20020974 Ver 1_Complete File_20020618

N. C. DEIP,Xlt'I'AII N'I' OIL 'rIIANSPOIt'I'ATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP I DATE
q 13103
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM. ULDG.
FROM:
L\/nn Sm,tt,
ACTION
REF. NO. OR ROOM. ULDG.
PDe-A-
? NOTC AND FILE
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS
? PLEASE ANSWER
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
COMMENTS:
l (c 5c;1 r 5C
? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? PER YOUR REQUEST
? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? SIGNATURE
? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 3, 2003
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Water Quality Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTENTION: Ms. Beth Barnes
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Gaston County, Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 83 over South Fork Catawba
River on NC 7, NCDOT Division 12, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-0007(1), State
Project No. 8.1811401, TIP Project No. B-3334.
Dear Ms. Barnes:
As indicated in the May 12, 2003 email from Ms. Alice Gordon, she spoke to you regarding the
Catawba buffer rules and the FERC project boundary. Ms. Gordon stated the result of the call
was that the DWQ agreed that the project is not subject to the Catawba Buffer Rules because it is
located above the water level of Lake Wylie. Please find enclosed documentation for the file
including a copy of the Duke Power letter (dated July 21, 2000), a copy of NCDOT Hydraulics
Engineer Jerry Snead's e-mail, and a drawing showing the Lake Wylie normal pool elevation, the
project and its elevation, and contours. As shown in the attachments, B-3334 is upstream of the
Lake Wylie riparian buffer zone limit.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
COUP
1003

F771, Duke
July 21, 2000
L. Jack Ward, PE
Project Manager
KO & Associates, PC
RE: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Project B-3334, Gaston County
Dear Mr. Ward:
Duke Power
526 South Church Street
P.O. Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
Bridge No. 83 is within the project boundary of Lake Wylie (569.4 contour). NCDOT
would be required to submit a Duke Power Conveyance Application and receive approval
before the replacement of the bridge could take place.
If you have any questions you may contact me at 704-382-9386, or toll free at 1-800-
443-5193.
Sincerely,
A
Ke!-in K. Reagan
L,_,,x Management Representative
Group Environment, Health & Safety
B-3334 Buffcr determination
Subject: B-3334 Buffer determination
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:31:47 -0500
From: "Jerry M. Snead, P.E." <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: "Lynn A. Smith" <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], "David S. Chang" <[e-mail]>
In response to your inquiry dated 4/2/03, we have determined that
our bridge is located upstream of the Lake Wylie riparian buffer
zone limit. The normal pool elevation ("full pond level") for
Lake Wylie 569 ft.(NGVD) shown on the USGS Quad map (Lake Wylie
Quad). If the normal water surface elevation 174.0 m (570.9
ft.) at the bridge is extrapolated downstream to its confluence
with the normal pool of elevation of the lake, this point of
confluence would represent the upstream limit of Lake Wylie on
South Fork Catawba River. Since the South Fork Catawba River is
not the main stem of the Catawba River, and it can be shown that
our bridge is more than 50 ft. upstream of this confluence, it is
therefore upstream of the riparian buffer; hence, riparian buffer
rules are not applicable at this site.
Regarding your other question, there is a dam upstream of the
bridge, and it has been considered in our design.
1 of 1 5/13/2003 9:53 AM
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact: Alan Johnson
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor: Rex Gleason
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NCDOT - Bridge 83 on NC 7 B-3334 County GASTON
Project Number 02 0974 County2
Recvd From DOT Region Mooresville
Received Date 6/18/02 Recvd By Region 6/27/2002
Project Type
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)

Permit Wetland Class
Wetland Wetland Stream F
"
Acres Feet ()w,
lei _r•
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin !
Req. Req.
23 F- O Y @N F__ 11-129 WSIV 1 30,835.
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N Did you request more info? 0 Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y o0 N Recommendation: Q Issue 0 Issue/Cond 0 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 351536 Longitude (ddmmss)
Comments:
810427
The project is for stream channel relocation. The applicant is requesting that 220 ft, of stream be
relocated for the construction of a new bridge spanning the South Fork Catawba River. The
submitted project information adequately describes the site. As stated in the project descri tp ion, the
stream is not identified on the USGS topo map On July 17t Alan Johnson visited the site. At the
time of the visit, no flow was observed in the stream. Based on staff's observation the stream
appears to behave as a stormwater conduit. The part of the stream to be relocated is highly
channelized (3 - 4 ft, deep) with little meandering.
Approval is recommended,
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Triage ChecK l_ISt
Date: ' 02-
To: ?RRO Steve Mitchell
?FRO Ken Averitte
FlWaRO Deborah Sawyer
?WiRO Joanne Steenhuis
?WSRO Jennifer Frye
LARO Mike Parker
'S&RO Pete t;oluwell
Project Name /? M ?c 3 .A A.JC
DWQ Project Number Zo?l7?U
Countv
733 S7iS
From: Teicphone (919)
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaiuatien. Please call if you need
assistance.
? Stream length impacted 1 r ,4? I i
? Stream determination t' a ( `' `? a
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USGW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamilco, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concerns
comments

020974
4M ? 4?
'a wV. n?'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave.
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. John W. Hendrix
NCDOT Project Manager
Dear Mr. Hendrix:
FILE COPY
Al ®,? '? ? g zooz ,
?UCTION
WALYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
I
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No.
83 over South Fork Catawba River on NC 7, Gaston County, NCDOT
Division 12, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-0007(1), State Project No.
8.1811401, TIP Project No. B-3334.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report along with the Pre-
Construction Notification form (PCN) and permit drawings for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 83 will be replaced with a new structure parallel and north of the
existing Bridge No. 83. The new structure will be approximately 529 feet long, 49 feet
wide, 31 feet clear roadway width and 5 foot sidewalks along both the north and south
sides. Deck drainage will not drain directly into the South Fork Catawba River or its
banks. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the present bridge. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the construction of the proposed project.
However, one unnamed tributary to the South Fork Catawba River will be relocated using
natural channel design.
Stream Relocation: A total of 220 feet of stream channel will be relocated by the
replacement of Bridge No. 83. The relocation will move the existing channel's
confluence with the river approximately 82 feet north and will tie back into the existing
channel approximately 102 feet left of proposed -L- line station 13+50.
May 21, 2002
The proposed relocated channel has been designed as an E5 stream type (Sheet 11 of 14
n "of pert drawings) to maintain consistency with the existing stream channel. The
relocated channel will have an increased sinuosity and will contain grade control
structures at four locations within the stream. The increased sinuosity will yield a new
channel 272 feet in length, increasing the length of the channel by 52 feet. The NCDOT
has obtained a permanent drainage easement that encompasses the stream relocation
including 50-foot buffers on either side of the stream.
Temporary Causeway Information: The temporary rock causeway to be used during
construction will be located within the tributary to the west of the South Fork Catawba
River. The causeway will facilitate the construction of drilled shafts and placement of
prestressed concrete girders. The causeway will consist of Class II riprap. Two
temporary pipes will be installed at this location to allow water flow within the channel
while the temporary causeway is in place. Construction of the rock causeway and stream
crossing will result in temporary fill of 0.037 acre.
Restoration Plan: The material used as temporary fill in the construction of the causeway
will be removed once the causeway is no longer needed. The temporary fill area will be
restored to its original contours. Elevations and contours in the vicinity are available
from field survey notes.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a September 17, 2002 let date with an
availability date of November 5, 2002. It is expected that the contractor will choose to
start construction of the causeway shortly after the availability date. The causeway will
be removed within 90 days of completion of the deck slab for the replacement structure.
Disposal: After the causeway is no longer needed, the contractor will use excavating
equipment to remove the riprap used in the causeway. All causeway material will
become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a
reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all material off-site.
Bridge Demolition: The existing Bridge No. 83 has an overall length totaling 524.0 feet.
The existing two-lane bridge has an eight-span reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure consists of end bents with reinforced concrete caps on steel piles and
interior bents with reinforced concrete post and beam construction. Bents 3 through 7 are
on pile footings. The end bents and interior bents 1, 2, 3, and 4 are located on the river
bank and will be removed without dropping components into waters of the United States.
Interior bents 5, 6, and 7 are located in the river where the potential for dropping
components into the water is greater. There is potential for these components to drop into
waters of the United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete
deck and interior bents is approximately 237.0 yd3. However, it is anticipated that the
bridge will be removed without dropping components into the river. During construction,
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
It is anticipated that the construction of the causeway will be authorized under Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). Therefore,

we are requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing construction of the
causeway. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 in accordance with the Federal
Register of January 15, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 10, Pages 2019-2095). By copy of
this letter, the appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification is requested from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith
at [phone], extension 286.
Sincerely,
YC-egg
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Owen Anderson, NCWRC, Waynesville
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design, Raleigh
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.E., NCDOT Program Development, Raleigh
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Highway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics Unit, Raleigh
Mr. Drew Joyner, P.E., NCDOT PD&EA, Raleigh
Mr. Michael L. Holder, P.E., NCDOT Division 12 Engineer, Shelby
Ms. Trish Simon, NCDOT Division 12 Environmental Officer, Shelby
Mr. Ken Pace, NCDOT Roadside Environmental Branch, Raleigh
Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 and
Nationwide 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: R
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department Of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141
E-mail Address:
Fax Number: 919-733-9794
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 11
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge No. 83, on NC 7 Over South Fork Catawba River, Gaston County
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3334
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN)
N/A
4. Location
County: Gaston Nearest Town: McAdenville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 83 is located south of
McAdenville on NC 7 between I-85 and US 29/74.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 035° 15' 36.16"N, 081° 04' 27.00"W
Mount Holly Quadrangle
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Highway
corridor consisting of a bridge and maintained road shoulders.
7. Property size (acres): N/A
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): South Fork Catawba River
9. River Basin: Catawba
Page 4 of 11
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Bridge replacement
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Mechanical highway
construction equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Riparian hardwood forest ,
Successional/Disturbed land, Urban/Disturbed land
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 5 of 11
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Nearest
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain**
Stream (linear Type of Wetland***
(indicate on map) (acres) (yes/no) feet)
No Impacts No Impacts 0 N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0.2
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Area of Average Width
of Stream Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name**
Before Impact Intermittent?
(indicate on map) (feet) (please specify)
2 Channel (before)/ O Ut to South Fork Catawba g 0 perennial
relocation
272 (after) River
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 220 ft will be relocated
producing an increase in stream length of 52 ft.
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact Area of
Name
Wat Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact )
(if
applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on map) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
1 Temporary fill 0.037 Ut to South Fork Catawba stream
River
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Page 6 of 11
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): E] uplands F-1 stream E] wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
One tributary to the South Fork Catawba River will be impacted due to the slight shift (10
feet) in the alignment of the new bridge. No impacts to the wetlands in the project area will
occur. The impacted tributary will be relocated using natural channel design, and the total
stream length will be increased by approximately 52 feet.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
Page 7 of 11
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Stream relocation, using natural channel design, will result in 272 feet of relocated
channel as shown in the attached permit drawings.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No
Page 8 of I I
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1
2
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The nronosed bridge will be at)Droximately 20 feet wider than the existing. Deck drains have
been designed on the low side (right) from 11+52 to 12+18 -L-, with none discharging directly
over the river or its banks.
Page 9 of I 1
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
C
/17/ 2n- 2-
Applicant/Agent's Signatureo Datt
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell Union
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk Watauga
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan Yancey
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham Wilson
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes Yadkin
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Page 10 of 11
Stream Mitigation Plan
B-3334 Gaston County
Replacement of Bridge 83 on NC 7 Over South Fork Catawba River
This project will involve relocation and restoration of a portion of an existing tributary which
will be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement project. The tributary is northeast of
existing Bridge #83 on NC 7 over South Fork Catawba River. The proposed replacement
will be on new alignment just north of the existing bridge, and it will impact approximately
67 m of an existing tributary which currently empties into the river approximately 20 m north
of the existing bridge. The associated stream relocation and restoration will move the
confluence at the river approximately 25 in further to the north and will tie back into the
existing stream approximately 31 m left of proposed -L- line station 13+50.
The drainage area contributing to this tributary is 36.0 Ha (0.14 sq. mi.) and is
predominantly wooded with a moderate level of residential development in the upper reach
of the watershed. There is an 8% average slope throughout the watershed, and due to this
relatively steep slope, it is not anticipated that there would be considerable additional
development in the watershed. Therefore, no adjustment was made for future development
conditions in the proposed design. The bankfull discharge and morphological parameters of
the reference reach (the existing stream, in this case) were used to develop the design of the
low flow channel for the proposed stream relocation, and the channel is also designed to be
hydraulically adequate to convey the ten-year discharge in accordance with NCDOT
Hydraulics Guidelines.
The existing stream is moderately entrenched, but appears from field observation and
morphological assessment to be a fairly established and stable B5c type stream (see
following); therefore, it has been selected to serve as the reference reach for the proposed
stream relocation. The entrenchment ratio of 1.5 indicates a "B" classification; although,
the width/depth ratio and sinuosity are low for B-type stream. From field observation, the
stream characteristics most closely match the B-type stream. The existing stream bed
material is comprised predominantly of coarse sand and some small gravel (d50 < 10 mm).
Thus, with an average bed slope of 0.0120, the existing stream (and reference reach) was
classified as a type B5c stream.
A pebble count was not taken at the reference reach because of the predominance of sand.
The bankfull shear stress for the existing stream is 25.0 Pa compared to 20.6 Pa for the
proposed stream, resulting in a stream power of 24.0 N/m-s for the existing stream and 18.4
N/m-s for the proposed stream. The proposed stream power is not significantly less than that
of the existing stream and can be attributed to the slightly lower average channel slope (due
to increased sinuosity) and a slightly reduced hydraulic radius (due to 2:1 side slopes
compared to 1.5:1 side slopes for the existing channel). Again, this is not a significant
difference, as it was noted from field observation that the existing channel side slopes vary
from 1:1 to 2:1 along the stream, and there were no obvious aggradation nor degradation
problems evident. Since the stream power of the proposed relocated channel will be similar
to that of the existing channel, it follows that it will be as effective as the existing stream in
transporting the current sediment load.
In most respects, the proposed stream design maintains consistency with the existing
reference stream which it will replace, except for the addition of more floodplain width to
enhance the stream environment, and reduce possible stresses at the near bank region. The
wider floodplain increases the entrenchment ratio such that it fits most closely to an E5
stream classification (see morphological measurement table). Grade control structures (cross
vanes) and armoring of the stream bed with #57 stone along riffle segments will be provided
to ensure stability. The relocated stream, due to increased sinuosity, will be 83 m in length,
nearly 20% longer than the impacted length of the existing stream reach it replaces (67 m).
Jerry M. Snead, P.E. revised: 3/6/02
.
VICINITY - MAP
Rai
into
oo?
cf

y
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT:
801811401 (B-3334)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 83
ON NC 7 OVER S. F. CATAWBA R.
SKEET I OF 14 1/10/02
?kHarn ?bu?q
! i?

I It
119
? ?/ r
I IAN
.1 ,

1 43
83

_ . r
yyyy 1 .f

r o
r
', ,? J .
E ND
O ;T
Mc?D ErJYI L LE P
7
- POP. B17 YV} `"
?, v
BEGIN
21197
7 PROJC?'T

V\

?•

SITE MAP
(NOT TO SCALE)
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1811401 (B-3334)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 83
ON NC 7 (?VER S.F. CATAWBA R.
Q U I Tom. err 1) n T7 1 If n A qrP.- 1/ 10 / 02

LEGEND
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
LIVE STAKES
WETLAND
L O BOULDER
DENOTES FILL IN - - - COIR FIBER ROLLS
WETLAND
®
® DENOTES FILL IN
S
RF O ADJACENT ORPARCEOLP NUMB OR NER
U
ACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® PROPOSED BRIDGE
(POND)

® DENOTES TEMPORARY /
I
PR
FILL IN WETLAND OPOSED BOX CULVERT
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
DENOTES TEMPORARY (DASHED LINES DENOTE
FILL IN SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
SINGLE TREE
F- +- FLOW DIRECTION
TB WOODS LINE
-
?- TOP OF BANK
- WE - EDGE OF WATER DRAINAGE INLET
- - PROP.LIMIT OF CUT ROOTWAD
- -E- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
VANE
- -NO- - NATURAL GROUND
- -P L PROPERTY LINE RIP RAP
- TOE - TEMP.DRAINAGE
EASEMENT RIP RAP ENERGY

- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE DISSIPATOR BASIN
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED BUFFER ZONE BUFFER ZONE
- -
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - WATER SURFACE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1811401 (B-3334)
REPLACEMENT OF BRG 83
ON NC 7 OVER S.F.CATAWBA R.
SHEET 3 OF 14 DATE 1/10/02

I 11 / / 8 .

? W E

`` W E

SLi
H FOaK ?pT P"
SD•n
I I .s
I ?
I /
?+d' M rr + r ` ? I
• ? + ,' ri r I
+ i h S
a r r '9 ? '
'? h• // ?l tl

Li
I, W ? a ?--
W ?j
I - W
I SAN FopK CAT ep NNER
I
I
I
I _
II,
L /
I
$ I
: I
Wa
i
K
z z
0
F

qa

r„
tt`?4?

U
..
M
M ®
00
W ?

?

U o
N
N
C
c?

Gr.
®

U

z

®
®

A

9

C7 00

00
U

ti
?.
O
F"
W

W
W
w
?
w

U

z

fsi

q

W
\ \ W
I ,
II
II W
I I F- F?
II W N
ICI W
ICI
II
II
II
II
wx w I I ?g
cJ . + ? a
U
L hh h ? '^
? Tp y ?
a
a U
ss
r r
0
ti
Q: CD
U
U Q
U
Q
Q Q
OHO /J
CL I--
Cn w
Fw- Cn

l' I
1T -
," ??I I I I
I Ei
E E
o E
o
Ln
ti
I '
I
I?
I
I

F- I I
?, (fl I
o ? '
'
> I
w z o

? I 1
I'
1
?=w ' 1
wl-o I

z
0
H
? U
oz
®z H
F. ? Qa
A
U ?
z
b
W
W
U
O
O

_E
I
I

I z ' ?
13 w CL \
\
(/1
0 U \
\\ 1

CO
-- ? I I
E I '
I
o
O ?I
?
? I
W loJ
z I
I
? N
_ O

w
Q z
J o: ILQ:
,
N
F- cu_ w
- I
I
00
0
O
03
N N
3 3
L L
T T
O O
O Ufl
O N
_ LC1
rn0?
i
i
i
i
T

01+F, 1

00 1

I
O6+z1

1

1?g+zl
1
O I 1
1
? I
wD ?Z- +z1
V)
9+z1

z
i I
L
log+zl
i
- ?
---"???+zl
E

E ?
Lo

J r
?3J `
1
Oz+zl
OWW
CL U)
c? LLJ.a° r
z
\
0l+zl

O
O

F

z

E,,
®

F" ?
?
x

z
z
®
U

9 M
v

-
ao
H

W W
?

Gz

z ?
H

U
w
W

> C
H

T.
?

U
z ? ?. ?
W
? U
Z cra
?
z
N
i W
F

?a

O U
d?

F?

C?

W

O U

N
E-
O W

C)
N
0 0
E

//
`
O ?+ N
C
`
/ \ ? ? M fW m ?
c-

Z
O 6
> W
O
z ? 0 W w
>
J W
J a
E: O?
W
W O ?.
O
U W W C7 O 0 i.
N aA a az w

°
z
°`' U
z W
xo

o °
m °_
CDJ W cn
® ? z E ~ c
v - N o

U
I
-
E
Z
cc C)
LU Ln U

co
00 _
Ln
Q M
E Ln
O
W

111 V) ?
'Zz U)
LLI a- cL
X11
Ill 0- CL
lu

u
EE
CE
w =
rll } a-
<<
LL
0 0

U) V)

(A

Y W (n J J
U (n a_ W U U

o Q - f - LL
U- O O
W
U Y?
N z
< W Q

rr U
Oa
?
O
D W
?
m U O Q

c?
V) 1
III >
C) 0
2.
/ II w
Lli
m
? " f
Q, ? II
/ ? II
/ 4-L
/ II
°
??I I
0
o- ?I o
? / -ZE + ?I w
z ar
N E'Itll
o
?, Q2-j V
w
\ \ 1
LLJ
2
a N \' 1
LLJ
LLLJI
' o 0
o
u U-) \ooo o I--
f
o z?? oo I z
\ \ oar ,U-)? J
:?E In I J
J W
?? ?,ar', m Z p L
Q, p
?? I W
C)
a
I ~
5?+ I w
b,? I
I
- 13
??X? a

/ w
o
z
CD0 G6

W
8 z
U- ?

Z

U
0
0
o c ;
J
p
f p E
J (Ma
Q p
W - O ?\
E

w?o0
r
o
Z Z+
¢umZ
°
2 N
U 000 o
J s
O

a Z a
m O
LL
?+ I
O
j
Z
Z
o
L) a
L) °
s
J N w
Q J^ 2
~ Q m
O
N OE E
d
W
Z + ?
Z
Ly a
Q W_ D
L
2 N
V O
CL c
o
s
w ¢
a m 4 CL
0
z
0
w
a
m
m
z
0
F
v
a
Q-0
L C
D
0
Z
z
0

u o
w
N

Zo
z
o V)
J
< I-
_1

?° -0
0
0 o
a
+
W o LL w
z
O +
00o
Z (n
a
M
Jv C
LL W

J

E N
a ti

E- q) a
R
\0
aa
0=
L?
4
ti
m s w
o?
a e
w w0 m
O N
m Q a z
i E a
om o E
Z
m o
w
ma 46
w ?W
m W W
J
? O JmJ VI
J W
N W 2
z 4 N ~
ZI
F in w ?
Z W Gr
Ja ?
0. J ¢ 2
W
0
X,
0
F ?y
I
z
OB F
x
ax
F cT.
w0 z
oz °
F; 0 U)
04
..^^ Q
F. CD
P"
UG
z
o?
0
U
?0
^tx
W
s
{`My=
A
w
0
ol
,W
W

D
v
.t4
Q
N
U
O

CO)
d
U
m
m
O_
v

I ?-C

e

? 0

goy
?I
> ? ? moo
; ?
to 3 ? ? ? o

?U?
•
qa ? ?'o ? Z O
O

3? 31
1 ? I
O I
1
1
C I
_p 1 _p
I
QI
?1 Q
RI

.1 8 ?.

w
, Q)
l? o
p

c
f`
?
o

a

U O O ?

C Q
O ? ? Q Q
J
`til
O N O
N ??
? ti
h Q
O
O ? ?
0
C p
C Q? C
? ? O O
p?'rz)g
3
>, h ? C
_J Q _p C
U N -To
8:
° ?Q,
ZZ
?1 L
4c
O L C
Cr- - h
0
Z
Q
I
Q
0
V)
o
0 Iz
M
n co
? ? ? 'M W CL1
cQ O

? U ? W U
Lz. 00 O ra?
OZ vFi U W W
O IT,
W O O
U

U z
z w

h
00
Q 4 0°0°
o NI
Q

o ,ol °
o ?
I m
O

•oo
a °CQ,

a
m

F o •o ;
U h o
P a
° ?
O
0
"IT
-4
w
O
0
F?
w
w
Variables Existing Channel Proposed Reach USGS Station Reference Rea
1. Stream type 65c E5 none Same as existii
2. Drainage area (D.A.) 36.0 Ha 36.0 Ha
3. Bankfull width (Wbkf) 2.4 m 2.9 m
4. Bankfull mean depth (dbkf) 0.27 m 0.27 m
5. Width/depth ratio (Wbkf/dbkf) 9.1 10.8
6. Bankfull cross-sectional area (Abkf) 0.65 m2 0.63 m2
7. Bankfull mean velocity (Vbkf) 0.95 m/s 0.89 m/s
8. Bankfull discharge (Qbkf) 0.62 m3/s 0.57 m3/s
9. Bankfull max depth (dmbkf) 0.30 m 0.30 m
10. Width of floodprone area (Wr .) 3.70 m 7.70 m
11. Entrenchment ratio (Wf ./Vbkf) 1.5 2.6
12. Meander length (Lm) 22 m 30.5 m
13. Ratio of meander length to bankfull width
(Lm/Vbkf) 9.0 10.5
14. Radius of curvature (R.) 9.1 m 8.6 m
15. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull
width (Rr/Wbkf) 3.8 3.0
16. Belt width (Wbit) 6.3 9.1
17. Meander width ratio (WbitNVbkf) 2.6 3.1
18. Sinuosity (stream length/valley length)
(K) 1.11 1.18
19. Valley Slope (VS) 0.0133 0.0118
20. Average slope (CS) 0.0120 0.0100
21. Pool slope 0.005 0.003
22. Ratio of pool slope to average slope 0.42 0.30
23. Maximum pool depth (dpm.)() 0.6 0.6
24. Ratio of pool depth to average bankfull
depth (dp/dbkf) 2.22 2.22
25. Pool width (Wp) 2.7 3.6
26. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width 1.13 1.26
27. Pool to pool spacing 25 18
28. Ratio of pool to pool spacing to bankfull
width 10.4 6.2
29. Ratio of lowest bank height to bankfull
height (or max bankfull depth) (1311I.M.W) 3.3 1.1
NA TURAL CHANNEL DESIGN DATA
MORPHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
TABLE
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1811401 (B-3334)
SITE 2
3/06/02
SHEET 11 OF 14
z
_o
F
x
F
w
O
a
W
D
U
z
z
O
M
a
Cl) ^
M 00

C?
O
O ?

C7 ?
W ? cr)

O
p o
Q„ U
?
W U
z
x
0
w ?-
o (D
0 E
nc
Q aD
wL
? p
V?
a?
? U
w C
V) p
0+-n co
0 •-
n- 0
Q
0
.
Lif
F
A
w
.a
W
x
z z
0 0
F M
F
a

F
F-F ?1
x
x

O
z
°

? M
?

U W
a
w
0
w ?
F
U
w

O
W
A
U
z ?
A ®
?" U
?
W
x ^
U
z
0
Y5
Wk
?4-
0 E
W C
a a?
WI
?o
V) (0
N
0 U
W C:
00
O +-
0-0
0.-
a
v
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
Belmont
InvestmE
N. C. DEPT.OF 'T'RANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUN'T'Y
PROJECT: 8.1811401 (B-3334)
REPLACEMENT OF BRG 83
ON NC 9 OVER S.F. CATAWBA R.
SHEET 13 OF 14 DATE 12/28/01
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
S
020974
Gaston County
NC 7
Bridge No. 83 over South Fork Catawba River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0007(1)
State Project No. 8.1811401
T.I.P. No. B-3334
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)
EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Willi m D. Gi re, P.E., Manager
Project Devel ent and Environmental Analysis Branch
/?
AT
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, (HWA
26 oa
DAT
,, .. ,mow
u-
AI?N
weT1A? r
?.?,. ??F;? T Nas oROUP
nr?r
Gaston County
NC 7
Bridge No. 83 over South Fork Catawba River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0007(1)
State Project No. 8.1811401
T.I.P. No. B-3334
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
PROGRAMMETIC SECTION 4(f)
EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
October 2000

Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
rQ. 66?4?
L. J.. ard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
Thomas R. Kendig, Al P, Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
)4JR1VL
Robert Andrew oyner, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
't '415tf§9911!
fy4 ?t1 \:Y'?yfryl `''
ti w• ?V ,
1
1
1
1
1
1
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Gaston County
NC 7
Bridge No. 83 over South Fork Catawba River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0007(1)
State Project No. 8.1811401
T.I.P. No. B-3334
Roadway Design and Structure Design Units
There are utilities attached to Bridge No.83. A 17.8-centimeter (7-inch) gas line parallels the
structure under the right overhang. A 20.3-centimeter (8-inch) water line is under the structure
in Bay 1. Local McAdenville officials have indicated a desire to have a sewer line attached; to
the new structure. The maintenance of the gas and water lines will be required during the
construction of the new structure. During the design of the new structure, the issue of the final
disposition of the existing gas and water lines, together with consideration of a new sewer line,
will be coordinated with McAdenville officials.
The City of Gastonia has requested a 3.0 meter (10-foot) minimum vertical clearance be
provided under the new bridge along the west bank (McAdenville side) to facilitate
implementation of a greenway trail which will pass under the new structure. NCDOT will
coordinate the design of the structure with the City of Gastonia.
Prolect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch. Roadway Design Unit. and
Structure Design Unit
Prior to the initiation of work, NCDOT shall record Bridge No. 83 and its surroundings (including
the concrete slab bridge north of Bridge No. 83) in accordance with the Historic Structures and
Landscape Recordation Plan of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between NCDOIT,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) dated
April 17, 2000. Once the NCDOT completes the preliminary general drawings for the structure,
then NCDOT shall consult with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO)
and allow them an opportunity to comment on the preliminary general structure plans and the
right-of-way plans for the project. NCDOT will also coordinate the design of the new bridge rails
and street lighting with the Town of McAdenville.
Bridge No. 83 is within the boundary of Lake Wylie. As a result of coordination with Duke Power
Company, NCDOT must submit a Duke Power Conveyance Application and receive approval
before the replacement of the bridge can begin.
Categorical Exclusion
October 2000
2
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
Gaston County
NC 7
Bridge No. 83 over South Fork Catawba River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0007(1)
State Project No. 8.1811401
T.I.P. No. B-3334
Bridge No. 83 is located in Gaston County on NC 7 at its crossing of the South Fork
Catawba River. Bridge No. 83 is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program and is part of the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 83 will be replaced by a new bridge located just north of and parallel to the
present bridge. Traffic service will be maintained on the existing bridge during the
construction period.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $4,059,000. The current estimated
cost of the project, as shown in the Draft NCDOT 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program, is $2,640,000 including $ 240,000 for right-of-way and
$2,400,000 for construction.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 83 and NC 7 span the South Fork of the Catawba River on the northeast
side of the Town of McAdenville. Bridge No. 83 is within an area of scattered small
houses and businesses close to the downtown area. On the west side of the bridge,
the Pharr Yams, Inc. complex dominates the land use. The McAden Mills No. 2
structure, which is part of this complex, was previously determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places in 1996.
The area around the proposed project has been evaluated and in addition to the
McAden Mills No. 2, Bridge No. 83 (dedicated to Robert Lee Stowe), an older
abandoned small concrete bridge north of the east approach and a proposed
McAdenville Historic District are considered eligible for the National Register. The
Cloninger House in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of NC 7 (Riverside Drive)
3
and SR 2000 (Main Street) is not recommended for the register due to loss of integrity.
Bridge No. 83 is in a horizontal tangent with a flat vertical alignment. The alignment on
the east approach is a horizontal tangent with a sag vertical curve approximately 3
meters (10 feet) from the bridge. The vertical alignment on the west approach is a
rising grade away from the bridge with slight left horizontal curve leaving the 'structure.
There is a 20 centimeter (8-inch) water line in Bay No. 1 and a 17.8 centimeter (7-inch)
gas line suspended under the overhang along the downstream side of the bridge. An
overhead power line crosses the south approach.
The east approach (NC 7 and SR 2000) is a two-lane, curb and gutter section with a
current pavement width of 11.6 meters (38.0 feet) near the bridge tapering to 7.4 meters
(24 feet) approximately 425 meters (1400 feet) to the east. There is a 1.4-meter (4.5-
foot) sidewalk along the northern side for approximately 425 meters (1400 feet). The
sidewalk continues across the structure. The west approach bisects the mill complex
and is a two-lane, curb and gutter section with a pavement width of 11.6 meters (38.0
feet). The sidewalk is along the southern side of this approach. NC 7 (Riverside Drive)
and SR 2000 (Main Street) form a tee intersection approximately 30 meters (100 feet)
from the east end of the structure. The sight distance is good both to the east and west.
NC 7 is classified as a Bike Route in the Gaston County long-range master plan for
greenways, bikeways and sidewalks. This plan is also consistent with the bike and
pedestrian section of the adopted Long Range Transportation Plan for the Gaston
Urban Area MPO. NC 7 is an Urban Minor Arterial.
The traffic volumes on NC 7 were estimated to be 11,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 1996
and are projected to be 25,600 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes include an
estimated 1 % truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3 % dual-tired (DT) vehicles. The
posted speed limit is 40 kilometers per hour (kmph) (25 mph) in the vicinity of the
bridge.
Bridge No. 83 as shown in Figure 3 has an overall length of 159.7 meters (524 feet) and
a clear roadway width of 7.9 meters (26.0 feet). The existing two-lane bridge has an
eight-span reinforced concrete deck on steel I-beams. The spans vary from 19.8 to
20.4 meters (65.0 to 67.0 feet). The substructure consists of end bents with reinforced
concrete caps on steel piles and interior bents with reinforced concrete post and beam
construction. Bents 3 through 7 are on pile footings. The end bents and interior bents I,
2, 3 and 4 are located on the river bank and will be removed without dropping
4
components into Waters of the United States. Interior bents 5, 6 and 7 are located in
the river where the potential for dropping components into the water is greater.
However, is anticipated the bridge will be removed without dropping components into
the river. Assuming a worst case scenario, there is potential for the components of the
deck over the water and interior bents 5, 6, and 7 to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete deck and interior bents is approximately 181 cubic meters (237 cubic yards).
The bridge was constructed in 1947. The current posted weight limit is 33.6 metric tons
(37.0 tons) for single unit vehicles and legal weight for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles.
The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 35.4 compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure and approaches. Bridge No. 83 has a bed-to-crown distance of approximately
8.8 meters (29 feet).
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from March 1,
1994, to February 28, 1997.
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1-
1
1
1
1
1
1
There are utilities attached to the bridge. A 17.8-centimeter (7-inch) gas line parallels
the structure under the right overhang. A 20.3-centimeter (8-inch) water line is under
the structure in Bay 1. Local McAdenville officials have indicated a desire to have a
sewer line attached to the new structure. The maintenance of the gas and water lines
will be required during the construction of the new structure. During the design of the
new structure, the issue of the final disposition of the existing gas and water lines,
together with consideration of a new sewer line, will be decided.
Public school buses cross the present bridge six times per day. The nearest detour will
be approximately 5.2 kilometers (3.2 miles) one-way assuming the intersection of NC 7
and SR 2000 (Main Street) remains open. To use an off-site detour, school busses
would travel approximately 69.2 kilometers (43.0 miles) extra each school day which
equates to just over two additional hours travel time collectively.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Development at the east end of Bridge No. 83 is a mixture of residential and commercial
properties. A service station/convenience store is in the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Riverside Drive (NC 7) and Main Street (SR 2000). This intersection is
signalized. At the west end of the bridge, the Pharr Yarns, Inc., complex extends to
both sides of NC 7. Based on preliminary hydrographic studies, the most feasible
5
alternate is to replace the existing bridge with a new bridge. The recommended
replacement structure is 12.9 meters (42.3 feet) wide including a 1.65-meter (5.4-foot)
sidewalks along both sides. The new structure will provide two 3.6 meter (12 feet)
travel lanes and 1.2 meter (4-foot) bicycle lanes on each side. Three alternates were
studied:
Alternate A replaces the existing structure at its existing location and utilizes a
temporary on-site detour parallel to and north of Bridge No.83 to maintain traffic
during construction (See Figure 2A).
Alternate B replaces the existing structure at its existing location and utilizes an
off-site detour to maintain traffic during construction. The proposed detour would
follow NC 7, SR 2014 (Cobb Road), US 74 and SR 2209 (Cramerton
RoadMesleyan Drive) (See Figure 26).
Alternate C replaces the existing structure with a new structure parallel and
north of existing Bridge No. 83. The new structure would be separated from the
existing by a minimum of 3 meters (10 feet). Traffic would be maintained on the
existing structure during construction (See Figure 2C).
Alternates A and B require a new structure 159.6 meters (523.6 feet) long and Alternate
C requires a new structure 164.0 meters (538.1 feet) long. Replacement at the existing
approximate grade is common to all studied alternatives. Hence the recommendation is
to replace the existing structure "in-kind" with capability for widening in the future.
The Gaston Urban Area 1991-1992 Thoroughfare Plan recommends the eventual
widening of NC 7 to three (3) lanes leading into McAdenville while continuing as two (2)
lanes through town. The widening of NC 7 is not included in the approved NCDOT
2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program. The design year 2025 traffic volume
of 25,600 vehicles per day begs a multilane bridge while the surrounding historic area is
not conducive to robust growth. Over the 29-year period to the design year 2025, traffic
is estimated to grow at an annual rate of approximately 3 percent. This rate is indicative
of a healthy robust expanding economy.
The Recommended replacement is Alternate C.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic
6
service provided by NC 7.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition. The existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are shown in
the following table:

The above estimates are based on preliminary design plans; therefore, 45 % has been
included for miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineering
and contingencies.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternate B, the replacement of Bridge No. 83 in its present location with an off-site
detour of traffic on NC 7, costs less than Alternates A and C and has the least
environmental impacts. Alternate B is not recommended as the preferred alternative
due to the high existing traffic volumes (11,000 vpd) on NC 7 that would be detoured on
other routes. The detoured traffic would experience additional travel distance of 5.2
kilometers (3.2 miles) and increased road user costs of approximately $5.5 million. The
closing of NC 7 would also be an inconvenience to emergency vehicles and school
buses.
Alternate C, the construction of a new bridge parallel and north of the present structure,
is recommended. Traffic service will be maintained on the present bridge during the
construction period. Alternate C is preferred since it costs less than Alternate A and has
fewer impacts on the tributary and associated wetlands located northwest of the existing
bridge. Alternate C may require the relocation of two dwellings. The recommended
replacement structure is a new bridge 12.9 meters (42.3 feet) wide, 9.6 meters (31.5
feet) clear roadway width and 1.65-meter (5.4-foot) sidewalks along both the north and
south sides. With the projected traffic volume of 25,600 vehicles per day in the design
year 2025, the recommended "two-lane" replacement structure will not operate at a
desired level of service in the design year. Given the size and proximity of Pharr Yarns,
Inc. to the existing roadway, the historic importance of the McAdenville "village", and the
two-lane approach roadways, there is concern that the projected traffic volumes may
not reach the estimated design year values. Should future growth in jobs and homes
cause the volumes to trend toward the estimated 25,600 vehicles per day, then a
project to widen both the bridge and associated roadways will be necessitated. These
improvements are beyond the scope of this bridge replacement project.
The grade of the new structure and approaches will be generally the same grade as the
existing crossing. The design speed will be 50 kilometers per hour (approximately 30
mph).
The detour alternate is shown in Figure 1A.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
8
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
An on-site temporary detour north of the existing bridge was investigated. The
estimated cost of the temporary detour is $ 800,000. The feasibility of closing NC 71
SR 2000 during an 18-month construction period was also investigated. The studied
off-site detour (see Figure 1A) would follow NC 7, SR 2014 (Cobb Road), US 74 and
SR 2209 (Cramerton Road/Wesleyan Drive), a distance of 5.2 kilometers (3.2 miles). It
is estimated that the additional road user costs, estimated at 31.5 cents per mile, would
approximate $5,539,496, a significant sum. The estimated cost of providing an on-site
detour is $800,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 6.92. This ratio indicates
justification to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period. Police and fire
services and the considerable impact on school bus routes also provide justification to
maintain traffic on-site.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
mapping (Mount Holly and Belmont Quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
National Wetlands inventory mapping (7.5 minute quadrangles), Natural Resources
Conservation Service draft soils mapping (USDA 1989), and recent aerial photography
(scale 1:1250).
The site was visited on June 19, 1998. The study corridor was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor was
assumed to be approximately 472 meters (1550 feet) in length and 61 meters (200 feet)
in width. Impact calculations for each alignment are based on right-of-way width, which
is approximately 24 meters (80 feet) for each alignment; actual impacts will be limited to
construction limits and are expected to be less than those shown for right-of-way.
Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species,
wetlands, and water quality protection in the South Fork Catawba River.
The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation biologist,
W. Grant Lewis. Mr. Lewis is a project scientist with 5 years of experience in the
environmental field.
9
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional
areas were evaluated using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according
to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991,
Hamel 1992, Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DEM 1995, DWQ 1998a). Quantitative
sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into
Gaston County (May 14, 1998) was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation.
In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federal- or state-listed species were
consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Project Area
The proposed project is located in an urban area of Gaston County approximately
0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) north of Cramerton (Figure 1). The study corridor is
approximately 0.6 kilometers (0.4 miles) south of 1-85 between the intersections of
SR 2209 with NC 7 and SR 2000 with NC 7. The study corridor is positioned in the
floodplain of the South Fork Catawba River and its adjacent banks. Land use in the
vicinity of the bridge is primarily urban/disturbed with riparian woodlands and
scrub/shrub assemblage in floodplains and on river embankments. A large, industrial
center is adjacent to and extending into the floodplain along the western side of the river
on both north and south sides of NC 7. A service station is on the eastern side of the
river, southeast of the. intersection of NC 7 and SR 2000. Residential dwellings are
situated on both sides of SR 2000, approximately 65 meters (215 feet) east of the
intersection of NC 7 and SR 2000.
10
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

Ah
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the southern Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina. Topography is characterized as gently rolling, with narrow to broad, flat
floodplains associated with rivers and streams. The study corridor is primarily located
within the South Fork Catawba River floodplain. For much of the rivers reach the
floodplain adjacent to the east bank is narrow and slopes up abruptly, while the
floodplain adjacent to the western bank is broad and slopes up gently. However, within
the study corridor the floodplain slopes up at a relatively even rate on both sides of the
river. The river bank elevation is approximately 170 meters (560 feet) National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), while the outer ends of the study corridor are
approximately 183 m (600 ft) NGVD (USGS Mount Holly quadrangle).
The dominant soil in the South Fork Catawba River floodplain is Chewacla loam
(Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), which is mapped on the west bank of the river only. Soils
on the outer floodplain adjacent to the Chewacla series are mapped as Urban Land.
Study corridor soils on the east side of the river are mapped primarily as Cecil-Urban
Land Complex (Typic Kanhapludults), with Wilkes loam (Typic Hapludalfs) on the
periphery of the study corridor.
The Chewacla series is characterized as somewhat poorly drained and moderately
permeable, and typically occurs on floodplains and along creeks and rivers. Within
Gaston County, Chewacla is considered to be a non-hydric soil with hydric inclusions
(NRCS 1996).
The designation "Urban Land" is used for areas where more than 85 percent of the
surface is subject to impervious cover. Characteristics of the original soils (drainage,
horizons, compaction) have been drastically altered by development. Cecil-Urban Land
Complex is characterized as well drained and moderately permeable, and typically
occurs on broad ridges with slopes of 2 to 8 percent. Portions of this mapping unit are
typically developed and are characterized by 25 to 50 percent impervious surface cover
and both types are non-hydric. Wilkes loam is a non-hydric soil characterized as well
drained, and moderately permeable, and typically occurs on upland side slopes (15 to
30 percent slopes) and narrow ridge tops.
>>
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-08-36 of the Catawba River Basin
(DEM 1995). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03050102 of the Piedmont
Region. A small, unnamed tributary parallels the northern margin of NC 7 in the
northeastern project quadrant. This tributary enters the river approximately 9 meters
(30 feet) north of the bridge. Another tributary occurs in the northwestern project
quadrant. The upstream source of this tributary is a storm water pond associated with
an industrial site. This second tributary drains eastward, parallel to and north of NC 7,
and enters the river beneath the bridge. The section of the South Fork Catawba River
has been assigned Stream Index Number 11-129-(15.5) by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ).
Stream Characteristics
The South Fork Catawba River is a well-defined Piedmont river with swift flow over
unconsolidated substrate. Deposits of sand are present within the floodplain in the
vicinity of the bridge due to erosion problems within the area. The South Fork Catawba
River is impounded by a spillway approximately 274 meters (900 feet) upstream from
the current bridge location. This spillway is 168 meters (550 feet) in length and induces
the river to exhibit a shallow braided morphology before regaining its linear channel.
The channel is approximately 41 meters (133 feet) in width at the current bridge
location. Little or no rooted aquatic vegetation is apparent in the main river channel.
Rapid to moderate stream flow allows for little debris buildup; however, organic and
woody debris (i.e., branches, leaves) were apparent in the braided portion of the river
upstream from the existing bridge.
Small tributaries in the northeastern and northwestern project quadrants differ from
each other in size. The northeast tributary is a channelized stream, approximately 1.8
meters (6 feet) in width and 1.2 meters (4 feet) in depth, and is bounded by a hardwood
forest. The northwest tributary is a linear depression that is situated at the toe of a
slope below a parking lot. This depression varies in width from approximately 3 to 12
meters (10 to 40 feet) and is approximately 0.46 meter (1.5 feet) deep. The banks of
botl tributaries have been subject to land-use disturbances, but still support both forest
and shrub vegetation. Neither tributary is identified as a stream by the USGS
12
Is
quadrangle, but both systems exhibit characteristics of intermittent streams
(DWQ1998b).
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
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 in the
basin. A best usage classification of WS-V has been assigned to the South Fork
Catawba River from a point 0.64 kilometers (0.4 miles) upstream of Long Creek to
Cramerton Dam and Lake Wylie at Upper Armstrong Bridge (DWQ 1998a). The
designation WS-V denotes waters protected as water supplies which are generally
upstream of and draining to Class WS-IV waters or waters previously used for drinking
water supply purposes, or water used as private water supply purposes, but not
municipalities or counties water supplies. No categorical restrictions on watershed
development or treated wastewater discharges are required; however, appropriate
management requirements may be necessary for protection of downstream receiving
waters. WS-V waters are suitable for all Class C uses such as aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation refers to any activity in which bodily contact with water is on an infrequent or
incidental basis (DWQ 1998b).
No waters designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) occur within 1.6 kilometers
(1.0 miles) of the study corridor. South Fork Catawba River is not designated as a
North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor as a national Wild and Scenic River.
I The Benthic Macroinverteb rate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in
I water quality at fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates and then evaluating species richness and overall biomass to assess
overall water quality. One BMAN station is located on SR 2003 approximately
9 kilometers (5.5 miles) upstream from the site. This station was monitored from 1983-
1988 and listed the condition of the South Fork Catawba River as Fair. According to
The Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan "Benthos samples
' collected near McAdenville resulted in bioclassifications changing from Poor to Good-
Fair between 1983 and 1992" (DEM 1995). McAdenville is located on the west side of
the South Fork Catawba River immediately adjacent to the study corridor. Fish tissue
samples collected near Cramerton (on the west side of the South Fork Catawba River
near the project) contained levels of dieldrin, DDE, and heptachlor epoxide exceeding
13
EPA values.
The lower South Fork Catawba River sub-basin supports five major point-source
dischargers and 34 minor dischargers, with a combined total permitted flow of 26.6
million gallons per day (MGD). Major dischargers have a permitted flow of 23.3 MGD,
and minor dischargers have a permitted flow of 3.36 MGD (DEM 1995). The nearest
major discharger to the project is the Gastonia Long Creek Waste Water Treatment
Plant (located upstream). Problems associated with the river include fecal turbidity and
non-point source pollution from agriculture and industry (DEM 1995). Non-point source
discharges in the vicinity of the project appear to include urban runoff, construction,
wastewater disposal, and solid waste disposal. Sediments and nutrients are a major
problem associated with non-point source discharges and often result in fecal coliform,
heavy metals, oil from roads and parking lots, and increased nutrient levels in surface
waters. The river is Support- threatened throughout the entire length of the sub-basin
(DEM 1995).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
General Impacts
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be
anticipated from construction-related activities. Alternatives which involve construction
north of the existing bridge footprint may impact small unnamed tributaries to South
Fork Catawba River; however, reconstructed channels will allow for a continuation of
drainage to flow into the river. Impacts can be minimized by using best management
practices (BMPs) during construction. The contractor will follow contract specifications
pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article
107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for
Roads and Structures). These measures include: the use of dikes, berms, silt basins,
and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging
areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on
disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds)
with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into
steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present river flows,
thereby protecting system integrity. Long-term impacts to South Fork Catawba River
are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will
14
Ab
be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project,
the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
1 followed. Guidelines followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those
implemented by the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure to be removed into water will be attempted only if
no other practical method of removal is feasible. In the event that no other practical
method is available, a worst case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering the
water. The maximum potential fill calculated for Bridge No. 83 is 181 cubic meters (237
cubic yards), which is calculated from the concrete deck and three interior bents.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
E
1
I
1
1
1
1
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: riparian
hardwood forest, successional/disturbed land, and urban/disturbed lands. These plant
communities are described below.
Riparian Hardwood Forest - Riparian hardwood forest occurs on floodplains, slopes
along upland edges of floodplains, and along stream margins of the South Fork
Catawba River. Canopy species include water oak (Quercus nigra), box elder (Acer
negundo), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera). The understory is primarily a reflection of canopy saplings along with a
mixture of mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Portions of
the forest floor which are shaded and often flooded, support dense stands of herbs such
as spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), microstegium nepal (Eulalia vimineum),
and false-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica). Portions of the northwest quadrant of the study
corridor have been disturbed and are dominated by kudzu (Pueraria lobata) which has
successfully eliminated much of the existing forest in this area.
Is
Successional/Disturbed Land - Successional/disturbed land is located in the
southwestern quadrant of the study corridor within floodplain areas adjacent to the
industrial center. This portion of the floodplain has recently been timbered and supports
shrubby species interspersed with open patches of herbaceous vegetation. The
dominant vegetation includes red mulberry (Mores rubra), box elder, kudzu, goldenrods
(Solidago spp.), pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), blackberry (Rubus) and
microstegium.
Urban/Disturbed Land - Urban/Disturbed Land consists of industrial sites, housing
developments, parking lots, road side margins, and disturbed areas which are pre-
successional. This community generally has an impervious layer, is maintained
mechanically, or is compacted; therefore little to no vegetative cover remains. Invasive
weeds are present in roadside margins or maintained areas when left untended.
Commonly observed landscape species include ornamental holly (Ilex crenata
compacta), and crape myrtle (Longerstroemia indica). Maintained yards are planted
with various grasses such as bermudagrass (Cynadon dactylon), and fescue (Poa sp.)
with invasive species such as crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), and dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale). Invasive species encroaching upon paved and maintained
areas include box elder, mulberry, honey suckle, various grasses, and blackberry.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each
plant community present within the projected right-of-way (actual impacts within
construction limits will be less). A summary of potential plant community impacts is
presented below in hectares (ha) (acres [ac]):
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
Bridge No. 83 Temp. Detour
Riparian HW Forest 0.17(0 ' 42) 0.42(l.04) 0.17 (0.42) 0.32 (0.78)
Successional/Disturbed 0.06 (0.14) -- ----------- 0.06 (0.14) ---------------
Urban/Disturbed 0.29 (0.72) 0.08 (0.19) 0.29 (0.72) 0.26 (0.64)
TOTAL: 0.52(l.28) 0.50(l.23) 0.52(l.28) 0.58(l.42)
From an ecological perspective, the impacts of widening an existing road facility are
minimal relative to construction on new alignment. No new fragmentation of plant
16
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
1-
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
communities will be created, as the project will result only in relocation of ecotonal
boundaries. Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement
are generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway
approach segments. The total potential impact (permanent and temporary) for Alternate
A (1.02 ha [2.51 ac]) is largely due to the use of an on-site, temporary detour during
construction. Upon completion of the roadway improvements, the temporary detour will
be removed and restoration of natural communities will be initiated. The total potential
impact to plant communities, based on right-of-way, is not significantly different between
Alternate B (replace existing bridge and off-site detour) and Alternate C (relocate
existing on new location north and parallel of existing). Impacts to natural communities
(riparian hardwood forest) are larger for Alternate A (58 percent) than for Alternates B
and C (54 and 33 percent, respectively) due to the use of the temporary bridge during
construction activities.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor is characterized by the presence of riparian hardwood forest
surrounded by urban development. The setting is urban and developed. Birds
observed within or adjacent to the corridor include northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Paris carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Paris bicolor), and
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Other birds, such as song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastern screech owl (Otus asio),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) may be
expected to occur within forest and ecotonal communities.
No mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc) or sightings were noted within the study corridor
during this investigation. However, opportunistic and characteristic species which are
expected to frequent woodlands and fringe areas include cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
sp.), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and various rodents.
Due to the season in which the field work was conducted, no terrestrial reptile or
amphibian species were documented within the study corridor; however, reptiles which
may occur within the project corridor include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and copperhead (Agkistron contortrix).
17
Aquatic
No sampling was undertaken in South Fork Catawba River or adjacent tributaries to
determine fishery potential. Species which may be present within the South Fork
Catawba River include rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), greenfin shiner (Notropis chloristius), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis); potential game fish which
may be present within the study corridor include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)
and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)(Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994).
Tributaries are intermittent in nature and may not carry adequate hydrology to support
fishes during drought conditions. Following large precipitation events, several smaller
species (ie. bluehead chub, and greenfin shiner) may enter the tributaries.
Limited surveys did not result in documenting any salamanders in the stream. The
South Fork Catawba River and adjacent tributaries provide suitable habitat for a few
aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and
amphibians which may occur within the project corridor include snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), mud
salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed
bridge replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known
terrestrial animal populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected
since most improvements will be restricted to roadside margins. Construction
noise and associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and
migratory wildlife movement patterns. However, long-term impacts are expected
to be negligible. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided
by bridging the system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition,
temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during
construction will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control
mecsires. Some loss of aquatic habitat will occur in small feeder tributaries.
These are intermittent systems which support limited populations of aquatic life.
Short term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect
18
Ah
benthic populations. Culverts should be sized to insure continual stream flow in
these tributaries.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of South Fork Catawba River and adjacent
tributaries are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters of the South
Fork Catawba River exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, Piedmont
streams that are permanently flooded, with unconsolidated bottoms (R2UBH) (Cowardin
et al. 1979). Two intermittant tributaries along northern margins of NC 7 are also
subject to jurisdictional review. The area (ha [ac]) and length (m [ft]) of stream to be
affected by development is shown as follows:
POTENTIAL OPEN-
WATER IMPACT
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
Bridge No. Temp. Detour
83
Area (ha [ac]) 0.09 (0.24) 0.13 (0.32) 0.09 (0.24) 0.12 (0.30)
Linear distance (m [ft])
South Fork Catawba 24(78)- 24 (78)* 24(78)- 24(78)-
Eastern Tributary 57(187) 38(125)
Western Tributary 71 (234) 70 (230)*
Indicates areas proposed to be bridged
Impacts are expected to be substantially less than reported as all alternatives propose
to bridge the South Fork Catawba River (24 m [78 linear ft]). In addition, Alternate C is
expected to bridge the western tributary. The temporary detour associated with
Alternate A has the greatest potential for stream impacts (0.13 ha, 152 m). However,
detour impacts are temporary in nature. Fill material will be removed and surfaces will
be restored to pre-project contours on completion of the construction activities. Potential
impacts associated with Alternate B will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable,
as improvements are expected to be limited to the existing highway footprint.
19
Stream impacts are expected from Alternate C, due to construction of a new
structure on new location. Roadway approach improvements associated with
Alternate C may impact the
eastern and western tributaries. Any alternate encroaching into the river or adjacent
tributaries should be avoided, if possible.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
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 (DOA 1987).
Wetlands within the study corridor are confined to a linear depression associated with
the western tributary. Both the South Fork Catawba River and the eastern tributary are
bank-to-bank streams with no adjacent wetlands. Wetland areas potentially affected by
bridge construction are shown in ha (ac) as follows:
POTENTIAL
WETLAND IMPACT
Alternate Alternate Alternate
. A B C
Bridge No. Temp. Detour
83
Area (ha [ac]) ----------- 0.07 (0.17) ---------------- 0.02 (0.05)
Indicates areas proposed to be bridged
Wetlands within the project corridor are classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved
deciduous systems characterized by semi-permanent flooding (PF01 F) (Cowardin et al.
1979). Wetland vegetation is dominated by red maple, box elder, and tulip tree in the
canopy and microstegium in the herb layer. Wetland soils are characterized by a sandy
surface layer underlain by clayey subsoils. Wetland hydrology is driven by over bank
flooding following rainfall events.
The temporary detour of Alternate A will potentially impact 0.07 hectare (0.17 acre) of
wetlands associated with the tributary northwest of the present bridge. These impact
will be temporary since the temporary detour will be removed, surfaces restored to pre-
project contours and revegetated. No impacts to wetlands are anticipated with Alternate
B. Alternate C may impact 0.02 hectare (0.05 acre) of the wetlands associated with the
20
tributary northwest of the existing bridge. The existing roadway approaches will be
removed and revegetated following completion of construction of Alternate C.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR
330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the USACE for CEs due to expected minimal impact.
DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use
of this permit will require written notice to DQW. In the event that NWP #23 will not
suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are
expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington USACE
District. Notification to the Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit is
utilized.
Bridge No. 83 is within the boundary of Lake Wylie. Coordination with Duke Power
Company has determined that NCDOT will be required to submit a Duke Power
Conveyance Application and receive approval before construction of the new bridge
begins.
Dropping any portion of the structure to be removed into water will be attempted only if
no other practical method of removal is feasible. In the event that no other practical
method is available, a worst case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering the
water. The maximum potential fill calculated for Bridge No. 83 is 181 cubic meters (237
cubic yards), which is calculated from the concrete deck and three interior bents. As this
section of the South Fork Off-4he Catawba River is classified as WS-V, this project can
be classified as Case 3, where no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters are required. NCDOT will
coordinate with the various resource agencies during the project design to ensure that
all concerns regarding the bridge demolition are resolved.
Based on coordination with the Federal Highway Administration, concurrence that a
Section 9 Coast Guard Permit, under the language of 23 CFR 650.805(b), will not be
required as a part of this bridge replacement project has been obtained.
21
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of
project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with the construction activities
could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native wetland species and
removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of more than
45.7 meters (150 linear feet) of streams may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15NCAC2H.0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation to
Waters of the U.S. rests with the COE and DWQ.
Protected Species
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), Proposed
(P) for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A]) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). The term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", "Threatened species" is
defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Proposed" is defined as "any species proposed for official listing as Endangered or
Threatened" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Whenever a species which is not Threatened or
Endangered closely resembles a Threatened or Endanger species, such species may
be treated as Threatened and Endangered, and would be referred to as Threatened due
to Similarity of Appearance or Endangered due to Similarity of Appearance. "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC) are not afforded federal protection. Species with the FSC
designation may or may not be listed as Endangered or Threatened in the future. State
designations for federal-listed species in Gaston County includes Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), and Proposed Threatened (PT). The following federal-protected and
FSC species are listed for Gaston County (June 16, 2000 FWS list):
22
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name Status Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenburgii T (S/A) T
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T E (PT)
Georgia aster Aster georgianus FSC ' C 1
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E E
Bog Turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to
4 inches. This otherwise darkly colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of
a bright orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et al. 1980).
The bog turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to
1 over-collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened
within the northern portion of its range, and within the southern portion of its range,
1 which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T [S/A]) to the northern population. The listing bans the collection and
1 interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern
1 population. The listing allows incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population
1 resulting from otherwise lawful activity.
1
1 The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in
1 association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft
1 bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a
1 discontinuous distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont. NHP records
1 indicate that bog turtle has not been documented within 2.0 miles of the study corridor.
1 T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is
1 not required. However, this project is not expected to affect the bog turtle since
1 palustrine aquatic emergent wetlands do not occur within the study corridor.
1
1 Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult
1 . bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and tail. Immature eagles are brown with
1 whitish mottling on the tail, belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but
1 may also take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from
1 • December through May (Potter et al. 1980).
1 Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water.
Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel
1 1992). Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet from a
' 23
nest tree are considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987).
The FWS recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-
cutting within this primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary
zone boundary out to a distance of one mile from a nest tree, construction and land-
clearing activities should be restricted to the non-nesting period. The FWS also
recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and
avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500 feet of known roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This species nests in tall trees near large, open
bodies of water, which it requires for hunting fish. NHP records indicate no
documented populations of bald eagle within or in the vicinity of the study
corridor. The nearest confirmed occurrence of this species is along the shores of
Lake Wylie approximately five miles to the southeast. Bald eagles were not
observed during field studies conducted in support of this document. Based on
available information and results of current field surveys, the proposed project
will not affect the bald eagle. NO EFFECT.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzh) - E. Schweinitz's sunflower is an
erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to approximately 1.8 m (6 ft)
in height. The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but sometimes nearly smooth.
Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above; in shape they are
lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The leaves are rather thick and
stiff, with a few small serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and the lower surface
is usually pubescent with soft white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from late
August to frost; the yellow flower heads are about 0.6 inches in diameter. The current
range of this species is limited to 10 known populations in North Carolina in Union,
Stanly, Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, and Rowan Counties. This species occurs on upland
interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in texture. The species
requires open areas protected from shade or excessive competition, reminiscent of
Piedmont prairies. Disturbances such as fire maintenance or regular mowing help
sustain preferred habitat (FWS 1994).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This species of sunflower is endemic to the
Piedmont of the Carolinas, occuring on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes,
in soils that are thin or clayey in texture. The species requires open areas
protected from shade or excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies.
NHP records indicate no documented populations of Schweinitz's sunflower
24
within or in the vicinity of the study corridor. Schweinitz's sunflower was not
observed during field studies conducted in support of this document. Based on
available information and results of current field surveys, the proposed project
will not impact Schweinitz's sunflower. NO EFFECT.
Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) - FSC. FSC species do not receive protection
under federal law, but should be considered during project planning (As of June 16,
2000, the Georgia aster was given a C1 listing which means it is under consideration for
listing) . Georgia aster has been identified on slopes adjacent to the South Fork
I Catawba River approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) north (upstream) of the project corridor.
I However, no sightings of Georgia aster or other FSC species have been noted by NHP
in the immediate vicinity of the study corridor.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that no state-listed
species occur in the immediate vicinity of the project.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 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 to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The
project was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(NCSHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA
procedures.
25
B. Historic Architecture
A Phase II Historic Resources Survey was conducted by Mattson, Alexander and
Associates to identify all historic architectural resources in the Area of Potential Effects
(A.P.E.) (Figure 5). The survey was conducted and the survey report compiled in
accordance with the provisions of FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4 (f) Documents); the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological and Historic Preservation
(48 FRR 44716); 36 CFR Part 800; 36 CFR Part 60; and the Survey Procedures and
Report Guidelines for Historic Architectural Resources (NCDOT).
Bridge No. 83 spans the South Fork of the Catawba River at the end of Main Street (NC
7) on the east side of McAdenville. The McAden Mills No.2 located on the west side of
the bridge (Figure 2C) was previously determined to be eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places in 1996. The McAden Mills Village located at the southwest end of
Westeyan Drive (SR-2009) was also previously determined to be eligible for the
National Register. As a result of the Phase II survey a larger McAdenville Historic
District was determined to be eligible for the National Register. The historic district
includes the historic McAden Mills No. 2, the historic McAden Mills Village and
encompasses the remainder of the historic mill complex, the small business district of
the town, the original mill village and the residential area along Main Street, the postwar
lake, and the schools situated at the south end of Westeyan Drive near Wilkison
Boulevard. The historic district also includes Bridge No. 83 and a small concrete slab
bridge located on a tributary northeast of Bridge No. 83. The National Register
boundaries are shown in Figure 5. A copy of the survey report is on file in the Project
Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT.
The NCDOT, FHWA and the NCSHPO reviewed the alternatives under consideration
and concluded that all alternatives would have an ADVERSE EFFECT on the historic
district. In a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), dated April 17,2000, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and FHWA agreed to specific mitigation measures to
minimize the adverse on the historic district. The stipulations in this agreement are as
follows:
Recordation: Prior to the initiation of work, NCDOT shall record Bridge No. 83
and it surroundings (including the concrete slab bridge north of Bridge NO. 83) in
accordance with the Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan.
26
dh
i
i
I
I
I
I Replacement Bridge Design: Once the NCDOT completes the preliminary
general drawings for the structure, then NCDOT shall consult with the NCSHPO and
I allow them an opportunity to comment on the preliminary general structure plans as well
I as the Right-of-Way plans for the project.
Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30)
days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this agreement ,
FHWA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHWA or
the North Carolina SHPO determines the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall
forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Council). Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the Council will then
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into account in
reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.7(c) and proceed
to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be
taken into account by FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)(4) with
reference to the subject of dispute.
A copy of the MOA is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
An archaeology survey of the project area was performed by NCDOT. The survey
report was submitted to SHPO for review and concurrence. The SHPO in his
Memorandum dated April 4, 2000 made the following comments: "We concur with the
reports recommendations since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources." The SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially
unsafe bridge. Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be
maintained on site.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
27
natural environment with the use of current.NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Two residences may be
relocated with implementation of the Recommended Alternate C. NCDOT's Relocation
Assistance Program will minimize the impacts of relocation and will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act (GS-135-5 through 133-18)
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, historic site, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuge or national, state, or local significance may be used for a federal project only if:
1. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and
2. Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to Section 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
The potential Section 4(f) lands listed will be affected by the project as follows:
McAden Mills No. 2 No use.
McAden Mills Village No use.
McAdenville Historic District No use
Bridge No. 83 (lies within the District) Note
Concrete Bridge (lies within the District) Note
Note: See Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation in Appendix A. Bridge No. 83 will be
replaced near its existing location. The exact fate of the small Concrete Bridge north of
Bridge No. 83 off the east approach and the small watercourse it now serves will be
determined by the NCDOT Roadway Design in the final design phase.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. The proposed project is excluded from the
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) since the project is located within the urban area
28
of McAdenville. (7 CFR Part 658).
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of National, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located in Gaston County, which is within the Charlotte/Gastonia
nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated this area as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03.
However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as
"maintenance" for 03 on July 5, 1995. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control
measures for Gaston County. The Gaston Urban Area MPO 2025 Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2000-2006 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program (MTIP) has been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP.
The USDOT air quality conformity approval of the LRTP was October 1, 1999 and
conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR
Part 51 and 93. There has been no significant changes in the project's design concept
or scope, as used in the conformity analysis.
1
I Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. The completed
1 project's impact on noise and air quality will not be adverse on receptors within the
immediate project area. The noise levels will increase during the construction period,
1 but will only 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
1 State Implementation Plan (SIP) air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC2d.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
1 required.
11 An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
1 Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management, revealed no leaking underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
All borrow and solid waste sites will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Solid waste
will be disposed of in strict adherence to the NC Division of Highways "Standard
Specifications of Roads and Structures." The Contractor will observe and comply with
29
all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees regarding disposal of solid waste.
Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land disposal site that is in violation of
state of local rules and regulations. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas that
are outside the right of way and provided by the Contractor.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is a
Federal Categorical Exclusion due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
XI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Agency Coordination
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following
agencies:
i*US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
*US Army Corps of Engineers- Asheville Regulatory Field Office
*US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service
*State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Department of Public Instruction
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*NC Wildlife Commission
*NC Division of Water Quality
*Mayor of McAdenville
Gaston County Manager
*Gaston County Planning Director
Chairman, Gaston County Commissioners
*Centralina Council of Governments
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The
comments are included in the appendix of this report.
30
A&
Public Involvement
Letters containing information on the proposed bridge replacement and the Citizens
Informational Workshop were disseminated by the Citizens' Participation Unit of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation. The workshop was also advertised in
local area newspapers. The Citizens Informational Workshop was held on
November 10, 1999 in the Town Community Center at 208 Main Street in McAdenville.
Approximately sixteen citizens attended the workshop. All comments made were in
general support of the bridge replacement. Most residents favored Alternate C and
wanted traffic maintained on-site during construction.
Written comments were also received from the Mayor Pro-Tem of McAdenville, City of
Gastonia Planning Department, the Gaston Urban Area MPO, Pharr Yams and several
citizens. All of the comments from citizens favored Alternate C.
I Comments from the Mayor Pro-Tem concerned replacement of the Town's existing gas
I and water lines on a new structure and the potential for the addition of a sewer line on
I the structure. Decisions regarding the replacement of the existing gas and water lines
and provisions for a potential new sewer line will be made by the NCDOT Utilities Unit
1 during the final design stages of the project and will be coordinated with the officials of
1 McAdenville.
1
1 The City of Gastonia Planning Department made a specific request to provide a
( minimum 3.0 meters (10-feet) clearance under the new structure along the western
bank to facilitate a planned greenway. The South Fork Catawba River greenway trail
1 system is part of a long-range, county-wide master plan for greenways, bikeways and
1 sidewalks. The existing structure provides approximately 3.0 meters (10 feet) of vertical
1 clearance immediately adjacent to the river on the west side (McAdenville side). The
1 existing structure will be replaced "in-kind" with a similar structure immediately north of
1 the existing and at approximately the same elevation as the existing. The new bridge
1 . will include sidewalks on both sides. The NCDOT Roadway Design and Structure
1 Design Units will evaluate the feasibility of providing the desired vertical clearance and
coordinate with the City of Gastonia during the design phase of the replacement
structure.
The Gaston Urban Area MPO made comments supporting the City of Gastonia's
request regarding greenway issues. They also requested that sidewalks be part of the
new bridge design. Sidewalks on both sides are included in the design of the new
31
bridge.
Pharr Yarns made comments that the Town of McAdenville is in the process of
developing master land planning activities and would like to ensure the new bridge
meets their long-term objectives. Their general long-term objectives were stated as
follows:
"Ensure the bridge is "pedestrian friendly" with wide sidewalks." The new bridge
will have sidewalks on each side. The sidewalks will be 1.65 meter (5.4 feet)
wide.
"Provide a bicycle lane." The new structure will provide 1.2 meters (4 feet) of
clearance between the travel lane and the sidewalk for use by bicycles since NC
7 is designated a Bike Route in Gaston County's long range greenway and bike
plan.
"Design the bridge rails in a similar fashion to those on the existing structure."
Due to the historical significance of the existing bridge, the new structure will be
designed with rails similar to those on the present bridge. The rail design will be
coordinated with the Town.
"Incorporate lighting on the bridge that reflects the historic character of the town.
We would envision the fixtures to be similar to the antique downtown
streetlights." NCDOT will study the placement of streetlights on the new bridge
and coordinate with the Town.
"Incorporate potable water and sanitary sewer lines into the design." NCDOT will
coordinate the placement of utilities on the new bridge with the Town in the
design stage of the project's development.
Written comments received are included in the Appendix.
32
Ah
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) FOR
FEDERAL AID PROJECT THAT NECESSITATES THE USE OF
A HISTORIC BRIDGE
This project requires the removal and replacement of Bridge No. 83 on NC 7 over South
Fork Catawba River just east of McAdenville, Gaston County. The existing bridge was
constructed in 1947 and has been determined to be a contributing element to the
McAdenville Historic District, a district eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
Since this project necessitates the use of a historic bridge and meets the criteria set
forth in the Federal Register (July 5, 1983), a programmetric Section 4(f) evaluation
satisfies the requirements of Section 4 (f).
The following alternatives, which avoid the use of the historic bridge structure, have
been fully evaluated: (1) do nothing; (2) build a new structure at a different location
without affecting the historic integrity of the structure, as determined by procedures
implementing the National Historic Preservation Act; and (3) rehabilitate the historic
1 bridge structure without affecting the historic integrity of the structure, as determined by
procedures implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. These alternates were
1 not found to be feasible and prudent.
1 All possible planning to minimize harm to the historic bridge has been incorporated into
1 the project. Measures to minimize harm include:
1
1 Recordation: Prior to the initiation of work, NCDOT shall record Bridge No. 83
1 and it surroundings (including the concrete slab bridge north of Bridge No. 83) in
1 accordance with the Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan.
Replacement Bridge Design: Once the NCDOT completes the preliminary
general drawings for the structure, then NCDOT shall consult with the NCSHPO and
allow them an opportunity to comment on the preliminary general structure plans as well
as the Right-of-Way plans for the project.
Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30)
days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this agreement ,
FHVVA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHWA or
the North Carolina SHPO determines the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall
forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic
33
Preservation (Council). Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the Council will then
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into account in
reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.7(c) and proceed
to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be
taken into account by FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)(4) with
reference to the subject of dispute.
This project has been coordinated with the North Carolina SHPO whose
correspondence is included in Appendix A. Section 106 has been resolved and
documented, and the SHPO concurs with the proposed mitigation.
Approval of the programmetric Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal Highway Division
Administrator is included in Appendix A.
34
Aft
REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1995. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality
I
I Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
1
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998 a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998 b. Guidance Manual for Protecting and Maintaining
Riparian Areas. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
pp-
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. Hydric Soils: Gaston County. United
States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide, Section II-A 2.
/ Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
' Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
35
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishers of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1989. Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA.
28 pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
.!it
36
a
1
SPENCER
L
TAIN
MOUN
2,113
S

I

f` 1
NORTH 14-
BELMONT
(UNINC,)
tl -
X1 1.0 N
8,072
1 POP. 2,477
1
i
i
C919W
r-
J?
vol
7 SOUTH
BELMONT
NINC,)

TO C19ARL01T1E
BRIDGE NO. 83
TO CHARLOTTE ?'-•
TO CHARLOr e
•• NORTS CAROLINA DZPARTMINNT OF TRANSPORTATION
D"WN OP MORWATS
PROJECT DEVELOPMNNT AND
. •`MWIROMENTAL ANALYSIS IlIt"CH
.fir •.
st•
BRIDGE NO. 83
NC 7 OVER SOUTH FORK OF CATAWBA RIVER
GASTON COUNTY
B-3334
VICINITY MAP
0 1 2 3
GRAPHIC SCALE (km) FIGURE I
l
101
t
•I
}
? p7
..
,ZF/
I
i A
/ :nth
LOWELL
POP. 2,917
11l0
2121
.i70L
1!!i

2m
?2
Z+ 1014 711
JuL
a
.?"
7100 ---- 2010 , . r
,;
W.,
, 112.,, ?7 r a;: is i„ii';i.'.i'} 1'•.:;:1:•'•'f--- BRIDGE NO 83
??1? ?1l ?'til•
$ 2122 :l i• 20l2
1111 y .
0 2mf
.7 .9S f <
l•.z1
g .ss r `
•;?' ,bill;' ?l

POP. 1,869

"r
]!!II 402143
r.
:iii:
;i:•'

y 2uQ NORTH CAROLINA. DEPARTMUNT OF TRANSPORTATION
2744. 7th
r
?d DIVISION OF ffiO HWATS
,
C
2114 , .? r AL tA? PROINCP DBVBLOPM BNT AND
Z iiLL
?? 2211 `
' ENVIROM3NTAL ANAL YSIS BRANCH
r a;
"....... >.
.:.:;
BRIDGE NO. 83
2fia

2m ;.
miz

4` •.

C

OVER SOUTH FORK OF CAT

WBA RIVER
279
' 1 S:'•
'iir''
:
4v GASTON COUNTY
'f
/4
1 j
yr
;
I v 3 ?fkw
fi
l
B-3334
P l
VICINITY MA P
rut ?f" , FIGURE 1A

I
.
W
W
I
I
I
? I
I ` \
?a
yy
?O
ax
0
1
* s ?r
• ® I
r
e
-,? ? p1 I

? Rol
yg

M
n

o
O W
y F
r

a
h
Cd
w
w
a
0
o? x
0
?LLf- \ \
e
• s /
Y •
~ ,•11
l
Pi
'

0
W
W
W
a

P"
V Z
V
O
¦
•? I
.
N ?
•
I
----
BRIDGE NO. 83
LOOKING
EAST
LOOKING
WEST
FIGURE 3A
BRIDGE NO. 83
SOUTH
SIDE
VIEW
NORTH
SIDE
VIEW
FIGURE 313
BLBL '8L A-mr tON 'ot! (103 NOISd0)
dVVI AUVOanO® GUMII GODIJ Va 3N 'BIIIANSaVOW d0 AiM io
ouIul IhM
L
?a1ZUU1?'IwP? o?c? I?P?t
?1-?do? a Ild? n al?v ar?snoN io u??rltf aka
1331 000E oooz 0001 0 009
alv3s aivwtxomddv
wwwriwnii?
v 3anow x
.WNW-M"-ft"

rte. .
.
cc
O
a
a
CO 'ON 3001218
..Q
?o
• a?Q
U
7 ?
1
nt?rlll,lhtt:(1\, !.Ir.Ivu,:?!;I; l1JU:Jd _ -
1N3WdO13A30 NVI38n ONV
JNisnOH 30 1N3WlaVd30 'S'n
0861 ' 1 AVW `....f
:31VO 3AII33333
8 SIZO 660OLE
HOWAN 13NVd•AlIHOWWO3
oe
N

lti Wn
t 2 w .
N?
S L w 31V
$(I 11AIU, IoN 517Nt• U0! %30NI ?vW 23S)
SZE 30 SIZ 13NVd
I SV38v a3lVUOJUOONINDI
VNIgOUVD HIIIJ N
`11MOD-NUM
ddw AVM00013
GNV AUVONOOO 00013
Ad®001j

tilVHOOdd 33NransNl 00011 IVHOILVH
17-
'ro CAU 17001
I 1774
700
Watet.
:Tank
Ed ood
?.Cem . ' r n i . es I,
4 . ?'•-- .? ' • -
•,` ? •r..S ;b?? ? ssis=''F'? ?'?-:, `._ '`.rte h? /"?` -;, ;
NO#
?`. AI Q '
water- Camden '1
j
1 4w ani s Concrete Slab Bridge
¢ 1\\ Cloninger House
? • Gardsns b- _ ? • •:
Bridge No. 83
McAdenville Historic District
McAden Mills No. 2
now 0.0
jes
IS •t / ?'fw? _ `.~'
e
McAden Mills Villaee
!? l• r _ ?? `. ^ < < : ' Red Ti
jr.G
,• its
-16
B-3334
GASTON COUNTY
McAdenville Historic District
r
\ Scale 1: 24000 Figure 5--y
CL
I
12.9m
SIDEWALK
1.2m I 1.2m
1.65m 3.6m 3.6m 1.65m
GRADE
POINT
.02 .02
SIDEWALK
I.Im MIN.
PEDISTRIAN
SAFE RAILING
REQUIRED
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
I.Im MIN.
PEDISTRIAN
SAFE RAILING
REQUIRED
''•., NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTMBNT OR TRANSPORTATION
?t DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROIWr DBVBLOPMBNT AND
lop4J, BNVIROMBNTAL ANALTSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 83
NC 7 OVER SOUTH FORK OF CATAWBA RIVER
GASTON COUNTY
B-3334
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
FIGURE 6
AS
APPENDIX
37
_?
,./
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BRSTP-0007(1)
State Project 8.1811401
T. I. P. No. B-3334
Description: Bridge No. 83 over South Fork Catawaba River, McAdenville,
Gaston County
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or
rehabilitated with Federal funds? X
2. Does the project require the use of
a historic bridge structure which is
on or eligible for listing on the x
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic
-
Landmark? 1 X
F
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council X
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through
procedures pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
1. Do nothing x El
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered F] X
deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety ?
hazards? X
Yes No
2. Build a new structure at a different ?
location without affecting the historic x
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/o (iv) a existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without ?
affecting the historic integrity of the X
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) a bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria

MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1
2.
3.
The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm.
Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved
to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transpor-
tation needs, safety, and load
requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be
rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that
are to be removed or demolished, the
FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other
suitable means developed through
consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced,
the existing bridge is made available
for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain
and preserve the bridge.
( d. for bridges that are adversely affected,
agreement among the SHPO, ACHP, and
FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures
to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
Yes No
X F-I
Recordation - To document the bridge before any construction is initiated,
NCDOT shall complete the Historic Buildings Recordation Plan and submit
it to the North Carolina SHPO.
Bridge Design - The NCDOT's bridge construction plans will be reviewed by
the North Carolina SHPO.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation x
c. Local/State/Federal Agencies X
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The
project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the
measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
/O &at ? -4. U
Manager, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
A los Y
a ,?? Division A inistrator, FHWA

E

I
0

I N-VU I i I ML Df\rW 1%.4-1
I fah •' ? ? 1 dam/ J 1 l'?

Vbs. ?L -1 ---
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James S. Hunt Jc, Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Ssctetary
MAILWO ADDRESS
1617 Mail Service Center
Ralelih, NC 27699-4617
July 30, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historical Architectural Resources Report,
Replacement of Bridge' 83 over South Fork of
Catawba River in McAdenville, Gaston County,
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0007(1), State Project
8.1811401, TIP B-3334, ER 00-7082
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives ad History
k[fmy J. Crow, Ditettc
LOCATION
507 North Mount Street
State Courier 53-31.31
9-EC
O
avr
ON -
ANAO
Thank you for your letter of July 7, 1999, transmitting the survey report by Mattson,
Alexander and Associates, Inc., concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
we concur that the following eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
the criterion cited:
McAdenville Historic District (No. 3) bounded by Riverside Drive to the north,
Sanford Road to the south, the South Fork of the Catawba River to the east,
and I-85 to the west. The McAdenville Historic District is eligible under
Criterion A for community planning and development and for industry, and
under Criterion C for architecture.

The following property was determined; not eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places:
Cloninger House (No. 6) located at the intersection of Route 7 and Riverside
Drive.
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.
109 East Jews Sum • R31cigli. North CaroGn3 27601-2S07
%0 ? --;-
i R.w , r aG VF%J-14?-Ul i ULA • 74 7 §,,'V 7 1 7Y -11 a . ---
Thank . .
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above continent, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Since cly,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB: slw
cc: William D. Gilmore
Barbara Church
Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc.
Gaston 'County Historic Preservation Commission

I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
i *-vu 1 / r PC DM1P9 V -n F GA - V.L J 1 JJ 71 3-4
V? ? 1 r r ? ? .? Federal Aid # SRSTP-1686(1) TIP # e-3334 Corset. Gaston
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: RIglia arid¢e 1183 on SR 168§ Aver South Fork Catawba River
On September 2, 1999, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHpO)
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? there are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reN?.
? there is an effect on the National Register-listed-property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
AP ect's am of potential effect. The property/propeniess and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Sigaed:
q-3.o
1-1
Date
FHWA4& the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
i*_vu i i rat DKMV .n r aA • J1 7- 1 JJ- 1 9-+ . • -
Federal,Vd # BRSTP-1686(1) TIP # B- 334 County: Gaston
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is .
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
41
Properties within the area of potential effect foi whicb there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
McAddenville Historic District (DE) - ADVERSE EFFECT for the following alternatives: •
Alternative A: Replace existing bridge .in same location with an on-site detour
611emative B: Replace existing bridge in same location by closing the road and re-
routing traffic
Alternative C: New bridge on new location. Maintain traffic on old bridge until new
bridge constructed, then remove old bridge
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT {?'(p FHWA SHPO c,??
I
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone]A jun 23 'yy 15:WJ r.U4
TIP #.b' 33-54 Federal Aida TP- 1&6(p t County Gk5TpN
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description cJ. r
on (p/l D/I qq9 , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transppoonation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FIIwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photoeratth review session/consultation
Othe:
All parties present agree,
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential eftect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as -eA-- are
considered not eligible for a National Register and no tther evaluation o em is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
D 199
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO PREPARE A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE No. 83
ON NC 7 OVER THE SOUTH FORK OF THE CATAWBA RIVER
Project 8.1811401 B-3334 Gaston County
The above-referenced 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 codified as 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 requires Federal Agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings
on historic properties. In April 1999, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) conducted a survey of the historic architecture within the project area and
concluded that the McAdenville Historic District was eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. After consultation with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), it was determined that the proposed project would have an
adverse effect on the McAdenville Historic District because construction of the new
structure will require the demolition of Bridge No. 83, a contributing element within the
historic district.
In discussions between NCDOT and the North Carolina SHPO both parties agreed that,
prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 83, NCDOT shall record the existing conditions of
the structure in accordance with a Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan.
The written and photographic documentation will be deposited with the North Carolina
Division of Archives and History/SHPO to be made part of the permanent statewide survey
and iconographic collection. In addition, NCDOT has agreed to consult with the Gaston
County Historic Properties Commission on the designs for the replacement bridge and
allow the North Carolina SHPO an opportunity to comment on final design plans.
Accordingly, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is currently developing a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which states the above findings and proposed
resolution of the adverse effect as specified in 36 CFR Part 800. A map setting forth the
location and a copy of the MOA are available for public review in the McAdenville Post
Office.
Anyone desiring additional information concerning the MOA or who wishes to provide
continents on resolving the adverse effects of the proposed project should contact Nancy
Campanella, by mail at P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611, by telephone at (919) 733-
3141, by Fax at [phone], or by e-mail at [e-mail]. Comments
are due on or before March 24, 2000.

0 ?e? SWr a?
P
oAawvl-0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division.of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey j. Crow, Director
July 14, 2000
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
RE: MOA, Replacement of Bridge No. 83 on SR 1686 over South Fork Catawba River,
TIP No. B-3334, Gaston County, ER 00-7082
Dear Mr. Graf.
Please find enclosed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the above project. We have reviewed
the MOA and believe it adequately addresses our concerns with regard to historic resources. The
MOA, along with the documentation specified in the Council's regulations 36 CFR Park 800.11(e),
should be forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) at the address shown
below.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Cr
State Historic Preservation Officer
Enclosure
cc: ACHP
Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW #809
Washington, DC 20004
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fart
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] - 733-8653 ?.
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] - 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] - 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] - 715-4801

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 83
ON NC 7 OVER SOUTH FORK OF CATAWBA RIVER,
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
the replacement of Bridge No. 83 on NC 7 over the South Fork of the Catawba River,
Gaston County, North Carolina (the undertaking) will have an effect upon the
McAddenville Historic District; a property determined eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
participated in the consultation and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of
Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the
undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order
to take in to account the effect of the undertaking on the historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
I. Recordation: Prior to the initiation of work, NCDOT shall record Bridge No. 83
and its surroundings in accordance with the attached Historic Structures and
Landscape Recordation Plan (Appendix A).
11. Replacement Bridge Design: Once NCDOT completes the preliminary general
drawings for the structure, then NCDOT shall consult with the North Carolina
SHPO and allow him an opportunity to comment on the preliminary general
structure plans as well as the Right-of-Way plans for the project.
III. Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30)
days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
agreement, FHWA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the
objection. If FHWA or the North Carolina SHPO determines that the objection
cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the
dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council). Within thirty
(30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will either:
A
r
1
I
I
I
I
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into
account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section
800.7(c)) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in
response to such a request will be taken into account by FHWA in
accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)(4) with reference to the subject
of the dispute.
I Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to
pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's responsibility to carry out all
I the actions under this MOA that are not the subject of the dispute will remain
unchanged.
Execution of this agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO, its
subsequent filing with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
implementation of its terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity
to comment on the replacement of Bridge No. 83 on NC 7 over the South Fork of the
Catawba River and its effects on the McAddenville Historic District, and that FHWA has
taken into account the effects of the undertaking on the historic property.
AGREE:
01
''JEDVOLL HI WA
NORTH V4190 0 W
CONCUR:
STRATION
4
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FILED BY:
ZO Zds?c7
ATE
9V
)ATE
/7-a
DATE
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION DATE

APPENDIX A
Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan
For the Replacement of Bridge No. 83 on NC 7 over
The South Fork of the Catawba River,
Gaston County, North Carolina
Landscape
Site plan sketch of the existing conditions of Bridge No. 83 and its surroundings.
Photographic Requirements
Selected photographic views of Bridge No. 83 as a whole, and views of the
structure and its settings, including:
? Overall views of the structure (elevations and oblique views)
? Overall views of the project area, showing the relationship of the structure to
its setting
Photographic Format
? Color slides (all views)
? 35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
? Black and white contact sheet (all views)
? All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of Archives
and History standards
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic documentation will be deposited with the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to
be made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection. A
set of the black and white photographs will be provided to the Gaston County
Historic Properties Commission for its records.

I /,S
I
I
I
I
I
1
I-
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO. soot tell
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 25402-IM
Of ??AWMA M November 16, 1998
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
ECF7
O
A,01, r
o l99B
\t? '?T! 711 w ?.?1R'r4:. r,?
This is in response your letter dated July 8, 1998, requesting our comments on
"Bridge No. 83 on NC 7 over South Fork Catawba River, McAdenville, Gaston County,
TIP No. 8-3334, State Project No. 8:1811401, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0007(1)
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199930065).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains: and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. Thereereno
Corps projects that would be impacted by the proposed improvements. Enclosed are
our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Alec Morrison, Jr. P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
November 16, 1998
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILD woToN DISTICCOMMENTS ON;
"Bridge No. 83 on NC 7 over South ForkCatawba River, McAdenvilie, Gaston County,
TIP No: 8-3334, State Project No: 8:1811401, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0007(1)
(Regulatory Division Action I.D. No. 199930065)
1. FL OD PLAINS: POC - Bobby ,WINti: nina Services Section. at
18101261-4728
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional limits of the town of
McAdenville which is a perticipent.in theWational-Flood Insurance Program. South
Fork Yadkin River is a detail study stream in Gaston County. However, the official
flood insurance map of McAdenville is based on the Flood Hazard Boundary Map, on
which flood hazard are** ore mapped- approximately with no .flood elevations shown.
We suggest coordination with the. town for.complience with their flood plain ordinance,
and that the new or modified bridge be designed so- as not to significantly increase
upstream flood elevations.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC --Mr: Stev. Lund. Asheville Field Office.
Reaulatorv Division. at .(8281271-.4857
If this project were determined to.be-& Cateporical Exclusion (CE) as indicated ,in
the request for comments, than it woiAd be eligible for authorization under Depararrent
of the Army Nationwide Permit No. 23. The :CE. document should address all impacts
from the intended work Including:temporwy construction impacts. Impacts to waters
and wetlands should be minimized-to the-maximum extent practicable. The project site
is located in navigable (Section 10) waters,, therefore existing- bridge clearances should
maintained or increased. We ?d ageing an onsite detour unless it is a
temporary -bridge that Would not interfere with existing nevigaftm The sits` may also be
located within the project boundaries of Lake WyNe. Therefore, we recommend that
you contact the Lake Management Office of Duke Power Company.
Any questions concerning Department of the Army permits should be directed to
Mr. Lund.

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and Enviromental Branch .
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
September 9, 1998
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
GE IV O
SEP 1 1 1998
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS ta'
Re: SCH File # 99-E-4220-0061; Scoping Proposed Improvements to Bridge No. 83 on NC 7 Over
South Fork Catawba River in McAdenville, Gaston County; TIP #B-3334
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovcm unental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
17
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region F
116 West )ones Street Raleigh, Nortb Carolina 27603.8003 'telephone [phone]
r?,•uv 1 NL W. 11 N .

• y.
,JAMts B. HUWr

---
No?t CAleo?sNw DtpwaTMENT oI< ,
gNyIRONMENT AMD MA7U!!AL R19SOURC6s ,
mZMOPJWDUM
TOS Chrys Baggett
state Clearinghouse ,

if ,
FROM: Melba MCGOO
Environmental Review coordinator
99-0061 scoWj Bridge aePlaee+ment, south fork .
RE:
catawba Aiver, Gaston County .
DATE% August •16, 1996 .

The Department of Mnvironment a attaehed commentenas •
The
reviewed the proposed information.
's information and consideratioin. ,
for the applicant ,
Thank you for the opportunity to review.

attachments
RO. ev>< a>'as> • ?A'11" "C !7!1 1-7p7 / 41! NORTH 1wIdOOV11T ?TI,MtrA.lTlTi NO Yt N10*1
/MON[91th7?7•?OM FA3919•715-2"O 'M'Kw•!
rofT.QON
va .
AN ?<>VK OPMRTUNITT/A/IIAMATIV[AC'v10N CMIVOA -><OX wtCTCIlO//OY. ?YMt? 1AIS*

I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1 .,
1
1
1
Mitt of North Casdias ?tPetlK? Awsesnat poet.
Department or Epp msot and l?lstu VMS DAM
>o? cow hoj?t Ntaebss: be ot>rsined in otda fa tD
MW
g1TiERt?OVENIMENT?' the EI?t partoi?(s) e?dlor tppw'nls od ? meted on the tMnO of the foftn• REV
/mar --Vi @w of *As Pmv;vct ham. ? mpfft` tm Mniu ?bould 1 fim Wm RMWPd Offoe•
is m*y w i "t" so{aovr m these pl"s end p"Ijm Tteas
Notmal hoeas
All apOics onti kbfmaWn (Ommory time limit)
Ut AtM PkOIXDUW' r RZQUMEMwrs
'
a
AL
/1
,,
C

' • ?? Indbrsb+Ps?oaetteetiaa 0-r owed doartruetisr
?d
p Tdmi1 a otettMttet ep-e •rroewetsr mares O?+il?iel?slNa ?sst''p?4?'i°' Ye (90 dRYS)
paver eystom etowslota t aMrer ryetre+ .
.oe we?we ?a tws stef?es wetees. *,e,
Oa?W
b
t 9-1120 der
tldfK
u
mtoetar(aos -ow a
&dwp
O Nm-pr
pwtaitts Farms aw oatnnwt SEW (Miku" m&
m
Apprim6a too dar befete
ealw++w?waL:A?W°dh4obWSP."W W"2 el
rrat.•M ??, aia.. tRDES• Rloy ? 30 &Y' SIN t?
Q&A)
u rlYse
?„? roes vraras.
ues e
s ?,. er iseaw+f ?iPD6s rte-'" b'?""'o (sr•
w dar
to Opp OA)
a WSW um Parent

Z Hte spp"'NO ewst.be naives rod isseed ?1Of 7 dar
(11 dar)
O Well Col riwoa 1'0- nk knhywm d• well.
"'
°
!! dsys

seat Fill Mrii
O Dwlsa
^
seevd
APplioswt sepy eswt k ew each edjsn? P7 ?
O.$ie impeai- t &woiestaw esaEprra wsat. F 06 Vmd`s
game" s to FM bow, N.C. OepeAto" dAd °
(?0 drys)
WW pin hmK

t! epxW •4k Pe kMom Ab mmorA WA 60 der
wide, "or rmm; eiot• sew?ea av Per 13 A NCAC
r
(2Q.0100. 20.0700. 3H OM)
Any wen bun" awoeimsd w0- svbjeit P""$ai
Q
ewer be in eompba - with 13 A NCAC 2D. 19W
Q Dwneiitioe or"sovnioes of etnm - exmaiaiet
me mslafiel newt be is eoegdiwm wM t! A
b

,
ea
w
14CAC 20-1110 (*) (1) *b* -vim eo11rjC0 Ooo U4
removal Pier is dsmohi& Con a l Ash- Csnusi N/A (9o dar)
Onup 919.73344.
t7 Cs,WM ieutw p? ngvied under 13 A NCAC
2DAIN
ad&MW fW my IOW dkuwbkg a dviey. An ersaiae !
n Pollution Control Act of 1977 or -Wt nbe PAY R Olba O-d QaaNty
Ttw !edre
t or enr ma b be diarutbed flan MIS vdM o? so0e't
tta
d 'd
M
20 days
(30 days)
gu
af
• sdimmest;m iar oaaAtot pim iss Will be re0uin sa
f f70 for Ow fist mm end 52000 far each Waiawl we or P
Sect,) Al !calf 70 days before be&vint s? • Ales o
eooaapery the P?
be addrs+sd ? rapeet m itw nlwarwed lent Ordissoee• p0 Oar)
O 0- of 1973 rnsa
moms ymm
ite Vpeatior iwel setay batd Sled with ENR. Bond
t
O 30 bys
? t
-e
.t
WO type mire and WW*gr doors da w" l nd• my on
ire ear um saaat bs rg jmSd TW apprrpiaM bOW west beweir (W dar)
bdm the pm* tar be in"
WP.Al. by N.C Dwiror Paoli R_Wm if pok eeseei 4 date
Ot?+ite (WA)
wiita Bwaei p-t

tos aa.ist Petoi<,
e CM N.C. Division Fond ltmwm ergAmd "i[nesrr the
Oe;oita kWadom by
an i+volva0 lwa•ctiar.boeM M
om 1 dry
'U
arat
O Special Gam
coy d is serval N.C. M+tlt aP1Ne eels at
s
wood clawift
fivr two of k
eetiimasd mg tema ri ww & yo ys below astwl hoer it talerlM4w
N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Oil ROW" Faoilit?rm
upr? ?ypi, appbeatea d0 don be[ae M/In soss4+tetim A?
A
O Dam s a" Partmt wa
W N.C. W&WWIMONOW w: Prepen *m iNov- °wraw
t
b
car
lea 11ay alsompbW
rssd
R 70 der
'
? l
,
p
appt
pe1..T Abe is asps song p EN
104 ?
nY"° Ard
iM oersret
p
?Wait under "am"
s r?
Gsss alien A
Eney?n. A. "q"ne? den` r "O"gar7 ri& Ham AS ea-" a
00
&OCCEWtrto spW? (60 days)
MM
MMkWJ t fee of U".
Ss mired
9 for baud as a pareereats or dw teW project eva
upon eonviviea
ii
'r
TO: Melba McGee, office of Legislative Affairs
Bill Pickens, NC ion Forest Resources
FROM:
SUBJECT: DOT Scoping Bridge No. 83 ou NC 7, Gaston County
PROJECT #: 99-0061 & Tip # 13-3334
The North Carolina Division, of Forest Resource -3 reviewed the referenced that should be addressed in the EAmg
document and submits the following comments
concerning impacts to woodlands.
on the
1. The impact to forest resources by bridge rion or replacement of the existing
alternative selected. b general the
stricture on the existing site would have minimal impact to forestland. Therefore,
we prefer the bridge be replaced or rehabilitated on the existing site.
2. If the bridge is replaced on new location woodlands will likely be impacted b ore
project. Therefore, the total forest land acreage by type " would be removed
• taken out of forest production as a result of the project should be limpacts is in o any
environmental documents. Efforts should be made to minimize
woodlands in the following order of priority:
• Managed, high site index woodland
• Productive forested woody
• Managed, lower site index woodlands
• Unique forest ecosystems
Unmanaged, fully stocked woodlands
• Urban woodland
3. If woodlands are cleated include provlsms requiring the contractor to utilise the
.
ems a
merchantable timber removed during construction. Emphasis should be on selling
all wood products: 'However, if the wood products cannot be sold then efforts
should be made to had off the mmaial or debris burning, turn ii into mul?chd ? lb a t gri pored
This practice will minimize the Deed o ?o ? ? ?ghWa?, schools. and
fires and smoke management probl

towns. 4
P'.o. sox sseet. 1111"1611. Pic:7"S.0 ,
ry10NtttM7il-=tai RAX919.710-""
AM [aYAt. OPIORTVMIT'I IAI?IRIM7IVC "T1006 LMKOYLR- 99% RC"CLCGIt 0% NCT-COM/III nor r•APtt Vow-
bKHNLH r ax; yWj- ( JJ-y r ::?" mN l I --)V .-4 -4V
Notem CARo41Nw Der u CRS
ENVIRONMEN'r AND NATURAL,
DIVISION Of FOREST RESOURCES
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, NC 27520
August 3, 1998

? i
I?
' i
r*-LkJi/r6t bif H4k h rdx;1J1y-rJJ-y('_-s4
....... .
DepartmenToTtlivil%ot
Health and Natural sources
D;?Iision of Land Resources
-
jai-net B. Hunt, Jr. Governor
, Secretary
Jonathan B. Howes,
Charles H. Gardner }?eolog s .
yep i, ,o 144 •.+:s
Director and Sta P '0.nm nvirw C0 MziT'
county.
???
project Number: G W ` fV-. M/ Ne;_L?"?
project NAM"

? s e
C 0 e. ° s ate p la nn markers. N.C.
geodetic survey
This project sill impact prior to construction at F•a•
Iof N.C. General
- survey should be CO t':trod p 33-3836 ion
Geodetic N.C. 21611 (919)
'Box 27687, Raleigh, of N•
detic a'On'"nt is a violat
destruction of a geo
Statute 102'•4
This *t will have no impact on geodetic 6urve} markers-
Th Proj ;
other (comments attaches)
?--- Elite of Sate
For more in:orration contact t•?•1e t1•C. ,
at 99/733- 38.6•
planning, ceod,ti survey office
Date
Revlie'er4

a o t "`o -
n- ad'e{ea
No cc::: err
--"r ire soQroval of an erosion andvitYtilion
? disturb`_nq acti
This project will require say land-
l " control plan pr ior to t
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
ired•to satisfy zu'i-?ittsdtas
, be
if an environmental document is r
Policy Act (SEPA) reQtilrarrsnts the document Bust
part of the erosion and sedimentation eontithinl?grg': Quality
;a:: is located a of aviOmgnt
If any portion of thae classified by the Di?iiQ=n 1t?srdret iorl
-?•? water Lone MR), 4.? standards f..-
V.anagecoQat, increased des-,.s•
control will apply- lam,re4cired for this
plan
The erosion and sadimentaticn c=ntrol
area by the Department of Tran1cortation
project should be prep dele ation to the DIlisioa of
under the erosion control g,ograa q
s from the 1:c==•• - -ling sedimentation Control commission.
Highways
oth+r (cownonts attached)
f-3r more i.^-fvrwation coatsc?
F" M
at 919/733••4574-
? t q8
' X: j21-4407
?r?.?1?,I •? •f•?7 .,.???r:3911.7"•??•t,
?ti itY 3.s:•1.on
CAI -0
i*-vu i • r OC mrim-n r aA. 71 y-i VJ-71 y4 .'Cv • i :JV ?4.41 1 . V,
Gaston County is regulations nonce
4. If debris burning is needed, the contractr?G.SyI 3with the -60.31laws
burning as covered under G.S. 113-60.21 through
high hazard county and a regular burning permit applies.
5. Include provisions that the contractor will take to prevent erosion and damage to foresdand
outside the construction area. Trees, particularly the root system, can be permanently
damaged by heavy equipment. Efforts should be to avoid skinning of the tree trunk,
compaction of the soil, adding layers of fill, exposing the root system, or spilling petroleum
or other substances.
6. If woodlands will not be impacted this sbould be plainly stated in the environmental
document.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on theproposed project, and encourage its impact on
forest resources be considered during the planning process.
cc: Warren Boyette

I
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
Division of Archives and History
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Jeffrey J. Crow. Director
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary April 4, 2000

MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tr s ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State istonc Preservation Officer
I
SUBJECT: Archaeological survey report, Bridge 483 on NC 7 over South Fork Catawba River, B-3334,
CH 99-E-4220-0061
We have reviewed the above referenced archaeological survey report and would like to comment.
1
1 During the course of the survey two historic archaeological sites (31 GS273 * *, 31 GS274* *) were located
within, or near the area of potential effect for the bridge replacement. Site 31GS273** contained remains
of the Old NC Highway bridge and road, and several structures that once existed along the roadway. The
1 area was highly disturbed and the archaeological remains were considered to lack significance. No
1 further investigation or documentation was recommended.
Site 31 GS274* the McAden Mill complex established in 1881 is located at the southwest end of Bridge
No. 83. It consists of an extensive complex of buildings, a mill race, and dam. McAden Mills was among
the first mills in North Carolina to organize and support a wholly-owned town. Although the site was not
1 assessed for National Register eligibility, the report indicates it has local and state historical significance
that may yield important archaeological information. Should design plans change to include portions of
1 site 31GS274**, full archaeological, architectural, and historical evaluation of this industrial complex
1 should be conducted prior to initiation of any construction-related activities.
1 The report concludes McAden Mill site, 31GS274**, will not be effected by the proposed bridge
replacement.
We concur with the reports recommendations since this project will not involve significant archaeological
' resources. In general, the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
I
1
Locution MnilinL, Address Telephune/F•as
%DN11\IS"FR.%,noV 507 \ Mount St . Kalogh '••( 4617 Mail Service t :•ntcr. Kaleiuh V(' '7669-44(,17 t'/l'i) 713-J-h? : 733-X(,`'
%RC'H.?EIL(1(;l 4=1 \ Bl,nint )t.. Knlriuh V 41,1'1 Mall Ser%ikc t race. Kaki_h \l' ??t,w-lhl i OW)i 7:t--:1'' 71:
I +"ou,t-161 t"it 'Tt-r,: '1:.1.•t,.
-_-- -- ...... :,; ut..•,„ v I?.ilr,•.h \? Jhl, '•.1'ul Ser?tc: t _nter. I(;tler_h \1' _ _.. ... _ ..,
>aize 2
Fhe above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
kdvisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
FR Part 800.
hank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
)lease contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev. environmental review coordinator.
;c: T. Padgett

r
i O-VU , i (.-L Dmn *-n 1 On • 71 d . , "-
4I •
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
jwm B.: Hunt Jr. l9mmor
&11y Air McGia, SeMWY
August 26, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
r-
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State 4stonc Preservation 0 ficer
SUBJECT: Bridge 83 on NC T over South Fork
Catawba River, McAdenville, Gaston
County, TIP B-3334, State Project
8.1811401, Federal Aid BRSTP-0007(1),
99-E-4220-0061
Dki:ion of Ambim aid HiMwq
kuny 1. crow. Ducc or
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
If a new location is selected for the preferred alternative, an archaeological survey
should be conducted to determine potential effects upon historic and prehistoric
archaeological sites. If a "no build, rehabilitation of the existing structure, or
replacement at the existing location is selected, no archaeological survey is needed.
We look forward to further consultation in this matter.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
McAden Mill #2 and McAden Mill Village (GS 402 and 403). These
properties have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review photographs of any other properties within
the project area that might be over fifty years old and to discuss the project's
effects on the McAden Mill #2 and Mill Village.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act end the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 EM loan$ SUt* - ROWS K Nonh Cats UU 27601-2307
William D. Gilmore - - -
August 26, 1998, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4783.
D6:slw
cc: ?4;ate Clearinghouse
N. Graf
8. Church
T. Padgett
Gaston County Historic Properties Commission
r
4@
? IVI.UU 1 i rdt bKHr*-t1
?
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
11 1
1
1
1
1
1
rax;yl7-rJ 01?1+
Public Schools
stm Doordof Bdnes?"
J. ictdc,7=. CWkMw
September 10, 1998
fit.! LI " •N•tiJ f . Vl
of North Carolina
port
rte avuasace s"
EIV?
l
SEP 1 S 199b
01V1S10N of:
HIIGW'
NEWEAMM
William D. Gilmore. P.E•, NC Department of Trans tiara
TO:
i FROM: C}erald H. Knott, Section Chief, School Planning
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 83 on NC 7 over South Fork Catawba River, McAdenville, Gaston
County, TV No. B-3334, State Project No. S.1S11401, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-
0007(1)
Enclosed is the response from Gaston County Schools to our impact inquiry.
/ed
Enclosure

Carolim 2601-2825
301 N.W
/Ame.swesetwo tovwr-
A& FAFA i

i

Gaston County Schools
shaping our future
Edward D. Sadler, Ed-0-
Superintendent
Central Adm?nf=trative Omcv
943 Osceola stop
P.Q. a" 1397
Gaaoro& NC 288
(704)6666too
FAX (704) S&6175
Deparutrwn of
ExceptiorW children
730 W. Garrison ftsleverd
G"toma. NC 20052
1704)05-6`160
FAK [phone]
Division of
Resource Management
2152 Hoffnnan PAW
Gsatonia. NC 26054
(704)0"129
FAX [phone]
School Nuoton Programs
500 Rehr Sleet
lowen. NC 28086
[phone]
FAX (704) 82e u442
- w-7a7 1 w . I r
v?.r- a- .rv a?-a.v - . aa•
SEP10
( w
September 4,1998
Mr. Gerald H. Knott, AIA
Section Chief
School Planning
N.C. State Planning and Environmental
P.O. Box 25201
Raltigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Mr. Knott,
Per your request I have researched the effect that closing bridge
number 83 on N.C. 7 over South Fork Catawba River for a period
of time for improvements will haveon Gaston County school bus
routes. Currently there are 6 buses which cross this bridge twice
per day. The nearest detour will be approximately 3.2 miles one
way assuming that the intersection of N. C. 7 and Main St. in
McAdenville remains open. This intersection is located next to
the bridge. If each bus were to have to detour twice per day,
this closing would add approximately 43 miles per day to those
bus routes: This would-translate in just over 2 hours per day in
tsl(;tra time..
If you need any further information regarding this matter, please
call me at 704-866.6181.
Sincerely,
Sett Development eonux
236 Eighth AvenUe
Cramert0n, NC 26032 -
(M) 82a-2M
FAX [phone]
Baxter L. Starr
Director of.Transportation
Teacher Rumme Center
386 W. Gwrom eouhrvard
Oaslmrie, NC 20052
(704)85"174
cc: Hilt=L'Orange-
FAX [phone]
..... MiltoU'SheUtnan'
AS
F

1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
I1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IV-W i rcpt tif H*-
r . uy .
1zSI
Nnrt?t CarolinaUVildZie°Riesources Con??n
OR
512 N. Salisbury Street, RJd& MRS' 27W4-"88'99"3-3391
Charles R. Fugwood, Exemadve Director
MEMORANDUM
TO; Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmen"I Affairs
Dept. of Environment stud Natural Resources
FROM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr., Western. Piedtnom 81 n r
n
Habitat Conservation Prosram
DATE: July 24, 1998
SUB JECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 99E0061: Scopi comments for replacement of
Catawba River, McAdenville,
NCDOT Badge No. 83 o»NC 7 over Sout81811401, Federal Aid
Gaston County, TIP No. B-3334, State Project
Project No. 8RSTP-0007(1).
Bence re nds to a request by you for our scoping comments on the above
This correspondence
16 U.s.C ance with the provisions the Fish
referenced project. These comments WCproves to accord
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as atnerrded; 113A-10; 1 NCj d the Norrt
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through
Ve Avenue
The proposed bridge replacement over the South Fork Catawba River
identified any
have minimal impacts on aquatic and wildlife resources. Therefore, not
concerns with this bridge replacen mt.
Thank you for the opportunity to-review and comment on this project during the early
plannin8 stage. If you have any questions regard* these comments, please contact me at
3361366-2982.
i
• R.a.V . v? awv ? ? • • u? .,17 w i. r • - -
?,,,?;,' o „? CENTRAUNA COUNCIL OF GiOVU a0
vrCE?l,?A? FoeERT RANOUj. POST ? ?
13oo??c1
g pr:ILLY JORDAN 72.2416 FAX 7EM?7.4710 C-IrtAIL: 0?0
TAEABtM CAMM HEAVNER 3" SrREET
L70413
MMM MMM
?==tam
NC btterEovernwewtal Rewkw Pr"M
Review and Cootment Form
This office has teeeived the attached inf?oa about a proposal whicb could affect
your jurisdiction.
If you need more information. Contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension of
time for review, contact Audrey McCnkW 1MmediatS11G
If you wish to comment on this proposal. acdM complete this form witb comments and
return to this office by 9/lM-
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 94••"
Commenter': Name_ Sheila r Tide Town Clerk
Repmsentin town of McAdenv i l l e
(Jurisdiction)
Address PO BO 9
McAdenville, NC 28101
phone [phone]
Date July 29, 1998
Comments: Existing location is OK
Bridge needs to be wider
bridge needs to be replaced
B id n ridoebre jynsntotuaccomi?odateesewerelinenunderne ittr)cross river
?curen€? g

C?MtNJe'OONNTV eaead IwnMburo rpaM mere OWN oASM GoWrf bmwe bw? ~ ft d?^ arwaW °'•'? sow" ada Meow kRvd nmom %r n?al h* rMlo NPUM 1 ?. i??" ,f
d
ae+A?a? LN N CouNTY rf,ioobMOn MECKiNaURG COUNTY a ""WY •p•?,e.? aTMLY C UN" • ho
MOWAH COUNTY a1O VOW CiVA W Sea "S Do fto re 1? mWV" ,"Vow 11"M A" IIIMIIM .rr?w? Vsa"how •••a?+o
MW !0 do naon W&M M ?Whkid UNIONCOUNTY Md*nWM
I.
1
v'_llti:, I- ct t*<H LH tax=yly-rJJ-yry4 yep 1r do 14.44 r. v&*
State of or of arolin meet
aepartm &WA
and Nawral RaMrCeS
Division of Water GuelitY -??
.lames H. Hunt, Jr., Govemor HCDEHR
evittSecretary Wayne MCD .
A. Preston Howard. Jr., p.E., Director
July 23, 1998
I BAN?tLtM
I
I To; Melba lVleGoe, DENR SEPA Coordinator
I 14M Kiesau, DWQ SEPA Cooidiciatos OT/
prom: DOT Sa DENR Nos. 99-0058, 99-0059, 99-?0•
1 Su%ecc: Co?mctmnts on No d8• tatioe a Improvement for
1 99-0061, DWQ N207, 53 and 8 83. 3. Waataug tauga. li Forsyth, SAY and Gaston
Bridge Nos. 317, 207,
1 Counties. respectively.
1
1 The Division of Waw QuAtY (DWQ) that ft following topics be
1 diwussed in the C61e80aicd Fxclusiott )
un,,? by the project, 'The current stream
1 j A. Identify the streams gYm?gs for these streams should be included. 'Iris
1 classifications and use supper hfollowing contacts:
information is available from DWQ thwu8h
1 Liz I'Ovttscidtz - Classtficadons - 919 733-5083. ext. 572
1 Carol Metz - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5093. exc. 562
1 w f of atteam channelizatioMdoc?ons. If the original stream
1 B' Identify
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channeliud/nlo ? std banks be
1 revegeta?ood.
1 C. identify the mmaber of stream cxossings.
catch basins bo udlizvd7 DWQ requests that these catch basins
D' VrU
be at placPermane ed al°cl at?r. supply stream crossings. Identify the responsii party
1 main%% =.
' dye sttxmwater controls (pezmamm and tmpora y) that win be used
1 E. Idea? placed in
F . Pkew ensure that sedizaeat and erosion control measures arc not p
wetlands.
C1. Wetland bnpacts
0 kkndfp the fedtxat mind used for identifying and doliaeadug jutisdicdanal
n) ? wCdands ban avobeen sded asm much a ? MOW?
Have d for habitat losses.
iv) Mitigadation
7eiephon? 915-733-5083 FAX [phone]
P-Q 10'x-O°^sw?•r POW
. Box 29635. gA lelph. North Carolina 276264)535 JSCYC
An Ecj" oPPOduA ' 111rirmrtiw Action EnrPbf?K '

717-f JJ 7f 4 -Cp 11 7V J N --4.J 1 V-1
M AJ1
/ rac Dmrllp n rcuA • 7
?
grime Rehab. CE coMMcnts
pale 2
V) Wetland impacts by plant muses affecoc&
vi) Quality of wetlands unpae
?oral wetland impacts. from DWQ.
vii) li
t the 401 General ,crtjrcation rnmbers =Vest
?
s
viii) l&
Borrow/wasse a>+eas maxiaamn extent P??
should a? ??? to the

shall
the contract°r
H
wetland
i
i
.
wa
w

'
.
,
na
te
boswww/waate s
of a
to ft
Prior
1 Q
obtain a 401

WritDen concuneaoe of 401 water Quaky omifi? my be required for this
dw 14 or Gehl .
?
A?pppplicationa raRuesting covers8e written coactuience• Please be awara that 401
?31 FWN wetland?p act win m4pire
have not been avoided and
impacts
Cercficadon may be denied wetland.or w
i
ble ,
.
ca
mkAmized to the maxim n pwt
i
ons
Please give Cyodi Bell a call at [phone] if you should have any quest ;
ou d wsc comments. .
mek.\Bridgc Rehab. CE cmments
oe: Cyndi Bell - DWQ - Wcdan x/401 Unit (DOZE

I
1
1
1
i
I
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1

,--I- .. /V .+v Vr
pgparaM1anr of t anumonny
GASTON COUNTY
Maing Ad&=: P. a A=1378, 600"k NC 28053-1578
SvwtAdd cu. 212 Wet MakAWW- GmWn4 NC 28052
Conn"Aly Dn*kpmmt Diet
E-ma1: d Aniam ew.ar8
(704?•?73
id
Septendw 2,1998
William D. G1bvm P.E., MMnager
P and Environmemtal Bzmch
State of North Cacolims D.O.T.
PO Box 25201
Rskjgk NC 27611-5201
M. Gomm:
Depanvm* Far N=*m-
(7MI) 866.3M
This utter is in respoaae to ygWinquiry oorleasingpots elrvirolatnea-at impacts of a project
sebeduied for Bridge No. 83 which is located on NC 7 (Main SO in bkAdenvft t "Wil county.
The area in question is in the Town of McAde dbjWbftdM therefore, you a>ight warn to
consult with them as well wMern>og SOY P9mA& .Tbeic pb'om rasrabec is 704424-3190.
Moreover, as it appears that a doodpl in & footway are near the site in question, a flood
developamm permit and no rise c ffication may be required by the County. I did discuss the
proposed pm*l with Gaston Arpt TrllosportaWn Pl nft Oda for their evalaatimn
relative to any envirom tal ConarCM Mod m attached is a memo of their wwhuoons. Should you
have my questions r roft the above, ibei doe to Call my ofoe.
Sincerely ur.
David WMb=
Senior Plmaer
Carr DbiAA" Land Rm^-W OOWWOP
Tdp?(M)U&3%0 TdmPWW (704) 1"41"
l/pabg mWMISw
TdgMw.. (?01) A66,i 1"
P DDuke
Power_
July 21, 2000
L. Jack Ward, PE
Project Manager
KO & Associates, PC
RE: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Project B-3334, Gaston County
Dear Mr. Ward:
Duke Power
526 South Church Street
P.O. Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
Bridge No. 83 is within the project boundary of Lake Wylie (569.4 contour). NCDOT
would be required to submit a Duke Power Conveyance Application and receive approval
before the replacement of the bridge could take place.
If you have any questions you may contact me at 704-382-9386, or toll free at 1-800-
443-5193.
Sincerely,
Kel-in K. Reagan
Management Representative
Group Environment, Health & Safety
AN
I GASTON URBAN AREA
I METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
1 Post Office Box 1748 • Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
1 Phone [phone] a Fax [phone]
1
November 30, 1999
L. Jack Ward, P.E.
Ko & Associates, P.C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Ward:
' Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on NCDOT project B-3334,
' replacement of bridge number 83 on NC 7 over South Fork Catawba River in McAdenville. As
we discussed with Ms. Campanella at the Citizen's Informational Workshop on November 10,
1999, the Gaston Urban Area MPO has several concerns regarding the project.
' First, MPO staff requests the re-construction of sidewalks which are presently part of the
current bridge design. NC 7 is a heavily traveled facility, snaking through downtown
McAdenville. For this reason, we feel strongly that pedestrians be buffered both from vehicular
traffic, but also guarded against the danger of falling into the river.
' We also encourage you to consider the comments made by the City of Gastonia's
' Planning Department regarding greenway issues. The alleviation of obstacles between the bridge
and future greenway location will ease the implementation of a greenway system throughout
Gaston County.
Further, we would like to bring to your attention the heavy traffic patterns in the Town of
McAdenville during the Christmas season. You may be aware that McAdenville bills itself as
"Christmastown USA" and is decorated with lights for several weeks every year. It is quite an
event, drawing tourists from a multi-state area and causing considerable congestion on Interstate
85. We realize that this bridge replacement project will likely take longer than one year, but are
asking that you coordinate with Town officials to have the least impact on their event as possible.
We would greatly appreciate receiving notification of final design plans for this project.
If you have any questions or require additional information, do not hesitate to contact call me at
[phone].
1:47 PM 11 /30/99
Serving: Belmont • Bessemer City • Cramerton • Dallas • Gaston County • Gastonia
l n71W11 • MrAdonvillP . Mount Hollu • Ranlo 9 Spencer Mountain • Stanley
Sincerely,
Robert W. Cook, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
Gaston Urban Area MPO
cc: Nancy Campanella, Project Development Engineer, NCDOT
Mary Meletiou, Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Mananger, NCDOT
Jack Palmer, North Carolina Board of Transportation Member
Bill Powers, TAC Chairperson
Joe Albright, TCC Chairperson
Mayor Victor Redmon, Town of McAdenville
Daniel Rankin, McAdenville TAC representative
Sheila Sheppard, McAdenville Town Clerk
Jack Kiser, AICP, City of Gastonia Director of Planning
1:47 PM 11/30/99
City Of Gastonia
Planning Department
November 12, 1999
1
1
1
1
Mr. L. Jack Ward, P.E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P.C.
1011 Schaub Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Ward:
This letter is in reference to NCDOT project B-3334 (the replacement of bridge number 83
over the South Fork Catawba River, in McAdenville) as it relates to the county-wide long-
range plan for greenways, bikeways, and sidewalks. This bridge project is included in the
2000-2006 NCDOT Transportation .Improvement Program, is scheduled for right-of-way
acquisition beginning in FY-2000, and scheduled for construction in FY-2001.
The City of Gastonia, strongly urges NCDOT and Ko & Associates to design the
replacement bridge in a way that allows a greenway trail to pass under the bridge. In order
to receive funding from NCDOT for greenway trail projects, a 10' minimum vertical
clearance is required. In addition, the NCDOT and said consultants should work to
alleviate any physical obstacles that would prevent a link between the planned greenway
trail and the "on bridge" sidewalk and bike path. Based on current information, City staff
estimates that the future trail would be placed along the western bank of the South Fork
Catawba River, on the Pharr Yarns side of the bridge.
The South Fork Catawba River greenway trail system is part of a long-range, county-wide
master plan for greenways, bikeways, and sidewalks and is consistent with the bike and
pedestrian section of the recently adopted Long Range Transportation Plan for the Gaston
Urban Area MPO. This portion of the greenway system has the potential to connect
downtown McAdenville to the Gaston County Park on the South Fork River, the County
Park in North Belmont, the George Poston County Park (planned), a planned nature
conservation area, downtown Cramerton, and eastern Gastonia via 10' wide asphalt trails.
The trails would create an alternate transportation facility and link multiple recreation sites,
employment and commercial centers, and residential neighborhoods.
Mr. L. Jack Ward, P.E.
Page 2
November 12, 1999
Please find attached' a map specifying the proposed trail path as related to the bridge
replacement project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 704-866-6747.
Sincerely,
Jack AOr6f , AICP
Planning
City of Gastonia
cc::Nancy Campanella, PDEA Branch, NCDOT
Robert Cook, AICP,.Senior Planner, Gaston Urban Area MPO
Alpesh Patel, NCDOT Urban Area Coordinator
Mary Meletiou, NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
Jack Palmer, NCDOT Board Member
dh
---- ---
:i?;l?
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
.M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
r
r
r
r
#%\.A.160614 41? LA %r-W \%J 1 1 CLA • 7J J 1 dd J 17+ ? ? V 7V J • •? 1 1 . V.J
GASTON URBAN AREA
METROPOLITAN - PLANNING ORGANIZATION. -
` TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Pat Office Box 270 9 Ga ov*, Nair C*Wfna 2M3-1748
Plrorre (70 8"-bd37 0-Fm !7041868-9732 i
MEMORANDUM
1 .
TO. David L. Williams, 9adbr Plsmw, Own Cotmty
IrROM: Robot W. Cools, Tamsp m isdoa P4mm Oust= MM
DATE. AuBwt 20,1 M
5MZCM NC 7 Reidp R%ftmomm Me dagvM
At Yow wqwmt? 1 ?M ?vlsoomse4d &ft in relation to dw above
mardonsd project. Our iehsmstioa i¦dfostn that a load bbtosio d1M:ict is looatod
sdj- x -- to the ambi +ot silt, This dkM is located an do west bank of the South Park
Riva, saudt of NC 7. It b wed r the "MeAdea Mflb and Male in rho
publicaliom I ft AmUwtw f lbrMlSr of Gao m Cow*. Abe of eooom is Soodplain
atsvcidW with the dvet M d the I C a Moe of a kMM WMr*6M1 south of the airrsat
bridgc location on the east I" of the dvw. Thu landfill wM be of emwan only if a
mlocution of do bridge beodmw neoewry.
Tryon have any gtteons, piasss Contact me.

v
.
ov,wm:n vM
Sembis. 8dmodt • tteMSmv ay • Owmaim • DWIm * Gorr Corn?ty • Gastonb
Lot vn • McAdervMt • Moran h WY • PW4 • Spans mounhan • Stanley
i

Prsrr avers M eroytt, !x.
Fh3-AA MV. NO
PAS?Mrwwww, *a
PhORYONSAWL
?o. fa low
fO?MrrrlMjlM
McA ww kelcu sel-lon
LMprMr K 704424:30i
FatclkrriA•?CMIZ&O !
Post4t# Fax Note 7671 D," t3 O o : w9de?
TO Prom

C.?.rD,,,rt Co:
F!ho4t i ;
Plant it
O

July 26y 2000 ' MUMFORO " - 't
t, SIFPNEY
ii PFMW* MACE FM
_"_FY1.
Mr. Mike Little I 1,•O,g W
Project Engineer, Roadavay'Design
NCDOT i i
P HAkD R PO Box 25211
Y A • A f Raleigb NC .1S201
Re: B-3334 IulcAdepville, Gaston. County
Dear Mt. Little, 1
r
I have had ongoing: cof?versa#ions wi th Mr: Aick Ward, P> of Ko and Associates,
P.C. regarding the design and'construction cif ou'r nGw bridge in McAdcnvil.le, NC.
He has suggested that l tobuc t you Airectly-with oui eond&ns.
We are currently 'undcc#-oing a master eland Planning activity for the Town and
have met with, numerous :iconsultants: iu .that i regard. M%' we brought the new
bridge on NC '7 to` the r''attFntidn Y cpnuticOtod opi the `importance of that
particular corridor as al?entray cc w Tdwii.:Thcy hot' recommended that we
become acVv?t in the dgc-' design to ensdi* our long-tern objectives are
addressed.
In general, the are as folowvs
• Ensure the bridp. is `"pedestrian,friendly" with wade walkways.
• Pmvidea bicyale`'l.
i, .
x Design the bridge rails m ;a similar fashion -to those on' the existing structure
• Inco porai 1'ightiai oil the bridge that reflects' the historic character of the
town. We would en ? 'soon the des. to be s A lar to the antique downtown
streetlights.
(r
• incorpotate potable aler god saditary sewer lines intn the design.
"'.'°?' j
• When the Stag a?,,, : the consuv¢tion cuntraat, wej would like to be able to
speak to your gene ac sul -eontwtor to ?HUMS$ the ciearing limits extending
beyond these outlincd:]n'ynur agreeinent.' We are interested in "opening up"
the river. view from the Town anA,we'believe they woulo.be the logical source.
7n
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
i
i
i,
Mr. Mike Lithe
July 26, 2000;
Page 2
I wou#d; apreciatc:yduf:conta?'tit?.ine at your earliest cprtvenienaet 704=$23-
2577 to discuss these issues anal to d etiennineihow i?e cwt become more active in
the process. Thank;.yo1i 'ifi :advance for yow wnoidcradon regarding our new
bridge!
Sincerely, I;
Robert C. Clay, CUM
Director of Real Estate Operations
cc: Mr. Jack Ward, PE, Ko and Associates
goasnr C. &AV, CCW
01mier of
ReW Estate op lmomw
Y'A`2N
VINve "OPWUes, f.
Subeidfery d PtWr rirns. lnC.
115 Main Street
McAdenAe. WC 28101-1939
Tel.pha,a; 70448232517
Feeslmse. 704824.8079 '
Mobile- 704/61a-SO48

Date:! p
To: ?RRO Steve Mitchell
?FRO Ken Averitte
?WaRO Deborah Sawyer
?WiRO Joanne Steenhuis
LWSRO Jennifer Frye
LARD Mike Parker
,ARO Pete (;olwell
Triage Check List
Project Name ?G'.Nr_ 6r/ 3 al-t lUc
D\/\/Q Project Number - L_. ----
County- -?j?l. --

From:------ -
__^__Teephone (913) 733- S t -
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation. Please call if you need
assistance.
Stream length impacted
Stream determination
[j Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USGW topo maps
L Minimization/avoidance issues
L Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Parnilco, Catawba, Randlerr.an)
L Pond fill
L Mitigation Ratios
L Ditching
L Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application, rnee,inos?
? Cumulative impact concerns
Comments
c _ P - - =---------
- ~ ao -f = 0

- ~ ao f 0
PNA~ ~ RR YARNS
~

0
0 ~

~ ~ 1 ~
~ ~
~ S , ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ , ~ ,
~ ~ 1
~ ~ ~ o - - as f 0
- ,
I - STREAM ELOCAT ION ISEE DETAILS ~ .
~ HEETS 2-A T 2-D) , i -
~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ - - ~ o n w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~tiLr~ ~ ' ~ ~ \ \ ,
' ~ ~ ~ ` ~ crV'' ~ ~ WOODS
W ~ I ~ n ~ ~ ~q ~ ~ i' ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~D
BRIDGE ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CR S ~ ~ ~ ~ VA , ' ~
ll +4 , ~ - ~i i ~ ~ s' O ` ~ ~ 1._, ~r~ S ~
- ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ -w,
9 9 S WOODS ~ ASS II RIB RAC ,f ~
~ l WOOD S
~ ~ 1 ~ -REMOVE . -
~ k i ~ OLD ,
~ ~ ~M k '~I 900 ~ ` ~
\ ~ ~ 8 - 75 m EO ' ~ ' ~
k o I - ~w PER Lr• WOODS ~ ~ 0 CSI
k _-F mm STEEL _ , 750 5.1 m T ~ CC ~ y~ ~
F .BST ~ - i - - - ~ E 'i TYPE ~ ~ ~ F ~ Rip ~ / ~ , ~ , ~ I , YPE III GE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~i o 0~,0 ~
RqC-35~ ~ , ~ G ~ / ~ ~ ' GASH S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o
v~ _ 1 ` ~ I 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ - 1, ` ~ AU-3 F
OP=180. ~ ~ WOODS j ~ _ I I ,=178054 6 ~ .r~ ~ ~ I ~
~ I ~ \ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ TOP = 180,21 0 -
~ ~®NVR N ~ ~ ~ ~ RAC ~ woaas ~ ~ L ~ ~ NZ. ~ 179.025 ~ ~ ~ . ®~m
-o II o ~ - ~ ~ T p=180,! 0 ~
~ ,WOODS ~ ~ I V•178,9 ~ U
~I~ILACR ' ~ ~ ~ i o ~ ~ ~•2 m ,
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 mm CM ~
I _ ~ T 1 _ w ~ ~ ~ GR EXIST, R/W l.4 CONC ~ 2.5 , ~ - ~ a- - ,
_G ~ CLASS II RIB RAC - I ~ -r----- ---'TO = tIP 50 - - -C - mm -
1 END B. T BRIDGE NOo 83 END BRIDGE - w - - PE III F '
~ YPE I I 1 ~ 1 l3 ll, l3 NJ30 f/ ~
T~~~ `RE A~f~ ~ XISTING END BtNT ~ Tr ~NI®VlE P TIE INTO EXISTING EMBA ~M NT ~ ~I~ ~E ~
AND SPIL! -THROUGH SLOPE _ c ~ i ~I X68 • 01 .46 ~,I~,
- 1~----~ EXiSTIN p~! ' -~u ' ! p - - - G S~ ~ ROUGH SLO~ E ~ ~ , C®N J T= DI fl2 F n, m - RT v 7, ~
! S E EXIST. R/W X
~ m RIVER EX~S . r~/W ~ ~ _9.,0 m CONC ~ PT~ I 1l~0o m ~
/ DE. ~ H ~ REM( GALGE REMOVE EXISTING STRUCTUR R = 18 m ~ C 0 N C ~ i i r'?~r^~ ~ ~ 0 0
R1EM®V~ _ ~ _ ~ w 2,5 SOIL-------------- F F 20 / ~ _ ~ 0 R]EM[®v1E
5.4 ~ CLASS ' RI RAC ~ INV, IN- ~ _ 7 S 0 0 mm 5 ~ OP-I ~ 9,97 i
i ~ • . INV, IN= 754 7 mm INU,=176,75
m ~ I I V T=1 6,00 WOODS OBLlTERA~ F
f~EMOVE EXISTIN ~ G S7 RUCT URE IENI'~ ]E 1 t 8 ~ & REMOVE ~ I
V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / D ~ ~NoCa o0oTa ~ i I ,
,3 , ,END PROPO G _ DoBo q 2 Po 243 SED ~ ~ ~ ~ , 9
WV/~ N . ~ ~~i . -w ~ ~ -~,`w' ' 1,5 m S1DEW K ~ ~ _ i•2 S~~-~ ~ RAID i~ ~ AL p - ---~C-- - . - - 5.720 S ~ - o
. i N52 29 19 E u, 2 ~ ~ I _
..-w' GAGE ~ ~ ~ o c fi I o ~ / 0 1N0RES ~ SSA c 9~_ ~ ~ I EASEM -
CLASS ~ ~ ~9 EN m ~ I o ~ ~ ~ I BST 3,1 GR & S01L
P H A ~~R ~~R Y ~ ~ ARNS z _ Q RII~ RA i - ~ iF 1
~o o I ~ ,5 Wier 27,429 - -1------ a ~ +42 N o ~ ~ 52 29 ql ~r,.~~
'i I I ~ r'~-~-- . .
~ I ~ MTL ~ ~i ' ~ I I v
CANOP A I W WOODS . I!
esr TOP= i ~
~ 9, 2 I ~ INV = _ I S BK ~ y • 78, 15 2~ 3 5 w T - ~
u B INV, 0 'T- 8,615 IN =17 ,68 DS
~ I ~ ~ FUEL REMOVE EXIST ~
m ING F 2~ ~ ri I 21 AMPS G~ ARDRAIL EN
D PROPOSED i ~ C
75O C&G ~ ~ + ~
F1L Q> ~ i ~ CONC
i ~ I CAS END PROPOSED I 'EXPRESSWAY GUTT
esTGASTONIA ER ' ~ - -
LAKE WY~_IE NORMAJ P00~ ELEVATION CONTOUR (173055 m = 56904 f t)
B-3334 PROJECT SITE - NORMAL WATER SUIFACE E~EUATION (1740~~ m = 5709 ft)
MINOR CONTOUR I~NTERUA~ (1 m)
i MAJOR CONTOUR INTERVAL C5 m)