20040733 Ver 1_Complete File_20040505

L 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 5, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave.
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPE'rT
SECRETARY
1,14 073 3
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
MAY 0 5 11)(14
WATER QUALITY SLUTION
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 52
over South Crowders Creek on SR 1112, Gaston County, Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1112(3), State Project No. 8.281220 1, TIP B-3840, Division 12.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project.
Replacement of Bridge No. 52 will be approximately 35 feet to the south of the existing location
with a 3-barrel 9-foot by 6-foot box culvert. The culvert will have a 32-foot clear roadway width
with two 4-foot paved shoulders and two 4-foot grass shoulders. The culvert will have two 12-
foot travel lanes. The new approaches and bridge will have a design speed of 45 mph.
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the construction of the bridge. The new culvert
will enclose a total of 148 linear feet of surface waters.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by the existing bridge.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 52 is composed of a timber deck with an asphalt wearing surface on steel I-beam
girders. The substructure consists of timber caps and piles and timber bulkheads. The existing
structure is 40.5 feet long with a 19.2-foot clear roadway width. The crown of the bridge is 11
feet above the streambed. Due to the structural components of the bridge, no temporary fill will
be dropped into surface waters.
Temporary Dewatering
Impervious dikes will be required for the dewatering of the project area and the construction of
the culvert. The dikes are detailed on the culvert construction sequence sheet. There will be
0.015 acres of temporary fill and 45 feet of temporary channel impacts from the construction of
impervious dikes in South Crowders Creek for the construction of Bridge No. 52.
Construction Sequence: 1. Construct stilling basin (120 cu. yd.).
2. Construct impervious dike A and west barrel.
3. Remove impervious dike A and construct impervious dikes B.
4. Divert water into west barrel and construct remainder of culvert.
5. Complete roadway.
Removal and Disposal: The impervious dikes will be removed within 90 days of the completion
of the construction of the culvert using excavating equipment. All materials placed in the stream
by the contractor will be removed. The Class I riprap that is removed may be used on end slopes
where Class I riprap is required at the discretion of the engineer. All other materials removed by
the contractor will be disposed of in a non jurisdictional area.
Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to co-exist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended) requires that any action
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject to review by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws. Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of ESA §§7 and 9, as amended.
As of January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists 3 federally protected species for Gaston County. Table
1 depicts these species. The biological conclusion for all the protected species is "No Effect".
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Gaston County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Threatened (S/A)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle Threatened
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
• "Threatened (S/A)" denotes a species that is treated as threatened due to its similarity of appearance to another
endangered or threatened species that is listed for protection. Threatened (S/A) species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 and 33 as
authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B .0200
we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.htmi.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at
[phone].
Sincerely,
cc:
Gregory Thorpe, PhD., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John F. Sullivan III, P. E., FHWA
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
Section 10 Permit Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: X
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name:NCDOT/Proiect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch/ Greg Thorpe
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number:919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant 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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Pagel of8
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: Replacement of Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek on SR 1112
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3840
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Gaston Nearest Town: Gastonia
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): I-85 S to Gastonia, south on US
321, right on Crowders Creek Road, right on Chapel Grove School Rd., left on Lewis Road.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/LonQ): _
35° 10.93'N, 81 ° 16.48'W - Gastonia South quad
(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 w4terbody.)
6. Property size (acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): South CrowdersCreek (Class C)
8. River Basin: Catawba
(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/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: a one-span two-lane structure.
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Replace
Bridge No. 52 approximately 35 feet to the South with a 9' x 6' 3-barrel box culvert. Traffic
will be maintained by the existing bridge. Standard road building equipment will be used.
Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deficient bridge.
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.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
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 3 of 8
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: permanent stream impacts due to
culvert construction are 148 linear feet and 0.017 acres of fill in surface waters; also 45 linear
feet and 0.015 acres of temporary impacts are associated with this project.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but arc not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
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 I-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.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1 Fill 0.017 ac. South Crowders Cr. 5 feet Perennial
1 Culvert cons. 148 South Crowders Cr. 5 feet Perennial
1 Temp. Fill 0.015 ac. South Crowders Cr. 5 feet Perennial
1 Temp. Channel 45 South Crowders Cr. 5 feet Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but arc 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: 148 feet
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Page 4 of 8
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
No Impacts

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. 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 Fj 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 stream impact will occur for this nroiect due to the construction of the culvert. The
Construction Sequence for the box culverts for B-3840, site 1 is as follows: construct stilling basin
(min. capacity = 120 cu. yd..). construct impervious dike A and west barrel, remove impervious dike
A and construct impervious dvkes B. divert water into west barrel and construct remainder of
culvert, complete roadway.
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.
Page 5 of 8
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
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.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. 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): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.21
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) 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 n
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
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 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes [:J 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 3
2 1.5
Total
IF Zone 1 extends out 31) feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Gone Z extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 7 of 8
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.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
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.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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 (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes R No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] 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).

Alplicant/Agent's Signature ' Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
PROJECT
LOCATION '
mz
L
nn na
. - ... ?r? vas
ORTH
SOUTH CAROLINA ' .. -.. OLWA
F
VICINITY
MAIDS
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33288.2.1 (B-3860)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. b2 ON SR 1112
(LEWIS ROAD) OVER SOUTH CROWDERS
CREEK IN GASTON COUNTY
SHEET 1 OF 8 01/'20/4
?. NORTH CAROLINA
? {{ z t ?°1 `?? {? ry )y ? ' t1( ,tP ,!J i ?r ? „ ? L? ; T Ibf, {+n;
-/? ' ? r?!#< 1? alb 1.1 t + "s i?'" ??e 'f y ?'??i ? t. ' ? ti? r
r: a? {?:j r• k I' ? 1 I ?' ? y t ???
?f ?` I ? / E `? Y? !Z
1
y
i,1 I 11:1 I I ?_.yyrl L ' X'i ?? ?I?? III II
r: * i `it III ._?? I 1 I ` • ' ? ^''?'l? ? ,? I ? r ` ;
I :
r: 1 ?i z?'r
:??' I ? , ' I 1 I I:: If k'1 ? I 1 .J. ? I ' r? 1 ?{ \„? /i"? it ,td= {? ??s
f , .. i. 1 ,ill, ??.,Y \ \l? .•'/r i i?t,l ,?lja? ??' .., ? 5,h 1?'''1 :r 1 ? ??i:
II iIi x? i1 •1 u I ?.?°? „?;µ'4?, . 1 I ? i f
? ?? % I a ??• '-? X71:
{r. jam,
!.i' . 1 1
r 1.
{
l
Pj .
r ..r.r
`T? J I
is ? ?1? ? ?1> I I' I • ??>.
j
SITE MAP
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33288.2.1 (B-3840)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 52 ON SR 1112
(LEWIS ROAD) OVER SOUTH CROWDERS
CREEK IN GASTON COUNTY
SHEET 2 OF 8 01 / 20 / 04
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS

od r
ee
? •Mr, kM /
S MM X? ? 9 /
1 ?I II XI_"I! /
J f? ? / X
i
`v II
1 : 1 \ I I
P ? ? ? x.111
a i ,..
x III
F „ I
I? 11 I I?
rvl
u I
I I ul
QP I x N?
I`v ,, ICI I '.
O.D
F
k II
r a F"
P
3 ? wo?
Y
/5f00
M73tYJ ?!IONONO NJlID6
1 M `ye,`r`0j / • 00 4? M.OUMIN M.CC,BY.CZH
?? rNl I I .
`` III i l A I
$ x ICI
rL

?y
op?

? B
a jc
L
I
=
? r
QQ?D1?y
1 p?f?1{.o ? r I
;
R
II ?^
N a??Op ?
? Q?
R "! ? r? ; I
v
II ,?
71 0 4
m
Y Y 4 Y 4 Y Y'1
?
^
II1 -
?rn????J N O _
x
X I ai ? ?
??? ?
iLn.B? I g F?
II
N ?\
N GV*W BC'IBC

rn ? o? y I I
rn ba? m
? I I \? 11 s, O
m d
`
L
Z Z D D
v
r
r,
m rr,
rrl'I R1 ? y
?{ - 1
y 1
I ?s1 W
L S
?'
pQ I h
/
?
,LV'uC _
c
_
?? O i
?' I 36?,6L615
? ?
u,

_rl
T vmo

N N A

O O T y9
+

g' ?

aLN I D

I

O
o
O Q

If ?
j
I I
r ??
g? n
/?
f Q
Z
R? ?
I o
?
?
? -
Pn
?

rn dC'19C
M.6Y.6C.6IN

q CID
g,

r+ F
o F-K
u o
O ?z
I ?o
F I
z0
Frl
r?
z
W
S663f3S3SS3S33S
a ? _ r ? ?r
I I /5+00
.. II I~ I x ?. ?.,..• Sy?? R1N8
;a? r 1
F
?khl? f
?rrrrrl
??? pO ?? r oD ? b? Fir
SO $:b yr oD:p -
rrrrrS? L! ? i
u ? .
?? ?'`???`J ? ,off O =x---?" ? ,
? A? K
20+00 sc rot
0 o T r V_?sy t? 8 -'I.?sCdi?'
?m t
CO ,
? I 381.8L818
U1 LA N N P I
O r Q? ? tl
I S ~ • ? dC'19C
rn , pN Q M.81.8L881
O P
Y
8Z -? D
00 F -o -D
O Z
0
F -n -
F
?l

1 0
4 O

z
u 0

? o
CO
? z
r- zo o z o

zz c a U a w
oQ ??
LO a
F
cr
CL cmr_ °
x c:) °' w U m
I `
0
?? o
0 ± I
+??

•o •o 0,
1
1?
II 1 r-
II II II 1
aw> Y 1
I

r- I Q

y
I ?
W
N
Q1
lD I W

N
J
V J

N CC) W i ?
Q
?Q
t
+ Do
QQWJ
in rnn V) U
DI I al

U w

ra

U
z
O O U
W o? a a
z w? N 1 0
° I o b
wa
0 o h I LO
J I r-
LL I
I
I
O
o

N ?
O
c (T 00
r- QC l0
IT
0
? o
C
9
°
0
Paz
r? U 0

? :D z Go
m c zap
LL- m U z
? y 0 r44
o + z ? az o

°° 0 m
\
/ G 0. U a
L ,o

J I / v
Y f
Z`
Q I
m I
LL-
O
pp
I O m
p?..? ?N
O?
L(1??? N II

?W
o;.I
d_w ?a
Or I.a
?o
J
(nrn(A W Z(
/1
Q

?O

•?-i J
W
o
Z
li D I
J =
U'
W
x II ? ?
? ? W

Q
m II
I Z

Q
co ? d

U

I e
I
o II
z
a
m ac a

b
LC)
m
In
b o
N LO
O O
00 r_
?o
z
0
7?
E_

- 0

=
?- ,
U
`t 9
E"
E
0

°
° U)

x
F C
v?mQ OD
v
co r

C7

U
V E
w ?
'x o'N
E
a /_
W V ao
c ao
Q p N
H z M
w
0. C0

°

° z ?w

0
Ecv 0 0 •o

? a
v A
d
W

U)
mom
° A
_
-a
° w
U w
LL z =
U)

= o
m
=_z
LL

? O
Q C C ?^
? 8
l0 f0
U
?

U r U)
O
:E U > =

H
d a> m
? ?
°

W
CL z o

LL c
z ? ci =
°
g 3: 9

3
C U
- l0 O
LL. ? O
m
m L U

2
N
M
O
_
C O
O
A O
+ p
o
'
U) O

J
?
o
LL
J
z r N 0

H

PARCEL NO. PROPERTY
NAMES AND
NAMES OWNERS
ADDRESSES
ADDRESSES
1 HUFFSTETLER, ROBERT D. 1OIKNGS MOUNTAIN NC 28086
2 BRADLEY, SAMUEL A. 6011 LEWIS RD.
GASTONIA, NC 28052
3 EWS, GARY 5949 LEWIS RD.
GASTONIA, NC 28052
4 WILLIAMS, WILLIAM 5944 LEWIS RD.
GASTONIA, NC 28054

NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33288.2.1 (B-3840)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 62 ON SR 1112
(LEWIS ROAD) OVER SOUTH CROWDERS
CREEK IN GASTON COUNTY
SHEET 8 OF 8 01 / 20 / 04

U
Ig ' W
d
? ORr
go
Uk

V
0 0

41 ® r??

?w
V
?i
Ol
O
oa
? a
o ?a
ti
o
? w
\bH
lq-
soul"
P
P

a
0
a
s°
w
J
N SOUTH CROWOU6REEK
i
d0,
of
tl'
n
0
_
N
9
V
LL
O
D
W
i
N
J
d
M
V
H
Z
LL
O
N
M
M
J
M
V
W
N
0
N
M
V
W
O
Q
d
N
N
H

loves-S?so?[oud drz SOO[OZO *'OLLO VMLLNOD.
uo(S't?isi+`xPa`ObB?B?Caad??y
90+10 Vooz-Ely"4
'? I I
a?
5
?
O W
S
4
a?

h
4
U
1 a? ? U
_ R O
1 ?8
U
Z
1
1
V

3,60,6L61S " -
.Le'1a L,
J
3.6P.6L61S g
oo#x
3AW
z F assn
? 17S pp?
Y
nw
DLn 8 '
oQ
A
W -?0
> qJ
?j u r
J u r a
z w
V) M
¢ a
a w
Q 11
W $ > I K
+ J
VI
+
In °D SZ
OD
m W
A.S;f11ef.LLN NOZL6S.91N ,
???'?N1T105
e 1: 4 :
01010-
daa
oma
?
3
1
?
JIY
0
GG
? 99
J
11
001141
du r
C! 00, o. a
?8 Qb,A $ ° m
Q 'o ID `' f
+ co
+ d
I I W
J? ? 1
, I w }
P5 1 jCyl
NyiCi ? 1
CA O

HS
.2
m m o
g
L a J

+ O
w
OJ
S
?
r
N J
0 a
? 0
?+ E I T
0? 0
w
a b
??t
o u m t?
C
1

I
i?
/I
j
?I
B
?? II
a?, b
In'
I v? ? M? r? r r 0
'g 1 W 1? ?QO?I?CaCVS
-? ??y ?? ?r r r r r ? a
g ? a v1 W ? QO?hC ??
lip d d ~ t?: s?? ?
S ? d o?l.??l? u r
1+ r a0o ? r r r r M
M ? ? aQo?tia;?v?
J J 1
1 ,
uw1-
z LI) w
(1 Ze?11 LSD II
6PC7 f,- >
+
I ??
I I,
r
d 'o N
m
?aQ
11 m
W
a,
>
+ W
O J
- W

? " NETS
11
,I \ ? v
II b r.rr '.?y ??
I II ? A i. ? 1 Z I
I' \ II + y ? \ k I m
111 )H °?
1 ? N
3 r
X I I
..QJj
+
fy ?' w
its
/
v /4 /F •
M - i
r ,
? J
1
b6/L1/8

qw V)
Q
fn Q
?

3 a
p
u
tlLN Q
1 3 Lt1 n

I $ ti?

W I ?t ? W V) LLi LLJ
I?I1 ^?
c 2 2

'`?AV?„p ? cn
un.cA

•b /
X
3 xTx "1 ?2
tn Iffill

u6,`"'" 7
1'7pi1 b?t

Gaston County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1112 (Lewis Road)
over South Crowders Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1112(3)
State Project No. 8.2812201
T.I.P. No. B-3840
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Z D3
A
6 /30/C? ?
DATE
f 'rregory J. orpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
W.
D_ John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
`7°~J Division Administrator, FHWA
Gaston County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1112 (Lewis Road)
over South Crowders Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1112(3)
State Project No. 8.2812201
T.I.P. No. B-3840
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 2003
Documentation Prepared by:
TGS Engineers
?902'?i1 C
?

14032 G ?3
enneth Burlesors?N°?° Date
Project Manager. ?'••, •'•°•••••?°•°
.
?FT
S
a,
?
H ?BURo ?
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
ur)n1i ? - V 4-.
Elmo E. Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Gaston County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1112 (Lewis Road)
over South Crowders Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1112(3)
State Project No. 8.2812201
T.I.P. No. B-3840
No special project commitments.
Categorical Exclusion - Green Sheet
June 2003
-i-

Gaston County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1112 (Lewis Road)
over South Crowders Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1112(3)
State Project No. 8.2812201
T.I.P. No. B-3840
INTRODUCTION: Gaston County Bridge No. 52 is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in 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. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
30.8 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally
obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject crossing is located in the southern part of Gaston County (see Figure 1). Land
use in the area is mostly wooded surrounded by a mobile home park and some residential
homes (see Figure 2). There is no business or industrial development near the bridge. The
area is zoned for (RA) Residential/Agriculture.
Gaston County Bridge No. 52 is a one-span two-lane structure that consists of a timber deck
with an asphalt wearing surface on I-beams. The substructure consists of timber caps and
piles and timber bulkheads. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1952 and
is in fair condition. The overall length of the structure is 40.5 feet (12.3 meters). The clear
roadway width is 19.2 feet (5.8 meters). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 10 tons.
SR 1112 (Lewis Road) is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. This section of SR 1112 is located in the vicinity of Crowders
Mountain State Park and between two sections of a future Gaston County bicycle route.
Bicycle accommodations are recommended.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1112 has a 18-foot (5.4-meter) pavement width with 5-foot
(1.5-meter) to 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders. The existing bridge is on a tangent with a curve
to the west of the bridge. The roadway is situated approximately 11.0 feet (3.4 meters) above
the bed of South Crowders Creek.
The 2003 traffic volume of 1780 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2600
VPD by the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 3 percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit on this section of
SR 1112 is 45 miles (72 kilometers) per hour.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but power and telephone lines are
overhead along the south side of the structure. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 52 during the period from April 1,
2000 to April 1, 2003.
Three school buses cross the bridge twice daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based on the preliminary hydraulics report, the propoosed replacement structure is
a three-barrel 9-foot (2.7-meter) wide by 6-foot (1.8-meter) high reinforced concrete
box culvert. The length and opening size of the proposed culvert may be increased
or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by a more
detailed hydrologic study.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the
existing grade.
The proposed roadway will consist of a 32-foot (9.6-meter) pavement width, to
provide two 12-foot (3.6-meter) traffic lanes, with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders to
include 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved shoulders on each side of the roadway. The paved
shoulders are to accommodate anticipated bicycle traffic along this route. The
proposed typical section for the approach roadway is included in Figure 4.
B. Build Alternatives
The two alternatives evaluated for this project are described below.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the bridge at the existing location. During
-2-
construction, traffic will be maintained along a temporary on-site detour located to
the south of the existing crossing. The total length of this alternative is approximately
400 feet (122 meters) and the design speed is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour. This
alternative was not selected since the cost exceeded the preferred Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacement of the crossing with a reinforced
concrete box culvert on a new alignment to the south of the existing bridge. This
alternative improves the existing alignment by reducing the degree of curve west of
the crossing and allows the existing structure and approaches to maintain traffic on-
site during the construction period. The total length of this alternative is
approximately 1050 feet (320 meters) and the design speed is 50 miles (80
kilometers) per hour.
C. Alternatives 'Eliminated from Further Study
Replacing the crossing at the existing location with a detour along local routes was
considered. The detour route would include SR 1106 (Freedom Mill Road), SR 1103
(Crowders Creek Road), and SR 1125 (Pinnacle Road) as shown in Figure 1. The
total length of this detour is approximately 6.6 miles (11 kilometers). There is a
crossing of Crowders Creek on SR 1103 that is posted 33 tons single vehicle and 39
tons TTST. This detour route was considered too long and circuitous for the
emergency services as well as current traffic. Therefore, an off-site detour along
existing routes was eliminated from further consideration.
The "Do-Nothing" or No-Build alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the
bridge. Closure of SR 1138 is not desirable due to the lack of an acceptable offsite
detour for emergency services.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 52 is proposed to be replaced with a culvert approximately 35 feet (10.7
meters) downstream of the existing location as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2.
This alternative is preferred because it is the most economical and allows traffic to
be maintained on-site during the construction period.
-3-
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Structure $130,000 $54,000
Roadway Approaches 155,744 401,584
Detour Structure and Approaches 252,600 N/A
Structure Removal 7,780 7,780
Misc. & Mob. 245,926 208,686
Eng. & Contingencies 122,000 118,000
jig.
k
?',,
?7?
+?
?
w
•
•
• ?
01-111"
{.,'{v.:.•}'•}'r::!k`?y
u:} .}:R:',•?::?:'s`:S {:k•}i {;:;;.:}.u
'•:•:o-
'•W..
••
:•{?;.•:•}
?•.'•'.::•:
{
?
'.'.:
'•'.•.',
^
:
Right-of-Way Costs 38,000 49,500
v:?'.k?v %?i?X... vi>'.. :S. v ::¢;:' .
r
k
•'a '
:
}?
'
!y?(?1fy??
.'?,,:4, {{:,'1yy?? :#•,'nr,:":?.i{L•.}: '$
•'
••
{.?'
;.;1\:;.i;}{
•
{,v,.;..tir.:}?{L•i{
::>:•'4i:
:?:$:
: •p {f •:ti?lw'ti L;.':?F.}`}$:
„k•:
.,Y:,
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), is $540,000, including $ 40,000 for right-of-way, $400,000
for construction and $100,000 in prior year cost.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A review of the project has been undertaken to evaluate natural resource features likely to
be affected by the project. 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 (Kings Mountain, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1981), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, and aerial
photography.
The study corridor is located approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) southwest of the
intersection of SR 1125 and SR 1112 near South Gastonia, NC (Figure 1). Bridge No. 52
is located along SR 1112 at South Crowders Creek in Gaston County. The study corridor
includes the channel and floodplain adjacent to South Crowders Creek. On the east and west
banks of the stream, the floodplain rises gradually from the stream. South Crowders Creek
flows from the northwest out of Crowders Mountain State Park and gradually turns to the
-4-
east downstream of Bridge No. 52. It joins Crowders Creek approximately 4.5 miles (7.2
kilometers) to the east.
A. Methodology
A natural resource field investigation was conducted for Bridge No. 52 on April 11,
2001. The study corridor was walked and visually investigated for significant
features. For purposes of the field visit, the study corridor was assumed to be
approximately 1050 feet (320 meters) in length for Alternatives 1 and 2. The
corridor width for each alternative is 50 feet (15.2 meters) from each alternative
centerline, for a total corridor width of 100 feet (30.5 meters). Plant community
impact calculations provided in this report are based on individual corridors centered
on each of the two alternatives (Figure 2). These impact calculations represent the
worst case scenario. Final impacts will be limited to cut-and-fill boundaries of the
constructed alternative and are expected to be less than those shown for right-of-
ways. Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential habitat for
protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in South Crowders
Creek.
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), with adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature. Jurisdictional
areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Wetland 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 (Webster
et al. 1985, Potter et al. 1980, Martof et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick
1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Fish and wildlife nomenclature follow current
standards. Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived
from available sources (DWQ 1999a, 1999b). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS) listing of federal-protected species with
ranges which extend into Gaston County 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.
-5-

B. Physiography and Soils
Land use within the study corridor includes Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest and
residential/pasture/disturbed land. South Crowders Creek retains a buffer of
approximately 20 feet (6.1 meters) of natural vegetation within the study corridor
(Figure 2).
The study corridor is located in the Battleground geologic formation within the Kings
Mountain Belt of the Upper Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina.
This system is characterized by broad, gently sloping uplands, moderately to steeply
sloping areas with narrow convex ridges, and steep valley slopes. Soil systems in the
Piedmont are determined by the local bedrock type and form in saprolite weathered
from bedrock of various composition (Daniels et al. 1999). The study corridor is
located within the floodplain of South Crowders Creek. Within the study corridor,
the floodplain is shallow and flat. Elevations rise from approximately 685 feet
(208.7 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at streamside to 700 feet
(213.4 meters) NGVD at the western and eastern extreme of the study corridor
(USGS Kings Mountain, NC quadrangle).
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA 1989) indicates the following
soils are within the study corridor: Chewacla loam (fine-loamy, mixed, thermic
Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), adjacent to and including the streambed; Tatum
gravelly loam (clayey, mixed, thermic Typic Hapludults) to the east and west of the
stream channel.
The Chewacla series consists of frequently flooded, somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils on floodplains. These soils formed in recent alluvium
and slope is less than 2 percent. Chewacla soils have loamy A and B horizons that
extend to a depth of more than 35 inches (88 centimeters). Depth to bedrock is more
than 5 feet (1.5 meters). These soils range from very strongly acid to slightly acid
unless lime has been added.
The Tatum series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils on uplands.
This series formed in residuum weathered from sericite schist and phyllite. Slope
ranges from 8 to 15 percent. Tatum soils have a loamy A horizon and a
predominantly clayey Bt horizon that extends to a depth of 14 to 40 inches (36 to 102
centimeters). The solum is 25 to 50 inches (64 to 127 centimeters) thick. Content
of coarse fragments ranges from 15 to 25 percent in the A and E horizons. Depth to
weathered bedrock ranges from 40 to 60 inches (102 to 152 centimeters). Tatum
soils are very strongly acid or strongly acid unless lime has been added.
-6-
Of the predominant soil map units in the study corridor, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service lists only the Chewacla series as having hydric inclusions of
Worsham soils (USDA 1996). Worsham soil inclusions occur in adjoining upland
sideslopes, along drainageways, and in depressions.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-08-37 (Crowders Creek and
tributaries) of the Catawba River Basin (DWQ 1999b). This area is part of
USGS accounting unit 03050101 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region.
The section of South Crowders Creek crossed by the subject bridge has been
assigned Stream Index Number 11-13 5-10-1 by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ 1999a).
2. Stream Characteristics
South Crowders Creek, which drains the southern portion of the Crowders
Mountain State Park, is a third-order stream in the Crowders Creek and
tributaries subbasin. The South Crowders Creek watershed is characterized
by upland and mesic hardwood forests, agricultural land use, and light
residential development. Within the study corridor, South Crowders Creek
is moderately entrenched, exhibiting moderate flow, poor sinuosity, and poor
riffle and pool development. Width of the stream is approximately 15 feet
(4.6 meters) at the point of the bridge crossing with height above the stream
bed at approximately 11.0 feet (3.4 meters). During the field visit, water
depths along the study corridor varied from 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) to 18
inches (45.7 centimeters). The water level was low, with about 6 inches
(15.2 centimeters) of unvegetated riverbank above the water surface.
Persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was not observed within the stream
channel. The channel substrate is composed of a gravel and sand mixture
with some finer sediments present in slower flowing reaches.
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 C has been assigned to
South Crowders Creek. The designation C denotes waters that are suitable
for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary
recreation. Secondary recreation refers to wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis
(DWQ 1999b). No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II)
-7-

waters occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. No
watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the
study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality has initiated a whole-basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for
the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Catawba River basin
management plan. The most recent water quality samples in the Crowders
Creek part of the sub-basin indicated Fair water based on benthic
macroinvertebrate samples and Poor ecological health based on fish samples.
The Catawba River subbasin 03-08-37 has been biologically and chemically
monitored and has a use support rating of fully supporting in none of its
reaches. Twenty percent of the tributaries are rated as fully supporting but
threatened, 30 percent as partially supporting, 13 percent as not supporting,
and 37 percent of its stream miles were not evaluated. South Crowders Creek
has been rated as Fully Supporting but Threatened. Subbasin 03-08-37,
containing the entire South Crowders Creek catchment from its headwaters
to its confluence with Crowders Creek, supports five major point-source
dischargers with a combined permitted discharge of 17 million gallons per
day (MGD) (64.3 million liters per day [MLD]) permitted flow. The
subbasin includes 17 minor discharges, with a total permitted flow of 1.4
MGD (5.3 MLD). Nonpoint source pollution is also a major consideration
in the Catawba River drainage, with sedimentation and erosion the most
widespread problem throughout Gaston County (DWQ 1999b).
3. Anticipated Impacts
Both alternatives include culverting the stream to maintain the current water
quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime. Temporary construction impacts
due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through implementation
of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management
practices. 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
streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
-8-
In each of the two alternatives, the proposed bridge replacement with a
culvert will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in South
Crowders Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-
term impacts resulting from construction 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 be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project.
During removal of the existing bridge, bridge components will be removed
without dropping them into waters of the United States. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR)
must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor:
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest and residential/pasture/disturbed land.
These plant communities are described below.
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest - Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
occurs on the floodplain levee deposits adjacent to South Crowders Creek.
This land type is bisected by SR 1112 and Bridge No. 52 over South
Crowders Creek. The west and east are bordered by a pasture, maintained
lawns and light residential development. The forest comprises the riparian
zone of the stream and is approximately 20 feet (6.1 meters) wide on each
side of the channel. This community is described by Schafale and Weakley
(1990) as occurring on natural levees of Piedmont rivers and streams. At the
South Crowders Creek study corridor, the canopy is not wide, but well
established and predominant species are river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulmus americana), and boxelder
(Acer negundo). The mid-story and shrub layer are well-developed and
include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
giant cane (Arundinariagigantea), flowering dogwood (Cornusflorida), and
tag alder (Alnus serrulata). Vines and herbaceous species are common and
well established and include mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), nodding
trillium (Trillium cernuum), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides), and greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia).
-9-

Residential/Pasture/Disturbed Land - Residential/pasture/disturbed land
occurs along the right-of-way of SR 1112, and adjacent land outside of the
riparian zone of the stream. Land use is maintained lawns, roadside mowing
management, and open pasture fields. The roadside margins along SR 1112
are approximately 20 feet (6.1 meters) wide. The roadside margin is
periodically mowed and supports fescue (Festuca sp.), chickweed (Stellaria
sp. ), clover (Trifolium sp), vetch (Vicia sp. ), blackberry (Rubus argutus), dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidago sp. ), and pokeberry
(Phytolacca americana). Maintained lawns and pasture are also cloaked with
planted and naturally occurring grasses. Fence rows and areas that are not
mowed support trees and shrubs. These species include sycamore, mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), multiflora rose, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
2. Plant Community Impacts
Plant community impacts are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within alternative corridors. Alternative 1 involves
replacement at the existing location with a temporary on-site detour.
Alternative 2 involves replacement on new alignment with the existing
structure and approaches serving to maintain traffic during construction
(Figure 2). A summary of plant community impacts for each alternative is
presented in the following table:
Plant Community Impacts within the Alternative Corridors.
Areas are given in acres (hectares).
Preferred
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Plant Community Permanent Temporary Total Permanent
Piedmont/Mountain 0.02 (0.01) 0.06 (0.02) 0.08 (0.03) 0.05 (0.02)
Levee Forest
Residential/Pasture/ 0.36 (0.15) 0.19 (0.08) 0.55 (0.23) 1.01 (0.41)
Disturbed Land
TOTAL: 0.38 (0.16) 0.25 (0.10) 0.63 (0.26) 1.06 (0.43)
Impacts resulting from upgrading existing road facilities are less for
Alternative 1 than for Alternative 2. Both alternative corridors contain
-10-
minimal amounts of natural plant community (Piedmont/Mountain Levee
Forest) and may only claim narrow strips of adjacent vegetation. No new
fragmentation of plant communities will be created by either alternative, as
the project will result only in relocation of community boundaries.
Roadside-forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species into
local natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species
utilizing roadsides is kudzu (Pueria montana). The establishment of a hardy
groundcover on road shoulders limits the availability of construction areas to
invasive and undesirable plants.
3. Wildlife
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the field visit. Tracks of
raccoon (Procyon lotor), as well as signs of domestic cattle were noted within
the study corridor. Some characteristic mammals which are expected to
frequent small streams and riparian forests in the Piedmont include opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), beaver (Castor canadensis), star-nosed mole
(Condylura cristata), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), southern flying
squirrel (Glaucomys volans), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), and
gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
Bird species that were identified during the field visit are Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), white-eyed
vireo (Vireo griseus), white throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis),
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common
yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina),
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), eastern towee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), and
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). The streamside and disturbed habitat
might be expected to also support other species, including wood duck (Aix
sponsa), yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), white-breasted
nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and
yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed within the study
corridor. Species that might be expected in this habitat are five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheidrys aestivus), eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), American toad (Bufo americanus),
-11-
Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and eastern
ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
No aquatic amphibian or reptile species were observed during the field visit.
South Crowders Creek provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic
reptiles including snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), painted turtle
(Chrysemys picta), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Typical amphibian species for this habitat
type include northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), three-lined
salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and
eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). Several mollusks and arthropods
were observed, including two species of snails, two species of crayfish, and
the invasive Asian clam (Corbicula flumenea).
No sampling was undertaken in South Crowders Creek to determine fishery
potential. Small minnows were seen during visual investigations, but no
larger fish were noted. Species which may be present in South Crowders
Creek include, brown bullhead (Ameeurus nebulosus), gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead
chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), pumkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus),
redbreast sunfish (L. auritusorone), bluegill (L. macrochirus), largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides), and fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare).
4. Wildlife Impacts
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the
proposed bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or
displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. No substantial habitat
fragmentation is expected since most permanent improvements will be
restricted to or adjoining existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and
migratory wildlife movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to
be minimal for both alternatives. After removal of temporary bridge
structures and associated approaches, the impacted areas will be replanted.
Both alternatives will result in potential temporary impacts to downstream
aquatic habitats as this alternative will utilize a culverted crossing of the
stream. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended
sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream
habitats from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by
the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
-12-
41
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of South Crowders Creek are subject
to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping depicts
South Crowders Creek as a riverine, lower perennial stream with an
unconsolidated bottom (R2UB; Cowardin et al. 1979). The field
investigation indicates that South Crowders Creek can be characterized as a
perennial stream system with an unconsolidated bottom consisting of a gravel
and sand mixture with some finer sediments present in slower flowing
reaches.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas. Areas affected by alternative right-of-
ways. Areas are given in acres (hectares); lengths are given in feet (meters).
Alternative 1 Preferred
Alternative 2
Jurisdictional Permanent Temporary Total Permanent
Type
Stream linear 45.0 (13.7) 45.0 (13.7) 90.0 (27.4) 50.0 (15.2)
distance
Stream area 0.02 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01) 0.03 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)
During removal of the existing bridge and project construction, no
components of the bridge will be dropped into waters of the United States.
This project can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special
restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters must be followed.
2. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Vegetated wetlands are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR section
328.3). These areas 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). No
jurisdictional wetlands were found within the study corridor.
-13-
3. Permit Requirements
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. It is anticipated that
this project will faal under Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874,
65916; December 13, 1996) for approved CEs due to expected minimal
impact. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification
for NWP #23. However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through
use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. 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 COE District.
4. 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. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet
(45.8 meters) of perineal and intermittent streams may require compensatory
mitigation in accordance with 15 NCAC2H.0506(h). A final determination
regarding mitigation rests with the COE. If construction of an on site detour
proves necessary, DWQ will require remediation measures in accordance
with requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/NWP No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering).
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or
officially Proposed for such listing, 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", and the term
"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" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally protected
species listed for Gaston County are listed in the following table.
-14-

Federally Protected Species. Species name and status for federally-
protected species in Gaston County (February 18, 2003 FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus Threatened
leucocephalus (Proposed for
delisting)
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened
(Similar
Appearance)
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6.0
feet (1.8 meters). Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and
tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail, belly, and
wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and
small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December
through May (Potter et al. 1980). 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 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750 to 1500 feet (229
to 458 meters) from a nest tree are considered to result in unacceptable
conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(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 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) 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 (458 meters) of known
roosting sites.
The study corridor contains no large bodies of open water that might serve
as bald eagle habitat. The nearest lake (Sparrow Springs Lake) is
approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) to the northwest; however, it is most
likely not of sufficient size to support bald eagles. Tall, old trees which
might serve as perching sites do grow near South Crowders Creek, but lack
of access to open water is probably a key limiting factor at the study corridor.
NHP records document no occurrences of bald eagle within 5.0 miles (8.0
kilometers) of the study corridor, and no eagles were observed during the site
visit.
-15-
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The South Crowders Creek study corridor
contains no suitable open water habitat for bald eagles. No occurrences have
been documented by the NHP, and no eagles were seen during the site visit.
Based on these factors and professional judgement, the proposed project will
have NO EFFECT.
Bog Turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of
approximately 3 to 4 inches (8 to 10 centimeters). 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 over-collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the FWS officially
proposed in the January 29, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 4229) to list bog
turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range, and within the
southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle
is proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the
northern population. The proposed listing would allow incidental take of bog
turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise lawful activity.
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually
in association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow
streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995). This required habitat
is not located in the project corridor. In North Carolina, bog turtles have a
discontinuous distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont. NHP
records indicate that bog turtle has not been documented in the vicinity of the
project corridor. T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and
a biological conclusion is not required. However, this project is not expected
to affect the bog turtle.
Schweinitz's Sunflower - Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched,
rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to approximately 6 feet (1.8 meters)
in height. The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but sometimes nearly
smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above.
Leaf shape is 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 September to frost; the yellow
flower heads are about 0.6 inch (1.5 centimeters) in diameter. The current
range of this species is within 60 miles (96 kilometers) of Charlotte, North
Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that
are thin or clayey in texture. The species needs 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). Within the study corridor, suitable habitat
occurs for Schweinitz's sunflower along road shoulders. NHP records have
-16-

no documentation of this sunflower within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the
study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains suitable
habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower. No existing populations are known
within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of Bridge No. 52. A survey for this
sunflower was conducted during the blooming season (September to frost)
on September 18, 2001 and September 24 2002. This survey consisted of
systematically walking all areas of suitable habitat and identifying all
Helianthus species. Sunflowers identified included H. microcephalus and H.
atrorubens. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were identified within
the study corridor. Based on available information and results of an on-site
survey, the proposed project will not affect Schweinitz's sunflower. NO
EFFECT.
Federal Species of Concern - The February 18, 2003 FWS list also includes
a category of species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) in
Gaston County. A species with this designation is one that may or may not
be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing). A list of FSC species occurring in Gaston County is given in the
following table.
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for
species listed. NHP files do not document any occurrences of FSC species
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
Federal Species of Concern. Species name, habitat potential within the
study corridor, and state status for species federally designated as FSC within
Gaston County.
Potential State
Common Name Scientific Name a ltat Status*
Georgia aster Aster georgianus Yes T
** E = Endangered; T = threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare; C =
Candidate; P = Species has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern; W5 = NC Plant Watch List: rare because of severe decline (Amoroso 1999;
LeGrand and Hall 1999).
2. State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C),
Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall
-17-
W
1999) 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.). No species with these designations are
documented within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. However,
NHP documents the occurrence pygmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius), a
significantly rare species, about 2.3 miles (3.6 kilometers) northwest of the
study corridor near the headwaters of South Crowders Creek in Crowders
Mountain State Park.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
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.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on March 2,
2000. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by
NCDOT architectural historians and the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO).
None of the properties were considered eligible, and in a concurrence form dated
June 1, 2000, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are
no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is
included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO recommended an archaeological survey be conducted if the preferred
alternative for the replacement is on a new alignment. On December 17, 2001,
-18-

archaeological testing fieldwork was conducted at the site. The shovel testing
documented extensive erosion at the site with no features encountered. An
archaeological survey report was prepared and submitted to the SHPO. In a
memorandum dated August 19, 2002, the SHPO concurred with the archaeological
survey report provided by NCDOT that found no archaeological sites and
recommended no additional work be conducted for this project.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal " Categorical Exclusion " due to its limited scope and lack of
substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will
be limited. No relocatees are expected with the implementation of the proposed alternative.
In compliance with executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to
determine whether minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The
investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or
low income populations.
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.
The project does not involve any known Section 4(f) properties. There are no publicly-owned
parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of National, State, or local
-19-
i
significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime, unique or important farmland soils for all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). The proposed project has been
coordinated with the US Department of Agriculture and no prime, unique or important
farmland will be converted as a result of this bridge replacement project. This project is in
conformance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA).
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 these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03.
However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were 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 2002-2008 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, 2002 and the USDOT air quality conformity approval of the
MTIP was October 1, 2002. The current conformity determination is consistent with the
final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There has been no significant
changes in the projects's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analysis.
The replacement of Gaston County Bridge No. 52 is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is
not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis
is not required.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project; therefore, the
project's impact on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
The noise levels will increase during the construction period, 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 SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are necessary.
-20-
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground storage tanks
or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Gaston County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance program. Gaston County
Bridge No. 52 is located in a 100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain
(Zone A). This area is not in a FEMA Flood Study, but is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard
Zone A. No base flood elevations have been determined. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency Floodplain indicating the approximate 100-year floodplain in the
project area is shown in Figure 5. The proposed replacement will not adversely affect the
existing floodplain, or modify flood characteristics, and will have minimal impacts on the
floodplain due to roadway encroachment. The existing drainage pattern will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of this project.
-21-
1125 1112 v
1195
1112
' 1106
1114
1112
1103
•? 4
1 .o
/ ?.129 /
i `. - '• ??efs 1103 1107
1106
? I
1203
1125
1103
i
1103
•r.r r•r •r.r r•. r•r• r•r•r r•r.r.r•r.r.?..r•r. ? /
Meters 800
0 Miles 0.5
vt11e 5 is N,Y r o is eiCi4 APPROMMATE SCALE
r r{f IJ 4 Lucia
2 d Stanley'
e eme.q z t O it amour` a?
fic C W o
3fi 4
' 8
?• t is

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
GASTON COUNTY
Bridge No. 52
on SR 1112 (Lewis Road)
over South Crowders Creek
TIP No. B-3840
Figure 1

N
v7
a M
[r
nA
'• r
_• r ? s 5 y
GASTON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 52 ON SR 1112 OVER
SOUTH CROWDERS CREEK
B-3840
? ?? ? t.rte'?ky
r aaatr
mum
,? i N } ^" d k y f 21 za

SIDE VIEW
LOOKING NORTH
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST

WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
:i+ i

00
Os
•

b
N
?
pj O
cs
w
b O
P4

Ir-
21
O
Ei
o
W
- 4
CID
s 4mm

a
0
lit "
In "
u?y
C?
i
O
O
I?
0
1 A
W

z0NE ^w
Bridge No. 52
1 ` r Y i?
?k
c
?-'?? w^'f? E
tf '
I t?
?e
ZONE C t
i
1. VI" U

FEMA -- Floodplain Map of Project Area
North CarWhm
Deparenent of Transportation
Project Develop
do BnviromaeaW AnaLph Branch
0 2000
1 FEET I
APPROXIMATE SCALE
GASTON COUNTY
Bridge No. 32
on SR 1112 (Lewis Road)
over South Crowders Creels
TtP No. B,3840
5
I

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 25, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Bridge Replacements: B-3677, Mecklenburg County; B-3822, Catawba County;
B-3840, Gaston County; B-3700, Stanly County; B-3828, Cleveland County; B-3839,
B-3454, Forsyth County; B-3421, Cabarrus County; B-3637, Davie County; B-3835,
Davie-Forsyth Counties; B-3404, Anson County; DOT contractor TGS Engineers
We have reviewed these projects and provide comments in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The information we received for these 11 projects does not include descriptions of the structures
that will replace the existing bridges, nor does it include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether or not habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of these projects. Therefore, our comments are primarily limited to the known
locations of listed species and species of federal concern. When the Categorical Exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects we. can offer more
substantive comments.
Enclosed are species lists from the nine counties included in this package. These lists provide
the names of species that are on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants, as well as species of federal concern. Species of federal concern are not legally protected
under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are
formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our
response to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any
are found in the vicinity of your projects. Our records indicate the following:
1. B-3822. Catawba o =* B- 1840, Gaston C olj=: 13-3839,13-3454, FMMah C'nuntw;
13-3421. Cabarrus Q unty,_B-3637. Davie CQMIY. There are no known locations of species of
concern near these projects. However, we recommend surveying each-of the project areas for
species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse impacts
occur.
2. B-3677. Mecklenburg County: B-3700_ Stan_ly County: B-3404 Anson C".ouly. Our records
for these counties indicate known locations for the federally endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzit) in the vicinity of these projects. If this species occurs in
the project areas, additional consultation will be required.
3. B-3828. Cleveland County. Our records for Cleveland County indicate there is a known
location of the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis nanflora) near the
project. If this species occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
4. B-3835.12avie-Fors3t Counties. Our records indicate there is a known location of the
federally endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii) near the project. If this species
occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. We look forward to reviewing
the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-01-252.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
John Conforti, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1548
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, North Carolina 27284-9180
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1621
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, BY COUNTY, IN NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a listing
of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal
species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field
surveys, museums and herbariums, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new
information is received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species
and Federal species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated:
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
Sea turtles: Sea turtles occur in coastal waters and nest along beaches. This list includes sea turtles
in the counties where they are known to nest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
jurisdiction over sea turtle issues on terrestrial systems; the National Marine Fisheries
Service has authority over sea turtles in coastal waters.
Manatees: Manatees occur throughout North Carolina's coastal waters; this list includes manatees
in counties where there are known concentrations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
consultation and recovery responsibility for manatees.
COMMON NAME SC1lENIMC NAME STATUS
ANSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon
Bald eagle
Carolina redhorse
Robust redhorse
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Acipenser brevirostrum
Halweetus leucocephalus
Moxostoma sp.
Moxostoma robustum
Picoides borealis
Endangered
Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
FSC
FSC
Endangered
Vascular Plants
Bog spicebush
Schweinitz's sunflower
CABARRUS COUNTY
Lindera subcoriacea
Helianthur schweinitzii
FSC
Endangered
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC

Invertebrates
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered**
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
CATAWBA COUNTY
Invertebrates
Catawba crayfish ostracod Dactyloctythere isabelae FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
DAVIE COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC*
h ichaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
FORSYTH COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered****
Vascular Plants
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered

GASTON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Vascular Plants (proposed for delisting)
Georgia aster Aster georgianus Cl
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Invertebrates
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
Carolina creekshell lillosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgmus Cl
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered*
Schweinitz's sunflower Helumthus schweinani Endangered
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
h ichaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered*
STANLY COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Invertebrates
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC
Carolina creekshell Vllosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus C1
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Yadkin River goldenrod Solidago plumosa FSC*
Riverbank vervain Verbena riparia FSC*
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
Cl A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern-a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator ) -a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
F.XI' A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental,
nonessential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public land, for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***IncideataUmigrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to -
Georgia)was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A)
designation has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: John Conford
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co for
Habitat Conservation Program ,
DATE: January 2, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Davie,
Forsythe, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Randolph, Rockingham, and Stanly
counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3404, B-3421, B-3822, B-3828, B-3637,
B-3835, B-3454, B-3839, B-3840, B-3337, B-3652, B-3851, B-3677, B-3504 B-
3694, and B-3700.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
Bridge Memo
2 January 2, 2001
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
si,pictures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If
t
Bridge Memo
3 January 2, 2001
multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their
bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). This could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Ripmp should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimizethe need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3404 - Anson County - Bridge No. 314 over South Fork Jones Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3421 - Cabarrus County - Bridge No. 266 over Norfolk and Southern Railway. No
comment.
3. B-3822 - Catawba County - Bridge No. 8 over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. We
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the
DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are not aware of any threatened of
endangered species in the project vicinity.
4. B-3828 - Cleveland County - Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3637 - Davie County - Bridge No. 37 over I-40. No comment.
6. B-3835 - Davie-Forsyth counties - Bridge No. 35 over the Yadkin River. We request that
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water
quality classification of WS-IV. We request that the new bridge span the adjacent wetlands

Bridge Memo
4 January 2, 2001
entirely. The old fill causeways should then be removed and graded to natural ground level.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
7. B-3454 - Forsyth County - Bridge No. 260 over Muddy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
8. B-3839 -Forsyth County- Bridge No.139 over Fishers Branch. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3840 - Gaston County - Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3337 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3652 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 20 over the Deep River. SR 4121 crosses the Deep
River just below the dam of High Point City Lake. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
12. B-3851- Guilford County - Bridge No. 21 over US 29/70. No comment.
13. B-3677 - Mecklenburg County - Bridge No. 36 over Greasy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
14. B-3506 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 226 over Richland Creek. Richland Creek is a
medium sized stream that supports good populations of sunfish. Therefore, we request that
no in-water work be preformed from April 1 to May 31. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
15. B-3694 - Rockingham County - Bridge No. 55 over the Belews Lake Spillway. This bridge
appears to be just downstream of the Belews Lake dam. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in, the project vicinity.
16. B-3700 - Stanly County - Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek. This segment of Long Creek
may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we request that High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to minimize project impacts to this
species.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
It
w
Bridge Memo
5 January 2, 2001
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Y
psµA?4?
`maw d'`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 19, 2002 + ;4
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager ' ' -
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Brancht-;,
NCDOT Division of Highways,.
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 52 on S 1112 over South Crowders Creek,. B-3840,
Gaston County, ER 01-8484 and 02-9332
Thank you for your letter of July 24, 2002, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Nick
Bon-Harper for the above project. No sites were discovered. We concur with the recommendation
that the additional work be conducted.
lie above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: FHwA
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ldministration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
testoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
;urvey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801
W,
r

0'c?-I-c,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
February 1, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook 01( z9mxapcee??Deputy State Histof c Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Bridge No. 52 on SR 1112 over S. Crowders Creek, B-3840, Gaston County, ER 01-8184
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area.
If the bridge is replaced on the existing alignment, no archeological survey is recommended. We
recommend an archeological survey, if the bridge is replaced on new alignment.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Farley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: John Wadsworth, FHwA
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].715-8653
Restoration 513 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801
w
a
Federal.40 =BRZ-1 1 13(3)
TIP 4'13-3840 Co:unn-: Gaston
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 52 on SR 1112 over South Crowders Creek
On June 1, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Q/ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Oj North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation -
other
All parties present agreed
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 effect.
Q/ 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 At arc considered not eligible for the National
Register and no fu er evaluation of them is necessary.
DIX" there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NC OT Date
;k/
FHWA, for the Division Administrator. or other Federal Agency Date
? C
R re entative. SHP Date
/ -7D4?je
State Historic Preservation Officer j Date
U
It'a sur%e\ report is prepared. a final cope ofthis ioml and the attached list will 1% :nrluded.