAM WIDTH: 50 ft. SAMPLED AREA: 100 ft. upstream.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
' MAX. WATER DEPTH: 30 inches. DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 30 inches.
TURBIDITY: Very turbid. CURRENT: Slow.
BANK VEGETATION: Not recorded.
' VEGETATION IN WATER: None.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Artificial banks, golf course on either side.
' GENERAL NOTES:
South side had strong petrocarbon odor about water.
No live mollusks in middle of stream or on south side. Soft
substrate with rocks on top. North side bulkheaded.
' One live turtle noted.
Golf course parking on north side makes for easy
access.
9

1

1

n
SPECIES COLLECTED
Anodonta cataracta Say
Anodonta imbecillis Say
Elliptio complanata (Lightfoot)
Uniomerus obesus (I. Lea)
11 If it
Campeloma decisum (Say)
NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
- 1 live eastern floater.
- 1 whole shell, paper
pondshell.
- 1 live eastern elliptio.
- 1 live southern pondhorn.
- 3 whole shells, 11 it .
- 1 pointed campeloma snail
shell.
-------------------------------------------------
STATION #: 2 DATE: June 23, 1992
LOCALITY:
Teledyne Alvac, Monroe City Plant. Sampling done at water
quality sampling area for above company.
LAT. 34 59' 03" N. LONG. 80 30' 37" W.
2.5 MILES UPSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
0.5 MILES UPSTREAM OF BEARSKIN-RICHARDSON CREEKS CONFLUENCE
[UPPER PROJECT LIMIT].
STREAM WIDTH: 60 ft. SAMPLED AREA: 200 ft. upstream.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 18 inches. DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 18 inches.
TURBIDITY: Moderate. CURRENT: Light.
BANK VEGETATION:
VEGETATION IN WATER: Very little.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: 10 ft. banks, grassy with trees.
GENERAL NOTES:
Most live mussels near banks in soft sediment.
Easy access from company road to site. Permission must
be secured before entering plant.
SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Corbicula'fluminea (Muller) - many living Asian clams .
all substrates light.
Anodonta imbecillis Say - 2 live paper pondshells.
it - 1 complete shell of paper
pondshell.
Anodonta cataracta Say - 1 live eastern floater.
10

i -
?Elliptio complanata (Lightfoot) - 2 live eastern elliptios.
' ?Ellintio icterina (Conrad) - 1 complete shell of variable
spike.
' ?Uniomerus obesus (I. Lea) - 2 live southern pondhorns.
- 1 complete shell of southern
pondhorn.
Villosa delumbis (Conrad) - 1 complete shell of eastern
creekshell.
Campeloma decisum (Say) - many live pointed
campelomas.
all substrates light.
---------------------------------------------------------------
STATION #: 6 DATE: June 24, 1992
LOCALITY:
50 yds. upstream from Walkup Ave. (NC Road #1751) bridge
over Richardson Creek.
LAT. 34 59' 20" N. LONG. 80 30' 37" W.
2.1 MILES UPSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
0.1 MILES UPSTREAM OF BEARS KIN-RICHARDSON CREEKS CONFLUENCE
[UPPER PROJECT LIMIT].
STREAM WIDTH: SAMPLED AREA: 150 ft.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 30 inches.
TURBIDITY: Poor. DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 30 inches.
CURRENT: Li
ht
g
.
BANK VEGETATION: Not recorded.
VEGETATION IN WATER: None.
' SHORE DESCRIPTION: Muddy, clay bank.
GENERAL NOTES:
Pond, with rocky center. Lots of trash! Easy access
' from parking lot in nearby Operations Center for City of
Monroe.
' SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER _LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
' Corbicula fluminea (Muller) - many living Asian clams.
6-24 inches rocky slow.
Anodonta imbecillis Say
<6 - 1 live paper pondshell.
inches near banks in
soft sediment slow.
' Campeloma decisum (Say) - many living pointed
campelomas.
<6 inches near banks, clay slow.

11

' ----------------
STATION #: 1 DATE: ----------------------------
June 23, 1992
LOCALITY:
' Richardson Creek crossing of Walkup Ave. (NC Road #1751).
Slightly downstream of bridge.
LAT. 34 59' 23" N. LONG. 80 30' 37" W.
' 2 MILES UPSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: SAMPLED AREA: 100 feet.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8" mesh screen.
' MAX. WATER DEPTH: 10 inches. DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 8 inches

TURBIDITY: None. .
CURRENT: Strong.
BANK VEGETATION: Kutzu.
VEGETATION IN WATER: Some grass
are
y as.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Brushy.
' GENERAL NOTES:
Easy access from parking lot in nearby Operations
Center for City of Monroe.
The living Elliptio complanata were collected July 1
'
1992 from this same area during ,
the fish and water quality survey
of Dr. E. F. Menhinick.

SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER LIVING DEAD COLLECTED

' DEPTH
Corbicula fl
i SUBSTRATE CURRENT
um
nea (Muller) - many living and shell of
the Asian clam.
riffles among rocks fast.
Anodonta imbecillis Say - 1 live paper pondshell.

' - 4 complete shells of the
paper pondshell.
Anodonta cataracta Say - 1.5 complete shell of
eastern floater.
Elliptio complanata (Lightfoot) - 5 live eastern elliptios.
- 2 complete shells of
eastern elliptio.

' Toxolasma pullus Say - 1 recent-living Savannah
lilli
ut
p
.
Uniomerus obesus (I. Lea)
Cam eloma
p decisum (Say)
- 2 complete shells of
southern pondhorn.
- some living pointed
campelomas.
riffles among rocks.

12

' STATION #: 8 DATE: June 24, 1992
LOCALITY:
' 2/10 - 3/10th mile downstream of NC Road # 1751 crossing of
Richardson Creek.
LAT. 34 39' 41" N. LONG. 80 30' 30" W.
1.7 MILES UPSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: 50-60 ft. SAMPLED AREA: 200 ft.
' SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers and sight.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 18 inches. DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 18 inches.
TURBIDITY: Almost none. CURRENT: Swift to slow.
' BANK VEGETATION: Not recorded.
VEGETATION IN WATER: None noted.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Hard clay.
GENERAL NOTES:
On west side numerous deposits of dead Corbicula in 6-
12 inch depths, some live still present.

C'
SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Corbicula fluminea (Muller) - few living Asian clams.
all depths light rocky.
Anodonta cataracta Say - 3 live eastern floaters.
6 inches near shore light.
of if " - 1.5 shells of the eastern
floater.
Anodonta imbecillis Say
Elliptio comglanata (Lightfoot)
Lampsilis radiata (Gmelin)

Uniomerus obesus (I. Lea)

Villosa delumbis (Conrad)
'
Campeloma decisum (Say)
Planorbella trivolvis Say

- 2 complete shell of paper
pondshell.
- 8 complete shell of eastern
elliptio.
- 1 fresh dead eastern
lampmussel.
12 inches rocky riffle area strong.
- 1 complete shell of southern
pondhorn.
- 1 live eastern creekshell.
- a few living pointed
campelomas.
<6 inches stream bank sediment.
13
- 1 shell of marsh rams-horn.

STATION #: 9 DATE: June 24, 1992
LOCALITY:
9/10th mile west of sewage plant at extension of Castle Road
[remains of a bridge pier noted] by big bend in Richardson Creek.
LAT. 35 59' 48" N. LONG. 80 30' 14" W.
' 0.9 MILES UPSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: SAMPLED AREA: 200-300 ft.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: DEPTH INVESTIGATED:
TURBIDITY: Somewhat clear. CURRENT:
BANK VEGETATION: Not recorded.
VEGETATION IN WATER: Rocks becoming covered with brown algal
growths.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Not recorded.
GENERAL NOTES:
Rocky stream with little sediment areas present.
' On shoal bend (rising about 18 inches above water) many
older dead Corbicula with a few mussel shell were found.
The latter was the only sign noted of mussels noted for this
area.
Area very difficult to get to.
Central area with dense groups of Corbicula shell and
some live specimens.
1 SPECIES
COLLECTED

u

NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Corbicula fluminea (Muller) - 19 living Asian clams.
<10 inches rocky.
Anodonta cataracta Say
Anodonta imbecillis Say
Elliptio complanata (Lightfoot)
Villosa delumbis (Conrad)
Campeloma decisum Say
14
- 2 complete shelll of
eastern floater.
- 1.5 complete shell of paper
pondshell.
- 2 complete shell of eastern
elliptio.
- 1 complete shell of eastern
creekshell.
- 1 shell of pointed
campeloma.
r

' STATION #: 5 DATE: -June 23, 1992
LOCALITY:
4/10ths mile west of sewage treatment plant on Richardson
Creek.
LAT. 35 59' 56" N. LONG. 80 29' 53" W.
' 0.5 MILES UPSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: SAMPLED AREA: 100 yards
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 30 inches DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 18 inches
TURBIDITY: Almost none. CURRENT: Light.
VEGETATION IN WATER: Many rocks covered with mossy brown-like
' algae.
GENERAL NOTES:
' Upper sampled area at a strong bend in stream. On its
bank (about 2 ft. above stream height) were bushels of
Corbicula shell - some we re recently living. Among these
Corbicula shell were some
living. Area above bend mussel shell - also some recently
had fi
k
ne roc
sediment to heavy
boulders - very little living seen in it. Masses of dead
material probably caused during the recent high stream
' conditions.
Area very difficult to get to.
SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Corbicula fluminea (Muller) - few living, many dead Asian
' clams.
<18 inches mid-stream rocky moderate.
' Anodonta cataracta Say - 1 complete shell of eastern
floater.
' Elliptio complanata (Lightfoot) - 11 complete shell of
eastern elliptios.
Lampsilis radiata (Gmelin) - 2 complete shell of eastern
ondhorn
p
.
Strophitus undulates (Say) - 1 complete shell of
squawfoot.
Toxolasma pullus (Conrad) - 1 complete shell of
Savannah lilliput.
Uniomerus obesus (I. Lea) - 3 complete shell of
southern pondhorn.
Villosa delumbis (Conrad) - 2 complete shell of eastern
creekshell.

15

Campeloma decisum (Say)
Planorbella trivolvis Say
- 10 shell of pointed
campeloma.

_I
- 2 shell of marsh rams-
horn.
Pseudosuccinea columella (Say) - 1 very small shell of mimic
lymnaea.
------------------------------ ------------------------------------
STATION #: 4 DATE: June 23, 1992
LOCALITY:
Several hundred yards upstream from sewage treatment plant
on Richardson Creek.
LAT. 35 59' 48" N. LONG. 80 29' 39" W.
' 0.15 MILES UPSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: SAMPLED AREA: 200 ft. upstream.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 24 inches DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 24 inches
TURBIDITY: clear to 12 inch depth. CURRENT: Moderate.
' BANK VEGETATION: Not noted.
VEGETATION IN WATER: None.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Not recorded.
GENERAL NOTES:
Fine rock in middle and nearshore; shore areas with
very soft fine sediment.
Area very difficult to get to.
' SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
' Corbicula fluminea (Muller) - few Asian clams collected,
many dead seen.
about 12 inch rocky.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STATION #: 22 DATE: June 26, 1992
LOCALITY:
Richardson Creek sewage treatment plant off Walkup Ave (NC
Road #1751) just below discharge flume.
LAT. 34 59' 48" N. LONG. 80 29' 23" W.
0.0 MILES UPSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: SAMPLED AREA:
SAMPLING METHOD: Did not attempt.
16
MAX
WATER DEPTH: DEPTH INVESTIGATED:
' TURBIDITY: Very high. CURRENT: Moderate to strong.
BANK VEGETATION:
VEGETATION IN WATER. None.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: High banks, wooded.
GENERAL NOTES:
Water was foamy and dark purple. A stench of chlorine
was in the air. Conditions appeared too bad for any
sampling.
Permission must be gotten to get into area. Access, in
spite of a path, is difficult.
SPECIES COLLECTED DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Nothing collected.
-----------------------------------------------------------
STATION #: 23 DATE: June 26, 1992
LOCALITY:
100-200 yards downstream from Richardson Creek sewage
treatment plant flume [note station #22].
LAT. 34 59' 55" N. LONG. 80 29' 23"
<0.1 MILES DOWNSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: 55 ft.
SAMPLED AREA: Transect across stream and for about 100 ft
downstream.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 24 inches. DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 12-24 inches.
TURBIDITY: Purple color - could see to about 6 inch depth.
CURRENT: Light moderate. BANK VEGETATION: Wooded.
1 VEGETATION IN WATER: Little.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Hard clay northern bank with some sediment.
Southern shore with soupy silt having a bad odor.
GENERAL NOTES:
Permission must be gotten to get into area. Access,
after getting to flume, is very difficult.
SPECIES COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Nothing found.

17
1

' STATION #: 24 DATE: June 26, 1992
LOCALITY:
Olive Branch Road (NC Road #1006) crossing of Richardson
Creek.
LAT. 35 01' 54" N. LONG. 80 28' 15" W.
3.3 MILES DOWNSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: 50 ft. SAMPLED AREA: 100 ft.
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers and sight.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 18 inches DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 18 inches
TURBIDITY: Almost clear. CURRENT: Rapids area fairly fast.
BANK VEGETATION: Heavy brush.
VEGETATION IN WATER: Brown slippery algae on rocks.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Clay banks with some gravely sediment.
GENERAL NOTES:
Both riffles and pools were rocky.
SPECIES COLLECTED DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Nothing found.
STATION #: 41 DATE:--July-2,-1992
LOCALITY:
Richardson Creek crossing of NC Road #1630.
LAT. 35 02' 42" N. LONG. 80 27' 18" W.
5.9 MILES DOWNSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: 86 ft. SAMPLED AREA:
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
MAX. WATER DEPTH: 18 inches (pools] DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 12 inches
TURBIDITY: Partial. CURRENT: Moderate.
VEGETATION IN WATER: Yes.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: Banks about 12 ft. high.
GENERAL NOTES:
A few live Corbicula found downstream of bridge.
Nothing found above bridge.
SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Corbicula fluminea (Muller) - few living and dead Asian
clams.
6 inches rocky mid area moderate.
18

STATION #: 42 DATE: July 2, 1992
LOCALITY:
Richardson Creek crossing of NC Road #1645.
LAT. 35 041 05" N. LONG. 80 24' 24" W.
10.6 MILES DOWNSTREAM OF CITY OF MONROE WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
[LOWER LIMIT OF PROJECT].
STREAM WIDTH: 70 ft. SAMPLED AREA: 200 ft above and below
SAMPLING METHOD: Fingers, sight, and 1/8 inch mesh screen.
MAX* WATER DEPTH: 24 inches DEPTH INVESTIGATED: 24 inches.
' TURBIDITY: CURRENT:
BANK VEGETATION:
VEGETATION IN WATER: Brownish green algae on rocks and some
emergent Water Willow near the banks.
SHORE DESCRIPTION: 20 ft high.
GENERAL NOTES:
Some stony pool areas above and below the bridge. Creek
was rocky with stony shoals.
The Corbicula were found in the center of the stream
below the bridge.
SPECIES COLLECTED NUMBER LIVING/DEAD COLLECTED
DEPTH SUBSTRATE CURRENT
Corbicula fluminea (Muller) - few living Asian clams.
rocky.

1

?
19

f
C

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FISHES AND WATER QUALITY
BEARSKIN / RICHARDSON CREEK INTERCEPTOR LINE
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for McKim & Creed Engineers
by
Edward F. Menhinick
Professor of Biology
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Charlotte, North Carolina
9 July 1992

t

I

STREAM STUDIES
This first part of the report describes the characteristics of the streams along which the proposed
interceptor will pass, their water quality, and the organisms that were collected from them.
Streams of the area were sampled on June 29 and July 2 and 5 , 1992. Stream discharge was
calculated according to Embody's formula. The Wentworth grain size was used for inorganic
sediments. Water analysis followed the EPA manual 625/6-74-003a, "Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes". Turbidity was measured with a Hach 2100A turbidimeter;
conductivity was measured with a YSI Model 33/S-C-T meter; pH was measured with a
Chemtrex Type 40E pH meter; oxygen was measured with a YSI Model 58 oxygen meter. BOD
was determined with the YSI meter with dilutions based on EPA specifications. Fishes were
collected with a Smithroot Type VIII Electrofisher. Fish nomenclature and arrangement follow
the American Fishery Society Special Publication Number 20. In the listing, the common name of
each fish is given, followed by the number of individuals collected given in parenthesis.
Bearskin Creek
Bearskin Creek begins about 4 miles NNE of Mineral Springs and flows in an easterly direction
to its juncture with Richardson Creek, 9 airline miles from its origin. This stream was sampled at
four places.
Bearskin Creek at Dickerson Park. Bearskin Creek was sampled along Dickerson Park, 0.7
mi. WNW of Monroe. The 100 m floodplain was unusually wide for the small stream present.
The floodplain contained a mowed park on the west and a scrub forest dominated by sweet gum
and willow oak on the east. The partially channelized bank had a height of 210 cm, an angle of
700, and a channel width of 370 cm. It contained floodplain vegetation plus box elder and
elderberry. Ground cover consisted of honeysuckle, privet, poison ivy, and blackberry; mosses
were present in more shady areas. About 70% of the stream received direct sunlight. The
channel consisted of about 98% pools. Stream, width, which occupied the entire channel, was 370
cm; average depth was 29 cm; and average velocity was only 5 cm/sec, giving a discharge of 48
liters per second. There was a slight blockage from sticks. There was no bed load. Bottom type
was primarily a gleyed clay; occasional boulders were present. DO was 8.8 ppm; BOD was 1.9
ppm; conductivity was 80 umho; Secchi visibility was 70 cm; turbidity was 12 NTU; temperature
was 25 ° C; pH was 5.8, an unusually acidic value; and alkalinity was 26 ppm. Approximately 100
m of stream were sampled; sampling area was about of about 150 in 2. There was no visible sign
of pollution. The following fishes were collected: gizzard shad (1), yellow bullhead (1),
mosquitofish (2), redbreast sunfish (22), green sunfish (2), pumpkinseed (1), and bluegill (4).
The skin of the gizzard shad was heavily infected and most of the scales had deteriorated. In
summary, although there was no visible sign of pollution, the unusually high acidity and the low
numbers and low diversity of fishes (all of which were resistant to pollution) indicate that this
stream receives intermittent dumping of toxic wastes.
1

Pj

Bearskin Creek at Farmers Market. Bearskin Creek was next sampled behind the Farmers'
Market at the Chamber of Commerce Jaycee Park off Miller Street, 0.6 miles north of Monroe.
The 110 meter floodplain contained a farmers market with a mowed lawn on the south; the north
side was a mixture of an overgrown field containing various grasses and herbs, and a forest
dominated by willow oak, sycamore, locust, pine, and sweet gum. The bank was channelized and
riprapped with stone and woven fence; it was about 1 meter high and had an angle of 90°. The
stream which was 1200 cm wide received 100% sunshine; average depth was 9 cm and average
velocity was 5 cm.sec, giving a discharge of 48 liters/sec. 50% of the stream consisted of pools;
there was a heavy blockage of bedrock and aquatic vegetation. Bottom type was of bedrock and
boulders to gravel; there was a fine algal silt on everything, making the rocks very slippery.
Because I had not originally planned to sample at this place, and did so later because the large
amount of vegetation created a unique habitat, no chemical measurements were taken. Water
quality was probably similar to that of the upstream location. Fishes collected included the
following: bluehead chub (2), whitemouth shiner (3), flat bullhead (3), mosquitofish (36),
redbreast sunfish (12), green sunfish (1), bluegill (1), spotted sunfish (1), largemouth bass (1),
and tessellated darter (8). Also taken were one Cambarus crayfish, and 6 Procambarus
crayfish. Snails were abundant on the stones. A large turtle, probably a snapping turtle was
seen.
Bearskin Creek behind Shopping Center. Bearskin Creek was next sampled behind the Union
Valley Shopping Center, along US 74-601, 1.1 miles northeast of Monroe. The floodplain was
highly modified by construction. It contained a shopping center on the east and a relatively young
scrub forest on the west which was dominated by sweet gum. The unchannelized bank had a
height of 290 cm, an angle of 50°, and a channel width of 700 cm; it contained willow oak, river
birch, cottonwood, white oak, sweet gum, and alder. There was an understory of kudzu, grasses
and violets; mosses occurred in shady areas. About 40% of the stream received direct sunlight.
The channel consisted of 95% pools. Stream width was 340 cm; average depth was 18 cm; and
average velocity was 11 cm/sec, giving a discharge of 54 liters per second. There was a slight
blockage from boulders and branches. There was no bed load. Bottom type varied from cobbles
to bedrock; an orange-colored floc covered the substrate in stiller areas; algal mats were
occasionally present. Several nests of sunfishes were seen. DO was 9.3 ppm; BOD was 2.3
ppm; conductivity was 94 umho; Secchi visibility was clear to the bottom, about 100 cm; turbidity
was 6.7 NTU; temperature was 27°C; pH was 6.1; and alkalinity was 39 ppm. Approximately
100 m of stream were sampled; sampling area was about of about 150 m2. Visible signs of
pollution included slight bubbles and shopping carts, tires, bottles, etc. from the shopping center.
The following fishes were collected: bluehead chub (6), golden shiner (2), yellow bullhead (1),
flat bullhead (3), mosquitofish (11), redbreast sunfish (111), and green sunfish (1). Also taken
were 2 Cambarus crayfishes, 2 common water snakes, Nerodia sipedon, and a musk turtle,
Kinosternon subrubrum. Snails were uncommon on rocks. One of the golden shiners and one of
the mosquitofish had badly diseased skin, and both of the crayfishes were poorly calcified (the
rostrum was completely missing on one) indicative of poor water quality. In summary, the water
was slightly less acidic than at the above location, but fish diversity was low, and several of the
2

organisms were diseased; this section of the stream must be regarded as polluted.
Bearskin above Richardson Creek. Bearskin Creek was last sampled from from 300 to 100
meters above its confluence with Richardson Creek, below Walkup Ave, 2.4 miles ENE of
Monroe. The floodplain below the bridge contained a deciduous forest dominated by ash, poplar,
walnut, cottonwood, and redbud. The unchannelized bank had a height of 290 cm, an angle of 80°,
and a channel width of 690 cm. It contained floodplain vegetation plus elderberry, privet, herbs,
and a large number of herbs and grasses. About 20% of the stream received direct sunlight. The
channel consisted of 30% shallow fast-flowing pools. Stream width was 470 cm; average depth
was 11 cm, and average velocity was 20 cm/sec, giving a discharge of 83 liters per second. There
was a slight blockage from occasional boulders. There was no bed load. Bottom type varied from
bedrock and boulders to pebbles. All stones were covered with a dark green slippery algae; a
brown floc was present on most stones, and strands of Spirogyra algae were common in sunnier
areas. DO was 7.7 ppm; BOD was 1.7 ppm; conductivity was 91 umho; Secchi visibility was
clear to the bottom, and probably exceeded 100 cm; turbidity was only 4.7 NTU; temperature was
26 ° C; pH was 6.2; and alkalinity was 31 ppm. Visible sign of pollution included slight bubbles.
There was a strong odor of sewage where a sewer line crossed the creek, indicating a leak near
the creek. Approximately 200 m of stream were sampled; sampling area was about 200 m 2. The
following fishes were collected: bluehead chub (33), whitemouth shiner (2), yellow bullhead (1),
redbreast sunfish (34), and green sunfish (5). Also collected were one Cambarus crayfish and ,
one Procambarus crayfish. A few snails were present on rocks. In summary, this section of the
creek was still unhealthy as indicated by large amounts of organic floc, low fish numbers, and low
fish diversity.
Richardson Creek
Richardson Creek begins about 4 miles east of Jackson. Its drainage basin includes most of
south Monroe. It flows in a northeasterly direction, through Lake Lee, through the city of Monroe
and continues in an easterly direction to its juncture with Rocky River 28 straight line miles from
its origin. This stream was sampled at three places.
Richardson Creek below US 74 Bridge. Because of difficulties of sampling Richardson Creek
at the waste water treatment plant, it was decided to sample it at US 74, where there was a
shallow area that permitted sampling. This location was 2.5 miles east of Monroe. The 80 meter
floodplain contained a lowland forest dominated with sycamore, willow, river birch, with an
understory of privet. The unchannelized bank was 200 cm high, had and angle of 50°, and a width
of 800 cm. It was mostly bare and contained floodplain vegetation plus grasses, violets and
ferns. 15% of the stream received direct sunlight. Stream width was 800 cm; average depth was
23 cm; average velocity was 9 cm/sec giving a discharge of 150 liters/sec. 95% of the stream
consisted of pools; there was a very long pool above the bridge. Bottom type varied from cobbles
to gravel; there were occasional boulders. Secchi visibility was 60 cm. Because this station was
sampled after standard water samples were taken, water quality was not determined here; it
3
1 C C
was probably very similar to that of the station downstream. The following fishes were collected:
American eel (1), golden shiner (2), bluehead chub (1), spottail shiner (1), yellow bullhead (1),
mosquitofish (5), redbreast sunfish (9), bluegill (6), and tessellated darter (6). Campeloma
snails and Corbicula clams were present. One Elliptio clam and a Sphaerium clam were
taken. In summary, fish diversity and total numbers were unusually low for a stream of this size
and characteristics, and assuming that water chemistry is similar to the same stream
downstream, low dissolved oxygen, high BOD, and high acidity would appear to be a problem.
Richardson Creek below Walkup Avenue. Richardson Creek was next sampled below
Walkup Ave, 2.5 miles ENE of Monroe, near the confluence of Bearskin Creek. The 150 meter
floodplain contained a kudzu on the east and a deciduous forest on the west which was
dominated by hickory, white oak, river birch, redbud, sycamore. The partially channelized bank
had a height of 250 cm, an angle of 70°, and a channel width of 1400 cm. It contained floodplain
vegetation plus privet, elderberry, and grasses. About 90% of the stream received direct
sunlight. The channel consisted of a very long pool above the bridge (at least 200 meters long),
and 70% pools below the bridge. Stream width was 1400 cm; average depth was 18 cm, and
average velocity was 14 cm/sec, giving a discharge of 280 liters per second. There was a slight
blockage from boulders and clumps of water willow. There was no bed load. Bottom type varied
from cobbles to pebbles with occasional bounders; water willow was common in riffle areas; there
was an organic floc on everything. DO was 5.5 ppm,"an unusually low value; BOD was 3.4 ppm;
conductivity was 77 umho; Secchi visibility was clear to the bottom, about 100 cm; turbidity was
1 only 4.5 NTU; temperature was 260C; pH was 6.1; and alkalinity was 20 ppm. Approximately
100 m of stream were sampled; sampling area was about 200 m 2. Visible signs of pollution
included a heavy amount of bubbles. The following fishes were collected: American eel (1),
bluehead chub (1), redbreast sunfish (29), green sunfish (1), pumpkinseed (2), and tessellated
darter (2). Also taken were Campeloma snails, Corbicula clams, 5 Elliptio clams, 5
Cambarus crayfishes, and a musk turtle, Kinosternum subrubrum. (2). In summary, Richardson
Creek was moderately polluted at this location as indicated by the low numbers and diversity of
fishes, much lower than was expected from the characteristics of the stream and the large
amount of vegetation.
Richardson Creek off Bravo Place. Richardson Creek was last sampled behind the Comar
Hosiery plant, off of Bravo Place, 3.1 miles ENE of Monroe. The 90 meter floodplain was
vegetated with poplar, gum, river birch, box elder, ash, and hickory; there was a sewer line on the
i south side of the creek. The unchannelized bank was 800 cm high, had an angle of 80°, and was
1700 cm wide. It contained floodplain vegetation plus privet, polkberry, poison ivy and mixed
herbs. Approximately 80% of the stream received direct sunlight. The stream was 1700 cm
wide; average depth was 57 cm; and average velocity was 14 cm/sec., giving a discharge of 620
liters/sec. (The stream discharge was measured after a rain the night before and was
consequently considerably higher than might be expected based upon that of the station
upstream. All water quality samples were taken the same day, however, on June 29). 98% of
the stream consisted of pools and it was necessary to walk several hundred yards downstream

C
to find an area shallow enough to sample. Bottom type consisted of gravel and pebbles in pools,
and boulders and bedrock in riffles; there was a floc in stiller areas and a layer of algae on stones.
DO was 8.3 ppm; BOD was 3.5 ppm; conductivity was 76 umho; Secchi visibility was 80 cm;
turbidity was 4.9 NTU; temperature was 26°C; pH was 6.1; and alkalinity was 23 ppm.
Approximately 100 m of stream were sampled; sampling area was about 200 m 2. Visible signs
of pollution included a moderate amount of bubbles. The following fishes were collected:
American eel (1), bluehead chub (5), yellow bullhead (2), mosquitofish (6), redbreast sunfish
(37), green sunfish (2), pumpkinseed (2), and tessellated darter (2). Also taken were 2
Cambarus crayfishes and two Procambarus crayfishes. In summary, Richardson Creek
remained moderately polluted at this location as indicated by the low numbers and diversity of
fishes.
Richardson Creek above WWTP, Richardson Creek was last sampled just above where the
effluent of the Monroe waste water treatment plant entered the creek. The creek at this location
was too deep for a fish survey to be taken, and the fish survey was replaced by the additional
sample on US 74 (reported earlier in this report). DO just above the WWPT was 7.7 ppm; BOD
was 1.7 ppm; conductivity was 80 umho; turbidity was 3.5 NTU; pH was 6.2; and alkalinity was
22 ppm. In summary, these values were similar to those at the above location except that the
BOD had decreased from 3.5 to 1.7. This was unexpected based on the proximity of the two
locations and is indicative of a slug of high BOD wastes that had not yet reached the area just
above the plant.

C

1 c ?

COMMENTS ON SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE STUDY AREA
Thirty-three species of fishes have been reported over the last 30 years from the Richardson
Creek drainage area, or might be expected to occur there based on proximity of neighboring
collections. This is about 20% less than the number of species occurring in similar sized
drainages of the lower Piedmont of North Carolina and indicates long term pollution of the area.
Only 16 of these species were collected in this study. Most species not collected were reported
from less polluted headwater streams or farther downstream, near where Richardson Creek joins
Rocky River in Anson County. In this annotated listing, the terms "abundant", "common",
"uncommon", and "rare" have been used to indicate abundance. "Abundant" means that the
species has been found in at least 50% of the collections of the area, "common" refers to 20-50%
of the collections, "uncommon" to 10-20% of the collections, and "rare" to less than 10%. The
terms "possibly" has been used if the species has not been reported from the stream but might
be expected to occur there based upon proximity in neighboring areas. The terms "creeks",
"streams", and "rivers" have been used to designate approximate sizes of streams. "Creeks"
refer to smaller streams, "streams" to medium sized streams, and "rivers" to larger streams.
One species of fish of special status may occur in the area, but was not collected in this study.
Because of its relative rarity and limited distribution, the Carolina darter, Etheostoma collis is
list ed as "special concern" by the state. The listing of fish species, their relative abundance,
habitat preference, and relative sensitivity to pollution follows.
Anguillid.ae - freshwater eels
American eel. Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur). The American eel occurs uncommonly in creeks,
streams, and rivers of the area. During the day it usually is under stones and banks in pool
areas. It feeds at night and is usually caught with trot lines or traps. Its flesh is white and
excellent. The American eel is highly resistant to pollution. It was collected an all three areas of
Richardson Creek.
Clupeidae - herrings
Gizzard shad. Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur). The gizzard shad occurs rarely in slow areas
of rivers and streams, and in lakes. This plankton-feeder is an important forage species when
small; when mature, it is too large for a forage fish and competes with game species for plankton.
The gizzard shad is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution and is subject to mass mortalities,
usually in the winter, from unknown causes. It was collected only in Bearskin Creek at the park.
6
r.
Bsocidae - pikes
Redfin pickerel. Esox americanus Gmelin. The redfin pickerel is possibly rare in clear, slow
flowing creeks and streams. This is an excellent little game fish; its flesh is bony but sweet and
of excellent flavor. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not collected in this study.

11
Chain pickerel. Esox niger Lesueur. The chain pickerel occurs uncommonly in clean, quiet,
weedy creeks and streams of the area. It is a popular game fish. Its flesh is bony but sweet and
of excellent flavor. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
Cyprinidae - minnows and carps
Satinfin shiner. Cyprinella analastana Girard. The satinfin shiner is rare in streams of the area.
It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
Fieryblack shiner. Cyprinella pyrrhomelas (Cope). The fieryblack shiner is possibly rare in
faster flowing streams of the area. It is sensitive to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
Bluehead chub. Nocomis leptocephalus (Girard). The bluehead chub is abundant in streams
and creeks of the area. Its gravel nests are also used as spawning sites for other fishes. This
important forage fish is highly resistant to pollution. It was collected in both creeks.
Golden shiner. Notemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill). The golden shiner occurs commonly in
streams and creeks of the area. The young are important forage fish and are one of our commoner
bait minnows; the adults are often undesirable because they eat the fry of game fishes. The
golden shiner is resistant to pollution. It was collected in one station in each of the creeks.
Whitemouth shiner. Notropis alborus Hubbs & Raney. The whitemouth shiner occurs
commonly in the riffle areas of swift creeks and streams of the area. It is moderately sensitive to
pollution. It was collected in two of the stations in Bearskin Creek.
Highfin shiner. Notropis altipinnis (Cope). The highfin shiner is uncommon in creeks of the
area. It is moderately sensitive to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
Redlip shiner. Notropis chiliticus (Cope). The redlip shiner is uncommon in streams and
creeks of the area. It is an important forage species where abundant. It is resistant to pollution.
It was not collected in this study.
Spottail shiner. Notropis hudsonius (Clinton). The spottail shiner is rare in streams and rivers
of the area. This is an important forage fish for large stream species. It is moderately resistant
to pollution. It was collected only in Richardson Creek at US 74.
7
I C C
Sandbar shiner. Notropis scepticus (Jordan & Gilbert). The sandbar shiner is possibly rare in
the swifter portions of streams in the area. It is sensitive to pollution. It was not collected in
this study.
Creek chub. Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill). The creek chub is uncommon in creeks and
streams of the area. This important forage fish is resistant to pollution. It was not collected in
this study.
r Catostomidae - suckers
' Creek chubsucker. Erimyzon oblongus (Mitchill). The creek chub sucker occurs abundantly in
slower moving creeks and streams of the area. It spawns in clear swift creeks with sand-gravel
bottoms in early spring. The young are important forage fishes in acid coastal waters. The flesh
is bony but firm and flavorful when taken from cold water, becoming soft and less flavorful from
warm water. The adults eat the eggs of other fishes. The creek chubsucker is resistant to
pollution. It was not collected in this study.
I Ictaluridae - catfishes
White catfish. Ameiurus catus (Linnaeus). The white catfish occurs uncommonly in rivers of
the area. This night-feeder is primarily taken by trot lines and traps; the flesh is good. It is
resistant to pollution. It was not collected in this study.

1

Yellow bullhead. Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur). The yellow bullhead is rare in the study area.
Most previous Piedmont records probably refer to the brown bullhead which has often been
confused with the yellow bullhead. The flesh is fair to poor, but this species provides sport as it
readily takes cut bait and dough balls. It is resistant to pollution. It was collected in both creeks.
Brown bullhead. Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur). The brown bullhead occurs commonly in
rivers and streams of the area. This species is readily caught by cane pole fishermen using
worms, cut bait, or dough balls; the flesh is very tasty when taken from unpolluted waters. It is
resistant to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
Flat bullhead. Ameiurus platycephalus (Girard). The flat bullhead is rare in slower rivers and
streams with mud and sand bottoms. For many years it was lumped with the snail bullhead, and
consequently its range is still poorly known. Its flesh is good. It is probably moderately
resistant to pollution. It was collected in two stations in Bearskin creek.
Margined madtom. Noturus insignis (Richardson). The margined madtom is possibly rare in
streams and less numerous in creeks of the area. It is intermediate in sensitivity to pollution. It
was not collected in this study.
8
Aphredoderidae - pirate perches
Pirate perch. Aphredoderus sayanus (Gilliams). The pirate perch is common in pool areas of
streams and creeks of the area. Its abundance makes it an important forage fish in the Coastal
Plain. It is resistant to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
1
Poeciliidae - live bearers
r Mosquitofish. Gambusia holbrooki Girard. The mosquitofish is abundant in still, weedy
backwater areas of streams and creeks. Where abundant this may be an important forage fish
due largely to its high reproductive potential. It is often introduced into ponds and lakes for
mosquito control. It is highly resistant to pollution. It was collected in both creeks.
1
Centrarchidae - sunfishes
Redbreast sunfish. Leporris auritus (Linnaeus). The redbreast sunfish is abundant in slower
moving sections of streams and creeks of the area. This important game fish has excellent flesh
and is a good forage species for largemouth bass. It is resistant to pollution. It was collected in
all stations.
Green sunfish. Lepomis cyanellus Rafines1
c ue. The green sunfish is common in sluggish
' streams of the area. This game fish is of little importance because of its small size. It tends to
over-populate restricted waters. It is resistant to pollution. It was collected in both creeks.
' Pumpkinseed. Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus). The pumpkinseed occurs abundantly in the pool
areas of streams and creeks; it particularly prefers weedy areas. This attractive game fish is too
small to be important for human consumption but it does provide forage for largemouth bass. As
with most other sunfish, overreproduction often results in stunting. It is intermediate in
sensitivity to pollution. It was collected in both creeks.
' Warmouth. Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier). 'rhe warmouth is abundant in streams and rivers of the
area. Although its flesh is excellent, this game fish is not a favorite sports fish. It is resistant to
r pollution. It was not collected in this study.
' Bluegill. Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesyue. The bluegill is abundant in slower moving parts of
streams and rivers of the area. This is our most important game fish along with the largemouth
bass; it is a relatively large sunfish, is it favorite of cane pole and fly fishermen, is an excellent
' fighter, and has sweet and flavorful flesh. It is also an important forage fish for largemouth bass.
The bluegill is resistant to pollution. It was collected in both creeks.
1
9
r C
Redear sunfish. Lepomis microlophus (Gunther). The redear sunfish has been introduced fro
' Mississippi drainage streams into farm ponds of the area and occurs rarely in streams. This is a
good game fish which readily takes natural baits, but which seldom strikes flies or spinners. It is
moderately resistant to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
Largemouth bass. Micropterus salmoi&s (Lacepede). The largemouth bass is common in
rivers and streams of the area. This is our most important inland game fish along with the
bluegill; it is an excellent game fish and the flesh is excellent. It is moderately resistant to
pollution. Only one juvenile was collected at the farmers market in Bearskin Creek.
White crappie. Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque. The white crappie is uncommon in slower
moving rivers and streams of the area. It is an excellent game fish with fine flesh. High
reproductive rate often results in stunting due to competition for food. The white crappie is
intermediate in sensitivity to pollution and can tolerate warm turbid waters. It was not collected
in this study.
Black crappie. Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur). The black crappie is rare in streams and
rivers of the area. It is an excellent game fish with fine flesh. It is intermediate in sensitivity to
pollution. It was not collected in this study.
i
Percidae - perches
Carolina darter. Etheostoma collis (Flubbs & Cannon). The Carolina darter has been reported
as rare in creeks of the area. This elusive little darter apparently prefers shallow backwater
areas of streams which often contain vegetation. It has been found in shallow riffles, however. It
appears to be resistant to pollution. It was not collected in this study.
1
Tessellated darter. Etheostoma olmstedi Storer. The tessellated darter is rare in the riffle
areas of streams and creeks in the area. It is resistant to pollution. It was collected in both
creeks.

1 10
' IMPACT ANALYSIS
Siltation. A major pollutant of both Bearskin Creek and Richardson Creek is a heavy amount of
siltation. Such siltation harms streams by covering areas where food chain organisms live, by
covering fish eggs, by covering habitats under rocks, and by filling pool areas, one of the most
' important habitats of fishes. Most of this siltation probably comes from agricultural development
in the surrounding area. Construction of the proposed interceptor will create additional temporary
siltation. Once the lines are completed, disturbed areas are seeded, and a good ground cover of
vegetation is established, associated siltation would be minimal. Because the area is already
heavily silted, additional siltation from a well planned project should have only moderate short
time effects, and probably no long term effects. It is important, however, that steps be
undertaken to reduce potential siltation by carefully regulating construction activities, by utilizing
siltation trapping ponds and other erosion control structures, and by seeding exposed areas as
soon as possible. It would be advantageous, if possible, to schedule most construction during
the summer or early fall because runoff would be minimal at this time, and this is a period of rapid
growth of protective vegetation. A wide buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation between the
' construction and the river bank would go a long way toward reduction of influent silt. I would
personally recommend a minimum of I W feet where normal construction practices would permit.
Turbidity. Turbidity refers to suspended material in the water which blocks sunlight, and thus
reduces photosynthesis. This suspended material settles out in slower areas and adds to the
silt load which covers bottom fish food organisms and buries fish eggs. Turbidity was very low
(3.5-12 NTU) in both of the study streams, largely because of low runoff preceding the times of
' the study. As with siltation, most turbidity originates as a result of vegetation removal
associated with land use and should be dealt with in the same manner as siltation.
Conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of dissolved ions that conduct electricity, primarily
sodium chloride from waste water treatment discharge and calcium bicarbonate from agricultural
runoff. Conductivity was not unusually high in streams of the study area (76-94 umho). If
pollutants are properly disposed of, the proposed construction should not adversely affect
conductivity. However, increased discharge from the Monroe waste water treatment plant would
almost certainly increase dissolved solids below the plant.
Dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen was near or slightly above air saturation values for most
measurements made during this study primarily because the shallowness of the water assured
good air exchange and because algae covering many of the rocks added oxygen to the water.
However, DO was unusually low at Richardson Creek at Walkup Avenue, about 57% saturation.
Construction activities would not normally affect dissolved oxygen.
' Organic pollution. Biochemical oxygen demand was low for the Bearskin creek, but was
unusually high for the Richardson creek at Walkup Avenue and Bravo Place . BOD wastes
' result in low levels of dissolved oxygen as they decompose. Resultant low dissolved oxygen is
II

J
[1

often a serious problem below wastewater treatment plants and high BOD is often associated
with a disagreeable odor and inability of all but the most resistant fishes to survive. The leak in
the outfall line that crosses Bearskin Creek above its confluence with Richardson Creek should
be investigated and necessary repairs should be made as soon as possible.
Toxic wastes. Most of the problems affecting this stream are probably associated with a
variety of toxic wastes which apparently enter the streams above the study areas. High
amounts of acidity were especially noticeable in both creeks (pH = 5.8-6.2). I recommend that
additional surveys be taken above the areas of the proposed interceptors to try to pinpoint the
sources of these pollutants. Care should be taken to assure that gasolines, oils and lubricants as
well as chemicals used to join the pipes not enter the river.
Eutrophication. Excessive amount of phosphates and nitrates may be critical in certain streams
or reservoirs with limited turnover. However, eutrophication is not a problem in in the study
area, and construction and maintenance of the proposed sewer lines should present no problems
of eutrophication.
Increased runoff. Bearskin Creek and Richardson Creek receive large amounts of runoff from
agricultural, urban and residential sources. Construction of the interceptor sewer will probably
result in only a slight increase in runoff.- Once areas have a good grass cover, this runoff should
return to normal. Runoff should be minimized by clearing only areas immediately needed and by
seeding bare areas as soon as possible so that vegetation may be reestablished.
Debris. Care should be taken to assure the proper disposal of debris resulting from clearing and
construction.
Fishery resources. Bluegill, green sunfish, and catfishes were common in the area. However,
the specimens collected in this study were stunted and were too small to be considered a fishery
resource. Although there is a potential Fishery for bluegill, largemouth bass, and catfishes in the
deeper sections of Richardson Creek, siltation and toxic pollutants will undoubtedly continue to
pose a serious threat to these species. Construction and maintenance of the proposed sewer line
will probably have little direct effects on fisheries. However, elimination of sources of pollution
above the areas of construction should greatly improve water quality and do much to prevent it
from deteriorating in the future.
Endangered species. The Carolina darter, it species of special concern, has been reported from
a small headwater tributary to Richardson Creek; however, this elusive little darter was not
collected in the proposed areas of construction. The Carolina darter appears to be quite tolerant
of moderate amounts of siltation and of pollution in general, but apparently could not tolerate
conditions in either of the two creeks.
Project alternatives. The silted nature of the streams extends for the entire distance of the
12

1

l
proposed interceptor. The line could be placed on either side of the river, and essentially any
distance from it as long as a satisfactory buffer is maintained and river crossings are minimized.
Mitigation measures. Most effects of the project should occur only during and shortly after
construction; once construction is completed and vegetation is restored, the stream should return
to near preconstruction conditions.
Improvement of waters. Although no point sources of pollution entering the creek directly were
observed, other than the odor from the line crossing Bearskin Creek just above its confluence
with Richardson Creek, a thorough search should be made to determine if such exist, and
offenders should be encouraged to discharge wastes into the interceptor.
In conclusion, construction of the interceptor will probably result in increased siltation during
construction. This problem can be greatly reduced if siltation measures are undertaken, and if a
satisfactory buffer is maintained between disturbed areas and the bank of the river. There should
be relatively few problems once construction is completed and disturbed areas are stabilized.
Increased runoff should ultimately be no worse than is presently occurring once the disturbed
areas return to a natural vegetation. With satisfactory environmental safeguards and proper
monitoring, construction and use of the sewage outfall line should have no serious long term
environmental consequences. I therefore recommend that the project be approved and the
construction begin as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,

Edward F. Menhinick, Ph.D.
Professor of Biology
13

1
7

i
IX. FIGURES

1
1
I%McK M&CRffD

1
F

J

V I C I N I T Y
UNION COUNTY
SCALE ,• - 2 MLES
M A P

1
C
C

1

1

1
1

1

co
X
w
0
Z

a

U
= o
a

C)
W
< J
O
v
i- 0 to
Cf)
H.WON

cri

N

T

I

W
1 C9
Z Z
=1 N
N
U
W
U ?
a
LU 0-
I- Q
O
ac U
ac a-
Ocr
DO
ac
ac ?
00
M
O
m
°o
w=FO-
w
U
CCa
z ac
O
oCl)?
cc w
w w
cc:
U m 0

I

L

C

P

I
n

i
R? ?-
` Mal
/ r
C Jlu
1 !
YD
W V
U
Jsn cn
UL U
/ lJI./ \ Jeoe w
4a WU Q
!YI z cn
S Vl
? R
,JU R w 4
- Jpo v a U
p Q
,54
I .
.40
540- 0
\ V _ CD
a !JS!
O
)10 Ili in
¦i/i¦yt_I
w = ?-
ar- a?
i z Cc
L
w
O
oc?
< ?w•
5 w

I

c
Ilk,

n

1

0

co
w
?E L

N

W Q

0 0
Q p
Q = C?
j J cr)
W
w
< =
a U
u)
.

HWON C*i

? T

1

1

V I C I N I T Y
UNION counmr
SCALE r - 2 Mss
M A P

0

i

0

1

X
W
0
Z
a-
a

U

a-
<
C)

a
C- w O o
CD co
H.WON

cri

N

T

u
u
n
n
n

H
CD

?E L

N
W
a #

- cn
Q C5

Q _
V J Cf)
W
Q
a- <
to

H.WON N

T
cn
801d30831N1 )13380
ONISSONO wb3US db'IN 01HdddO0d01
.ON
loot - a
'MMML""
81f108 80a18H00 NOS08`dHOIH / NINSUV38
3NIl 801d302131N1 308 NON 10 /?.Li ' 1'
0

O
\ 1
y
x ? ( L1

? •
O ? 1 SS' 1S Or
M
II^^''
1
r
- x
a
? I OMOy!>1
O
6
`• ` y
.f 10

oa
y ? O
?
, I
F ? ? ? ? dCi 0 ?; ! Y
i

,A On z v

9 uo 1vMxitS

?N
is V\

?b
I.%

•
o
f W ?•
?
$
i

R 7
G-
5 M3
.i? o ? J -\ J 09

6
°z 6 n ^, N ?tla 38ROtl
Q `??' • U P CN ER Y
•
Y
,
Q ?
1
r v
OD U
O 0 l/
?.J • ~ • N I ?+ u
? I?
Y
-.?
? O? ? ?1 ?? ? A
t?
?
w
g,
b I I??
a
O /O • a ? p K.
.4, IJy ? W ? ?4 (n1
!? L • ? (? ' i hr' ? I la 0 .c p?E
O V r I ,
J ? a ? (loo Q^ ? ?• ? c? rte. . ? ?? g y1
1 `?Q ' "_ Q o Q ti
.60

m m I m m m m m m m m m m m m m
E
.? ?bON JNISS083 Wd3aS
db'W OIHdb'dJOd01 801d3Od31Ni )133dO
NOSaH`dH01d / NDISS`d38
?ooe - ,i
3Nn NOId33N31Ni R MOH 80018HOO u t'
BOHNOW 10 "0
I

Illy

_ O<r
I

j
A r
'RE c

\ )I I / ? r i

I
•

111111

kl-
F

ii r?-._ '' ,?`?\`\\?\

CAE K
\? ` RSKN ...
i I.Si >i, ,.:• -tee _. e° ? ?

O
?? o

(? R

gg ''? ? f ?? '
a
p \ ? a N R
V0.
I 7l # .f r
b .? ? f O

f C

- / ?^

Z Fu?
--_ oN
...? 9NISS0210 We321S
ddW OH WHID0801 801dGO8E.NI )13880
.O
'M
'00t,
- .1
_
31noli
8001880O NOSC78dHO18 / NDIS8d88

3Nn NO.Ld3ON31N1 t?
8O8NOW 10 aO
l II
? -
O O 5
.Q
? I
•J ? 5T V

•
I
AI. SUTNERLSND \-

?vlf? ? Y

1

?S o

?g

I
o
Oq
A
w
s
? y
R

w
f
??
? I_j
R
?
?
w

1 w p
`
0
o?
?
x w w
I
\ Q O ? I.
t ?asoi

?,

? °•9r
40
w
? w 7t

0
1 Ala
O
h ~ ?
NSII N3

CITY of MONROE CORRIDOR ROUTE
BEARSKIN / RICHARDSON AERIAL MAP
CREEK INTERCEPTOR
DS
ttt
r • 3W SFIT.
T No.
NORTH 2
m = = = = m = = = r m m = = = m
CITY of MONROE Wt I LANUJ
BEARSKIN RICHARDSON CORRIDOR ROUTE ??
T No.
CREEK INTERCEPTOR AERIAL MAP OODLANDS NORTH
++++ 1

CITY of MONROE CORRIDOR ROUTE
BEARSKIN / RICHARDSON AERIAL MAP
CREEK INTERCEPTOR
if -300 sHr.
NO.
DS + NORTH
3
++
m m m. m m m m m m r m r m m m m m m m
CITY, of MONROE M """"5 .....
CORRIDOR ROUTE ?.
BEARSKIN / RICHARDSON - No.
AERIAL MAP OODLANDS T
CREEK INTERCEPTOR +++++++ N0?" 4
r? rr r rw rr rr rr rr rr r r rr rr r r r. r ¦¦. ?.
CITY of MONROE '"??iNDS ?
CORRIDOR ROUTE , 300Sir'.
BEARSKIN / RICHARDSON NO.
AERIAL MAP WOODLANDS T
CREEK INTERCEPTOR + + + + + + + NORTH
5
+ + + dO1d8Ol??1N1 ?8?8?
9 HIUpN + + + SGNVIOOOM
'ON -..rte ....... d`dW ?b'I?J?b' NOSaBdHOIB / NDISHVD8
?s ,00C ..[ .. 81(108 HOCJ1uuoo
ONWUM BONNOW 10 JUIO

J_
O
V)
0-
0
W
m
J
liz \ J Q
O? ?z
U w ry
J
? UO Q
O Of m W = Cy
f-
O W Of LLI
Q
U 0 p ?
W
^ \ i J
Y L()
p Z \ ? U
W O W U X
pOQ \ Om WW
LJ _j Q j J LJ -F \ Q
W O
M W O z p
w ?cl? _ \ Q O z
W pwW Q w 0 :2 Q
Q Q J 1- p M
W W Q C3j - - L? z
ro I- Q J W ?- O O
W pmg Q?p ff
Z mZ 0 0 `z O?> L.Lj
J
Of ?Qp \ :2 Q:2 0- I j
a_ (1r) m X
ono z ?
~ LL
0
CD o
cr?
W
LL- w J ?.-
C) 0
m z % Ctf V)
C) LL- 0
W Of 0 LLJ F- LL.
LO m F-
J / wo 0
0
z LLJ
z U
z O
Cy cf) 0
ry
w ! Q
x / w
C V) M
? W
U
Z
F-o i
w 0 /
i

i
4 p 1
E

t

ilk
e ? c /
? e
1( 1
k
• o
V

i
YS
" ?
l I
Nr
.
r . ..
Mill

E 1lI U i

v ? r
\ J.fO

CITY Of MONROE

BEARSKIN / RICHARDSON
CORRIDOR ROUTE INTERCEPTOR UNE
mom
l'- 4W
•?.---

NO.

CREEK INTERCEPTOR TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
--v?N ?f 27??3 STREAM CROSSING ?
NORTH
3
vo= Imam
?f
raw

MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Wright/COE, Wilmington
John Dorney/Wat Quality, Raleigh
FROM; Margaret Gray
DATE: June 28, 1993
RE: Bearskin/Richardson Interceptor
a Union County; City of Monroe
M &C045 8.0004(12)
Gentlemen - During the latter part of 1992 we received appropriate permits to
obtain a Nationwide Permit No. 12 for the referenced project.
During construction a conflict with a major gas line became apparent. Due to the
nature of the gas line, i.e., service cannot be interrupted, a realignment is
imminent.
Attached you will find an 11 x17 scale drawing depicting a realignment on the
opposite creek bank. Approximately 3000 linear feet will be relocated. Two
stream crossings (below grade) are required. Three hundred feet of wetlands will
be traversed with a corridor width of 30' totaling 0.21 acres of impact. This would
increase our original permitted impact from 5.5 acres to 5.71 acres.
Construction methodology will be in keeping with our original permit:
1) no change in pre-construction contours. -
2) the top 6-12" of wetland areas will be backfilled with original soil
3) excess material will be removed upland
4) stream banks & slopes will be stabilized immediately upon completion
of the utility line. (Attached Mitigation Plan)
Your expeditious "consideration is appreciated. Refer to Corp Action ID#
199203651, DEM #92410 for earlier correspondence regarding this project.
bbs
PC: Steve Lund/Asheville COE
MqoVI&CREID
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 YIA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E H N
A. Presion Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 1, 1993
Mr. P.Wilson Crook
Director of Utilities
City of Monroe
P.O. Box 69
Monroe, N.C. 28110
Dear Mr. Crook:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Bearskin/Richardson Creek sewer inteceptors
Union County
DEM Project # 92410, COE # 199203651
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in an additional 0.21 acres of wetlands or
waters which are tributary to Bearskin/Richardson Creeks for sewer
line installation located at US 200 in Union County as described in
your submittal dated 12 July 1993, we have determined that the
proposed fill can be covered by General Water Quality Certification
No. 2664 issued January 21, 1992. A copy of the General Certification
is attached. This Certification may be used in qualifying for
coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 12.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right
to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30)
days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such
demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
S' cerely,
rest >Howarl, Jr. P.E.
92410a.1tr
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Margaret Gray; McKim and Creed
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5096 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Carolina 'T I
Department of Environment, LT94A
Health and Natural Resources 4 • •
,Division of Environmental Management
James , Jr., Governor ID G u ? F1
Jonathan an B B. . Howes, , Secretary ?---i
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 24, 1993
Mr. P. Wilson Crook
Director of Utilities
City of Monroe
P.O. Box 69
Monroe, N.C. 28110
Dear Mr. Crook:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Bearskin/Richardson Creek sewer interceptors
Union. County
DEM Project # 92410, COE # 199203651
Upon review of your request for 401 Water Quality Certification to place fill material in
5.53 acres of wetlands or waters which are tributary to Bearskin/RichardsonCreeks for sewer
line installation in Union County, as described in your submittal dated 19 May 1993, we have
determined that the proposed fill can be covered by General Water Quality Certification No.
2664 issued January 21, 1992. A copy of the General Certification is attached. This
Certification may be used in qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide
Permit No. 12. The city is required to restore the entire construction corridor except for the 10
foot wide permanent easement where mowing/bushhogging is allowed.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
r ston Howard, Jr. P.E.
92410.Itr
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Margaret Gray; McKim and Creed
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
.w 4 110
McKIM&CREED
July 12, 1993
ENGINEERS
Mr Dan Blaisdell
SURVEYORS N C D E H N R/D E M
ARCHITECTS P 0 Box 29535
Raleigh NC 27626-0535
PLANNERS
RE: Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor Line
City of Monroe, Union County
Project #CS370564-03
Dear Dan:
M&C0458.0004(12)
A FNSI and environmental assessment was submitted by your office
for the referenced project the end of February/93. No significant
objections resulted and construction activities commenced.
Recently a main gas line was encountered. Due to insurmountable
conflicts with this gas line 3,000 linear feet of interceptor will be
relocated to the opposite creek bank. (Refer to attachments)
In regard to the environmental considerations exercised in the earlier
assessment we contacted the biological consultants to determine the
associated impacts, if any. Copies of their findings are attached.
Fundamentally they conclude that the proposed relocation corridor is
highly disturbed and that no endangered, threatened or special
concern species inhabit the area.
The Corp of Engineers and State Water Quality Section were also
contacted in regard to the wetland crossings. Approximately 0.21
acres of wetlands will be impacted. No change in pre-construction
243 NORTH FRONT STREET contours will result and the top 6-12" of wetland areas will be
backfilled with original soil. We have not received comments back
wILnniNGTON,.rvc 28401
from them as yet. However the same mitigation measures will be
x,9/343-1048 utilized and permits were obtained for prior impacts.
FAX [phone]

With this relocation being inconsequential in nature we submit this
information to act as a minor modification to the earlier 201 /EA
submittal. Please circulate as you deem appropriate.
Should you need additional information or clarification please contact
me.
Sincerely,
MCKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, P.A.
Margare . Gray, R.L.A.
Project Manager

/bbs
pc: Monica Swihart/DEM, Raleigh
John Dorney/DEM, Raleigh.
Wayne Wright/COE, Wilmington
Chrys Baggett/DA, Raleigh
McIT"&CREEM
.
Institute of Marine Sciences
919/726-6841
FAX: [phone]

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT
CHAPEL HILL
July 6, 1993
fleceived By.
JUL 7 1Q°'-
McKim & Creed Engineerf
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Ms. Margaret Gray
McKim & Creed Engineers
243 North Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Dear Ms. Gray:
Regarding your. June 23, 1993 memo.concerning a proposed
relocation of 3,000 linear feet of the Richardson/Bearskin Creek
Interceptor Line:
The relocation area is between my Bearskin Creek sample stations
#'s 10 and 11. Within the waters of that area, the only living
mollusks found were a few Corbicula fluminea (Muller), the
recently introduced Asian clam. This section of the creek down
to where it empties into Richardson's Creek has indications long-
term, prior-acting, man-related habitat distruction. It is my
belief that relocation of the Interceptor Lines to the opposite
shore in this area would have no worse effect on an already
highly disturbed molluscan habitat in that section of Bearskin
Creek.
Sincerely,
Hugh J. Porter
Curator of Mollusc Collections
HJP/bbb
-I r U14 .]' .r M

Department of Biology
UNCC
Charlotte, NC 28223
July 19, 1993
Mrs. Margaret A. Gray, R.L.A
McKim & Creed Engineers
243 North Front Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
FAX [phone]
Dear Mrs. Gray,
About a year ago I sent you a report summarizing the water quality and fishes of the Bearskin/
Richardson Creek Interceptor Line. The proposal to relocate 3000 feet of an interceptor line along
Bearskin Creek should have little additional effect on the water quality and fishes, and I do not feel that
any additional studies are necessary.
Yours truly,

Edward F. Menhinick, Ph. D.
Professor of Biology

?- .JUL 19P
L(1 I TE
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte e,F. Lngineer-
Charlotte, N.C. 28223
Department of Biology
7041547-2315
June 29, 1993
Margaret Gray
McKim and Creed
243 N. Front St.
Wilmington, NC 28401
Dear Ms. Gray:
We have completed the examination of the south bank of
Bearskin Creek for the Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor.
Enclosed is the report, along with the invoice for our
verbally agreed amount.
. Thank.you for allowing us to assist in the reevaluation
of the vegetation for the project.
Sincerely,
a es F. `Matthews
o0
fessor of Biology
The University of North Carolina i> a;mposed Of the s;X ee°rt public senior institutions it? North Carolina
An ("quo'' (71,t;,uh.:rritv`:1!-irn:atin., Action F:nplrn:er
i y
Environmental Assessment - Flora
Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor
Partial Right-of-Way Relocation
June 1993
Prepared for McKim and Creed
by
James F. Matthews, Ph.D.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Partial Right-of-Way Relocation
Bearskin/Richardson Creek Interceptor
The right-of-way from NC 200 for ca. 3,000 feet east is
proposed to be moved to the south bank of Bearskin Creek.
This site was examined on 29 June 1993 to update the report
on the vegetation.
The right-of-way enters a cultivated field just east of
NC 200, for ca. 900 ft. It then crosses into a low woods,
on the first terrace/floodplain (f/t) above the creek,
extending for ca. 500 ft.. This low woods is dominated by
willow oak (Quercus phellos) 18" dbh, short leaf pine (Pinus
echinata) 16" dbh, sweetgum (Liguidambar styraciflua) 16"
dbh and American elm (Ulmus americana) 10" dbh. There is a
dense understory of privet (Ligustrum sinense) and deciduous
holly ((Ilex decidua). The ground cover is poison ivy (Rhus
toxicodendron), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica.), cinnamon vine
(Dioscorea batatas), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
guinguefolia) and bellwort (Uvularia sessilifolia).
The righ-of-way crosses a tributary, into a dense stand
of privet, then on to a steep slope above the creek. This
slope extends for ca. 600 ft. Although north facing, it is
drier than expected. The woody species are not large,
indicative of past disturbance, and there is evidence of

2
fallen trees from Hurricane Hugo. The dominant trees are
white oak (Quercus alba) 11" dbh, pignut hickory (Carya
glabra) 811 dbh, northern red oak (Quercus rubra) 6" dbh over
a diverse subcanopy and shrub layer. The primary species
here are: chalk maple (Acer saccharum subsp. leucoderme),
dogwood (Cornus florida), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.),
basswood (Tilia heterophylla), redbud (Cercis canadensis),
viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), witchhazel (Hamamelis
virginiana) and fringe tree (Chionanthus virginicus).
The herbaceous layer is less well developed due to the
dense shrub layer, but is represented by: false Solomon-seal
(Smilacina racemosa), wild ginger (Hexastylis virginica),
bellwort (Uvularia sessilifolia), wild yam (Dioscorea
villosa), hepatica (Hepatica americana), trailing arbutus
(Epigaea repens), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata),
aureolaria (Aureolaria virginica) and ebony spleenwort fern
(Asplenium platyneuron). only one species of aster was found,
Aster infirmus. This entire slope may have to be removed
to accommodate the right-of-way.
The right-of-way then crosses a ravine, a wet weather
drainage (marked 1 on the map) passing into a wider flood
plain, with a few black willows (Salix nigra) 121, dbh and
an extremely dense growth of privet (Ligustrum sinense).
Past disturbance is evident, with a dense growth of
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and cinnamon vine (Dioscorea
-r
3
batatas) covering the ground. The flood plain is wide enough
here to accommodate the right-of-way. If a wider area is
needed, only the base of the slope will be disturbed, then
a few red maples (Acer rubrum) will be disturbed. This
extends for ca. 500 ft, until a second wet weather drainage
is crossed (marked 2 on the map).
Here the.floodplain should also accommodate the right-
of-way. The dominant tree is sweetgum, 7" dbh, with an
extremely dense stand of privet. Here also, much of the
area has been used as a trash dump in the past, from the
previously used field above (now abandoned). This same
disturbance extends for ca. 700 ft. to the creek crossing to
the north bank. Again, if part of the lower slope is needed
for the right-of-way, then only disturbed, scrub vegetation
will be affected.
There was no evidence of Aster mirabilis, and the habitat
for Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and the
Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) was not present.
Respectfully Submitted,
a4nes F. Matthews
rofessor of Biology
.w ? . n ? rr O
1 I /i O e
cc)
?D / . n . ? 1,?1 I ' Q . 0 162b
. Ii f o
r^
-?'?#¢ ,? s Shp \
= a tl s 1?N V U
u U " '
;s-
.- .r sti,. x? .rte
a r,? ti \ " ? ,.??? 2 a • o of .YV ,.? ? , .?
?`a? r 11 • •3--~ • ?? Y .t _ '? \ ?. ?.? a, '.;?, !i ? J..
.. \?? 1624 y B .,?, `?? n ;;?? • ? 4.- - h ,ten/`? ?`I f? C
??3 . q° v ?? 1x.• l ?t
lI ys ?- ? 5p . ? .
2J0 • w o b 4, H i
.B (??,- N s
Vil

I
, I
/ yo
- ., '- 40
T nnvmn11M
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
WILDLIFE
(AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS, AND MAMMALS)
FOR THE RELOCATION
OF THE
RICHARDSON/BEARSKIN CREEK INTERCEPTOR LINE,
MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA
by
Richard D. Brown, Ph.D.
Environmental/Wildlife Consultant
2858 Clover Road
Harrisburg, NC 28075
6 July 1993
Prepared for
McKim & Creed
243 N. Front St.
Wilmington, NC 28401

ADDENDUM
Introduction: Approximately 3,000 linear feet of interceptor line needs to be
relocated along Bearskin Creek in Monroe, North Carolina, due to a conflict
with a main gas line. A field investigation was conducted on 1 July 1993 to
assess if any endangered, threatened, or special concern species of wildlife
would be impacted by the relocation and if any critical wildlife habitats were
present along the right-of-way.
Relocation of the interceptor line: At N.C. 200 (Morgan Hill Road) the sewer
interceptor line will be relocated to the south side of the road. For
approximately 800 feet, the interceptor will pass through a highly disturbed
cultivated field. The right-of-way then crosses over a tributary and fence
row containing scrubby vegetation, and passes through a short section (approx.
100 feet) of old field. Common bird species were seen and heard including
Green-backed Heron, Blue Grosbeak, and Mourning Dove.
The interceptor continues through a young mixed woods located in a rather
broad floodplain. The woods is open and scrubby in some places. Where
Bearskin Creek bends from the southeast to the northeast, there is a high,
steep slope with a disturbed, young, mostly deciduous woods that goes right
down to the creek. There is still evidence of Hugo damage.
The steep slope continues for about 500 feet and then moves approximately 100
feet away from the creek where a tributary enters from the south. This flat
area is covered with young, very dense vegetation.
A little farther, the creek flows close to the slope again. The bank is not
as high, but the vegetation is considerably more junky with younger, denser
growth than the first slope. There are young pines in this section.
Unfortunately, the slope has a considerable amount of trash that has been
dumped over the years. There are large metal scraps, large drums, tires,
etc., some almost in the creek, along what seems like several hundred feet.
The interceptor will cross to the north side of the creek just before the
creek turns back to the southeast and the south side flattens out.
Although it was quite hot outside, the species seen and heard included
Northern Cardinal, Carolina Wren, Northern Mockingbird, Indigo Bunting,
American Robin, Brown Thrasher, Summer Tanager, Wood Thrush, Red-bellied
Woodpecker, Tufted Titmouse, Red-eyed Vireo, and Northern Water Snake.
Summary: The relocation corridor is highly disturbed. No critical wildlife
habitats were found. No endangered, threatened, or special concern species
were seen and none are expected to inhabit the area of the relocated
interceptor line.
Respectfully submitted,
fl4L.'(
Richard D. Brown, Ph.D.
Environmental/Wildlife Consultant
f*

CREBD
h'i9 ?P31 n /7
vk_ lb"
no uv. 3 vc
akfua.os a r..T
k?o f r151 w-k I
?n ier9 .?,v.,- -f,t,.
C9 (5 ? A "C'
SO cj i?
cos
S
CQ %CD, R-11 Oz z
C Ic--r-f
?ja-ip-
243 NORTH FRONT STREET WILMINGTON, NC 28401 9191343.1048
7 0,
.` . ?,. n
iN..
State of Noah Carolina MAY 2 0 1993
Department of 1 nvironment, Health, and Natural Resource
Division of Envijr#nmcntal Management WETLANDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECT]
512 north Salisbury Street • Raleigh, Noah Garolii* 27604
1.
lames G. i:4artin, Governor October 14, 1992 p 1.1
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. P. Wilson crook
Wrector of Utilities
City of Monroe
P.O. Box 69
Monroe, N.C. 28110
Dear Mr. Crook:
reston oward, Jr., P.L.
Acting Director
Subject: Proposed Fill in Wetlands
Bearskin/Richatdson Creek sewer interceptors
Union County
DEM Project # 92410
On 28 August 1992, 1 issued a concurrence letter for 401 Water
Quality Certification for the Bear ski n/Ricliardson Creek sewer
interceptor project. I have since been informed that an Environmental
Assessment is being prepared for this project for the City of 'Mon roe.
According to North Carolina regulations (15A NCAC 1C .0402(a)) "While
work or. an environmental document is in progress, no agency shall
undertake in he interim any action which might limit the choice among
alternatives or otherwise prejudice the ultimate decision on the
issue." Therefore, the Certification which I-issued _was issue in
error and is hereby rescinded until the E:;vironrsental Assessment
L "I Of 6' zit i
Once the Environmental Assessment has been completed, please
notify 1Ir. john Dorney of the Division of Fnvironm(antal Management,
haLer Quality Section, Planning Branch so he can complete action on
the Certification. I hope that this confusion has not created any
unsurmountaale problems for your project. Please call Mr. Dorney at.
919-133-1786 if you need to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
res .Oa ElUwarc , Jr , 3'. .
Monr:)ef! lt f ILL
CC : t4i'_min 3L y
on. ri ct C.C,rlas of Engineer _; ,fl
Corps Q f E•:gineers Ati1scvil3c Reg9 on_ l (`_`7 f ic. -
MOOresville L)Et., Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney ?S
y:. Mon1:a Swill,zir*_ `? `,
11'entrai Files t-
RECI NrAL.U1-MCP5
Aahcvillc Fayettevilic Moorcsvillc Ralcigh .:'aI ton Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-(208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 9:4;::6.6481 919/395-3900 = 919/896-7007
I'oliutic+t.+ }'rrrrlitliu I'k?.
11.0. Box 29535, Rideigh, 1wYth Carolina 276M-0535 'I'elephonc 919-733-70:5
Ai Equal Gpponuniry Aftinnati%- %ction Eiiyloycr
A
4 yy??
f
???$TArEa?
'rA
?w? qsa
4:? (12)
Received By
MAR I 1,4W
State of North Carolina McKim&Creed La9ine-"fi
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
February 26, 1993 Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Honorable Iew-is R. Fisher, Mayor
City of Monroe
Post Office Box 69
Monroe, North Carolina 28111-0069
SUBJECT: FNSI Advertisement
Amended Monroe Portion of the
Union County 201 Facilities Plan
Project Number CS370564-03
Dear Mayor Fisher:
This is to inform you that the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FNSI) and the environmental assessment have been submitted to the
State Clearinghouse. The documents will be advertised for thirty
(30) calendar days in the N.C. Environmental Bulletin.. Advertising
the FNSI is required prior to a local unit of government receiving a
loan under the State Revolving Fund. You will be informed of any
significant comment or public objection when.the thirty-day
advertisement period is completed.
A copy of the documents is transmitted for your record. The
documents should be made available to the public.
If there are any questions, please contact me at [phone],
extension 614.
Sincerely,
C?V_-'-
T. Allen Wahab, Assistant Chief
for Engineering Branch
RS/ta
Attachments
cc: 1+?cKim an 'Creed.4
Mooresville Regional Office
FEU
PMU
DY1U
SRF
P.O. l3ox 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax k 919-733-0513
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

±r
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT DJPACT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM=
CONSTRUCT THE BEARSKIN CREEK/RICHARDSON CREEK
PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR TO
CONVEY WASTEWATER TO MONROE' S TREATi= PLANT
MONROE, NORTH CAROLINA
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPAIMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTH, AND NATURAL PFSOURCES
CONTACT: JOHN R. BLOWE, CHIEF
CONSTRUCTION GRANT'S AND LOANS SECTION
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN'T'
512 N. SALISBURY STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 29535
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27626-0535
FEBRUARY 26, 1993

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FNSI)
CONSTRUCT THE BEARSKIN CREEK/RICHARDSON CRF= ICK PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR
Title VI of the an-ended Clean Water Act requires the review and approval of
environmental information prior to the construction of publicly-owned
wastewater treatment facilities financed by -the State Revolving Fund
(SRF). The proposed project has been evaluated for ccnnpliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act and determined to be a major agency
action which will affect the environment.
Project Applicant: City of Monroe, North Carolina
Project N•urb r: CS370564-03
Project Description: A FNSI was approved April 24, 1992 for the city
of Monroe to conduct Phase 1 improvements to the
treatment plant in order to comply with the
Special Order by Consent (SOC), as well as expand
the treatment plant in a Phase II project.
Approval was also granted for the construction of
transport facilities to divert flow from the
overloaded Union County Dry Fork.Creek wastewater
treatment facility and to serve an annexed area in
the Bearskin Creek basin. The city of Monroe
determined subsequently that an existing
interceptor to conract to the proposed interceptor
did not have adequate capacity to transport the
wastewater to the treatment facility.
Accordingly, the presently proposed project
consists of constructing a parallel interceptor to
convev wastewater from the previously approved
transport line to Monroe's treatment plant.
Project Cost: The total project cost is $5,116,000, and
the amount to be financed by the SRF is
$5,100,000.
The review process indicated that significant adverse environmental impacts
would not occur if mitigative measures are implemented, and an
environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required. The decision
was based on information in the facilities plan, a public hearing document,
and reviews by governmental agencies. An environmental assessment
supporting this action is attached. This FNSI completes the environmental
review record, which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse.
No administrative action will be taken on the proposed project for at least
thirty days after notification of the FNSI is published in the North
Carolina Environmental Bulletin.
Sincere y,
A. Preston oward,, Acting Director
Division of Environmental Management
4 , ? ,e

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions, Grant Status
Figure 1 identifies the location of. the existing interceptor and the
proposed line.
Transport Facilities. The proposed project consists of constructing
approximately 32,000 linear feet of 24- to 60-inch interceptor to connect
to a previously approved extension which will alleviate overloaded
conditions at the Union County Dry Fork Creek wastewater treatment facility
and serve an annexed area. The extension is being constructed in the
Bearskin Creek basin, and the proposed project will parallel an existing,
overloaded interceptor downstream along Bearskin and Richardson Creeks.
The existing interceptor will be interconnected to the proposed line to
eliminate surcharging. All flow to the major interceptor will terminate at
the existing 7.0 mgd treatment facility. Phase II improvements include
upgrading and expanding the existing treatment facility to 9.0 mgd.
B. Existing Environment
Topography and Soils. The city of Monroe is located in Union County.
The topography is characterized by rolling hills with shallow erodible
soils. Dominant soils in the Bearskin drainage basin are Chewacla and
Badin, and there are some severe limitations to installing septic tank
drainfields. Soils are not permeable, and the condition is worsened by
rock underlying the soil near-the surface.
Surface Water. The city of Monroe is located in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin. Richardson Creek is the largest stream in the area. Bearskin Creek
is a major tributary to Richardson Creek. The city of Monroe's existing
7.0 mgd wastewater treatment plant discharges effluent into Richardson
Creek. The 7Q10 for Richardson Creek at the point of the city's effluent
discharge is 0.43 c.f.s. Water Quality monitoring by the Division of
Environmental Manacrement indicates that Richardson Creek is
chemically/biologically impaired due to non-point and point sources of
pollution. A recent biological evaluation of water quality in Bearskin and
Richardson Creeks indicates that both streams are polluted due to heavy
amounts of siltation.
Water Supply. Monroe's main water supply is Lake Twitty, which is
located on Stewarts creek. Lake Monroe, which is located on Little
Richardson Creek, and Lake Lee, which is located at the confluence of
Little Richardson Creek and Richardson Creek, are used to supplement the
city's main water supply.

C., Existing Wastewater Facilities
The city of Monroe currently operates a 7.0 mgd wastewater treatment plant
which will be upgraded and expanded to a 9.0 mgd facility. Flows from
Union County, including the Wingate and Marshville areas, account for
approximately 1.4 mgd of the total flaw at the plant. These flows are
pumped directly to the treatment plant and do not affect the capacity of
collection/transport facilities serving the city of Monroe. An interceptor
system currently conveys wastewater from the Dry Fork Creek, Bearskin
Creek, Richardson Creek, and Stewarts Creek drainage basins to Monroe's
wastewater treatment plant. There are approximately 400 residential units
in Monroe that are not connected to the central collection system.
Additionally, the city has annexed an area, the Bearskin Creek basin, which
is currently served by septic tanks and package treatment units. The
sewerage system has been evaluated and infiltration/inflow is non-excessive.
D. Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions
An analysis of the existing-18- to 30-inch interceptor along Bearskin and
Richardson Creeks indicates that most segments are currently hydraulically
overloaded during peak flow events, and all portions,-.except one, will be
overloaded during the 20-year peak flow. The existing line needs to be
paralleled with a larger pipe to connect to the previously approved line.
This pipe will gerve the recently annexed area in the Bearskin drainage
basin and eliminate overloaded conditions at the Union County Dry Fork
Creek wastewater treatment facility. Construction of the interceptor
system will allow central sewer service to be provided to protect public
health due to failing septic tanks, as well as eliminate the need for
package treatment plants.
E. Alternatives Analysis
The original union County 201 Facilities Plan was prepared in 1976, and
Monroe increased its treatment capacity a year later to 7.0 mgd.
Initially, the plant will be upgraded.to comply with the NPDES permit and
later expanded to a 9.0 mgd facility. Collection/transport lines will be
extended to an annexed area. However, providing central sewer service to
the area requires additional interceptor capacity to convey the wastewater
to the Monroe treatment plant. Accordingly, the city of Monroe revised the
facilities plan, and included an analysis of alternatives for transporting
the flow. A "no-action" alternative was evaluated, and it was determined
to be an unacceptable alternative due to the existing line being
hydraulically overloaded. The remaining viable option is to alleviate the
use of septic tanks and package treatment plants and construct the parallel
interceptor. One design method consists of constructing the interceptor
near mininum grade and depth with an inverted siphon crossing for
Richardson Creek. The other technique would require the interceptor to be
placed at a steeper grade and at a greater depth with a subaqueous crossing
for Richardson Creek. The most cost-effective and selected choice is to
construct the proposed line at minimum grade with an inverted siphon.
Page 2

F. Environmental Consequences, Mitigative Measures
The proposed six mile interceptor will connect to a previously approved
line and transport wastewater to the Monroe treatment facility. The
interceptor will parallel, as well as interconnect with, the existing line
along Bearskin and Richardson Creeks. Most of the habitats for the
proposed interceptor consist of disturbed areas which have been cleared for
sewer lines, power line rights-of-way, agriculture, and commercial/
residential development. A biological investigation was conducted along
the proposed route to determine the presence of any threatened or
endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with the
recommendation that federally listed species will riot likely be impacted.
A large population of the Piedmont aster (Aster mi.rabilis), a candidate for
state listing of endangered or threatened species, was observed during the
biological survey. It is a plant species of concern to the Natural
Heritage Program and the Plant Conservation Program, and has already been
relocated to a botanical garden for replanting at a suitable site.
Recommendations from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, and the,biological assessment are listed below:
1) Relocating the Piedmont aster will be conducted in consultation
with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Natural Heritage Program of the Division of
Parks and Recreation, and the Plant Conservation Program of the N.C.
Department-of Agriculture.
2) The permanent easement for any transected wetland will be limited to
10 feet. The remaining construction easement will be temporarily
seeded to allow for natural revegetatiion.
3) All construction activities in wetlands will take place in strict
compliance with the conditions addressed in Nationwide Permit No. 12.
4) Strict adherence to an approved sedimentation and erosion control plan
will be required. Additionally, a 50 foot undisturbed buffer along
the creek bank will be implemented.
5) Two stream crossings will be above grade, and an open cut channel will
be required across Richardson Creek near the treatment plant. To
minimize adverse impacts, a coffer dam will be constructed, banks will
be reseeded, and cut banks will be stabilized within 5 days of
initiating construction.
6) Land clearing activities along the proposed interceptor route will be
restricted from April through July to minimize disruptions to wildlife
during the reproductive season.
7) Maximum consideration will be given to disturbing as little vegetation
as possible in order to preserve the existing habitats.
8) A 401 certification by the Division of Environmental Managemant will
be required.
Page 3

J
y
The Division of Parks and Recreation has encouraged implementation of the
above mitigative measures. Moreover, a concern was expressed by the
Division about the destruction of some of the scientific value of removing
the Piedmont aster; however, objection to the relocation has not been
presented due to the involvement of the Plant Protection Program. The
Department of Cultural Resources does not object to the proposed project.
G. Public Participation, Sources Consulted
A public hearing was held March 31, 1992 on the amended Monroe portion of
the Union County 201 Facilities Plan. The hearing covered the approved
project listed in the FNSI dated April 24, 1992, and the problems with the
existing, overloaded interceptor which conveys wastewater to the Monroe
treatment plant. No opposition to the previously approved or the proposed
project has been expressed. The average monthly sewer bill was projected
to be approximately $11.30 per month for the improvements described in the
previous FNSI and the environmental assessment mentioned above. The
proposed project will add less than $1.00, per month to the projected sewer
charge listed above.
Sources consulted about this project for information or concurrence
included:
a. City of Monroe
b. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
Water Quality Planning Branch
Wildlife Resources Can-ti.ssion
-Parks and Recreation
-Groundwater Section
-Air Quality Section
-Division of Health Services
-Division of Planning and Assessment
-Mooresville Regional Office
C. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
d. North Carolina State Clearinghouse
e. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
f. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
g. Region F Council of Governments
Page 4
. h...
0

Z -+? -
k
W
W W ?.
J {
? f
• t
x 1
44 U / n
}}...??.__.?... r
Pl!
{{{off
w
0
X
z
;d
#MCKN1&CREM 201 FACILITIES PLAN AMENDMENT Fl GU R EE I
PROPOSED FACILITIES DECEMBER 1992
CITY OF MONROE
-------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 19, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199203651 and Nationwide Permit No. 12 (Utility Line Backfill and
Bedding)
4 ?
Mr. P. Wilson Crook
City of Monroe OCT 2 6 1992
Post Office Box 69
i
Monroe, North Carolina 28110-0069
Dear Mr. Crook:
Reference your application of July 24, 1992, for Department of the Army
authorization to construct a 60-inch sanitary sewer interceptor through waters
and adjacent wetlands of Bearskin and Richardson Creeks at Monroe, Union
County, North Carolina. According to information provided, approximately
6,000 linear feet of.this utility line would traverse wetlands impacting
approximately 5.5 acres. The proposed line would cross Bearskin Creek twice
and Richarson Creek once.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided
for the discharge of material for backfill or bedding for utility lines,
including outfall and intake structures, provided: 1) there is no change in
pre-construction contours, 2) in wetlands the top 6" to 12" of the trench is
backfilled with topsoil, 3) excess material is removed to upland areas, and 4)
any exposed slopes and streambanks are stabilized immediately upon completion
of the utility line.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions. You are reminded that all wetlands
must be restored to their original pre-project contours. This NWP does not
authorized any permanent access road construction. Restored wetlands areas
should not be seeded with upland vegetation but rather should be mulched and
left to revegetate naturally or seeded with wetland plant species. This
NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any required State or
local approval. As discussed, you should contact Mr. Ken Averitte of the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management at [phone] to
obtain the necessary Section 401 Water Quality Certification for this project.
We note that a water quality certification for this project has been approved
by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
400
-2-
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steven Lund, Asheville Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. J, "n Dorney
Wa r Quality Section
ivision of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. Margaret Gray
McKim and Creed Engineers
243 North Front Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
_.r --
In"ISHMM", M,
?R
\ q
W
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor October 14, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
Mr. P. Wilson Crook
Director of Utilities
City of Monroe
P.O. Box 69
Monroe, N.C. 28110
Dear Mr. Crook:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Wetlands
Bearskin/Richardson Creek sewer interceptors
Union County
DEM Project # 92410
On 28 August 1992, I issued a concurrence letter for 401 Water
Quality Certification for the Bearskin/Richardson Creek sewer
interceptor project. I have since been informed that an Environmental
Assessment is being prepared for this project for the City of Monroe.
According to North Carolina regulations (15A NCAC.IC .0402(a)) "While
work on an environmental document is in progress, no agency shall
undertake in the interim any action which might limit the choice among
alternatives or otherwise prejudice the ultimate decision on the
issue." Therefore, the Certification which I issued was issue In
error and is hereby rescinded until the Environmental Assessment
process is complete.
Once the Environmental Assessment has been completed, please
notify Mr. John Dorney of the Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section, Planning Branch so he can complete action on
the Certification. I hope that this confusion has not created any
unsurmountable problems for your project. Please call Mr. Dorney at
919-733-1786 if you need to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
4r'e:s Po?nowar , Jr. P. E.
Monroefl.ltr
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Regional Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Ms. Monica Swihart
Central Files REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
October 14, 1992
Mr. P. Wilson Crook
Director of Utilities
City of Monroe
P.O. Box 69
Monroe, N.C. 28110
Dear Mr. Crook:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Wetlands
Bearskin/Richardson Creek sewer interceptors
Union County
DEM Project # 92410
On 28 August 1992, I issued a concurrence letter for 401 Water
Quality Certification for the Bearskin/Richardson Creek sewer
interceptor project. I have since been informed that an Environmental
Assessment is being prepared for this project for the City of Monroe.
According to North Carolina regulations (15A NCAC 1C .0402(a)) "While
work on an environmental document is in progress, no agency shall
undertake in the interim any action which might limit the choice among
alternatives or otherwise prejudice the ultimate decision on the
issue." Therefore, the Certification which I issued was issue in
error and is hereby rescinded until the Environmental Assessment
process is complete.
Once the Environmental Assessment has been completed, please
notify Mr. John Dorney of the Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section, Planning Branch so he can complete action on
the Certification. I hope that this confusion has not created any
unsurmountable problems for your project. Please call Mr. Dorney at
919-733-1786 if you need to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.
Monroefl.ltr
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Regional Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Ms. Monica Swihart
Central Files
b -j ly
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
1 Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project (Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
43 (A V\ L
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
?Ash 'ville ?All R/0 Areas ?Soil and Water ?Marine Fisheries
? Faye teville it ?Coastal Management IS(Water Planning
ater El Water Resources 'Environmental Health
0o sville
roundwater *ildiife ? Solid Waste Management
'Raleigh and Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
Was ington ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
?Coastal Managemen.t;,Con§uitant arks and R
? Wilm ngton ecreation ?Other(specify)
L10thers Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem
SEPT. ?Q-?-
lat r i.
'17
.. 1
Manager Sign-Off/Region: ". j Date:
i
(check all applicable)
Region 'I Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Cgmment
? In?ufficient information to complete review

? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? R commended for further development with recommendations for
st engtbening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
c anges incorporated by funding agency (comments
at ached/authority(ies) cited)
RETURN
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Appiicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
? Melba McGee
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown
-s•1o+
e Fla
g
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
J mes G. Martin, Governor August 26, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
Mr. P. Wilson Crook
Director of Utilities
City of Monroe
P.O. Box 69
Monroe, N.C. 28110
Dear Mr.-Crook:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Wetlands
Bearskin/Richardson Creek sewer interceptors
Union County
DEM Project #92410
Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 5.53 acres of wetlands for
sewer line installation located at Bearskin/Richardson Creeks in
Monroe, Union County, we have determined that the proposed fill
can be covered by General Water Quality Certification No. 2664
issued January 1, 1992. A copy of the General Certification is
attached. This Certification may be used in qualifying for
coverage under Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 12.
The City is required to restore the elevation on all but 10 feet
of the alignment and allow natural revegetation to occur (no
mowing/bushhogging other than in the 10 foot cooridor).
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney
at 919/733-1786.
Sincerely,
?Yward, estJr P.E.
AP H : JD
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Regional Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 9 19/486-154 1 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 .919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
*C&
MEMORANDUM INITIALS:
Retie i ewer :
TO: John Dorney WO Sc tpv : __/tv_
Planning Branch Date:_01IZE
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (N/A-NOT APPLICABLE)***
PERMIT_YR: 92 PERMIT-NO: 0000410 COUNTY: UNION
APPLICANT NAME: CITY OF MONROE - BEARSKIN/RICHARDSON INT
PROJECT-TYPE: SEWER INTERCEPTOR PERMIT-TYPE: NW12
% COE_#: DOT-#:
RCtt-FROM CDA: APP DATE_FRM CDA: 07/30/92
REG OFFICE : MRO RIVER AND_SUB BASIN # : v 10 -4 \kA
STREAM CLASS: C.
STR INDEX NO:
> - -r3
1 j
WL_IMPACT? : (3/N
WL_REQUESTED : S, S 3 Z 6 `01
HYDRO_CNECV : &N r? mi
WL_TYPE :
WL ACR EST? : Y,d)
(#): 23,11
MITIGATION?: (Y 'N
MITIGATION SIZE: L\, \S kcmc--s
MITI GATIOR TYPE: 72?STvRL
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED? :(YYN
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE ISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS: WFrL-Au> An- G:A .visa-2 fir, //v 17\,p&11-zCj6: RAri=1)
.., ovrLv?(41? sIzcAs,
N-160v-1Z -ri-Fan/_ A4-0t46
12i:?orn-
Z??Za?s? ax A fFiGH?-IT rZC- \ yAl- or laL-Lvrb,.rrs. Lr /.5;
nt,.?Ajb c:D -r r TVL ??? ru-? c r B c-- r Ssv &-J S wG-C A /r ?4 T?St Y cs F

cc: Regional Office
Central Files
... -" .

WETLAND RATING SYSTEId WORKSHEET
Project No. or description UUV() tAV O
Location
County Nearest road or town_ Mc?r?Z?t
River basin c0-_> ?y
Nearest stream-„?su?N/R?c??A, ncr,.a and classification C_
Evaluator u,
Agency and address /Wg2
Date and time evaluated ;K ?% c; /c-Z
Major Wetland Type
Approximate size of wetland system 60 acres
Approximate extent of wetlands in area acres
within miles
Three most common plant species (in order):
Soil Series (if known) CV+?-WAC-LA
Hydrologic indicators -ro
Direct surface hydrologic connection? <LXE?) NO
Existing Conditions
Drainage t-A c-- Zy=-?-f\s t-An
Disturbance
???,
Restoration potential
Restoration, value
Is site known to provide habitat for rare, endangered or
threatened species?'L?If so, list species observed or recorded.
Item No. Score (circle one)
1. Location/Landscape
1 Natural area buffer 5
2 Sensitive watershed 5 4 3 2 1
3 Dispersal corridor system 5 4 3 2 l 0
II. Ecological Values
4 Special ecological attributes 4 3 2 1 0
5 Wildlife habitat 5 4 2 1 0
5 Aquatic life 5 4 3 2 0
7 Water storage 5 4 3 2 T 0
8 Streambank stabilization (0 4 3 2 1 0
9 Removal of pollutants 5 4 3 2 0
III. Human Values
10 Outdoor recreation/education 5 4 3 2 0
11 Economic value 5 4 3 2 0
Total score
Site description and notes:
X????c?&Ztarl 1?lljtGT?S T 1'???/?wsaT t?S-???? ?S L?c?-r?a ice(
pv-jn iS L-iSti1b
PIS
13

WETLAND RATING SYSTEM WORKSHEET
Project No. or description (3ppcpq?o
Location
County ),, \\ Nearest road or town /A0.,-\zoj7-
River basin v3o-g t%
Nearest stream -%?,_„?s,?„? Cn?=z,t and classification
Evaluator
Agency and addressZ,,-)/\,?Q
Date and time evaluated
Major Wetland Type
Approximate size of wetland system 60 acres
Approximate extent of wetlands in area acres
within miles
Three most common plant species (in order):
Soil Series (if known)_ CAC-W0,c-,-A
Hydrologic indicators .X'%2 S-r 1cP.
Direct surface hydrologic connection? YE NO
Existing Conditions
Drainage ti?? p?ra?ti?A?? s?(cT=r _ ?l? =?
Disturbance
Restoration potential
Restoration value ?,?a???1dt-t
Is site known to provide habitat for rare, endangered or
threatened species? yCS4If so, list species observed or recorded.
Item No. Score (circle one)
1. Location/Landscape
1 Natural area buffer 5 (0?
2 Sensitive watershed 5 4 3 2 1
3 Dispersal corridor system 5 4 3 2 Q 0
II. Ecological Values
4 Special ecological attributes 4 3 2 1 0
5 Wildlife habitat 5 4 3 2 Q 0
6 Aquatic life 5 4 3 2 0 0
7 Water storage 5 4 0 2 1 0
8 Streambank stabilization 4 3 2 1 0'
9 Removal of pollutants 4 3 2 1 0
III. Human Values
10 Outdoor recreation/education 5 4 3 2 Q 0
11 Economic value 5 4 3 2 0
Total score 23
Site description and notes: "?-0 5-ra?For:? S<. +-I
CITY oi- ??cJ??Zc?l . iZ AR p S?y(?CZATI` t i2a,? dT rh Tt wc'R r?atJ 5 ?t? S ??JS V c'1
*A?P4.1 «T w-A \Naj\ c-AIM=S T t?c?'1?/Y?oNT ASTZ=R l S We-#&-c c,> key 'WI: TLAa11S FWi-:? ?S
13
At

To ? VIw'e
McKll\4&CREED
Or-H- cE
us CF_
F-06t4 rl Ja 66Zou6 ?4f2?
8f>-rsr;2vl uf".1N C _ Z ?5 bo 1- 2L] 14-
GENTLEMEN:
WE ARE SENDING YOU shed
Ei- Shop drawings 7 Prints
C9?ther
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
oATE
Z M
O
4
ATTENTION
RE: ` 1
IV N
G
Nunn
C Under separate cover via D
s ertginals C Samples
d
"iws
9uan. Dwg. No. Description Status
t N,? a RL

S N mv? ?-: r.a.
GD k

Status Code:
REMARKS
A. Approved
B. Approved as noted
C. Rejected-Re-submit
D. Revise and Re-submit
E. For your information
F. Refer to remarks
243 NORTH FRONT ST. WILMINGTON. NC 28401 919/343-1048
CC: o N-N bo2N?`? /per (? ea MCKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, PA
SIGNED
?a
DEM ID: 1?z-g1C)
RECEIVED .)UL 2 0 1092
ACTION ID:
REF: BEARSKIN/RICHARDSON CREEK INTERCEPTOR
JOINT APPLICATION FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION CONCURRENCE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONME A?JA?PrbTPr?TT.._
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVI #,@IERLjH,W
P.O. BOX 1890 AND NATURAL RESOU
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890 P.O. BOX 29535 f,
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E RALEIGH, NC 27626-05 JUL 0 19T
Telephone [phone] ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNE
Telephone [phone] F83 WETLANDS 1--1n
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME : r;
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: - p0 gnx 69
Mnnma, N_r_ 2R110
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 704-9R3-9ngR
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
5. LOCATION OF PLANNED WORK (ATTACH MAP).
COUNTY : IINTON
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: MnVR[)F.
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS,.ETC.): _irrTT.TTv
MERIDOR BEGINS IN CITY OF MO URGE, ADJACENT W) AT.T.F.N STREPT THEN E=.TCWS
FwARSKTN & RTC'HART)S w rRF.F.KS Tll WASTFWATF.R TRF.ATMRNT F rTT.TTY
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER: REARS TN I RTCHARDSON
7. RIVER BASIN: YAT)KTN - PFRny.F.
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES [ ] NO [X]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [ X]
IF YES, EXPLAIN.
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER•OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
60.26
2/3/92

406
-2-
11. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED:
DRAINED:
FLOODED:
EXCAVATED: 5.53
TOTAL IMPACTED:5.53
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS): STTRACjparg
TTTTT.TTY T.TNF. RACKFTT.T. F. RFDT)TW,
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: WAgTFWATF.R mT.TFY'TTnN TTPrRAT)F. WTTH Nw.
TNTF.RC EPTC)R T.TNE
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. C (1T.T F(`TTrW T.TMPQ MT.TrW CTRFAM PrnQ ; _ A_ TrW ARP&c WTT.T.
RESTaRE RACK IX) EXTSTTNG GRATIF, TC)PDRF.SS W/17" _ NATTVF SC)TT., T.TMTT
CORRIDOR in 401 WTTH 10.1 ACC'F:SS Ec74T AND m HYnRC)TCr.Tr TNTFRFFRF.NM
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL 14ARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) REGARDING THE PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [ J NO [ J N/A
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE ATTACHED.-
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT?
HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [ J' NO [ l N/A
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE ATTACHED.
17. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY. ATTACHED AERIAL MAPS
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY.
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? 11MAN.TRANSITIONAL LOPED
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
WASTEWATER TREAZMENT PLANT
OWNER'S SIGNATURE DATE
lam. W!/.Smn/ CROO ?
IL . 40?
The "No Action Alternative" would leave the Northwestern Corridor Annexation
Area inoperable due to the current lack of capacity. This is not desirable from an
environmental or financial outlook. Environmentally it would not meet state design
criteria. Financially it would result in costly infrastructure improvements which
could not be fully utilized. In addition portions of Richardson Creek outfall
experience surcharging during periods of peak flow. A negative potential exists
which could impact the environment.
The "Proactive Alternative" would include construction of the interceptor line.
Conversely this choice is desirable from an environmental and financial outlook.
Environmentally the use, and often time failures of septic tanks would be
eliminated. Also, the state design criteria could be met and the recent investment
on infrastructure improvements could be fully utilized.
V. Environmental Consequences
A. Changes in Land Use: The subsequent change in land use would not occur
within the project area. Basically it would be temporarily altered for a 40'
wide utility corridor with a permanent construction easement limited to 10'.
A more significant change would occur within the annexed area wherein
single family, commercial and institutional uses could occur in accordance
with the City's development guidelines.
B. Wetlands: Wetlands within the project corridor are associated fringe
wetlands of Bearskin and Richardson Creek.
An investigation of preliminary SCS soil maps show the drainage ways
dominated by Chewacla Soil Series. Although Chewacla is not listed as a
hydric soil it is described as a poorly drained soil on flood plains. Chewacla
soils are flooded frequently for very brief periods. Depth to seasonal high
water table is about 1-1/2 feet.
The fringe wetlands do not run the full length of these creeks. Some
urbanization has occurred which has altered the wetlands. In other
instances the bank side slopes are so severe both the hydrology and
organic soils are absent.
Wetlands which will be impacted occur in the broader flood plain areas. In
accordance with the Corp of Engineers General Permit for Subaqueous
Utility lines a maximum corridor width of 40' with a 10' permanent
construction easement will be adhered to. Finish elevations will be restored
back to pre-existing conditions and erosion control measures will be utilized
3
l
t . 4,
as directed by State requirements. In addition a 401 Water Quality
Certification will be obtained.
Wetlands will suffer a temporary loss of function until construction is
complete. 6,030 LF of wetlands will be effected with a 40' corridor. Of this
30' (4.15 Ac) will be temporarily disturbed and 10' (1.38 Ac.) will be
permanently altered for purposes of a construction access easement.
Based on 35,000 total linear feet 17% traverses wetland areas. The
magnitude of impacts are categorized temporary disturbance and
permanent disturbance as noted above.
The waters of Bearskin and Richardson Creeks are not subject to the ebb
and flow of tide. Nor are they presently used or have been used in the past
for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Therefore a Section 10
from the Corp of Engineers will not be applied for as it pertains to the aerial
stream crossings.
C. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands: The interceptor line is proposed along
a creek bank. Agricultural lands will remain essentially uneffected as the
majority are located further upland than the proposed routing.
D. Public Lands: There are no existing public lands that will be adversely
effected by this project.
E. Scenic and Recreational Lands: There are no areas designated as scenic
or recreational that will be adversely effected by this project.
F. Historic and Archaeological Sites: Agency response provided in Section VII.
No known archaelogical resources will be adversely effected by this project.
G. Air Quality: The majority of the interceptor line will be located underground
assuring minimal air emissions. Stream crossings located above grade will
be through the use of ductal iron pipe in keeping with State standards.
Very little,if any, odors will be emitted into the air.
H. Groundwater Quality: Ultimately the project would improve groundwater
conditions as the volume of septic tank discharges would decline.
Otherwise no adverse impacts will result from this project.
I. Noise Levels: Associated construction noise will result from this project.
More than 80% of the corridor is located in an undeveloped stream terrace
resulting in negligible impacts to businesses or residences.
4
4MMM&CREM
-4
ridge area where Richardson Creek flows south to north. Refer to appendix
for this report.
In regard to the sightings of the Piedmont Aster we propose to have the
plants dug and relocated. Although this species is only listed as "special
concern" we would like to give it due consideration.
We will request early coordination with N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission and U. S. Fish and Wildlife to ascertain the best course of
action. Dr. Jim Matthews suggests - these hardy perennials can be
transplanted in the fall. To accommodate this schedule a group field visit will
be coordinated during the month of August with a course of action set to
transplant in October/92.
It should be noted that consideration was given to re-locate the interceptor
on the opposite bank. This presents a problem with encroachment into the
existing interceptor corridor area. Two additional aerial stream crossings
would be required and blasting adjacent to this interceptor would introduce
safety and environmental concerns.
Our alignment will be approximately two feet deeper than the current line.
Blasting in a shared zone could result in cave-ins and. ruptured lines.
Consequently relocating the plants results in the safest course of action.
N. Introduction of Toxic Substances: The collected wastewater will be treated
at. the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. Effluent discharges will be
monitored and regulated by the State.
0. Eutrophication of Receiving Waters: Providing public sewers will decrease
the euthrophic process by eliminating malfunctioning septic tanks.
Wastewater and associated dissolved nutrients will be transported and
disposed of in accordance with the City's NPDES permit requirements
VI. Mitigative Measures
In order to avoid significant adverse environmental impacts we propose the
following:
Where wetlands are transecrted limit the -corridor to 40' in width of which
only 10' will be maintained as a permanent construction easement. The
remaining 30' will be temporarily seeded with annual millet to allow for
natural revegetation. Finish elevations will be restored back to pre-existing
6
1
,'?
conditions and erosion control measures will be utilized as directed by State
standards. Temporary sidecast of trench material will not exceed 3 months.
The top 12" of the trench will be backfilled with topsoil from the trench.
Excess material will be removed to upland areas. No hydrologic
interference will occur.
Where mollusk or fishery habitat areas exist provide a 50' undisturbed
buffer along the creek bank. This will be accomodated by adhering to a 65'
offset from the top of the bank to center of interceptor line. Actually this
buffer will be maintained the full length of the corridor. In addition erosion
control features will be in place to prevent the threat of siltation.
Wildlife habitat areas will be preserved by limiting the disturbed corridor
area to 40' in width. As mentioned earlier 30' of this corridor will return to
its natural state by allowing for revegetation. 10' will be maintained as a
permanent construction easement with controlled and limited access.
Herbicides and pesticides will not be used as part of the maintenance
program. In addition land clearing and construction will be synchronized to
minimize disruption to wildlife during their breeding season. No activities
will occur during the months of April through July.
The special concern, Piedmont Aster will be transplanted directly to a
suitable site during the Fall/92. A suitable site will be determined by the
collective efforts of N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, U. S. Fish &
Wildlife and Dr. Jim Matthews. This will ensure preservation.
Stream crossings have been minimized as practical. Some connections to
the existing interceptor are required to facilitate a workable design.
Two crossings will be above grade. Care will be taken to ensure that
concrete is not discharged into the waters and erosion control measures
utilized.
One crossing will require an open cut channelization. Due to the size of the
pipe, 60", it cannot be suspended without conflicting with the flow course of
Richardson Creek at high flows. To minimize impacts a coffer dam will be
located upstream, banks will be stabilized, erosion control measures utilized
and construction completion will occur within 7 days. This crossing will
occur at the wastewater treatment plant where habitat areas have already
responded to mans encroachment, i.e. not a pristine environment.
7
N12KM