20091138 Ver 1_Application_20091023

V)
-Y
S-rKI'E OF NORTH CAROLINA hn ?FN? 09
??aN0.4,SA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION M pBi>4y,??
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CO'N°(i, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
I 1 U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
r
In
U

ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 155 over Little Long Creek on SR 1800 (Willis
Road) in Gaston County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1800(4); Division 12;
WBS Element 33743.1.1; TIP No. B-4519.
4ARn
?! D
ULl23 ZU D
October 20, 2009
091100
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
155 over Little Long Creek on SR 1800. There will be X0.01 acre (26 linear feet) of
potential temporary stream impacts.
Please see enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), Jurisdictional
Determination (JD), permit drawings, stonnwater management plan and design plans for the
above-referenced project. The Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) was completed
in April 2009 and was distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon
request.
This project calls for a letting date of June 15, 2010 and a review date of April 27, 2010,
however the let date may advance as additional funding becomes available.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTNENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPWNT AND ENVIRONwwM ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
R&EIGHNC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: WWWNCOOT.ORG
LOCATION:
4701 ATLANTIC AVENUE
SUITE 116
RALEIGH NC 27604

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/dohlpreconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please e-mail Erin Cheely at [e-mail].
Sincercl /4vk
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
W/attachment:
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
W/o attachment (see website for attachments):
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M.L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Hank Schwab, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
2
r .
oc of war Fg
t 1 ®1 ? - -V
O -c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
®Section 404 Permit E] Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NW P) number: 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ® No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in4leu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ®No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge 155 over Little Long Creek on SR 1800
21b. County: Gaston
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Dallas
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: B-4519
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. not applicable
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): not applicable
3d. Street address: 1598 Mail Service Center
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g . Fax no.: [phone]
3h . Email address: [e-mail]
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: not applicable
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: not applicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
2
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): not applicable
Latitude: 35.32536 Longitude: - 81.18276
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): (DD.ODDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 1.5 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to (HUC 03050102)
Little Long Creek
proposed project: ,
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Catawba
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The land use in the vicinity is approximately 70-75% heavily developed or disturbed land (predominantly residential and
some commerical) and 25-30% forest land (including alluvial forest).
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
147 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of this project is to replace a structurally deficient bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves replacing a 31-foot bridge with a 50-foot, 1-span bridge on the existing alignment with an off-site
detour. Standard road building equipment, such as trucks, dozers, and cranes will be used.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property ! ED Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type Preliminary ® Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: EcoScience Corporation
Name (if known): Steven Lund Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
October 22, 2007
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ?Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, explain.
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
Site l ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
Site 6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0 Permanent
0 Temporary
2h. Comments: No wetlands within project area
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of Average Impact length
number - (PER) or jurisdiction stream (linear feet)
Permanent (P) or intermittent (Corps - 404, 10 width
Temporary (T) (INT)? DWQ - non-404, (feet)
other)
Site 1 ? P ® T abutment
removal Little Long Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 12 26
Site 2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
Site 6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
1 0 Perm
26 Temp
3i. Comments: It is possible that the removal of the existing abutment on the west side may result in some temporary
disturbance of Little Long Creek (up to 26 linear feet listed above).
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number - waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or (if applicable)
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
0 Permanent
4f. Total open water impacts 0 Temporary
4g. Comments: No open water within project area
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond
Flooded
Filled Excavat
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
ed
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
51k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer
impacts below. If an impacts require mitig ation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse
?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason for impact Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed bridge is nearly 20 feet longer than the existing bridge and will be replaced in the same location as the old
bridge. There will be no direct discharge to Little Long Creek via deck drains from the bridge. In addition, an offsite
detour will be used to re-route traffic during construction.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Preformed scour holes will be used at pipe and ditch outlets on the west side of the road. In addition, rip rap outlet
protection will be used at a pipe outlet on the east side of the road. Both of these measures will reduce stormwater
pollution. NCDOTs Best Management Practices will be followed.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State

2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
If no, explain: Mitigation is not proposed as there are no
permanent stream impacts from this project. The temporary
26 linear feet of potential stream disturbance is minimal, and
will not cause an adverse effect or significant loss of waters
of the United States.
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

pro
project? ? Mitigation bank

E] Payment to in-lieu fee program

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

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
8
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments: if yes, see attached permit drawings.
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See attached permit drawings.
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? not applicable
? Phase II
? NSW
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs El USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a . Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HOW
(check all that apply): ? ORW
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other.
4b . Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
? Yes ? No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a . Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
5b . Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
®Yes ? No
use of public (federal/slate) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ® Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Welland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ® No
3b. If you answered ryes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Due to the minimal transportation impact resulting from this bridge replacement, this project will neither influence nearby land
uses nor stimulate growth. Therefore, a detailed indirect or cumulative effects study will not be necessary.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
not applicable
10
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ? Yes No
impacts?
E] Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
An NCDOT field survey for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted on October 7, 2008. Suitable habitat for this species
exists, but no Schweinitz's sunflowers were found during the survey (No Effect). There is no habitat present for the bog
turtle or bald eagle within the project area.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NMFS County Index
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NEPA Documentation
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: NCDOT Hydraulics coordination with FEMA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Maps

to, Zo 07
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph D
' Date
s Printed Name
Applicant/Agent pplica Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
11
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2006-32936-336 County: Gaston U.S.G.S. Quad: Gastonia North
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINA N C 110
Property Owner/Agent: Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation OCT
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone No.: 919-733-3141
OFFICE OF NATURAL EIIVIRON"vIEiVT
Property description:
Size (acres) 2.7 approx. Nearest Town Dallas
Nearest Waterway Little Long Creek River Basin Catawba
USGS HUC 03050101 Coordinates N35.3251 W81.1829
Location description Bridge No. 155 on SR 1800 north of Dallas, TIP B-4519
Indicate Which of the Following App1Y:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are surface waters on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination
may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
X The surface waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the GPS plat provided by
EcoScience Corporation and dated 13 March 2006. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2
Action ID:
SAW-2006-32936-336
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steven Lund at 828-271-7980.
Basis For Determination: Little Long Creek is a Perennial Water that exhibits a distinct ordinary high water mark and flows
directly to the South Fork Catawba River at Lake Wylie which is a navigable water.
Remarks: Consultant's report dated 13 March, 2006 identifies Little Long Creek in the project area consisting of an
approximate 400-foot long by 300-foot wide corridor centered on the existing bridge site.
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven W. Lund, Project Manager, Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Date: October 22, 2007 Expiration Date: October 22, 2012
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Copy Furnished: Ms. Heather Jean Saunders, EcoScience Corporation, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101, Raleigh, NC
27604
Page 2 of 2

z

a O
O
N
o
<
6
Q
Q C O
V
R
F = U
a
O O o
f
o
m
y M

°a o 3
w

L

CL 4
3: u a
U W

m
E z
w

to €

m
E

m
C
b

m
m
E

m
m
0

9
3
m

m
v
n
a

00

'Fu m
D
T
E
V
n
E
m
0
E
i
M

S
° g 6' 6

w
N
C C T
ml GC UY!
N 91 L ?'
m 2 Vi
F
a

E
m c
m m ?.

N
CI C U O-
6
? N N
U
Qa x L
y
U EF
W
? c
m m N m
C C U C
w N m n F? O
3 wv Ea

w
a

v
N ?
o

?
N
~ E

?
d

?

? U
N
N

O
N E m o

U a
Qa ?, N
? O

r

? ? C N ?
O
O
o
? v
U
K
W
a v N
$ o,
C C ? U °
O
U
? F
U c
?

3a o a

z
J
W
F
W
N
9
E - m v 0

C N
m
= = ?
o
?
i=y j
p
a

O
m

U
2
N
c

U
y m
E
5
Q
? ?
E
=
o
? v
J

(N Z ?
O o
m
n
F
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Project: 33743.1.1
TIP No. B-4519
Gaston County
06/30/2009
Hydraulics Project Manager: Dan Robinson, P.E. (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.),
Marshall Clawson, P.E. (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION
The project B-4519 consists of constructing a new bridge 50 feet long to replace the
existing bridge #155 in Gaston County on SR-1800 over Little Long Creek. The total
project length is 0.089 miles. Little Long Creek is located in the Yadkin River Basin. The
project drainage systems consist of roadside ditches, grated inlets with associated pipe
system, preformed scour holes at a pipe and ditch outlets and rip rap outlet protection at a
pipe outfall.
Jurisdictional Streams: Little Long Creek
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
The project is located within the Yadkin River Basin in Gaston County, which is not a
CAMA county. The stream is classified as Class C. There are no wetlands in the
surrounding area of Little Long Creek. Impacts to the stream have been minimized by
spanning Little Long Creek with a bridge and by dissipating storm water in preformed
scour holes.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES
The primary goal of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is to prevent degradation of the
states surface waters by the location, construction and operation of the highway system.
The BMPs are activities, practices and procedures taken to prevent or reduce stormwater
pollution. The BMP measures used on this project to reduce stormwater impacts are:
• Preformed scour holes at pipe and ditch outlets.
• Rip rap outlet protection at pipe outlet.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4519
State Project No. 8.2813101
W.B.S. No. 33743.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1800(4)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Gaston County Bridge No. 155 on SR 1800
(Willis Road) over Little Long Creek. The existing structure is a 31-foot long bridge.
The replacement structure will consist of a one span bridge, approximately 50 feet long.
The bridge size is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic
requirements. This structure will be of sufficient width to provide two 11-foot lanes
with 4-foot offsets for bicycle lanes with bicycle railing. The roadway grade of the new
structure will be approximately the same as that of the existing structure. Approach
roadway improvements will extend approximately 195 feet from the northwest end of the
new bridge and approach improvements will extend approximately 220 feet from the
southeast end of the new bridge. The approaches will be widened to include a 22-foot
pavement width providing two 11-foot lanes. Six-foot grass shoulders will be provided
on each side (9-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be
designed as an Urban Local using Sub Regional Tier Guidelines for Bridge Projects. The
project will have a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 155 has a sufficiency
rating of 44.1 out of a possible 100. A benchmark for bridge replacement is a sufficiency
rating of 50 or below. The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to a structural
appraisal of 2 out of a possible 9 according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
standards. The bridge also has deck geometry appraisal of 2 out of a possible 9.
Therefore, Bridge No. 155 is eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Program.
The posted weight limit is down to 12 tons for single vehicles and 17 tons for truck-
tractor semi-trailers. Bridge No. 155 has a fifty-one year old timber sub-structure.
Timber structure components have a typical life expectancy between 40 to 50 years due
to the natural deterioration rate of wood. Rehabilitation of timber components is
generally practical only when a few members are damaged or prematurely deteriorated.
However, past a certain degree of deterioration, timber structures become impractical to
maintain and upon eligibility are programmed for replacement. Components of the
substructure and superstructure have experienced an increased proportion of deterioration
that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities. Bridge No. 155 is approaching
the end its useful life.
C. Proposed Improvements: .
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R
and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor. structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development
on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil or
groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
The estimated costs are based on 2008 nricin¢.
Alternate 1 (Preferred)
Structure $190,000
Roadway Approaches $147,000
Detour Structure & Approaches -0-
Structure Removal $ 11,000
Misc. & Mob. $74,000
Eng. & Contingencies $65,000
Total Construction Cost $487,000
Utility Cost $ 80,000
Right-of-way Cost $ 41,000
Total Project Cost $608,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current 2009
Year 2035
TTST
Dual
1,400 vpd
2,100 vpd
1%
2%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and found three
accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project. None were associated with the
geometry of the bridge or its approach roadways.
Design Exceptions: A design exception to the Sub Regional Tier Design Guidelines for
Bridge Projects may be required for 2 SAG vertical curves.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 155 is constructed entirely of timber and steel and
should be possible to remove with no resulting debris based on standard demolition
practices.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build - The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the road
which is unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by SR 1800.
Rehabilitation - The bridge was constructed in 1958 and the timber materials
within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life. Rehabilitation would
require replacing the timber components which would constitute effectively
replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour - Bridge No. 155 will be replaced on the existing alignment (see
Figure 2). Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the construction
period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bridge
Replacement Proiects considers multiple project variables beginning with the
additional time traveled by the average road user resulting from the offsite detour.
The offsite detour for this project would include SR 1800, SR 1001, and SR 1804.
The majority of traffic on the road is through traffic. The detour for the average
road user would result in 5 minutes additional travel time (3 miles additional
travel bridge to bridge). Up to a 6-month duration for construction is expected
on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of delay
alone the detour is acceptable. Gaston County Emergency Services along with
Gaston County Schools Transportation have also indicated that the detour is
acceptable. NCDOT Division 12 has indicated the condition of all roads, bridges,
and intersections on the offsite detour are acceptable without improvement and
concurs with the use of the detour.
Box Culvert - A culvert does not fit the channel geometry without widening the
stream excessively and an existing box culvert downstream has 2 feet of silt in it.
Onsite Detour - An onsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence of an
acceptable offsite detour.
4.
Staged Construction - Staged construction was not considered because of the
availability of an acceptable offsite detour.
New Alignment - Given that the alignment for SR 1800 is acceptable, a new
alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in
standardized letters provided a request that they prefer any replacement structure to be a
spanning structure. Standard recommendations should also apply.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service also noted that the endangered Schweinitz's sunflower
and Georgia aster occur in Gaston County. USFWS indicated that habitat assessments
for each of these species be conducted. It was also noted that Friday Meadow Bog (listed
by NC Natural Heritage Program as a state significant site) is located approximately 0.5
miles downstream from Bridge No. 155. The threatened (due to similarity of appearance)
bog turtle is known to be present in Friday Meadow Bog. USFWS requested the bridge
be replaced with a bridge and sediment and erosion control measures should be utilized to
ensure that no sediment leaves the site and damages downstream resources.
Response: EcoScience Corp staff conducted a plant by plant search for both Schweinitz's
sunflower and Georgia aster on October 11, 2006. No specimens of either species were
observed in the project area. NCDOT Natural Environment Unit conducted a study for
Schweinitz's sunflower in October of 2008. No specimens were observed in the project
area. NCDOT will ensure that appropriate sediment and erosion control measures are
included in the project design and implemented during construction activities.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality noted that Little Long Creek is Class C Waters of
the State.
The Army Corps of Engineers, the Division of Coastal Management, and N.C.
Marine Fisheries provided no comment or had no special concerns for this project.
Gaston County Department of Planning and Code Enforcement - A request for
comments regarding the potential impacts of the project was sent to the.Gaston County
Manager. A second request was sent to the Gaston County Board of Commissioners.
Gaston County officials collectively recommended greenway accommodations be made
and sidewalks be constructed on each side of the proposed structure.
Response: NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation has determined
that SR 1800, surrounding the project area, is a designated bicycle route. Bicycle lanes
and bicycle railing will be provided on the new structure. NCDOT Bike-Ped has not
identified a need for sidewalks on the proposed replacement. structure. However, the need
for a wider offset on the bridge will be further evaluated during the final design phase of
this project. Moreover, Gaston County has stated there is not a Gaston County Greenway
Trail Plan at this time. No greenway considerations will be incorporated into this project
at this time. Future greenway accommodations may be discussed during final design.
Gaston County was invited to participate in the planning and/or funding of greenway and
sidewalk considerations, but has opted not to participate at this time.
The State Historic Preservation Office concluded the project would have no adverse
effect on historic resources (Figure 3).
Public Involvement: A letter was sent by the Locations and Survey Unit to all property
owners affected directly by this project with a request for comments. No comments were
received. A newsletter or a Citizen's Informational Workshop was determined to not be
necessary as the anticipated impacts to the area will be minimal.
Work Zone Traffic: Temporary bicycle or pedestrian accommodations will not be
required for this project.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
?
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures ?
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
F
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
F
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
7
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO

(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
F
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the ?
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect". on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? F X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
E. (2) EcoScience Corp staff conducted a plant by plant search for both Schweinitz's
sunflower and Georgia aster on October 11, 2006. No specimens of either species were
observed in the project area. NCDOT Natural Environment Unit conducted a study for
Schweinitz's sunflower in October of 2008. No specimens were observed in the project
area. However, habitat was determined to exist in the project area. NCDOT will ensure
that appropriate sediment and erosion control measures are included in the project design
and implemented during construction activities. NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
personnel will conduct a survey for Schweinitz's sunflower prior to construction of the
proposed project.
E. (13) Hydraulic Unit, Resident's Engineer's Office
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP)
to determine the status of this project with regard to the applicability of NCDOT's
Memorandum of Agreement or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMOR) if a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent final
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B4519
State Project No. 8.2813101
W.B.S. No. 33743.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1800(4)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Gaston County Bridge No. 155 on SR 1800
(Willis Road) over Little Long Creek. The existing structure is a 31-foot long bridge.
The replacement structure will consist of a one span bridge, approximately 50 feet long.
The bridge size is based on preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic
requirements. This structure will be of sufficient width to provide two 11-foot lanes
with 4-foot offsets for bicycle lanes with bicycle railing. The roadway grade of the new
structure will be approximately the same as that of the existing structure. Approach
roadway improvements will extend approximately 195 feet from the northwest end of the
new bridge and approach improvements will extend approximately 220 feet from the
southeast end of the new bridge. The approaches will be widened to include a 22-foot
pavement width providing two 11-foot lanes. Six-foot grass shoulders will be provided
on each side (9-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be
designed as an Urban Local using Sub Regional Tier Guidelines for Bridge Projects. The
project will have a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction (see Figure 1).
Cateeorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
3D
331 a9
Date
3 ? 09
Dat
Project Development
Environmental Analysis Branch
Branch
Project
For Type II(B) proj
1 ol
Date

Environmental Analysis Branch
I John F. Sullivan, III, "PE,
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
10
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Gaston County
Bridge No. 155 on SR 1800
Over Little Long Creek
Federal Project No. BRZ-1800(4)
State Project No. 8.2813101
W.B.S. No. 33743.1.1
TIP Project No. B-4519
Division 12 Construction Engineer
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) adequate time to prepare for road
closure, the NCDOT will notify Gaston County EMS at [phone] thirty days prior to road
closure.
Division 12 Construction Engineer
In order to allow Gaston County Division of School Transportation time to prepare for road
closure the NCDOT will notify the Transportation Director at [phone] thirty days prior to
road closure.
Hydraulic Unit, Resident's Engineer's Office
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP)
to determine the status of this project with regard to the applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum
of Agreement or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMOR) if a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Division Commitinent
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
March 2009
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PRo7ECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVTRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
GASrON COuNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 155 ON SR 1800
OVER LITTLE LONG CREEK
B-4519
I Off Site Detour -- -N-•-- Figure 1 1
W
Michael F. Gzsley, Gtnxmor
l isbeth C_ Ev2m, Scmtary
lcfGry J. Crow, Deputy Scamry
July 3, 2006
MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Uistoric.Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeek, Adrrtinistntnr Office of Archives and 1-Iistory
Division of I Iistoric l Resources
David Brook, Dlrctror
TO: Dennis Pipkin, PE
NCDOT-PDEA
Bridge Project Development Unit
FROM: Peter Sandbeck "d
SUBJECT: Replacement Bridge No. 155 on SR 1800 over Little Long Creek, B-4519, GastonCounty,
ER 06-1286
Thank you for your letter of May 5, 2006, concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources that would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106. codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
location -.-11 -------- )1 13147fat u?ivw
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blnuni Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Scrvicc Center, Raleigh NC 7769)4617 1 73N547nis-4M71
NC Ph 714617 CI 'n
1'17}1fS45/)li4&fl
RESTORATION 515 N. BYwm Street, Rao lcryd Nf: 4617 M.,1 Service ranter. 11-168h >
4617 Mad ticrvzc renter, Raleigh N(: 7769H617 (0
SURVEY 6 PLANNING 515 N. 11Y,unt Str¢t, Raleigh, NC:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 155
SR 1800 over Little Long Creek
Gaston County, North Carolina
(B-4519)
(WBS Element 33743.1.1)
(State Project No. 82813101)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1800(4))
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
June 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
8-4519
Gaston County
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 155
located on North Carolina State Road 1800 (SR 1800) over Little Long Creek in Gaston
County, North Carolina.
INTRODUCTION
The project study area is located at the crossing of SR 1800 over Little Long Creek
approximately 1 mile north of Dallas, NC (Figure 1). The project study area has been
determined to be approximately 400 feet wide, centered on SR 1800, and approximately
300 feet long. The project study area encompasses approximately 2.8 acres (Figure 2).
Elevations within the project study area range from a high of approximately 720 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to a low of approximately 700 feet NGVD (USGS
Gastonia North, INC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle [1993]). Land uses within the
project study area consist of pasture, woodlands, residential lots, a sewer easement, a
powerline corridor, and roadside shoulders. Based on soil mapping for Gaston County
(SCS 1989), the project study area is underlain by three soil series: Chewacla, Pacolet, and
Cecil. All three series are considered non-hydric in Gaston County.
The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 155 consists of replacing the bridge with a bridge
in the current location while maintaining traffic with an off-site detour. It is anticipated that
there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. NCDOT will coordinate with
resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge
demolition are resolved.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-08-36 of the Catawba River Basin.
This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050102 of the South Atlantic Gulf Region.
Within the project study area, Little Long Creek is the only surface water. Bridge No. 155
spans Little Long Creek. The portion of Little Long Creek that lies within the project study
area has been assigned Stream Index Number 11-129-16-9 by NCDWQ.
A Best Usage Classification of C has been assigned to Little Long Creek. Class C waters
are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary
recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving
human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. No Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), Water Supply
II (WS-II), watershed Critical Areas (CA), or Trout Waters Jr) occur within 1.0 mile of the
project study area (NCDWQ 2004b). Little Long Creek is not listed on any section of the
2
N.C. 2006 final Section 303(d) list. No benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur
within 1.0 mile of the project study area. With respect to temperature regimes, Little Long
Creek is designated as a warm water stream.
Biotic Resources
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area:
disturbed/maintained land and alluvial forest (Figure 2). Anticipated impacts to plant
communities are based on cut-fill limits plus a 25-foot buffer, based on preliminary
construction drawings. Most of the projected impacts to natural plant communities will occur
within the disturbed/maintained- plant community along roadside shoulders. Permanent
impacts to disturbed/maintained land will total 0.5 acres, while impacts to alluvial forest will
total 0.1 acres. Due to the use of an off-site detour, there will be no temporary impacts to
natural plant communities in the project study area.
Table 1. Terrestrial Community Coverage and Impacts Within the Project Study Area
Plant Community Coverage (Acres) Coverage (Percent) Area Impacted (Acres)
Disturbed/maintained land 1.6 57 0.5
Alluvial Forest 1.2 43 0.1
Total 2.8 100 0.6
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Little Long Creek is considered to a be jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. No vegetated wetlands occur within the project study area (Figure 3). The
proposed bridge replacement results in no jurisdictional area impacts. NCDOT will
coordinate with resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns
regarding bridge demolition are resolved.
Permits
Replacement of Bridge No. 155 is anticipated to result in no impacts to the open-water area
of Little Long Creek. It is anticipated that there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge
demolition. This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. USACE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters
of the United States expected with bridge construction. NCDWQ has made available a
General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3403). Potential impacts to waters
of the United States resulting from replacement of this bridge are expected to be avoided.
3
Protected 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.). As of June 19, 2007, the USFWS lists three federally protected
species for Gaston County.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for Gaston County (USFWS 2007)
* Habitat Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Present? Conclusion
Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii E Y No Effect
sunflower
Bald eagle Haliaeetus T N No Effect
leucocephalus
Bog turtle Glyptemys (Clemmys) T (S/A) N Not Required
muhlenbergii
*Federal Status: E--Endangered; T-Threatened; 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.
SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Within the project study area there is suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower in some of
the disturbed/maintained areas. A systematic plant-by-plant survey was conducted on
October 11, 2006 by EcoScience biologists David O'Loughlin and Ross Andrews. No
specimens of Schweinitz's sunflower were found. NCNHP records (reviewed October 2006)
document no occurrence of the Schweinitz's sunflower within 2.0 miles of the project study
area. Based on the survey results and NCNHP records, this project will have No Effect on
Schweinitz's sunflower.
BALD EAGLE BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There are no large bodies of water located within 1.0 mile of the project study area;
therefore, there is no habitat for bald eagle nesting. NCNHP records (reviewed October
2006) document no occurrence of bald eagle within 2.0 miles of the project study area.
Based on a lack of habitat and NCNHP records, this project will have No Effect on bald
eagle.
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance, is not subject to Section 7 consultation, and a biological conclusion is not
required. However, this project is not expected to affect the bog turtle as the project study
area contains no suitable wetland habitat. NCNHP records (reviewed June 2007) document
two occurrences of bog turtles within 1.0 mile of the project study area. T (S/A) species are
not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not
required; however, the project study area contains no suitable habitat for bog turtle.
4
CONCLUSIONS
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-
1), Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, watershed Critical Areas (CA), or Trout Waters Jr) occur
within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Little Long Creek is not listed on any section of the
N.C. 2004 draft Section 303(d) list. The project study area contains one jurisdictional
surface water. Potential impacts to waters of the United States resulting from replacement
of this bridge are expected to be avoided. This project may be processed as a CE due to
minimal impacts to waters of the United States expected with bridge construction. The
proposed project is not expected to adversely impact any federally protected species.
5
aC0 JW FIGURE
PROJECT LOCATION
FEB 2006
Replacement of Bridge No. 155 (B-4519) x?.
over Little Long Creek AS SHOWN
Gaston County, North Carolina Eu
05-2.62

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 155
SR 1800 over Little Long Creek
Gaston County, North Carolina
(B-4519)
(WBS Element 33743.1.1)
(State Project No. 82813101)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1800(4))
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
June 2007
+ %
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 155
SR 1800 over Little Long Creek
Gaston County, North Carolina
(B-4519)
(WBS Element 33743.1.1)
(State Project No. 82813101)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1800(4))
Prepared for:
,d„ MOFFATT B NICHOL
Prepared by:
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
June 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... ..........................1
1.1 Project Description .......................................................................... ..........................1
1.2 Purpose .................................:......................................................... ..........................1
1.3 Methods .......................................................................................... ..........................4
1.4 Qualifications ................................................................................... ..........................4
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology ...................................................... ..........................5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... ..........................5
2.1 Physiography and Soils ................................................................... ..........................5
2.2 Water Resources ............................................................................ ..........................6
2.3 Summary of Potential Impacts to Water Resources ........................ ..........................8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................... ..........................9
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .................................................................. ..........:...............9
3.2 Aquatic Communities ...................................................................... ........................11
3.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ......................................................... ........................11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ....................................................................... ........................12
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................. ........................12
4.2 Permit Issues ................................................................................. .........................12
4.2.1 Permits ....................................................................................... .........................12
4.2.2 Mitigation .................................................................................... .........................12
4.3 Protected Species .......................................................................... .........................14
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................18
APPENDIX A: North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Forms and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
Project 05-262 8-4519 ill Gaston County
i
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Terrestrial Community Coverage and Impacts Within the Project Study Area ............12
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for Gaston County ..............................................14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location ..........................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Plant Communities and Jurisdictional Areas ...............................................................3
Project 05-262 B-4519 iv
Gaston County

Replacement of Bridge No. 155
SR 1800 over Little Long Creek
Gaston County, North Carolina
(B-4519)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 155
located on State Road 1800 (SR 1800) over Little Long Creek in Gaston County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). For the purpose of this report, the names of the streams have been taken from
United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Gastonia North, NC 7.5-minute
quadrangle [1993]). Bridge No. 155 spans Little Long Creek and the adjacent banks for a
distance of 31 feet. Bridge No. 155 consists of one span and is constructed of a timber deck on
I-beams. The paved surface of SR 1800 is approximately 19 feet wide.
The project study area is located at the crossing of SR 1800 over Little Long Creek
approximately 1 mile north of Dallas, NC (Figure 1). The project study area has been
determined to be approximately 400 feet wide, centered on SR 1800, and approximately 300
feet long. The project study area encompasses approximately 2.8 acres (Figure 2).
The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 155 consists of replacing the bridge with a bridge in
the current location while maintaining traffic with an off-site detour.
It is anticipated that there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. NCDOT will
coordinate with resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding
bridge demolition are resolved.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the project study
area. Specific tasks performed for this study include 1) an assessment of biological features
within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species,
jurisdictional areas, and water quality; 2) a delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional areas and
subsequent survey of jurisdictional boundaries utilizing Trimble XRS Differential Global
Positioning System; 3) an evaluation of plant communities and their extent within the project
study area; 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs; and 5) completion of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) data forms for
jurisdictional systems.
Project 05-262 B-4519 1 Gaston County
PROJECT LOCATION
Replacement of Bridge No. 155 (B-4519)
over Little Long Creek
Gaston County, North Carolina
J0G JW FICURE
FES 2006
AS SHOWN 01
wehi Ia,
05-262

1.3 Methods
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including USGS topographic mapping (Gastonia North, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle
[1993]), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
mapping (Gastonia North, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle [1994]), and Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) soils mapping (SCS 1989) and recent (2005) aerial photography from Moffatt & Nichol.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) (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 for updated
nomenclature (Kartesz 1998). Wetlands subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following USACE delineation guidelines
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979) and/or the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (NCDEM) Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (1996).
Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by
supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 2006, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991,
Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams
and tributaries was derived from available sources (NCDWQ 2006, NCDWQ 2004, NCDWQ
2005a, NCDWQ 2005b). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current USFWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into
Gaston County (USFWS 2007) is considered in this report. In addition, NCNHP records
documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before
commencing field investigations.
The project study area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Potential
impacts resulting from construction will be limited to proposed cut-fill boundaries. Special
concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) water
quality protection of Little Long Creek.
1.4 Qualifications
The fieldwork for this investigation was conducted on Feb 8, 2006 and October 11, 2006 by
EcoScience Corporation biologists Alexander Smith, Michael Gloden, Justin Wright, David
O'Loughlin, and Ross Andrews.
Mr. Smith is a Senior Scientist with 18 years of experience in the environmental field. Mr. Smith
has a bachelor's degree in biology from Davidson College and a master's degree in
marine/coastal biology from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. He has conducted
field research and species inventories involving seabirds, shorebirds, colonial water birds,
songbirds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater and estuarine fish, and benthic
invertebrates. Professional expertise includes jurisdictional area delineations, stream and
Project 05-262 8-4519 4 Gaston County
riparian buffer determinations, plant and wildlife identification and community mapping,
protected species surveys, environmental permitting, and environmental document preparation.
Mr. Gloden is a Project Scientist with 2 years of experience in the environmental field. He holds
a B.S. in natural resources (ecosystem assessment) from North Carolina State University. He is
proficient in the identification of eastern woody tree and shrub species. Professional expertise
includes stream and wetland delineation, habitat assessment, and environmental document
preparation.
Mr. Wright is a Project Scientist with one year of experience in the environmental field and a
bachelor's degree in environmental science, watershed hydrology from North Carolina State
University. Professional expertise includes jurisdictional area delineation, habitat assessment,
plant identification, and environmental document preparation.
Mr. O'Loughlin is a Senior Scientist with three years of experience in the environmental field
working toward a M.S. in forestry from North Carolina State University, with minors in botany
and statistics. He has taken pertinent courses including dendrology, botany, ecology, and
wetland soils. His professional expertise includes natural resources assessment, protected
species surveys, computer modeling, jurisdictional area delineations and environmental
document preparation.
Mr. Andrews is a Project Scientist with three years experience in restoration of native plant
communities. Mr. Andrews holds a Bachelors of Science in biology from UNC Chapel Hill and
two Masters degrees from NC State University, one in soil science and one in forestry. He has
published work in the peer-reviewed journal Restoration Ecology. His areas of expertise include
identification of upland and wetland plants and community types, community mapping, invasive
exotic species management and protected plant surveys.
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology
Definitions for descriptions used in this report are as follows. Project Study Area denotes the
area bounded by proposed construction limits and has been determined to be approximately
400 feet wide, centered on SR 1800, and approximately 300 feet long, encompassing
approximately 2.8 acres (Figure 2). Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile on
all sides of the project study area. Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a
7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map with the project study area occupying the central
position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Physiography and Soils
The project area is located within the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion within the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina. This ecoregion is characterized by dissected irregular
Project 05-262 8-4519 5 Gaston County
plains, low hills and ridges, and low to moderate gradient streams with cobble, gravel, and
sandy substrates (Griffith et al. 2002). Elevations within the project study area range from a
high of approximately 720 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to a low of
approximately 700 feet NGVD (USGS Gastonia North, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle
[1993]). Land uses within the project study area consist of pasture, woodlands, residential lots,
a sewer easement, a powerline corridor, and roadside shoulders.
Based on soil mapping for Gaston County (SCS 1989), the project study area is underlain by
three soil series: Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), Pacolet sandy clay loam (Typic
Kanhapludults), and Cecil sandy clay loam (Typic Kanhapludults). All three series are
considered non-hydric in Gaston County (NRCS 1997). The Chewacla series is found in the
floodplain of Little Long Creek. The Cecil and Pacolet series are found within the sloped areas
outside of the floodplain.
The Chewacla series (0 to 2 percent slopes) consists of somewhat poorly drained soil in
floodplains that were formed in recent alluvium. This soil tends to be flooded frequently.
Permeability is moderate, depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet, and the seasonal high water
table occurs between 0.5 and 1.5 feet.
The Cecil series (8 to 15 percent slopes) consists of deep, well drained, moderately permeable
soils on side slopes. Depth to bedrock is greater than 6 feet. The seasonal high water table
does not occur within 6 feet of the surface.
The Pacolet series (8 to 15 percent slopes) consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils
on side slopes and narrow ridges. Depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet. The seasonal high
water table does not occur within 6 feet of the surface.
2.2 Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-08-36 of the Catawba River Basin
(NCDWQ 2004). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050102 (Seaber et al. 1987) of
the South Atlantic Gulf Region. Within the project study area, Little Long Creek is the only
surface water. Bridge No. 155 spans Little Long Creek. The portion of Little Long Creek that
lies within the project study area has been assigned Stream Index Number 11-129-16-9 by
NCDWQ (NCDWQ 2005b).
Little Long Creek flows from southwest to northeast through the project study area (Figure 2)
and enters the project study area as a well-defined, third-order, perennial stream with moderate
flow over a sandy substrate. At Bridge No. 155, Little Long Creek is approximately 12 feet
wide. The banks of Little Long Creek are approximately 5 feet high and are stable. During field
investigations, the water depth ranged from 1 to 2 feet. The water was clear to the bottom of
the stream, and flow velocity was moderate. Little Long Creek had evident riffle-pool
sequencing and natural meanders in the stream channel. No persistent emergent aquatic
vegetation was observed within the stream. Opportunities for habitat within Little Long Creek
include fallen sticks, leaf packs, and undercut banks.
Project 05-262 B-4519 6 Gaston County

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 Little Long Creek. Class C waters are suitable
for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with
waters on an organized or frequent basis. No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), Water Supply II (WS-11), watershed Critical Areas
(CA), or Trout Waters Jr) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area (NCDWQ 2004b). No
benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area
(NCDWQ 2004). With respect to temperature regimes, Little Long Creek is designated as a
warm water stream (USACE et al. 2003).
NCDWQ has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in the
Catawba Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2004). Little Long Creek is currently listed by
NCDWQ as Not Rated for its designated uses.
NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the N.C. 2006 final Section 303(d)
list (NCDWQ 2006). The list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies.
An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water quality standards including designated
uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131.
The standards violation may be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or an unknown
cause of impairment. The impairment could be from point sources, non-point sources, and/or
atmospheric deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's
methodology is strongly based on the aquatic-life use-support guidelines available in the
Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only
Partially Supporting or Not Supporting status are listed on the N.C. 2006 final Section 303(d)
list. Streams are further categorized into one of six parts within the N.C. 2006 final Section
303(d) list, according to source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the
stream to adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Carolina
has developed a priority ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and
benefits those waterbodies provide to the State. Dallas Creek, which flows into Long Creek
approximately 2.6 miles upstream of the confluence of Little Long Creek and Long Creek, is
listed on the N.C. 2006 final Section 303(d) list. Dallas Creek is the only waterbody within
subbasin 03-08-36 of the Catawba River Basin to be listed on the N.C. 2006 final Section 303(d)
list (NCDWQ 2004a). Little Long Creek is not listed on any section of the N.C. 2006 final
Section 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2006).
Sub-basin 03-08-36 of the Catawba River Basin supports 14 permitted, point source
dischargers. Four of the permitted dischargers are classified as major dischargers, discharging
a total of 21.4 million gallons per day. The other ten permitted dischargers are minor,
discharging less than 1 million gallons per day (NCDWQ 2005a). A minor permitted discharger
is located less than 1.0 mile upstream of the project study area. Major non-point sources of
Project 05-262 B-4519 7 Gaston County
pollution within the Catawba River Basin include stormwater runoff from agriculture, timber
harvesting, failing septic systems, mining, and rural residential development. Sedimentation
and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point source discharges (NCDWQ
2004).
2.3 Summary of Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossings and increased erosion in
the project study area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
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 (BMPs). 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.
It is anticipated that there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition. NCDOT will
coordinate with resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding
bridge demolition are resolved and follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal.
Project 05-262 64519 8 Gaston County
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area: 1)
disturbed/maintained land and 2) alluvial forest. Plant communities were delineated (Figure 2)
to determine the approximate area and location of each community. These communities are
described below in order of their dominance within the project study area. Wildlife that has been
observed in each community or is expected to occur in each community is noted.
Disturbed/maintained Land - Approximately 1.6 acres (57 percent) of the project study area is
composed of disturbed/maintained land. This community is made up of roadside shoulders,
residential yards, a powerline corridor, a sewer easement, and pastures. Within this community
there are scattered trees including eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). There are also
shrubbery patches that contain tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra).
Groundcover includes seeded and native grasses and weedy forbs including fescue (Festuca
sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), and henbit (Lamium amplexicaule).
Scattered, varying sized trees, overgrown shrubbery patches, and a good source of water allow
for limited avian and mammalian diversity. American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), observed
in a pasture, being omnivorous, will eat seeds and other available foods such as carrion and
insects. The non-migratory northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) is common to residential
areas. The American robin (Turdus migratorius) is adaptable and abundant and often builds
nests near human structures. The northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), perches on
snags, power lines, and buildings. The eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) likes open areas and can
be seen perching on utility wires and fences. Other species observed in these disturbed areas
included the Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula),
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).
No terrestrial mammals were visually observed during the site visit although some signs were
present. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were observed in the sandy banks of Little Long
Creek. Raccoons are opportunistic omnivores and will consume a wide variety of food. Similar
to the raccoon, the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) is opportunistic and omnivorous. Striped
skunks like brushy fields and may be found in the overgrown fencerows along pastures within
this community. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) would be expected to graze in the
pasture and then seek cover within the surrounding woodlands. Other mammal species
expected to occur within this community include eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Terrestrial
reptiles and amphibians which may occur within disturbed/maintained land include black rat
snake (Elaphe obso/eta), corn snake (E. guttata), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
Project 05-262 B-4519 9 Gaston County

slender grass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), and American
toad (Bufo americana).
Alluvial Forest - Approximately 1.2 acres (43 percent) of the project study area is made up of
alluvial forest community. This community is located on either side of the stream, between the
utility lines and the road. Within the project study area, this community is well-developed with a
closed canopy consisting of large, mature trees. The canopy is dominated by sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), box elder
(Acer negundo), sweetgum (Liquidambar stryaciFlua) water oak (Quercus nigra), and yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The understory includes black willow (Salix nigra), box elder
(Acer negundo), and eastern red cedar. The shrub layer includes multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese), tag alder, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and
heavenly bamboo (Nandina domestica). The herb and vine layer includes common greenbriar
(Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), violet (Viola sp.), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), and soft rush (Juncus effusus).
The closed and well-stratified canopy of this community provides good food and nesting
opportunities for bird species. The proximity to Little Long Creek provides a good source of
water. A tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) was observed next to Little Long Creek. Tufted
titmice are adaptable to many habitats and are often seen in small flocks along with Carolina
chickadees (Poecile carolinensis). Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) tracks were seen
underneath the bridge in the sandy banks of Little Long Creek. The heron eats fish and other
animals that live in or near water. Barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) nests were present
underneath bridge 155. Other bird species expected to be found here include northern cardinal,
northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and belted kingfisher
(Ceryle alcyon). The northern flicker eats insects found on the forest floor. The belted
kingfisher may be seen perched on some of the dead branches above Little Long Creek and
diving head first into the stream to catch fish.
Mammal species expected to occur within alluvial forest include some that also utilize disturbed
areas such as striped skunk, raccoon, and white-tailed deer. Some other species that may take
advantage of cover, such as the forest floor duff layer, and food sources, such as hard mast
from the oaks, include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), southeastern shrew (Sorex
longirostris), and eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus). Predators on these species might include
gray fox (Urocyon cineareoargenteus) and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Another
common species that may be found here is the solitary eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) which
spends much of its time camouflaged in a shrub and suspended by a single foot.
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Terrestrial
reptiles and amphibians which may occur within this community include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), American toad, common musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), southern leopard frog (Rana
Project 05-262 8-4519 10 Gaston County

utricularia), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and white-spotted slimy salamander (Plethodon
cylindraceous).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Limited investigations resulted in no observations of aquatic reptiles. Aquatic or semi-aquatic
reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the project study area vicinity include northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), green frog (Rana
clamitans), blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus), and two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata).
No sampling was undertaken in Little Long Creek to determine fishery potential and no fish
species were observed during the field survey. Fish species that may be present in Little Long
Creek include creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), whitefin shiner (Notropis niveus),
swallowtail shiner (Notropis photogenis), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), highback
chub (Hybopsis hypsinotus), santee chub (Hybopsis zanema), and margined madtom (Noturus
insignis). Little Long Creek has no NCDWQ trout designations. Little Long Creek is not listed
by North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) as Designated Public Mountain
Trout Waters (NCWRC 2006).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Plant communities within the project study area were delineated to determine the approximate
area and location of each (Figure 2). A summary of the plant community areas within the
project study area is presented in Table 1. Anticipated impacts are based on cut-fill limits plus a
25-foot buffer, based on preliminary construction drawings.
Table 1. Terrestrial Community Coverage and Impacts Within the Project Study Area
Plant Community Coverage (Acres) Coverage (Percent) Area Impacted (Acres)
Disturbed/maintained land 1.6 57 0.5
Alluvial Forest 1.2 43 0.1
Total 2.8 100 0.6
Most of the projected impacts to natural plant communities will occur within the
disturbed/maintained plant community along roadside shoulders. Permanent impacts to
disturbed/maintained land will total 0.5 acres, while impacts to alluvial forest will total 0.1 acres.
Due to the use of an off-site detour, there will be no temporary impacts to natural plant
communities in the project study area. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a
result of project activities since potential improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside
margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances are anticipated to have short-term
impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns. Short-term impacts associated
with turbidity and suspended sediments may affect benthic populations.
Project 05-262 B-4519 11
Gaston County

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the project study area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3).
Section 404 jurisdictional areas are depicted on Figure 2. Only one surface water occurs within
the project study area: Little Long Creek. See Appendix A for the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form and USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet for Little Long Creek. A
request for verification of the delineation was submitted to Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE on
March 13, 2006. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Lund indicated that a site visit had been made and that
a jurisdictional determination was forthcoming.
Little Long Creek exhibits characteristics of a well-defined, third-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over a silt and sand substrate. Little Long Creek is classified as a riverine, upper
perennial stream with an unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of sand (R3UB2)
(Cowardin et al. 1979).
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The project study area
contains no vegetated wetlands.
Replacement of Bridge No. 155 is anticipated to result in no impacts to the open-water area of
Little Long Creek. It is anticipated that there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge
demolition. NCDOT will coordinate with resource agencies during project planning to ensure
that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved.
4.2 Permit Issues
4.2.1 Permits
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23
(67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the United
States expected with bridge construction. NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water
Quality Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3403).
4.2.2 Mitigation
USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose
of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters
of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined
by CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
Project 05-262 8-4519 12 Gaston County
n ,? Y
three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope
and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics
in light of overall project purposes. Impacts to waters of the United States and aquatic
communities are expected to be avoided. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat are
anticipated to be avoided by bridging the stream system to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
proposed project footprint through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts should be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters. Temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction
will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion-control measures.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. In accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, USACE requires
compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal. The NCDWQ also requires mitigation if water quality effects resulting
from the project are more than minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and
the function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining
acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization opportunities have been
implemented. Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation, enhancement, and
creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas
adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
On-site mitigation possibilities for the Section 404 jurisdictional area will be investigated by
NCDOT Onsite Mitigation Group before off-site mitigation options are considered. In
accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the
United States Army Crops of Engineers, Wilmington District", July 22, 2003, the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP),
will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project.
Project 05-262 B-4519 13 Gaston County

Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may not need to be proposed for this project due
to the proposed avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional areas. However, utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize potential indirect impacts.
4.3 Protected 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). The USFWS lists three federally protected species for Gaston County (USFWS
2007, see Table 2).
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for Gaston County (USFWS 2007)
Common Name Scientific Name Status' Habitat
Present? Biological
Conclusion
Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii E Y No Effect
sunflower
Bald eagle Haliaeetus T N No Effect
leucocephalus
Bog turtle Glyptemys (Clemmys) T (S/A) N Not Required
muhlenbergii
'Federal Status: E-Endangered; T-Threatened; 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.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: May 7, 1991
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to
approximately 6 feet in height. The stem may be purple, is usually pubescent, but is sometimes
nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above; in shape
they are lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The leaves are rather thick and
stiff, with a few small serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and the lower surface is
usually pubescent with soft white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from September to frost;
the yellow flower heads are about 0.6 inch in diameter. The current known range of this species
is within 60 miles of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle
slopes, in soils that are thin or clay 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 (USFWS 1994).
Project 05-262 B-4519
14
Gaston County

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Within the project study area there is suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower in some of the
disturbed/maintained areas. A systematic plant-by-plant survey was conducted on October 11,
2006 by EcoScience biologists David O'Loughlin and Ross Andrews. No specimens of
Schweinitz's sunflower were found. NCNHP records (reviewed October 2006) document no
occurrence of the Schweinitz's sunflower within 2.0 miles of the project study area. Based on
the survey results and NCNHP records, this project will have No Effect on Schweinitz's
sunflower.
Ha/iaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. 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.
2006). 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 1,500 feet from a nest tree are
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). The USFWS
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 from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be
restricted to the non-nesting period. The USFWS also recommends avoiding alteration of
natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities
within 1500 feet of known roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
There are no large bodies of water located within 1.0 mile of the project study area; therefore,
there is no habitat for bald eagle nesting. NCNHP records (reviewed October 2006) document
no occurrence of bald eagle within 2.0 miles of the project study area. Based on a lack of
habitat and NCNHP records, this project will have No Effect on bald eagle.
Glyptemys (Clemmys) muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
Threatened due to similarity of appearance
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches. This
otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright orange or
yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et al. 1980). The bog turtle has
declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-collection and habitat
Project 05-262 B-4519 15 Gaston County
I V r
alteration. As a result, the USFWS has listed the 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 has been listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance to the northern
population (November 4, 1997 Federal Register). The listing allows 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).
In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the Mountains and western
Piedmont.
Until recently, the bog turtle has been known as Clemmys muhlenbergii. Recently however,
several species previously listed under the genus Clemmys have been placed in the genus
Glyptemys due to sufficient evidence separating them from members of Clemmys (Holman and
Fritz 2001). Glyptemys muhlenbergii is an accepted taxon for the species Clemmys
muhlenbergii by the USFWS (Personal communication, David Rabon, USFWS; February 25,
2005).
NCNHP records (reviewed June 2007) document two occurrences of bog turtles within 1.0 mile
of the project study area. T (S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a
biological conclusion for this species is not required; however, the project study area
contains no suitable habitat for bog turtle
Federal Species of Concern - Shoals spiderlily (Hymenocallis coronaria) is the only Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) listed by USFWS for Gaston County (USFWS 2007). FSC are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened or Endangered. An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for
listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, FSC listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and
the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, as amended. No habitat for shoal
spiderlily exists within the project study area, which is listed as a "probable/potential occurrence
for Gaston County.
Candidate Species - The USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as
"Candidate" (C). A species with this designation is one that is a species under consideration for
official listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing. The C designation
provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed.
One C species is listed for Gaston County: Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) which has a state
status of Threatened (USFWS 2007, Franklin and Finnegan 2006). Georgia aster populations
typically prefer roadsides, woodland borders, dry rocky woods, and disturbed areas such as
fields and utility right-of-ways. Suitable habitat exists for this species within the project study
area. NCNHP files list documentation for Georgia aster within 2.0 miles of the project study
Project 05-262 B-4519 16 Gaston County

area. In the past, the USFWS has asked EcoScience Corporation to survey for Georgia aster to
collect information relevant to this species' standing. On October 11, 2006, EcoScience
biologists David O'Loughlin and Ross Andrews conducted systematic plant-by-plant surveys for
Georgia aster through suitable habitat in the project study area. No individuals of Georgia aster
were found.
Project 05-262 B-4519 17
Gaston County
a !
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
169 pp.
Franklin, M.A. and J.T. Finnegan. 2006. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina
and South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary table, and
photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Holman, J.A. and U. Fritz. 2001. A new emydine species from the Middle Miocene (Barstovian)
of Nebraska, USA, with a new generic arrangement for the species of Clemmys sensu
McDOWELL (1964) (Reptilia: Testudines: Emydidae. Zool. Abhandlgn. (Dresden)) 51:
331-353.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
pp-
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Gaston County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
N.C. Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Project 05.262 B-4519 18 Gaston County
r. o
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004. Catawba River Basin Water Quality
Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005a. List of Active Permits (online). Available:
httl)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/BIMS 120505.xis North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005b. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by
Subbasin(online).Available:http://h2o enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies
/alphacatawba.pdf. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired
Waters List (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General 303d.htm. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2006. Mountain trout regulations (online).
Available: http•//www.ncwildlife.com/pgO2 Regs/pg2b3.pdf. North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission, Raleigh.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, R.P. Teulings, and R. Davis. 2006. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp (online). Available: http://www.water.usgs.gov/
GIS/huc name.txt. U.S. Geological Survey.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
Project 05.262 B-4519 19 Gaston County

Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1989. Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina. U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), and N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation
Guidelines. State of North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald
Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. 8 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan.
Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Gaston County Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available: htto://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/gaston.html. June 20, 2007. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Project 05-262 8-4519 20
Gaston County
1 i. g
APPENDIX A
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Stream Identification Forms and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets

A Geomorphology (subtotal = ?? ) ( Absent Weak j Moderate -Strong
-
' 1. Continuous bed and bank z I
2 Sinuosity 3?
3. In•chnnnel structure: riftie-peal sequence ( 0 _ ' t ! 2
• 3 f
' a Soil texture cr stream substrate sorting. '] 1 j ?
--- 3 j
5. Activelrzlic Oncdp!ain j _0
I
9 2 3 ?
)
16. Depositional bar, Cr benches ( 1 2_ 3
'r. Braided channel I 1 L. 2. 3
e.
9' Rocent alluvial deposes
Natural levees _ I I
( 0 I -----?1
1 j
2 3
3
10. Hoadcuts i ? 1 f
_ 2 3
__
11. Grade controls 0 •
0.5 ( 1 1.5
iL. Nawal valley or d airaceway ) 0 0:5 1 j
113. Second or greater crcer Channel on existing
JSGS or NP.CS reap or other documented No = 0 I es = 3
evidence. I 1
' tan-made.?lil;:h,.s are n:e reiz±-ze dicni:ai.ns w mmnrd
Q 4-tW.nlnnu /C,,HfM.I = 1 1 flow/disc j to Grau ndwcha nel and > 48 e

-15. 'Niter in channel and >48 hrs since rain, or 0 1 z
W -term channel - drv or aromne season
16Leaflitter ! 3? j 1 j 0.5 0
j 17 Sediment on p!anls er debris 0.5 1 1.5
_?
f 18 Organic debris lines or pies t'."lreck lines) 0.5 1 1 , 1.5
19- Hydric soils (redoximorphic Natures) present? No = 0 PYes = 1.5]
T rlinlnnv rCllhtNal c / V 1
{ zu"". Fihrnus roos in chanr:•"? I G3? - 1 __0
-i
I
_ _
21". Rooted plants in channel _ 2 r
1
0
Crayfish !:57>
23. 6lvalve$ __
124. Fish -
3 1 I
D.5 2 ( 3 J
1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0
_? 0.5 (
? _ i.ri _.
I
->.I ,: rnlsanlhre tna:e tlYrr=ib and abuntlancel 0.5 I 1.5 I
?
29. Iran oxidiz:rq baclena:tdnaus.
'A'ctland plants in streambeC_
s I!,
ke;m 10 and ?1 en the n:ceec.e rri:rlxad Plsrn_
T
!0.5e tack Sias of thi_ fan n bx addi ional ne s5
1
1
i F:AC=3. _6: FACW-0.75: 09L=1.5 SAV
27'rrc:c•:,:: a drc prascnce o(+gaalic w urti=d :1311.
skeSCh:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
A
Y !I \
I T}tEAM QUALITY ASSESSi1 M'C WORKSHGL't'
x -o

s '.i v„Y ? av ?. a7 tiz?'??'?. -..vl ? .IL.4':t a'',?''`c?i'e?,'•?y Vx7? ?i?" i ry (
) k 1 ? h' , LCURE
IC5.l ?+ ?•. ;c*
4
CH
R
a
GTERI5 "i t ? Ir
)T?? ?12?
u
` ?}'}7A w (l{1?
Lt?1?1 ??lY[` ? e?
?' r !
i
#
c a
.
.
.
T
- .
atvC.
t .,
r -•-.v,ss,-mvr
I't
al
tr,? su e?,?C l?s P7edmont ,GlountR n
Presence of=flotz / persesient strtatn
Pools
a ) Yyb 4
(n0 (taa m saltiiau
n D s7
n3e om?
i flow
? ?r; t6 ?. r D '3 ''?
?
,
.
0
",, T?ideuce ofspax human altcrztl0» r

D G
tt25
teult
a«o
D
nn
lie
r
L
)
a
(
0 a, ,. p S
7 r
o, .
,
:
0n=-:r
apSm
s
ex
[
ra
t
?:; -. .. : •5. ....?.. _ - :
i
I lwl
" ? _
' ?ona I
? Chpar,rn
0' ? ' -k
?
,
'
,,
• G
i (u0li[ttcr 6 ebnur_vou, tone buff r -.,ua* mn r)
1:vldcnec0fuutnvntocchcmlcallLscharves ? •
i .0 J 0 •t
;` '
.°
D t , 0 5
+

0-a
I n
? -? '
I fe..rznsnzdL Itar cs a noi9nchalres=maspuvL.) f ?
? C?roundtratvr'd[srhrtl of = '
?
I a I D 3
(n0 dtsclimse 0 spins =c p `azt Ind5, ziabt»t,) I 0 1 ( D
"
f
' ? 6_ ? -' Presence ofad)aicnttl0odplg,n *-- -? 1 ?':
p ± ?
0 7
' '
' (»o'flbodolam {Y e?trtsov elflolu,n max pniiiGl °Yta3;'tt?ta tr•r .+
.,: ='
i Entrenchment t flvodpi ltu cass
,5 h4
"
O D
? 0
?
n
? (deeplt a unnchrd D frtgtietitt)oodfnu ma?polnts)1 ?.x. I`>-?la?'
.,
>", ? ?
iT t ;*

5 Prvsencv o(adla??nitrcllauds '"`v rt,.. e"' ^'a. `
i r r * c 0 YBm °
t ,.. r '
D Y 41
"
G + I
! a
a
ldS ? {_r
aeBnC
fnO RLTla
»d9-
TdR
O
??
d
TI
G?
`'? .
.
'Y
k ?r +
u t
a
-I1
[
,
t
WC
a
m
x <
- i ,
( ,

? ;Channel sihunstt , t ?' 1 ^4a'. ?kr ,.?.,?.?:?? c >p?
,
? :. s d c

0
=z ? + O
3'
+•+s., , I f e?[ensnecl7annelis3un .._ 0, naulnl;me..iider _ n2?:poi•,ts) ', ?,ze??-,Lr-
>? +i ,;,,
(ti
' ? r
d7 (l „?y,,,,.1 j

p
• ' ... ySCCttInIIILi1I 7LLf °: qy55y. aTr?Al
.
i ..
i
f45Fp?s
121 7 i
9}
' V,Wci r -
`
Ya
Q
1j
?
t .
W ,
,
,
a?
i
(C..ien$li!e de o<JllOn. p
)tlil4.d p17nsCdln]e111
1,
,Pu#x JiRln) Vt Lk
- =i 2 ; P}
, D
j
4
y
r } '?

t •
[C .
I ,
_•,
„
_
..
.. t
1 '"`Svc Ct37+en1(v oCchannCl+bedsubsirate ' "
e ?v^t+. NA"
. s Et - ,,
,,,
F
, v .
.
.,..,
),+n1Ox'a`
j
y
t .
s,
G di
(ti
lib
0 t
: i rJ
n
nto enous
az
verse s[ae, n7axnomt,)
. c
! 12. I Evidence 0tchatinel Inculan oq vvidcmng _ ,Q , R7
?f
>i
D
,
x
mc[seda.-i7 t3b2?$t1'cC, banks=:in?xiidints'}k . ' ?:5•xri j •,a?r?'a rL-'`z.;na'., u, ` ur I.r
,"i.,$
Aga J

-;?,
__? . ( €
._. ? Presence 0fimator?U [nC'f.,llures 5 ':. 1 si)f+Qr j'?"6?1
r? ;0' ?c A
?
p
?'J.' °:.?
k '?• _
(',
I
+ :; (scvcre;ei0slan 'O;:ro erovon
atabl?banl. •n>`z
euinl )
3`
4;
L t? t
,
8
s ?
? 1 ,
.
.
.
.. ,
.
. ,.
a,..,_?
.. .
Root depth and dciislty ou 6enlsu rI 0 I 0 a' T
L
E^• C . i»u+.lvitilrruo[s 0. n$ rootsihcoughout? n1-1p0uual s -" .
,1 1 f

t fntpnet4n ngncutiure hvestocl, or thnber'productibn ', t
- `? '
D ,
(
? r I YQ J
i
1
?
d
)
'
b
* D -1 J
f
!
(
a l tp t
nn2VI
_i
(sn
5[1ni1 L
L
et7CC II7?V Um
t d _
-t c F a
t tf ?
I. ? Plzscnce 0f nCc7r-pODUnjple. po»hcoh,pCeees ? i. ,
Q 3
t w - 'r '
D J r
D G'' '?
?- •,_ ?
k
(rnnlflt.4,I,pptes0rpuuis p aclldetel0ped
l,t
? u 2nbuat cumplevtty ° ?)+ 3
0 fn utnt . nncd itab3i rs ;nay rots?'° Gs k
: l,rle or »o habt ?? y} ?
v G 1z a
Oaf s tfjzfi.
;
? +G I+
a s ?
pia, ...
Ganopl'cocer?gewTelttshealnlicd v ??" ,? I ki sgi Ir;p? a5f iz 1
)Q

;,?..,
IS
...
, r Ftin
... (nn shadthtz,vetietaticiil jednnnuous`cano .t7nxwiinL). -1•ote?e'.?F,? .r

!?°^?g.5??3„i

.,'?r*?.r.?,'

r
'? r
t ?
? - t'rw r Sutis'[ratt embcildaiiess `t, '?ti +?- ,* •"'
T
l
f
y 7 _?-' ^t" Y r _a,.x
d, .
- ,
td .o,D. tUOw slructu
y inaX]. '.
dC ltl enlhcdk
2 . a
J + + T'resCl,cE ol'stre 1tn,nc ertC17r1t C5 ($eZ pn?e t,?
I:
I b o et tdence 0 o:mro? nun5er0us nroes- sax 0mY_ I = I Kr
? 21
Pre3 ne of all[ 119 laps , .. p'
0 7

0
1 I
c
Inovvldel O,.urnrztua.numeri CS:,=nAaa o,iiulrr

{

i Presenc6a
l hsh 0; d ,1
0 ' 3'
0 4
I
l
M, (no t ul ncc, 0 onu-non nunie ous types =mjx p?[uts} s , 4 f -.
I -- 1
Fiiilence of ttiildhf? ust
i ?. (nn;e} Idence 4:,cblutdanr e`vul[.n?c - in,,x atntsl'-0 G
E '' ..y s > ;, I' €v w'v. F i f'kw?-A a- t n ti
T0[al l'otn6 Posulil? + p
101
=
5 0?
" ''?°a`+'d
7 1DDb = t
? 0
r n<'+'^
t00 I
7b`"` .
.3v
-
x
`
a ?
-v
t? ?yn
<
` ;;
?
H.^
i 4a W
fi ?j x
vY
.4L
'? ! 'tl ,? F +'a T ?C,4` $ Y >?'.Y .? W Lf'Ft;?xs gr s,
r
n [3l
t
TOTAL SCC)RTI ?31so ?nL
r
»6
j i YYi`+A G2
p
G
:O
a
C
..
.. ,. ? f.hR r r
-ll7C:C _ ?iLQ^ri1t1%c :Ife Il': [ 3.Sir3?:,i [° ii}LVlel :: i6]a1n5.
?' U
ijS,\CF Alga
DWQ
Site -__„„_. (indicate on. arached rruip'
1 Z"' 1
S"TRETANI QUALITY- ASSESSMENT WOMICSHEET r?
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: A/ t-)y ? 2. Fvaiuawr's name: 1: n +.C L4 c C.-
3- Dille of evzhnation: d 1 / 4-Tim.= of evaluation:
Nanw ky, L-; 4f )P b. Rivcrbasin:
:\rpso::irsstc drainace area: r: ?crc Sy, S. Streamorder l c j
9. L,?nwh of reach evaluated: 10. Comity:
11. Stre ?_a2nilrtaies {il`irtuvvn): 12. Subdivision nonce (if
L+. ? ocation of reach under evaluation faute nearby roads. and. landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) 1ncaTiun):
14. Proposed channel work (if any): /v?
I ?. iLccr-i vvcathcr canditiattc: f?..? e (ck_
16. S::c conditions at time of visit: ?,--r1
19. Doan channel appear on USES quad map? T?F., NO 20. Does channel appear ou USDA Soil Survey? ;'n NO
21. L"enrr_led watershed land rise: '35 Residential `.,6'C'ornmercial -'S Industrial -SL) °io Agricultural
1?. Identify anyspecial watencay class ificatious known: -Section 113 _;ridal Waters -Essential Fisheries H_aitar
_arOut I.Vters. _UucStaedine Resource Waters _ Nutrient Srnsitivc Waters Water Supply Watershed _([-[Vl
IS. is iherc a pund or lake located upstreant of the evaluation point? t NO If yes,, estimate the water surface area: '? 4FF
S 0 `, Forested _ e? 0eared /Logged ' o €>thcr (
22. Bankfuil wwidth: , 21 Baal height (from bed to ior of bank): -S
24. Ci.tarr.:;l slope doyen center of strezm: -Flat (0 to 20.4;) t7znde f2 to {%) Moderate (4 to 10'.%) -,Steep (>10%)
25, C'hanncl sinuosity: _Snanahl -Occasional bends =fcqucnt IMatidcr _Vcrv sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located. on page 2y: Begin by detrnnining dr rot appropriate ecorenion based on
location- tcaain, vegetation, stream classification; etc. Evm characteristic must be scored using the same ccorcgion. Assigu po rtnEA to
zash =liar=cteristic within the range shown for due, ecoregion. Page 3 pcovides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
iuentit cd in the. worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessn-wnt of the stream reach un&recalun[ion. If a'characteristicccannot
cv L;tt-d due to. site or weather cordieons,-enter 0 in the scot g box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where
there arc obvious chiugos in the character of a stream under rcvi-x (c. g- the stream flows 5nm a p,sture into a forestthe stream trt:rv
be ui': idcu into smaller reaches ibit dkulay more eon tint rity: and Z separate form used to evaluate each reach. '1'hc total -=sore 3ssieretl
sire-.^.w -each must range belweca 0 and 100, with a scot: of ?Cliff representing a stream of Sic hi,,hest quality.
Total Scorn lfrom reverse): f-' Comments:
Eyalllatef5 tiign:itmre t ??? t" ? 1 , ?
i
Date /'/I-. L
phis channel eialuado ' form is intended-tb he used only as a guide to assist landowne'mand enwironrnental proressiouats in
gathering the data r uired by the United States Anne Corps of £ngitieers to, make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. I"hc wtal sc rc resulting front the completion of this form is subject to USACF approval and dues not imply n
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form suhjeci to ihas_°., - vcr ion 0bl03. To Cnmmew. please sail 9.19-876-S4s1 x'6-
a
a Ca 1 w
ICI 4 `'' y
• ICI ?"' b
II O
O II o
II ?
II
V
S I I Q tz
I,I O
I ? ? ICI ? O O
b
V C
---------- - -
------ tvi cm
a CC /?
.? . x.. s qtr. ? ? O
Z
a a O I I `? `'
Q7
:: ICI CO)
a b
?_`??olI
00
o C9 i i w
O 00
I I S"
m ' ? I I b ? oda
-no
n '?. ? ti qb5
m A°o O 0
T
22 0 . -M
0? °?Z?? a s po OO ca op ? WOO 0 0
C7 O
OZZ 0,x,0 e 0 p p ClC3 C)
X Z0 ?ox> C?i?t; Q p pOO O y
.p O i„ O m 0 ? C7
F O O
411
A Z
m4 m
N
jO n
x
00
0
0

i
I
I
89/ft9Seff8SYSftt8t99f94DGNtftf94t88Ntfttf TIMEtf99f
l
09/00/99
f88tt1SERNAME*$tt
(CONTRAC
T: C202431
TIP •„
PROJECT: E--4519
0 0
N _ ;Nn
?
TA
O
s
l \-?IC
I°
O NI
T 9 (
1T
C f°n
m? O? ?

° m -
".I
HVI
IY
If ?L
j
a m a {
m 2 a a
o O G1
CO ADZ •-. _.v'. _ %
r I
/ m m ma
m O
Jp N y O O?pn ' w _ IY R

l
y G O O
(
DA

Z p =

t

I

O Op N.S
:4

.
O- ,. ai -

m ?P
a

.
n
F m
o
n 2 ?Z
A ? yC I? ° °
ti 2 Z
V
C ei
I- v
?yy. yp. IA O ?« v
m ..L
ry: °
'? HQ N
o
p
K {n
z 00
.1
to ?` ,r
4,
x i
II ?
fri it II III
II
'u
p t
U
i
o 2
O 9 O rx ^
J? A
?'
O O
o
I
I 0 ?
o y
r V °p T?. ml
rC
R ae afl G y
R. S ®

O
o r ;'## m

? m

Is
l
x I ° a T ?7 '. N
O A m?

M
N O r

?
!n
m
r m

m
GZII
A =
O m
`
I I
y
y
`C
.
- L
(
ZI

ZI
A
m >

H
,? O
I I

? ? u
+

Q *7

Q

Q { e 1 Y
?
m
??.I v
f
K• ? ¢
S I
? _
- I I
I I ? ? .
? a s
c o @y I
j?
?I ? ?
? - ? ? 1( `? L1
p
(
II

Q II

O I!

C9

? Y ?
=i t luw
i7
?
b O
p x-
,
O ? ? I ?J_e
T ?? r
l

rti m m

a

o
A&L
ae
C03
."L
.L

LE .s
!X
b
N }? N 9
c . 1.4 a ti
it
u

IZ P M

F I i y

m
I
I

I !t;
1
.bg
? ? 1:

M hill
I>
'
°
a ?
.
? I
i
I

U7 'D «I
I ( I
'I
m

a a?
W m
'? r«
?
O ? ~
m y
0 '4JA I
N V

?'e gA{ S.4O

?t?" W
?
'
Iw
m
?l
-
??
I

Q _ J i l l I I I I , I, •, I,, J
Cil

CL <MN O
D °
a - O .. . „
M o
O
d m .n=a

D m
O
U
N
D °p

m ° X
z
OD
? K L

O m o
(O _ a
N p
N
I
O
W
b .
I
I
r
ti
I°
I
I.IVI
I
I
N I
tit
ma
r .-
N
9x I
rN
mu
N
? m
r
m r
e
0 0
? O
!,1
ffi 2
o
m
r ? ma
r; .
r ?
N 2 O

?
..gin ,m 2
oD
,
y Kai ea ?
l

O m„
N
m?
4
m
x
a
V
D '
Z
D
161
A
m
-? x
d

K
M y;

r DDaa
ym
I ti
A
N
9x r
a
HI; D r
M Dz,>
O°pm i OU
mD
M
N K
9
my D
m
O
SO
I N
Kg?o ?? a
' .,,. Z y w N m
I
r
mK ?O O

ar i

i
m

o
r N
N
O
I O
I?
I
m ?I
x
H9
zo
.
ox
M
m'mAS
cm
z
0
T
D

Z7
O
m
z
0
m
N
m
O
O
d
WASIONS
I
GNNgaUpn... 8/17/99
04 m I V
x ? -
II
x ,
- _• -/
I I i Y 6 O
mop
e I ? r Q
c II ' I ? RRRR
r m+n• 4x 1 ???' \Jh?
- --- .1? x ? I II
a SS' 6 It
p m m p u II III -_-'/-'-":•"•
' - S II it T ? II
I
ov.
• E F33 iij II t R Ipq? .
' ? II 'III I ii?SS
s I
1f 111 ?.
• €J ?
¦B yB -4
let 8A ??? II ?II ` N i s:
O Fi89 Q ? II rll m ?p _ i
RRRR II "y1? ?1 F __- _
o '.
qlia
NyL? wa 5} 1 6 / I 'I '7 Q
ro .?\r 6.9 ?1$ + I m it n •.
\ % & •J I I I I Q g o
' ? q ' , ? QQI II 1 G . pP,? ?? I ?? vrt
?y EI ?, II 'g. ? ?M 0a
4 00; L
i ? SA
t
qq ;
_ - I'- hggl r ?
-p tb1 _ _ 'LI /
?? ? a119 r.? r I m
? y 'ti:r:.' ' gg$ GS
i rvp ?Fp R4 4n `6P ° BeB?
1 V .4m 9`-a q r
N O
3 -? 1 Q P Pa ?1 II 4
P ?',LJ 8 a III am
Ta?C.J -? ® I I ®®
r o ? I? I
11 •_- x .. .. F
all,
pig
n I'
I
I i
} II ?I
??• IS n ?? -?jC 'ii N l++ ?
Kg G R 9 II I ? ?y
00
w " 4
• I ? L
b
Mg?
A Q' x x ;a y c? as , ,."„ G
„' ? 43 r ice'', Q Q to f7 rn ^-( ?> :b
I- N