19920285 Ver al_Complete File_19920116

/ /,. q
J
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
THOMAS J. HARRELSON January 16, 1992 WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890 210
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 _
?-- try •r
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch Dear Sir:

Subject: Catawba County, Bridge No. 21 on SR 1484 over the Lyle Creek,
State Project 8.2791101, Federal Project BRZ-1484(1), TIP Project
B-2012
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with
23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with Section 330.5(a)(23) of the Interim Final Rule for
Regulatory Programs issued July 22, 1982, by the Corps of Engineers. The
provisions of Section 330.5(b) and 330.6 of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We do not anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
-Z. . W.ai 0H
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
..M , nvironmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. R. W. Spangler
y 071
f'Y
1r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
011

Catawba County
Bridge No. 21 on SR 1484
over the Lyle Creek
State Project 8.2791101
Federal Project BRZ-1484(1)
TIP Project B-2012
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
D to lard,P. ., anager
w Planning and Environmental Branch
Da Nip/s L. rat
?tDivision Administrator, FHWA
Catawba County
Bridge No. 21 on SR 1484
over the Lyle Creek
State Project 8.2791101
Federal Project BRZ-1484(1)
TIP Project B-2012
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NOVEMBER, 1991
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Ed Lewis
Project Planning Engineer
it e-
r
Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head '4?-'/
Fr?-i Vick, P. E.
Assistant Manager of Planning and Environmental
+O??H CAR011
SEAL
7754
• Vf RR)L4l`
Catawba County
Bridge No. 21 on SR 1484
over the Lyle Creek
State Project 8.2791101
Federal Project BRZ-1484(1)
TIP Project B-2012
I. STATUS OF PROJECT
The project was included in the 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. The TIP funding for this
project is estimated at $414,000 which includes $14,000 for right-of-way
and $400,000 for construction. The current estimated cost for this
project is $675,000 which includes $25,000 for right-of-way and $650,000
for construction.
Bridge Number 21 is situated on the Lyle Creek (see Figure 1). The
sufficiency rating index for the existing structure is 6.0 compared to
100.0 for a new structure. On the basis of planning and environmental
studies, it is not anticipated this project will have a significant
detrimental effect on the human environment.. The proposed project will
cause no significant changes in route classification and land use and is
not controversial in nature. Therefore, it is concluded that a
Categorical Exclusion is applicable to the project.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary. Approximately 0.1 acre of wetlands will be
disrupted by the project. Best management practices will be utilized to
minimize these impacts.
III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Number 21 should be replaced at the existing location as shown
by Alternative 2 in Figure 2. A structure length of 106 feet is
recommended by preliminary hydrographic studies.
The recommended width of the new structure is 30 feet. The
cross-section on the structure will consist of a 24-foot pavement and
3-foot shoulders.
Minor improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for
approximately 300 feet total on each side of the bridge. The approach
roadway should consist of a 24-foot pavement with 8-foot graded shoulders.
The roadway grade of the new structure should be approximately the
same as the existing grade at this location.
2
Traffic should be maintained on-site with a temporary detour
structure during the construction period.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1484 is classified as an minor arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is not part of the Federal Aid
Secondary System. However, in the vicinity of the project, the typical
section of SR 1484 is a rural-type roadway section with shoulder
approaches. Current bridge policy indicates such facilities warrant
special consideration for design purposes. The functional classification
of SR 1484 is a collector route for design purposes. SR 1484 functions as
a radial route into Conover from the north and is designated a major
thoroughfare in the Hickory Thoroughfare Plan.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1484 has a 20-foot pavement with
6-to 9-foot graded shoulders (see Figure 3). Vertical alignment is good,
and the horizontal alignment is tangent. The roadway is situated
approximately 16 feet above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume is 4500 vehicles per day (vpd), and it is
expected to increase to 7500 vpd by the year 2011. The percentage of
truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST) is 2% while dual-tired trucks (DTT)
account for 3%. The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1939. It has a
clear roadway width of 23.8 feet and a structure length of 71 feet. The
bridge has a sufficiency rating of 6.0 compared to a rating of 100.0 for a
new bridge. Remaining life of the existing structure is 10 years. The
sufficiency rating falls within the minimum criteria of a 50.0 rating, so
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement funds will be used. The bridge has a
posted limit of 23 tons (see Figure 3). School buses cross this bridge 12
times daily.
The bridge is located within the Town of Conover in an area
characterized as suburban in nature.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of Bridge Number 21 during
the period from May 1, 1986 to April 30, 1990. This accident consisted of
one vehicle rear ending another vehicle.
V. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge Number 21 were studied as
follows:
Alternative 1 would replace the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment with a structure of 106 feet in length. Traffic would be
detoured on existing roads as shown in Figure 1..
3
Alternate 2 (Recommended) will replace the bridge along the existing
roadway alignment with a structure of 106 feet in length. Traffic will be
maintained on-site by constructing a temporary on-site detour structure
immediately east of the existing bridge.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by
SR 1484.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance
Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the existing structure is not
feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
VI. ESTIMATED COSTS
Estimated costs of the two alternatives are as follows:
Recommended
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Structure $ 253,000 $ 253,000
Roadway Approaches $ 36,000 $ 36,000
Detour Structure & Approaches -- $ 261,000
Structure Removal $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Engineering and Contingencies $ 45,000 $ 84,000
Right of Way, Utilities $ 18,000 $ 25,000
Total $ 362,000 $ 669,000
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at the studied
bridge site is felt to be necessary. Otherwise, traffic would have to be
detoured along existing secondary roads. A road user analysis (based on
4,500 vpd and an average of 1.2 miles of indirectional travel) indicates
the cost of additional travel would be approximately $590,000 during the
12-month construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site
detour is $307,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 2.0. This ratio
indicates that maintaining traffic on-site is justifiable. Traffic
originating in the highly developed area north of the bridge would
experience indirectional travel of up to 6 miles. Furthermore, the
Division Engineer and the Directors of Transportation for the Catawba
County and Newton-Conover School Systems prefer an on-site detour.
In view of these factors, it is clear that traffic should be
maintained at the existing site during construction. The detour structure
will require 3 @ 84" pipes located immediately downstream of the existing
4
structure. The grade of the detour can be 4 feet lower than the existing
roadway grade at the bridge site.
VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge Number 21 should be replaced in the same location on SR 1484.
According to preliminary hydrographic study, a structure 106 feet in
length will accommodate the flow of the Lyle Creek at this point. The
elevation of the new structures is expected to be approximately the same
as the existing bridge. The structure dimensions may change as a result
of further hydrographic studies.
The recommended improvements will include approximately 300 feet of
improved roadway approaches. A 24-foot pavement with 8-foot graded
shoulders should be provided on the approaches.
An on-site detour should be used during the replacement of Bridge
number 21 as discussed under recommended Alternative 2. As discussed
earlier, no acceptable detour route was found due to the excessive length
of additional travel, and the Division Engineer and the Directors of
Transportation for city and county schools in the area preferred an
on-site detour.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not
the quality of the human or natural
NCDOT standards and specifications.
have a significant adverse effect on
environment with the use of current
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be-limited.
No significant adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social,
economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are
no publicly owned parks, historic sites, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state or local significance in
the vicinity of the project.
5
There appear to be no properties in the vicinity of the project that
are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Officer was given the opportunity to
review both the architecture and the archaeological aspects of the project
and they concurred there were no historic structures or archaeological
sites in the area of potential effect (see Appendix A-1 through A-3).
The structure is to be replaced at the existing location, therefore
the project is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
A residential area and apartment complex are located in the project
vicinity on the northeast and northwest portions of the project. The
temporary detour will impact the residential site and also, a pasture,
located southeast of the bridge. Disturbed highway shoulders will be
impacted along both approaches to the bridge. These areas are maintained
and include such herbaceous species as bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta),
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), wild onion (Allium sp.), two species of
henbit (Lamium amplexicaule and L. purpureum), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), clover (Trifolium sp.) and violets (Viola sp.). Arthraxon
(Arthraxon hispidus) was also noted along parts of the road shoulder
sections. Several white pines (Pinus strobus), tulip poplars
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and sycamores (Platanus occidentalis) were noted
in the study area along SR 1484.
A deciduous, hardwood forest is located in the southeast corner of
the project. The area is moderately sloping. The temporary detour will
pass through a section of this forest. Canopy dominants include tulip
poplar, white oak ( uercus alba), northern red oak ( uercus rubra) and
southern red oak ( uercus falcata). A few canopy-sized white pines (Pinus
strobus) and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) were noted. The open
understory is composed of musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), American
beech (Fagus grandifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca) flowering dogwood
Cornus florida and various tree saplings. The ground cover is composed
of a few early spring blooming plants such as bloodroot (Sanquinaria
canadensis), windflower (Thalictrum thalictroides) and violet (Viola sp.).
Also noted was Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), crane-fly
orchid (Tipularia discolor) and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
Catbrier (Smilax sp.) and wild rose (Rosa sp.) were noted in this
community but were not common. Cane (Arundinaria gigantea) was observed
in small patches close to the road.
Adjacent to Lyle Creek is a narrow bottomland hardwood community
composed of the following tree species: sycamore, river birch (Betula
nigra) and box elder (Acer negundo). The shrub layer is composed of an
incredibly thick mat of wild rose (Rosa sp.) and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
Included within this mat are lesser amounts of Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) and privet (Ligustrum sinense).
The project will impact wetlands, disturbed uplands and forested
uplands. Totals for the temporary detour are listed in Table 1. The
largest impact is associated with the temporary detour. Impacts from
bridge replacement and road widening impacts are minimal. All figures are
in acres.
6
Table 1
Disturbed Uplands
Hardwood Forest
Wetlands
Plant Community Impact Summary
Temporary Detour
1.0
0.8
0.1
Permanent Structure
0.04
Note: values reported are acres.
Calculations based upon impact width of 80'
Efforts will be made to keep erosion and sedimentation at a minimum
through strict erosion controls. The temporary detour will be placed as
close as possible to the existing alignment to prevent further plant
community fragmentation. Clearing of vegetation will be kept to a minimum.
The temporary detour will avoid the upland hardwood community in the
southeast portion of the project as much as possible, since this area is
the least disturbed, supports a variety of plant species and the canopy
appears more mature than nearby communities: Cleared areas will be
replanted as quickly as possible to prevent further erosion. Also, the
amount of fill placement adjacent to the creek and low lying areas will be
kept to a minimum. Soil compaction from heavy equipment is possible in
wetlands and the surrounding hydrology may be altered. Heavy equipment
use will be minimized where possible.
Upland forested, disturbed areas and aquatic communities are the
types of wildlife communities that will be impacted by proposed
construction.
Forested communities provides mast and other food sources to
foraging animal species. Animal species likely to occur in the study area
include opossum (Diadelphis virginiana), short-tailed shrew (Blarina
brevicauda), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk
(Tamias striatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus).
Communities such as old fields and roadsides are maintained in early
successional stages. These communities provide habitat for the following
species: eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern cottontail, woodchuck
(Marmota monax), pine vole (Microtus pinetorum), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), red fox (Vul es fulva) and white-tailed deer.
Avian fauna that are likely to inhabit the upland hardwood forest
include whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous), red bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), scarlet and
summer tanagers (Piranga olivacea and P. rubra), and rose-breasted
grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus). Inhabitants of more disturbed areas
include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), bobwhite (Colinus virginianus),
7
mourning dove (Zenaidia macroura), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis),
common yellowthroat warbler (Dendroica dominica), bobolink (Dolichonyx
oryzivorus), meadowlarks (Sturnella magna), American goldfinch (Carduelis
tristis) and rufous sided towhee (Pi ilo erythrophthalmus).
The following amphibians and reptiles are likely in the project area:
marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus) and red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber). Frogs, such as
American and Fowler's toad (Bufo americanus and B. woodhousei), gray
treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis and H. versicolor), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer) and southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) are likely to
inhabit the project area. The eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), two and three lined skinks
(Eurycea bislineata and E. guttolineata), the five-lined, southeastern
five-lined and broadhead skinks (Eumeces fasciatus, E. inexpectatus and E.
laticeps) and ground skink (Scincella lateralis) are common in the study
area. Snakes likely in upland areas include worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus), scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), corn and rat snakes
(Elaphe ug ttata and E. obsoleta), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon
platyrhinos), mole and eastern kingsnakes (Lampropeltis calligaster and L.
eg tulus); eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), rough green snake
(Opheodrys aestivus), brown and redbelly snakes (Storeria dekayi and S.
occipitomaculata), southeastern crowned snake (Tantilla coronata), eastern
ribbon and eastern garter snakes (Thamnophis sauritus and T. sirtalis),
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus
horridus).
Lyle Creek, and associated roadside ditches serve as habitat for
aquatic communities that are likely to be impacted by project
construction. The following species are anticipated in this community:
green frog (Rana clamitans), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), queen
snake (Regina septemvittata) and smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae).
Fish species anticipated in Lyle Creek include dace, shiners, and
other minnows. This section of the creek is of very little fishing
importance (Fish, 1968). Strict erosion controls should be enforced to
minimize siltation in the creek and its unnamed tributary. The temporary
detour structure should span the creek as much as possible to avoid
disturbance to aquatic communities. The structure should also allow for
adequate stream flow. As mentioned earlier in the plant community
summary, placement of the temporary structure should be as close to the
existing structure as possible to minimize impacts to wetland and upland
wildlife habitat.
Soils information was derived from the Catawba County Soil Survey
(Soil Conservation Service). Three soils are mapped in the project area.
A summary of mapped soil types appears in Table 2. Chewacla loam soils
are classified as soils with hydric inclusions.
8
Table 2
Name
Summary of Soil Series in the Study Area
Slope
Congaree complex nearly level
Chewacla loam nearly level
Pacolet gs loam 25-45 %
Drainage Occurrence
well floodplain
somewhat poorly floodplain
well uplands
Note: gs denotes gravelly sand
Lyle Creek is in the Catawba River watershed. Another unnamed creek
is present within the project impact area. It flows parallel and west of
SR 1484 into Lyle Creek. A portion of the stream comes within close
proximity of the existing roadway and the banks have eroded to form steep
sloped roadside shoulders. Proposed approach improvements will not impact
this creek. Design calls for proposed approach improvements to begin
approximately 120 feet south of the existing bridge, and the unnamed creek
courses away from SR 1484 approximately 300 feet south of the existing
bridge.
Lyle Creek has a sandy bottom, shallow depth and few pools. The
average width of the creek in the project area is six feet. Lyle Creek is
a class U stream, according to DEM (Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin, 1990). Best
usage recommendations for Class C waters include aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
Catawba County is outside the Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters
region. Benthic macroinvertebrate information for Lyle Creek is not
available. Lyle Creek is not designated a Wild and Scenic River by the
federal government nor is it designated a state Natural, Scenic or
Recreational river area.
The temporary detour structure will allow for adequate stream flow
and placement of fill material will be kept to a minimum to reduce impacts
to the river. All fill material will be removed after the permanent
structure is in place. Pipe placement will create an artificial bottom and
may also reduce light incidence. Stream flow and depth may be-altered
from pipe placement. A structure will be utilized that maintains existing
conditions as closely as possible.
Road widening along the west side of SR 1484 should be minimized to
lessen impacts to the unnamed stream that parallels SR 1484. If possible,
an asymmetric widening to the east will lessen and may avoid stream
impacts.
Wetlands that fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers
are termed "Jurisdictional Wetlands". Jurisdictional wetlands are defined
as lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the
water table is usually at or near the.surface, or the land is covered by
water (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989).
9
A jurisdictional wetland at Lyle Creek is anticipated to be impacted
by proposed construction. The impact width at the creek crossing is
approximately 40 feet. With the temporary detour width of 80 feet, total
impact is approximately 0.14 acres.
The Lyle Creek bottomland hardwood community was defined as a wetland
because the vegetation is predominantly hydrophytic and included such
species as river birch and sycamore. These two species have an indicator
status FACW, which is defined as a plant that usually occurs in wetlands
(estimated probability 67% to 99%), but occasionally is found in
nonwetlands (Reed, 1988). Fluvial sediments, appearing as entisols, are
deposited above the creek banks. Soils were light in color from the
fluvial nature of the deposits.
Due to the small size of the wetland impacts, the Nationwide Permit
Provisions of 33CFR 330.5 (a) are likely to be applicable.
Federally funded projects that qualify as categorical exclusions
because they are not likely to have a significant effect on the
environment may qualify under the provisions of the Nationwide Permit
Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23).
Projects that fall under a Nationwide permit and have less than one
acre of impacted wetlands are generally not mitigated according to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Environmental Protection Agency and
the US Army Corps of Engineers (1989). However, final decision is subject
to the discretionary authority of the Corps of Engineers.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted to locate any information on
occurrences of protected species in the study area.
The NCNHP files do not list any federally protected species in the
project area. The USFWS lists the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora) as the only protected species for Catawba County. Federally
listed species are protected under the provisions of the Endangered
species Act of 1973 as amended (USFWS).
The Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Federally Threatened) is a small
evergreen herb with heart shaped leaves. The flower blooms in early
spring and is jug shaped. It inhabits rich deciduous forests, bluffs, and
ravines and may also grow on dry to moist, acidic soils along bluffs and
adjacent slopes. The hardwood forest southeast of the bridge was surveyed
for the plant, since it appeared to support suitable habitat. Plant
surveys were conducted by walking transect lines approximately 25' apart.
No evidence of this plant or any other Hexastylis plants were seen. No
impacts are anticipated.
The following species is listed under status review (SR) by the
USFWS: Well's pixie-moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia). SR
species may be listed in the future at which time they will be protected
under the Endangered Species Act.
10
No state protected plants or animals nor recorded natural areas are
known to occur in the study area.
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain II Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Catawba County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since. this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are
required.
Catawba County is a participant in the.National Flood Insurance
Emergency Program. The approximate 100-year-floodplain in the project
area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be affected
is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area.
Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of about the same
magnitude. The alignment of the projects is perpendicular to the
floodplain. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
EL/plr
FIGURES

/ 1A
C
Ip 10

, J nov ?
,1.1 US llll
a ...-- 155.I ty
,1J. 111a
loo. 'v0 Io t o
?J.3 I]u I
711.1
a9 01
_yr J]
^ a
3
IM
j J
u
1. ? ?? ]741 IU.
a"'t"t. Iw. ]]92 10,
f
1.• 2 v y? '
43
Hn' Y?PROJECT
]u 1 i ]vw-? 2501
CONOVER
../, POP.
1151
I.UJ

LH
•1]I.]
1
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR
ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEIa4UZTMI?N1' OP
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND l,NVIRONMENTAI,
cr BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 21
CATAWBA COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B-2012
0 Milo 1/2
1 1 1 FIG. 1
1
I
E NO. 21
f
}
t
I
E
E
kj
LOOKING SOUTH
TOWARDS BRIDGE
I
i I ? NO. 21

l!
i
I
II
SIDE VIEW O F
BRIDGE NO. 21

FIG URE 3
PHOTOS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

?Rp _ MITS
r;: =
FLOOD LIMIT
Ib _ ?
JL _ C RP RATE LIMITS
r '
( ,lti Z I ,f.
1
l s--
c
T ?
S

FLOOD LIMIT
,?yT
_ c
n.
?? . try
BRIDGE NO. 27

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
c BRANCH
LIMIT OF 100 YEAR
FLOOD
T. I. P. PROJECT B-2012
FIG. 4I

APPENDIX
o y?.. STAQ
'OR
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 18, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
C X14
//?11_
nCT 2 S i 991
WAYS
Re : Section 106 Consultation
Replace Bridge No. 21 over Lyle Creek, Catawba
County, B-2012, BRZ-1484(1), ER 92-7324
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of September 24, 1991, concerning the above
project.
We have reviewed the project and concur that Bridge No. 21 is not eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because it is a
common example of which thousands exist. (Please note, we have not yet
received the Department of Transportation's inventory data regarding the
classification and description of concrete bridges in North Carolina
which was promised on October 8, 1991.) We also concur that no other
historic structures are located within the area of potential effect for
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.
ncerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:s?lww
cc:`_L- J. Ward
B. Church 109 Eastjones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-2
STATE
Y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 21, 1991
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
RE: Repl. Bridge No. 21 over Lyle Creek, SR 1484, B-2012,
Catawba Co. ER-91-7468, (ER-91-8280)
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 1991 concerning the above project
For the record we wish to indicate that an archaeological survey was not
recommended for this project. Although we will place the report in our survey
report files, we feel conducting surveys when they are not recommended
unnecessarily increases costs and demands on staff of the Federal Highway
Administration, the NC Department of Transportation, and the State Historic
Preservation Office.
We do not expect surveys to be conducted where they have not been
recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office either at a "Meeting of the
Minds" or in a formal scoping/planning memorandum. The results of the survey
substantiate our earlier opinion that significant archaeological resources would not
be affected by the proposed 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.
109 EastJones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
A-2
s ..
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have
questions concerning the above comments, please contact Ms. Renee
Gledhill-Earley, 'environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
avid Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
DB:beo
cc• L.J. Ward, NCDOT
A-3