20100360 Ver 1_Application_20100511

ih
C4 ?
Y
V3
8
S
v
D
CJ
BEVERLY PERDUE
GOVERNOR
a4Mt°?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF'IRANSPORTATION
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
May 7, 2010
GENE CONTi
SECRETARY y
0 3 ``,'
/ 10
ATTN: Ms. Liz Hair
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 118 over Clark Creek on SR 1008 (North Grove Street) in Lincoln
County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1008(12); Division 12; TIP No. B-4176;
WBS 33523.1.1
Dean Madam:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 118
over Clark Creek on SR 1008. There will be 0.05 acres of temporary surface water impacts.
Please see enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), Stormwater Management
Plan, permit drawings and design plans. The Categorical Exclusion (CE) was completed in
September 2009. Documents were distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available
upon request.
This project calls for a letting date of February 15, 2011 and a review date of December 28, 2010;
however, the let date may advance as additional funding becomes available.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1596MMI SPRvinXCFHTPR
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WFRCITC' u Mrf T nor
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL RE&OURCE CENTER
4701 ATLANTIC AVENUE, SUITE 116
Pu wT NC 27604
o??. W Ar\feyQ
I 1 h ? y,?? ?\ v
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:

R Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
I
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c. Has the N WP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ®No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replacment of Bridge 118 over Clark Creek on SR 1008 (North Grove Street)
2b. County: Lincoln
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Lincolnton
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no, 8-4176
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. not applicable
3c. Responsible Par ty (for LLC if
applicable): not applicable
3d. Street address: 1598 Mail Service Center
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
41h. Name: not applicable -
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state. zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: not applicable
5b. Business name
(it applicable):
5c. Sheet address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.
5g. Email address:

A copy of this permit application will be posi.-A on the NCDOT Website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Jeremy Learner at [phone].
Sincerely
7Alic
k:kl Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
w/o attachment (see permit website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Victor. Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit.
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael L. Holder, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Brenna Poole, PDFA
Id ? __ :.: ?...
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Welland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
Site 1 ? P F-1 T El Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts Permanent
Temporary
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of Average Impact length
number - (PER) or jurisdiction stream (linear feet)
Permanent (P) or intermittent (Corps - 404, 10 width
Temporary (T) (INT)? DWQ - non-404, (feet)
other)
Site 1 ? P ® T Causeway ClarK Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 50 140
Site 2 ? P ®T Causeway Clark :;reek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 50 40
Site 3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
0 Perm
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 0.05 acres
Temp
3i. Comments: The two causeways will not block more than 50% of the stream channel.
4
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below-
4a. 4b. 4c 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number- waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or (if applicable)
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
-----
02 ? P ? T -
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T - -- -
4f. Total open water impacts X Permanent
X Temporary
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed. then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond Excavat
Flcoded Fdiao ed Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2 --
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
51h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No if yes, permit ID no:
Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres)

5k. Method of construction:

6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer
impacts below. If an impacts require mitigation, the; You MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse
? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ® Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason for impact Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T required?
131 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ? PEI T ? Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
L6i. Comments: Bridge No. 118 is not located on the main stem of the Catawba River.
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
There will be no permanent impacts. The proposed structure will be in the same location as the existing structure. The
"do-nothing" alternative is not practicable due to the resulting elimination of the use of SR 1008 and closing or removing
the bridge. The roadway grade will be the same as the existing structure. A pre-formed scour hole will be installed at the
end of the drainage pipe at STA 17 + 97 (L) and 1.5:1 fill slopes will be utilized where practicable.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Surficial bridge runoff will not be directed into Clark Creek via deck drains. Causeways will not cover more than 50% of
the stream channel at any time.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State

2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
If no, explain: Minimal temporary impacts of less than 0.05
acres are from two temporary causeways which will be
removed and result in no "loss of waters". Clark Creek is not
a trout stream HQW or ORW.
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigat ion option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Penmittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: not applicable
31b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulatf,c'J ?Iparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of imps::! to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zo ne 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zo ne 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g . If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
61h . Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected !1-parian buffers identified ? Yes ®No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules:
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan includev. i If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See attached permit drawings.
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdi,aion is this projrcC2 not applicable
? Phase II
31b. Which of the following locally-impl-,nientexl Stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a . Which of the following state-impiemented sigrmwater management programs apply ? HOW
(check all that apply): ? ORW
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b . Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a . Does the Stormwater Management Plan m::et the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b . Have all of the 401 Unit submittal :equirements been met? 0 Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) r-.nds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the iequirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c, If you answered to to the above, has the document revew been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
® Yes ? No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Welland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit appljcatior'? - ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and rea3onably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes
additional development, which,;ould impact nearby downstream water quality? ® No
31b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submii a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Due to the minimal transportation impact resulting from this bridge replacement, this project will neither influence nearby
land uses nor stimulate growth. i herefore, a detailed indirect or cumulative effects study will not be necessary.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
not applicable .
10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes ® No
impacts?
?
Raleigh
5c. If yes, ind icate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Habitat assessment and survey by NCDOT biologists. NHP database check. Surveys were updated for Michaux's sumac
(November 2009) and dwarf-flowered heartleaf (May 2010).
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NMFS County Index
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NEPA Documentation
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: NCDOT Hydraulics coordination with FEMA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Maps

Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe. Ph D
'
s Printed Name
Applicant/Agent ApplicanUAgent's ignature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only d an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
II
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
04/23/2010
Project: 33523.1.1
TIP No. B-4176
Lincoln County
Hydraulics Project Manager: PEF, P.E. (FIRM),
Marshal Clawson, P.E. (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION
The project B-4176 consists of constructing a new bridge 185 feet long to replace the
existing bridge #118 in Lincoln County on SR-1008 over Clark Creek. The total project
length is 0.130 miles. The project creates impacts to Clark Creek, which is located in the
Catawba River Basin. The project drainage systems consist of grated inlets with
associated pipe systems, and a preformed scour holes at a pipe outlet.
Jurisdiction Stream: Clark Cr _'?k
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
The project is located withirrthe Catawba River Basin in Lincoln County. No wetlands
exist with the project vicinity. Impacts have been minimized by and using a preformed
scour hole at the pipe outlet left of station 17+67-L-. Other drainage conveyances are
through existing pipes or existing ditches which do not create any environmental impacts.
Causeways will be required to construct the new bridge and will have temporary surface
water impacts of no more than 0.050 acres.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES
The primary goal of Best Management Practices (BMP's) is to prevent degradation of the
states surface waters by the location, construction and operation of the highway system.
The BMP's are activities, practices and procedures taken to prevent or reduce stormwater
pollution. The BMP measures used on ties project to reduce stormwater impacts are:
0 Rip rap preformed scour hole at pipe outlet of system left of station 17+67-L-.
onmeniol\Drow1ngs\D9176_HYD_ t sh.agn
11 CONTRACT.- TIP PROJECT.-

;4
w
it p
u
° n I
? ayy
N bf
V
pb
en
y
.. a
N ?
h1

t I
ti
z
a
a
O
(tl
H
n
m
b S
w
b ^ R
8 Q
x
a ?
b ? H
o ?z o
b M? o
b ? O
O !•
Lei 94 +?
Y 94
[af
b ?9
b
w
?J
w V
V
y

'2J
Q

J
b
W
b
r
I ?
?-IAAR-2010 10: R
R:\llytlr ecl1cs\PEIiMIiS-Eneir onmencel\D.ean9s? d
Q A? ? ? ggb • ?l? d ? ?/' Q ??Q -
/^ J ?rQ // ? ? ? Y I 3
' g? @ I l I^? s l F
7 I'd m x/
I
• Q Q GppP F'' I I I X\ ??yy ? 4.
o \/ ' I I'? Q \ m k?
\ Q ?q I 1 Q X\ 2 in i
Q Q I^ © I R°s0
o i
Q rr T Q y m I I x
Q R LI
R'
I
• oy 5>• L 1
F'
W ?
_L 9
41
Iu I ?:
01
2 \ ?, ...r pZ,?
02
? ? X55.. .. .. .. I
ti -0 ?4 it-y?5 <?
I
!9' .-.Sf.iiA S
e
p: ?x
m & i9?x 5 x x -_x?o?i ?I
. ? RgF,'P N. I
e.
o x-x??X Fa '? '
O/ 1 K O
9-S' L2
-77
I ?
i 9S 93' y Q j? m I
r -
Q
? D
-C
(n

V
I o ??e\
} m \
J ?
REY*OMi
n? / / a I
m I
NOT F
N
ggI^ I \ .?R^z
V g ? m I ¦ y,
b
Al
I

V)
m
-. V_ :E
Ul
U
53
a

r
B
noel\0.enngs 41Z8?,, a2
GL
1 3 1 1
? N ? x 1, / rah
I _m a l? /
a ? tea . a x ?/ ,
cue, a I I
?^ 8 "7 / sl I
I
a
/ / Oar
Vill
1 21
a ?-l I 1 -.1 ? ._
91p, \ yeti $r? ? y ? Pti I vls rq •
a
F \\\ Y'? ? ? + ? 5 m? . ?`q b• ref
?T' o,? g? yi 1 ? q'e -
Q tb l?
a'?°' I $ ? `y'pya 2
&-7
?. gP?

?S.
? a
5b?
I
ITI
0 O
a /
m
Z
n
I ?
h ,
IS d s
J.
r F?I•
? O<'1
A ??v
C
1 -

a

s
• A/
1 I // bJi me^.' I vy p 641
till
? • ? m l ? a?
{I A
l g l?N? / g I O xr
N I 25J6' \ ,
r uu r ! e $ ?° ??
,l CCj 1 - 1
n??\\\\ \\ \ .. \..., fpm N f _ '7 mI 1 \1\ ? 2 R`PV?I O- // i3' 1/

6

B
Ul `
U1?
p
I \
_ ? 1 I
Cgn
V
N
?w
?a
H
Q
Eff
I V C.. -I

b
N iv:rA
o y
a
v
N
V
Q
V
V
4
ti
b
O
N
ti
is
U
hf a
?a
N
n
N
II
N
O

>m
D Z
?o
?m
Nm
Z-
?;
C'O
T ?
n?
m?
f
n
m
A
IV
O

O
O
N
p
y
?
O

m

cmi N
H ti
ZD

T
ZH
Wr
` v?
O o
Z n
y mT
zm
-gym
W
N
0
rr
a

N
m N
1-
O

-

o'

oOO? -1K
-
/ a
Z
~ O
r
KOw
?O OO -

I
I
?T
I
i

C
m
.o
I
OA
ANr
D
<OpN
pmpN
. 1
"o?oH
C H
I A
IIII ?IIII IIII?
'O 0
0
m
m
z
0
m
z
Am
r
y?N
? N
Vp`
V
m
Z
m /
r
a I
N
O I
m m I?I m
m
? r C
N ?
f7 `" I
A
N ? If OZ O
n ~ rNa x
ti
z Z ?'o ..?o ?Tn c
W L '?ll?A? N
y D o \.? -ofmm a
?o
D r ?.I ??If
ti
Z
? I
m
N /' II
o I m --_
z I I \
ti m
N
If p /
o
W ? I
m
z
N
Iv o I
I
-- F
o
00%
d oo O
Rz
ml
o
m

>o
CA
m A
fK

0
m
ti
O
D
m ?
\Road aX o:z i
i
Ss$$USERN ME$$$gb9176_r dy_tsh.dgn
CONTRACT.• TIP PROJECP
N N
b o 0
.
b
O ?
o M
o
M
?
y pn
l3 o o
y

"
y ? ? b
y b w° o° H
.. y C y p '' o m 4
. u u n u u u
b ?o°"g' o wy?, a
7z
C
b
oh?-
4]'T ZL
I
ti P
? q
u
'u
o
>o
V
r-
a
a
?e
at
Y

rRl
A
'H
n
b
es
m
„ 0 v
qx$
o '? a
b
u ? C
?a
bx °
o
y
to y h
b ? n
O
a
y y 9a
y m?
H
tQ
? h
b
y
y
b
10

tn
0
x
b
O T
a o
° o u
c
9s
a
D
x
0
va
v
eT
°'
S a
O w
aa?
a

o °- c ? o R o 0 o R '_1, Q
? ao o_? n i a? m lGG44
a
3; m o 0 0 a- o
p a ?' " e e b
c a N N T
e
a a a 0 ?
O
z
e ©
I

0
I
m
a
1O
"'? o

X m

X

S m

S m a

p x
O O •
a ]
g R e R R > > d
n 0 -1
m a
m y g s
O' ° ° a ° O
T
iT y
° y y
°- y O
O' E
p ° J
O T
° S O T °
m
a ? Q m ; m o oo
° n ° n a
o o n c
D S ] ? O' O O
c o o_ -• o m

N N ?
C C j^
m m ,.S
-f -f I
ol:
v a
a
o i
m°
S
3
w m ? x
a a S
?y
' N 3
., O O
v

y
p O

F
Op
0 O

O
`C
? ?O
•J

.\

I u
O (•? N m
O S S ?,
3 c $ a
S QJ
O
s
O
Z
t+I'waT a a a ?' as°a'wo
w ,-w. R a
M m 'K '1• app a sp R n a3 a '1, a
C 0 0 w m S N 4 aJ 4
O
3 °• T o
a n. n n c c>
m o v 4 o v o
° o Mc
v T°
?1 o m a °oa_ >> 0 3 5
° a a d r• O Z?
? Q ] n Z Z $ e u p
0
x-0
II?IiI
N N
O O ,!
I
s m y
cl V
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
T N
v 3
v ? n
O g ?
u I I

f?
o q
C
h
a
0
0
J
0
n
]o
y
w
r
a

?
o

o aT o a° sr o ;T a ? sr S ?
ao ao ao o o n o 3 ao o??
] ] O ] ] 1?
M n a v ?° 8 n
° O?o
??33aos an sT O
3 3
a a c 3 o° a% n% % o: o
2.oao
C O O n
a a O g r 3r r] o
3J°>°?
0 0 ?• o o p
°am m° m 2
e o 2 0 ?. f.
3 n e 0 's
=33°
]_a3
103

y

_
Z
m
o
?
u
CSC
4'
o
a.
n

,a

p
o
O_
p

qTq p
3
Y ?
Q?
o 0
o

a
.
0
p O

yy S
m °
o
a
w

O
?
?'
j

?t
?
0
a
w

O
?
.p
s

y

o
r
? a

A

p

r
O
?
]
o
?
]
a

O 0
y
o
e
0
0 0
O 0
a
0

C
m

N N v p
0 3
v
N N ? 0
ng n m
S X
O
] O °
S ? ^
O ?
o m
0
0
`a
O
°
S
a
e
a
O
n
C
0
3
Y I I
?°
JO ?°
,O f N JO
F N
O
Q
M ? ? N
S 10 J
p '
O o a

a a
a o

I I s ?'
4? ?O
O
n.
0
]
a
m
0
a m
Z a n
J? O O
c
]
m
D 0
m
x %
d C
0 3
v
a
M
]
v.
F
°
i
n
y
y
711
?r
m y
?+ y
Oe %Q]
pO C
In

e
e
e
c
e
C
T
t?
Z
1
1
vJ
04
? C H :V b N ti ,?„ N ? b b
? ! F F
O b
? r
a °
a "qyb
O
? •afA
O YA
O O4•Ck
?bb0 ?ajk
O
F
? ? rC ? ? p
O .n
xi?' ?y ?~ p"4bY
•O! ?b S
i
b 6 ? ? ?na? ab a! b ab c
y ? 4 p ? Z
y y ?= z
y
'?y C?IW
? ? h ? ? p
p?
i b
O y
T S
, 4 W O
4 ? 0
4 ? {
?
ikp'
i F ? S
1 O 4 4 p
mb4b q ?Y pp
xb
b y
ea"
? S

? a a F I0
? pS
x e
a p
y b
4 b
4 pYy
".. b~
bn 4
hn bx?y
?S4 1y
0
b n ?o
'n O
n n
no w

?n

C
FN 6
yI? ?
F? W:g N? C
4 Y Yg Wb'q Abp" X04 p7'a' C
rP? ? IJ? C

w •1°
?On 94
!? n
PO P4
•n
d0 nb
wy4
" 3
' !
b? '
2
bao
? k c
a c
y ne
g
4i o
y b
b T Y
q8 •,Op ,?y b NY
w 4
w p0
Yh G
w
O

n O•y4

N
N
w b4
4
4? e
c

Y A
,
F d

P
h
dl
n
?o
00
bb?
gbg0?
a.1
$?n
S
h

PoI
V

FOR cu"
P

IM FH-" M
S b
F
??
?'rl b ? n
b
O

o
tm
M*
b
N
M 1
f TI
i
a
• •M
7

O
O
M
h
7
rRl
O
b
OR 9 OR
WP dqn

b ? b ?O ? 4 a A
A QI Of

p
y
C
m N N
N
ti
°
a a° m 01 Oq
Y

I L-A
M
.mob
C
.q

M
i
i
11
Oy
M
b
y
1
?proBr b
r" G? b
A y
'tg
x? ? x
,O 1R
tto
t C
v,
O?
G1
?q
b
O W
III+yVVV\\\i
W\
= 4\
? J
H L
Y t•
R/W R&ISIW - MorM /Z 2W
mh04.dgn
00 , ° 8 s§
g / ra ?-
+ ?44 ? I
?• Q -./?AS I u
:v a a all
a
a
°

r Q ? i
y Y Q
W a
. a6 i
+N ?a
rnz
o ,
s ?_ + 8p I mo €
+ w a=ll ?N F
ORS Na
I C ?
}
\ p.o m e'
ism + v I

9
i
a
s

a?

A
y
N
ti
A
z a
m
?o
V

ti
b
N
0
ti
N
W
N
O

O

N .r.
a
N 3 m
z =
O

a
O O ? ri
m O i n
F ? n
F
J
G ? m
3
0
U
z
F
W
T
N

C'C

- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -

Ul
E
E
H
d
L

CL 3 m

E
m
d
m
m
C
I
m 6-
a
0
3 ? I
N
a
?
3 0

U
a
O
O
E
d
L

co
a
? E c
m

-
T m l
Z ? O

(p N
C C U 6
? w m n y c
wl Et-
a

K C
C C N ?
N f0 O E
w v E m
a
U
Q N
E 3 m U
?
o
?°n

Q
c
c _
= N
U
=
tp E U E '°
F m _
U a
d rn ?

? U
O'
d d rnD
N C C
Z t ? U A

w

3 =
0 N
V
? C
] = l0 U
x 3
W
N
' d C C

? LL >N
C N
C
C
C
t0 _ t0 ?
E ii v

n
d 3 3
? \ ? m
?
? N N
N
U h N
U N
U
rn °'
O
O C m N
m o F H
N LL O
O
O) O
N
6i
J
?
?
O F
_
(n Z O
H
PROPERTY OWNERS
L NO. NAMES
1 RUTH A. HINES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS.
OF LINCOLN COUNTY
CORNWELL E. AND
RACHEL C. CHAPMAN
SOUTH FORK INDUSTRIES, INC.
BOBBY R. AND KAWNA COLVARD
LINCOLN CO. HISTORIC
PROPERTIES COMMISSION
DOREEN AND ISRAEL VELASQUEZ
LESTER F. JR AND DYRA EAKER
BARBARA B. MILLER
LESTER F. JR AND DYRA EAKER
LESTER F JR AND DYRA EAKER
ADDRESSES
790 STARTOWN RD.
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
956 REEPSVILLE ROAD
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
610 ELM GROVE ROAD
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
P.O. Box 1220
LINCOLNTON, NC 28093
1862 K C Ln/PO BOX 1615
LINCOLNTON, NC 28093
302 N. ACADEMY ST.
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
801 N GROVE STREET
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
720 N. GROVE STREET
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
101 BROOKSIDE DRIVE
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
720 N. GROVE STREET
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
720 N. GROVE STREET
LINCOLNTON, NC 28092
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LINCOLN COUNTY
PROJECT: 33523.1.1 (B-4176)
BRIDGE NO. 118 OVER CLARK CREEK
ON SR 1008 (NORTH GROVE STREET)
OF

au
Lincoln County
Bridge No. 118 on SR 1008
over Clark Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1008(12)
W.B.S. No. 33523.1.1
State Project No. 8.2831801
T.I.P. No. B-4176
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
And
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DATE Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
DATE pp /John F. Sullivan, III, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Lincoln County.
Bridge No. 118 on SR 1008
over Clark Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1008(12)
W.B.S. No. 33523.101
State Project No. 8.2831801
T.I.P. No. B-4176
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
9/70
A
4 ?? vq
DATE

Bryan Kluchaz, PE 0268
Project Engineer
Bridge Project Development Unit smI , 4 HM
GIN
.Bridge Project Development Unit ra^A1
11 ,
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Lincoln County
Bridge No.118
Over Clarks Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1008(12)
State Project No. 8.2831801
W.B.S. No. 33523
T.I.P. No. B-4176
Division 12 Construction Engineer
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) adequate time to prepare for bridge
replacement, the NCDOT will notify Lincoln County EMS at [phone] thirty days prior to
construction.
Division 12 Construction Engineer
In order to allow Lincoln County Division of School Transportation time to prepare for bridge
replacement, the NCDOT will notify the Transportation Director at [phone] thirty days prior
to construction.
Natural Environment Unit
Prior to construction, the Natural Environment Unit will conduct a survey for the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf during its flowering period of Mid-March through early June as habitat is present in the area.
Prior to construction, the Natural Environment Unit will conduct a survey for the Michaux's sumac
during its flowering period of June to July as habitat is present in.the area.
Hydraulics Unit Project Commitment Regarding FEMA Coordination:
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) to determine
the status of this project with regard to the applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement or
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMOR) if a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Division Commitment
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon
completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that
are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally
and vertically.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
September 2009
Lincoln County
Bridge No. 118 on SR 1008
over Clark Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1008(12)
W.B.S. No. 33523.1.1
State Project No. 8.2831801
T.I.P. No. B-4176
INTRODUCTION: Replacement of Lincoln County Bridge No. 118 is included in the latest
listing of approved North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) proposed state highway projects. Therefore, it is eligible for
the Highway Bridge Program. The project location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated with this project. The project is classified as a federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit inspection records completed in 2008 indicated that Bridge
No. 118 has a Sufficiency Rating of 21.2 out of a possible 100 according to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) standards. A benchmark for bridge replacement is a sufficiency rating
of 50 or below. The bridge is considered Structurally Deficient due to a superstructure condition
rating of 4 out of 9 according to FHWA standards. Therefore, the evaluation of the condition of
this bridge has made it eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Program. Bridge No. 118 also has a
deck geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9 making it Functionally Obsolete.
Bridge No. 118 has a 58 year old concrete substructure. The 2008 Bridge Inspection Report for
this structure indicated that cracks in various areas of concrete were resulting in increased
spalling, cracking, loss of concrete, resulting in exposed reinforcing steel. The bridge is
exhibiting increasing decay and rust Rehabilitation of a concrete structure is generally practical
only when a few members are damaged or prematurely deteriorated. However, past a certain
degree of deterioration, concrete structures become impractical to maintain and upon eligibility
are programmed for replacement. Bridge No. 118 is approaching the end of its useful life.
Bridge No. 118 currently carries 9,500 vehicles per day with 14,700 vehicles per day projected
for the year 2035. The deterioration of the superstructure and substructure due to age and
weathering is becoming increasingly unacceptable and replacement of the bridge will result in a
safer structure for increasing volumes of traffic.
II. ' EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed bridge replacement project is located in the City of Lincolnton, the county seat.
SR 1008 is an Urban Major Collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is
not a National Highway System Route. This is a designated bicycle route. The NCDOT Bicycle
and Pedestrian Division has indicated that bicyclists use this roadway. There is an existing
sidewalk on the south side of the bridge.
j Bridge No. 118 is a five-span structure that has a superstructure with a reinforced concrete deck,
an asphalt-wearing surface, and concrete railings resting on 4 steel 1-beams. The end bents
consist of reinforced concrete abutments. Interior Bent 1 consists of a reinforced concrete cap on
steel piles. Bents 2, 3, and 4 are reinforced concrete caps and columns. Bent 3 is in the water.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1951. The maximum span length is 38 feet
and the overall length of the structure is 188 feet. The clear roadway width is 24.0 feet. The
posted weight limits on this bridge are single vehicle (SV) 26 and truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) 31.
There is a 4-inch gas line under the right overhang and overhead power lines exist on the north
side of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
The current traffic volume includes one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and three
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour in the project area.
Eight school buses cross the bridge twice daily for morning or afternoon routes.
There was one crash reported in the vicinity of Bridge No.118 during a recent three-year period.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a bridge approximately 195 feet long. The bridge length
is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The bridge will
be of sufficient width to provide two 12-foot lanes with 9.5-foot offsets containing 5.5-foot
sidewalks on each side and a 54-inch rail height on each side which will provide for safer bicycle
accommodations. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the
existing grade.
The existing roadway approaches will have 24-foot pavement width to provide two 12-foot lanes.
Eight-foot shoulders will be provided on each side (11 feet with guardrail), four feet of which
will be paved in accordance with the current NCDOT Design Policy. The 4-foot paved shoulder
was also recommended by the NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Off-site Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects
considers multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the average
road user resulting from an offsite detour. The majority of traffic on the road is through traffic.
Up to an 18-month duration for construction is expected for this project. In this case, Lincoln
County Emergency Services has indicated that a road closure would deeply impact any
emergency response to the northwest corridor of Lincoln County resulting in.a minimum 10
minute response time delay. Therefore, road closure and an offsite detour can not be a
consideration.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Alternate 1 (Preferred)
Alternate 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment with a
new bridge. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of
approximately 560 feet to the west and 680 feet to the east of the new structure. Traffic will be
maintained onsite during construction by providing a two lane temporary structure within 50 feet
of the existing structure.
Based on the NCDOT Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of travel delay and
Emergency Management System (EMS) concerns, the onsite detour is necessary. NCDOT
Division 12 concurs with these concerns and believes that an onsite detour is justified. While
project costs and temporary environmental impacts will be slightly higher, maintenance of traffic
onsite during construction is. mandatory.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge for safety reasons.
This is not acceptable due to the need for traffic service provided by SR 1008.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated condition. The
extent of deterioration and the numerous locations of areas of disrepair on the bridge make
rehabilitation inefficient, ineffective, and costly beyond reasonable limits.
Staged Construction is not feasible for this bridge because of the beam configuration and
reinforced concrete components that require replacement or repair. Staged construction will not
support removal of a portion of the bridge and maintenance of some over-width traffic on the
remaining portion.
Alternate 2 considered the existing structure serving as an onsite detour during construction. A
new bridge would be constructed approximately parallel to, and to the north of the existing
structure. It was determined that the existing approach alignments of Alternate 1 provided a more
beneficial design than a change in alignment. The required length of the proposed structure for
Alternate 2 would be significantly longer and the length of the proposed project would be longer
than Alternate 1. The curve in the northeast approach would be less advantageous for safety
reasons. Alternate 2 does not provide for a safer design. The estimated Right of Way cost for
Alternate 2 is 115 % greater than that of Alternate).
Alternate 3 considered the existing structure serving as an onsite detour during construction. A
new bridge would be constructed approximately parallel to, and to the south of the existing
structure. It was determined that the existing approach alignments of Alternate 1 provided a more
beneficial design than a change in alignment. The required project length of Alternate 3 would be
longer than that 'of Alternate 1. Alternate 3 does not provide for a safer design. The estimated
Right of Way cost for Alternate 3 is 338 % greater than that of Alternatel.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the preferred alternative based on 2008 prices are as follows:
Preferred Alternative
Proposed Structure $ 823,000
Roadway Approaches $ 507,000
Detour Structure $ 624,000
Structure Removal $ 79,000
Detour Structure Removal $ 94,000
Misc. & Mob. $ 496,000
En g. & Contingencies $ 377,000
Total Construction Cost $ 3,000,000
Right-of-Way Costs
Utility Costs $ 410,000
$ 218,000
Total Project Cost $3,628,000
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. Physical Resources
Geography
The project study area, consisting of approximately 10 acres, is located at the crossing of
SR 1008 over Clark Creek on the eastern boundary of Lincolnton in Madison County, NC.
Included within the project study area are 2 unnamed tributaries (UT I and UT 2) to Clark Creek
and their associated floodplains. This area is located within the Southern Outer Piedmont (Level
III) ecoregion of North Carolina. The North Carolina section of this region covers the middle
portion of the North Carolina Piedmont in the south, narrowing to the north between the Carolina
Slate Belt and the Northern Inner Piedmont. The ecoregion has lower elevations, less relief, and
less precipitation than the Southern Inner Piedmont and The Northern Inner Piedmont and tends
to have more cropland than the Inner Piedmont regions. The landform mass is mostly irregular
plains.
Elevations within the project study area range from a high of approximately 810 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to a low of approximately 760 feet NGVD within the stream
channel. Land uses within the vicinity of the project consist of residential lots, commercial lots,
and woodlands.
Water Resources
The portion of Clark Creek that lies within the project study area has been assigned Stream Index
Number 11-129-5-(9.5) by the North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ)(2004c).
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-08-35 of the Catawba River Basin
(NCDWQ 2004b). This area is part of the USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050102 of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region. Clark Creek enters the project study area from the north as a well-defined,
fourth order, perennial stream with fast flow over sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate. At
Bridge No. 118, Clark Creek is approximately 50 feet wide with steeply sloping banks 4 to 10
feet high. During field investigations the water lever was 1 to 3 feet deep. Water clarity was poor
with no visibility to the substrate. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within
the creek.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the state of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams. A Best Usage Classification
of WS-IV has been assigned to Clark Creek within the project study area. Class WS-IV waters
are waters protected for water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds. WS-IV Waters are also suited for all Class C uses which include aquatic life
propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation. Secondary recreation includes
wading, boating, and other uses not involving body contact. No designated Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-
II) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Clark Creek is currently designated by
NCDWQ as Impaired. Clark Creek is listed on the 2006 Final 303(d) List as a category 4A
(standard violation: fecal coliform) and category 6 (action level violation: copper). Clark Creek is
not listed for sedimentation or turbidity impairments.
Biotic Resources
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the project area: disturbed/maintained
land and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. Plant community descriptions are based on
a classification system utilized by NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley 1990) where applicable.
Disturbed/maintained land - includes roadside shoulders, residential lots, and commercial lots.
This community occupies approximately 7 acres of the project study area. This community
predominately supports an herb/grass assemblage with some trees located in residential lots.
Most of this area is maintained by mowing. No terrestrial mammal species were observed. No
terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest - is described as occurring within river and stream
floodplains in which separate fluvial landforms and associated vegetation zones are too small to
distinguish. Flood-carried sediment provides nutrient input to this community and serves as a
natural disturbance factor.
Limited investigations resulted in no observations of aquatic or semi-aquatic species. No
designated Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat occurs within the project study area.
The majority of impacts associated with all three alternatives will occur within
maintained/disturbed land. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project
activities. Construction noise and associated disturbances are anticipated to have short-term
impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns.
B. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
The following sections provide an inventory of resource areas, protected species, and an
assessment of possible impacts to waters of the United States. Waters of the United States and
rare and protected species are of particular significance when assessing impacts because of
federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. The following sections address those
measures that will be required in order to comply with regulatory permit conditions prior to
project construction.
Surface Waters and Wetlands
North Carolina DWQ defines a perennial channel as one with water all year around and an
intermittent channel as one that has water for a significant part of the year, but is dry for some
part, during a year of normal rainfall (15A NCAC 213.0233). These channels usually have some
or all of the following characteristics: distinctive streambed and bank, aquatic life, and
groundwater flow or discharge. Surface waters within the embankments of Clark Creek and UT 1
and UT 2 are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). Clark Creek exhibits characteristics of a
well-defined, fourth-order, perennial stream with strong flow over cobble and gravel substrate
containing some boulders.
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987). No vegetated wetlands occur
in the project study area.
Permits
Impacts to "Waters of the United States" come under the jurisdiction United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). The Nationwide Permit #23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions) should
cover the minimal impacts to jurisdictional streams in the project area. Nationwide permit #33
(Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering) may be needed for temporary construction
access if that is not addressed in this document. The North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), DWQ will evaluate the applicability of a
Section 401 General Water Quality Certification.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 31, 2008, the
USFWS lists 2 federally protected species for Lincoln County (Table 2). A review of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats indicates
no occurrences of federally protected species in the project area. No individual organisms or
populations for any of the species listed in the following table were observed within the project
area at the time of site investigation.
Federally Protected Species for Lincoln County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Rinlnoiral Cnnrlnsian
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexas lis naniflora Threatened No Effect/Habitat
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endan ered No Effect/Habitat

"Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
"Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"Threatened (S/A)" denotes a species that is treated as threatened due to its similarity of
appearance to another endangered or threatened species that is listed for protection.
Threatened (S/A) species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject
to Section 7 consultation.
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Section 106 Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
Historic Architecture
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project and determined that
no historic resources would be affected by this project. No architectural surveys are required. See
letters dated August 26, 2004 and June 15, 2007.
Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project and determined that
no historic resources would be affected by this project. No archaeological surveys are required.
See letters dated August 26, 2004 and June 15, 2007.
Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisitions and construction projects.
All permanent construction will take place along an existing alignment. There are no soils
classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project.
Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these
classifications.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effect on any minority or low-income population.
Noise & Air Quality
This project is an air quality neutral project in accordance with 40 CFR 93.126. It is not required
to be included in the regional emissions, analysis (if applicable) and project level CO or PM2.5
analyses are not required. This project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic
volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing facility, or any other factor that would cause an
increase in emissions impacts relative to the no-build alternative. Therefore, FHWA standards
have determined that this project will generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act
criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special Mobile Source Air Toxics concerns.
Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs. Any burning of vegetation shall
be performed in accordance with applicable local laws. and regulations of the North Carolina
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Noise levels may increase during project construction; however, these impacts are not expected
to be substantial considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of a deteriorating bridge
that is becoming increasingly inadequate will result in a safer structure.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human environment
or natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Lincoln County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact area of
about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the level or extent
of upstream flood potential.
VIII. COORDINATION & AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT sought input from the following agencies as a part of project development: Planning
Department, City of Lincolnton; US Environmental Protection Agency; N.C Wildlife Resource
Commission; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; US Department of Environment and Natural
Resources; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; NC Division of Water Quality, North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office, and the U.S. Forest Service.
The City of Lincolnton Planning Department has requested consideration for a possible future
greenway under the new bridge. This has been addressed and an area under the bridge with ample
vertical clearance will be provided.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission commented, "Clark Creek, Class WS-IV
Waters, is on the 303(d) list of impaired waters and it appears from the information provided that
a watershed Critical Area is just downstream. Special measures should be employed to minimize
further degradation of the waterway and downstream water quality and aquatic habitat.
The Division Of Water Quality was concerned with sediment and erosion impacts associated
with the bridge replacement. D WQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the
stormwater runoff through Best Management Practices.
US Fish and Wildlife had no special concerns for this project.
The Army Corps of Engineers had no special concerns for this project.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A newsletter letter was sent by the Bridge Project Planning Engineer to property owners and
businesses in the immediate area that might be directly affected by this project. Property and
business owners were invited to ask questions and comment on this project. All comments were
addressed and any possible impacts to businesses and property owners were resolved.
Work Zone Traffic: Temporary bicycle or pedestrian accommodations will not be required for
this project.
There is no substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds concerning
the project.
X. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project. The project is therefore considered to be
a federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial environmental
consequences.
10
i
i
i
i

/ X119

z i

f 244

C45
1

aP
fII?CO?Nld1
w.rm
/4?? soon, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIvISIONOF HICHWAYS
PROJ ECT UE`/%LOPNIEN?iC
z
EN`/fRONNIENTAL ANA LYSiS 3RNNCSI

Li,vCrLN COONT'(
_REPLAC E BRIDLE N0. I H ON 5R 1DD,?
o'/ ER C? Ax < CR Ef Ic
8-41' 6

$ 241 --- _`
C218 : z
i
L m
30
®-? - --'---?-'. -tee
_ mn
'a
t

C
f+'t
Fm^I ?

t

F iAi O

NOW
4V° °
?y
J
V?

f ?? Y
"
ve" i
..k F
Q K
TL ohn
},

^ i
d
?
i S jg Mi
nXI S,

'M0.# "'? fi
, y'y hr..'C='' • i.
t
n m _
r:
i
I. 1 ?.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 26, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Hiehwavs
FROM: Peter B. Sandbeck V P2 -zGQ?QC ?
??c F>i v d
SEP 2 2004

Office of
Division of Histonc
David Brook, Director
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Group #48, Notification of Start of Study
and Request for Environmental Input, Replace Bridge No. 118 on
SR 1008 (North Grove Street) over Clark Creek, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-
1008(12), TIP B-4176, ER 04-2045, LincolnCounty
Thank you for your memorandum of July 16, 2004, concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number."
PBS:w
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
F ST'VE y
aT? M°?a
J
North Carolina Department of Cultural
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Location Mailing Address Telephoue/Faa
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)7334763(733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]nl54801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733-654577154801
0
north Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Admfnistrotor '
Michael F. Earley, Govemor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 15,2007
Hank Schwab
Bridge Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT
Mail Service Center 1551
Raleigh, NC 27699-1551
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Bridge 118 on SR 1008 over Clark Creek, B-4176, Lincoln County, ER'64-2045
Dear Mr. Schwab:
Thank you for your letter of May 15, 2007, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project Therefore, we have no comment on the Droiect as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 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. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Siinnncerelly-,
fCe-i Sandbeck
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Incadon Muting Addreaa Telephane/Fu
ADMINISTRATION 587 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (9117733-4763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blomt Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733-65471715-4881
SURVEY k PW4MNG 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh. NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]/7154801

0
n
a
C
N
O
Ob
orb
yo
A h,
a?

I
b ?
o ? o ? Q 4
e •Cp ?S:J
'ooAO hj ??t?, Q ° a 4 Q G7
lab
Q
0
aaapc??
? QQ
a
fl
a a
a o
s~ e,
? Q
ti a
till
G7 y
? p Oe
Q y ?
p A
A ?

Q
1
O
'y
? b
P bu
N
+ b
0
b i
y
V
r

s d ` ? p
No 'y?
c? CJ
A ? ? P Rf
o a
o tQ
°o
m
d 7
00 0 7Ny? ? o o C7
00o a a
a a
?„ a I