20020344 Ver 1_Complete File_20020307

V I
,e sr?h „ ! j
? ? f ? _ 110::9 SQlil/1!3/A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?;.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. 60X25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 2-611-5201 E. NoRRIs TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 18, 1999
MEMORANDUM To: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ-DENR
4401 Reedy Creek Road
c
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager 1,j%(?t
Program Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: B-3456, Bridge No. 23 over a Branch of Catawba Creek on
SR 2445, Gaston County. C (de1v C
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the Division of
Highways has begun studying the proposed improvements to Bridge No. 23 on SR 2445
(Kendrick Road) in Gaston County. The project is included in the Draft 2000-2006 North
Carolina Department of Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right- of-way
acquisition to begin in fiscal year 2001 and construction in fiscal year 2002.
The location of Bridge No. 23 is shown on the attached map. The existing two-lane
structure, constructed in 1953, crosses over a Branch of Catawba Creek and is 44 feet long and
24.4 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
- Do-Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace the Existing Structure on Existing Location
- Replace the Existing Structure on New Location
If the structure is replaced at its existing location, an off-site detour route, as well as an
on-site detour route, will be considered.
We would appreciate any information you have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. Any comments regarding potential impacts to
Emergency Response Units (rescue, fire, police, etc.) would be especially helpful. If applicable,
please identify any permits and/or approvals required by your agency. It is desirable that your
agency responds by April 9, 1999 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of a
proposed Categorical Exclusion.

n V 1
2
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Nancy Campanella,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Extension 262
WDG/plr
Attachment
74 74
.321 321 - 23 7
i N 4_ i? i
f GASTONIA ,.
woos ??
321
Y'
i soum GAAONIA / JACKSON..i
(UNMCi KNW '4= -r91 7 .` - \/ j 1
\e,f ?? i S^SacL P?
ri
r cnw
b M nidp. 1 i C
?, BRIDGE N0.23
r'nlon Ch.
321
Ile `, wan Snwls< f,,? ,aa7s.
Luca Tilt
i 1 Staniew
T,GA
\J 4 T P-W6,
emer anCiN
ei ,
Ste la J`N a !1100 el
1. o ?I Z t ? 1
1. o 13 ' V 1
s1
NORTII CAROLINA DIIPAItTMENT OF TItANSPO:tTATION
DIVIwON OF IIIG3WAn
PLANNING AND 3NVLlONl=AL rZtANCII
BRIDGE NO. 23
SR 2445 OVER BRANCH OF CATAWBA CREEK
GASTON COUNTY
B-3456
VICINITY MAP
0 2 4 6 8
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE
`/
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 8, 1999

MCLUEMR
NIEN10RANDUNI
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated March 18, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for
bridge replacement TIP B-3456. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the proposed bridge will
span the Catawba Creek in Gaston County. The DWQ index number for the waterbody is 11-130 and the
stream is classified as class C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout
Water) classifications.
B. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
C. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ if impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre, or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
04/08/99
Page 2
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridles with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
1. If the project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, mitigation will be required if wetland impacts
exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) 11.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: John Dorney, NCDWQ
Nancy Campanella, NCDOT
C:\ncdot\TIP I3-3456\I3-3456 scoping commcnts.doc

e,. STAlr
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 14, 2002
f(J.!
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
n ? f
ATTENTION: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:

LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY

Subject: Gaston County, Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 23 over Branch of
Catawba Creek on SR 2445 (Kendrick Road), Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-2445(1), State Project No. 8.2812001, TIP Project No. B-3456.
Please find enclosed a copy of the project planning report for the above-referenced
project. Bridge No. 23 will be replaced on a new location just north (downstream) of the
existing bridge with a double-barreled box culvert. Each barrel will measure 10 feet by 8
feet (3.1 meters by 2.4 meters). Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
the construction period.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 23 is located on SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) over Branch
of Catawba Creek (DWQ Index No., Catawba Creek: 11-130, 1111185; Class Q. The
bridge has one span totaling 39 feet (11.9 meters) in length. The bridge is composed of a
timber deck supported by steel I-beams on concrete abutments. Therefore, Bridge No. 23
will be removed without dropping any components into waters of the United States
during construction. However, if any fill material falls into the stream it will be removed
as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal process.
Waters of the United States: No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed
project. However, the proposed project will impact 175 linear feet of surface waters due
to culvert installation.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WINW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699.1548
. ^ i .1
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61, Number
241.
The project will impact 175 linear feet of Branch of Catawba Creek. A letter requesting
stream mitigation has been sent to the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP). Upon
WRP's acceptance to provide this mitigation, NCDOT will forward a copy of a formal
letter from WRP to DWQ and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. After receipt of the
401 Water Quality Certification from DWQ for this project, NCDOT will transfer funds
to WRP to compensate for stream mitigation performed to cover the costs of planning
and implementation.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Chris Rivenbark at
(919)-733-9513.
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Domey, NCDWQ
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Michael Holder, P.E., NCDOT Division 12 Engineer
Mr. Drew Joyner, P.E., PD & EA
r?
?0" i.a:. ?f ?? . e07 -i e`tdAx?h1'e''?•%--v 1.?_. _ _II aiq- rrr... I ?. ? IU Ba: my/ W kmw,oo/ o
PN r.nnmr ?,' IO i :C1? 1 T e c 1 '>\Conayer 9 I span. m eH'mall
\SG y r.
Pleasant Garo '?'. Connell 1L • ' ts5 W I Y t - ?•" - Troutman
s t m 18 sm'ngs lae5 /. akl ?y Claremont
1
I- W E LIJ t ?? 1 •v; j Catawba ? 1 _ Dak• i r Oswalt eear Po°
+arion a nrnrr /i 121
i .) 7 rln 10 + roJ ?' ® (b,
It B U R E a , t B;rrr ?' Newton `;' sec c
57 Pleasant f°' J t Sn rihs`j; S _a:u
y Sovrh M q r Oe ) $I r•,Owr.
a .crest® GIlnwood 1 6.1\- st Grov ?c°
saga) n s'° A Ts A s °1M 16 B . ? us t
221 Dysarlwdle y: ?.??. . ?x t Te ?iy 2l
L5 ~ ! 1 , . s 10- s O Maiden r / ' ?; s i'k l
$ Ilie
J I Vale r' 321 i11rt?OMour` r e
Thermal C lye ^ r cirri 1 w I^ ?tac,j Mount
I Casar Toluca 21 ReePSVilI _ Dlnver s ?-.; a Lott
O union 161111: - L I II N L N 'X n nnq -T
% -
R U H E R F 0 1 10 eelwood ?+ Gooasonrnle 'Davidson
Chimnky \ rwescminst t s 174 lincolnton. a Trianalel •`?'c?j ; •Cornelius Its
\}7f 18 9oge? I kJ "std z
• 1 ukr urr G;Ik y Sunshine rr < Gly Iron 13 ! Caldwell
1 lake 14A` i Logan Ho1GS air F<Ilston ` c 111 ,s0 ' - 1 r Station ''? f II 13 ?.
k Cruse 21 + 1
wasnbum Itt - _ t _ lowesvnle y 13 . s
64 Ruth olkddle a s ---- '® Guntersville l
a nlt.is 1 v y!u r
g +" Forest 1 t1e Cherryville _ i . "a ",
o ty f... ?Ki n
Da ble t e I15 Y
r .layrr Br'?t utherto dto^lo Ci
n< ow Waco t • G A $ Tp 1 N Lucla ,?e??r - ` ?.?.+
,,?Y s '? Eue aro 5 ab 179 o `- unr...;rq I
/r VK\` spndal? 148 21 MounC e,`v`<°°v1
Los s \ of ? C E V L /N D' a tre t 1 anger '
tl
Milt Spring ® IL 74 _ ; 1. ?hmor_ * st°bb: ns t Bessemer a Holly It7 16 )1 „a 21 .,,,-,
!
Caroleen - 'Y." - % 1A0 0 CIt t15 ''tt o Da -•F` <r 1 S.r> ,
AI antler Kin $ y _1 1 ,Rank +-rs. l 9.r f a•+5 ._-
tal IIS 16looresb° 1 s --??^' S < .? ell 'i'J P.awGe ? y'1
® Henrietta 110 Sbyi/; •- - ounlain I61 a a 1 0 .o » Berl II AI ;yen .
Columbus o < I 1q \ r/ ?i ?+ ar a`
Cli'IVde Y t
* + 9 1 Hanis Y ?
g I50 1 Patterson y t, 7 .. o
` Bonin •- x • ? 2 1 r
o '1 \221 / Brurl Spnnq; Ito or
ngs t t}?.. ?+ /? a Cramertc 1 - ' C .arlo.'
IN. CARD 221 r us nc y °Im a ' z
NA` alt i i ,Ean 2g,) J-'Gastonl
sno um < S. CAROUN - 18 grove, JO , rcr•-arr.hn^ N ) ns :u
521 l Min
<, 14 Il enesn.e ) ISO K;n '= Iw \rt MECKLE- DUI,
gemlle. 11 ' 1 _ 1 I. Pk. Bowing Green k "• I ) ) J
.Ile Campo New Pr sp v? t 51 ue any 55) ` ln7ir 521 tj
o
bello Pucolri ay0 I10 N _, .-, Clove °r < 11
y
Gramling scaops ; 5 5 Icl 2 - 55 49 ?o \ 51•.. 1 1
221 Gaffney
]Sl Inman 9 179 321 Pnev?
s 91 A Indian
rube) 49 na _ t• 'Neddi•
14 -- IOig Tlrzah S Igo'<
Nellrerd w Hickory York 5 .r y . ro Fort M.1
r 'I
l n o Grove _ I ,fit - ..
', Spartanburg ,so o "eWp°"
el < Duncan r x 1. ^\??. - 18 oelpnia ° RockHill \ \?' '(?' e• 521
/ i\L- 116 arolet 91 Sharon 11e ) ) ?<
t9fi //i9f I? ?;. r It , - ? 5 i'J°.n;•
7077.-. ... J..
Or- 111. le //:. to
•?. `}- _ .0 I 1• v
n 371 L :C,- °de e e
e7 cti oil •7e11 e)<?. 7'? M1
1`'O
rw7 peer[L )d y 17
e 1.71 331 0 \f?1r?(.?\ 1) Is I .'i..? )s,7 ......
1633 / s 711111
o,
E ~ e). Je)a 111.1
..1 .10
on tle.s oe -, SLTL' 7e.)1 /OtCIL ,t 1°:7'17 0:
V b 7set
1e4.
I?t4 ^1
ISI 7n iQ71. ?./, /ISIS. 1 r:•: IL.11w
r --
J' ^ I 72ta
pI-I-
2..
° 1411 %
r
3017
t?
?J
V71 oJ.
P
VICINITY
7lIQ .oa c° ?i.
1?ya ?

: t - u 7ee
)a of
Ill A (poH 17LL1 ° '4 5 0 7)e•77e?

1
11'4
q
\ y r. ? 7? j7ee
0I, Cb
ti
r
_
MAPS
i?C° ? looe \ f'6 L! ?
r `a
lsi•
L191 7911
\\
1•
MIA v Lo7o
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2812001 (B-3455)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 23 OVER
BRANCH OF CATAWBA CREEK
I I ? 1 >I
SHEET OF
V-iq
7.)9
Ilw \
r ,
• _ __ ???:? Center C /?•.C- ? -
o n u ?, 1so ? \ ??•
/ u?y ?i l • 244
Ile
-•" --1 (r
rr.
??l' ;? „??
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY G ASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2812001 (B-3455)
MAPS REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 25 OVER
BRANCH OF CATAWBA CREEK
SHEET OF
LEGEND

-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY 1==T PROPOSED BRIDGE
C WETLAND
WL xt? PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER
® EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER
R
®
(POND) SINGLE T REE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILk. IN WETLAND WOODS LI NE
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
-
WATER ?? ROOTWAD
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
•
• CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
?- TOP OF BANK
_ WE_ - EDGE OF WATER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -P1 - PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - 7- - - - WATER SURFACE
XX XXx x X LIVE STAKES
O BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
mzj RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
BZ1 BUFFER ZONE I
BZ2 BUFFER ZONE 2
w
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GASTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2812001 (B-3455)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 23 OVER
BRANCH OF CATAWBA CREEK
S'l ' o k
SHEET OF
z
o
N E" R O U
} a !-' a c
., a
co
z?? o zzo
?a wFLO
co < o GL
G? ?, p ad U = O
x o p?0p O 0 0 rz. L
. 11) cps a L
ci w w O
LL W> U. O U F,
A "
pSS I1 ld.Zl U A a ? z W
!w a w
0 z a
m
? a o
N
Nol U.3 baJ
ol sb S ? ?
I
!
I ?!
I \
ti , I brVS
? , ?
? ! o
? c? Ln
1 ? N
! 4 ?` x
' N o
1 J LIl
? N

0
1
z?
cn ° m
+

O
p
Er
3

O
Z7 N
C7 ? (n

n
o 2
X N
W O C
(D
T
D
C7
v C
C)
O L
N
O
7 ?
(D
D ° -3
n -• v
7 T C
G
o
O -_
m m

=3 m f

D N

C
O
D N
ah
v C
' D

C)
p o
°N v
D
0
N cD ?
D ° 0
3'
c) m °7
D)
a
n
o p .
°
I
n
O (D
D 0 m mS
o n CL
v
o
O
p l U CT)
d
T
Z

n c ?
p O r

O

p <
G
W W
T
- ?
C
D
o A
C7
7 D
a Cl) m
p O
D
_
m ?

v G T

D
n
? X
T ? N ?
(n
N
?
_ n 7 7
(Il V
n ?
S O
T N O
? 7 n
... 7 N

cn D (D
a
0 p

Gaston County
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road)
Bridge No. 23 over Branch of Catawba Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-2445(1)
State Project No. 8.2812001
T.I.P. No. B-3456
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September, 2000
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
L. J. Wa d, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
Tl mas R. Kendig, AICP, Uni ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Robert Andrew Jo her, P.E.
Project Development Engineer

•?, tom!!--°°•?.??`'?"?:?,

Gaston County
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road)
Bridge No. 23 over Branch of Catawba Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-2445(1)
State Project No. 8.2812001
T.I.P. No. B-3456
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
?Cw Willi(Jn D. Gilmore, P.E., Manag
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
9 PTE 60
D f
? icholas . Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
OU
M
y ?' 1
It
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Gaston County
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road)
Bridge No. 23 over Branch of Catawba Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-2445(1)
State Project No. 8.2812001
T.I.P. No. B-3456
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following
special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Hydraulic Design Unit, Highway Division 12
The existing bridge is to be replaced by a culvert. The culvert will be countersunk to allow
unimpeded fish passage and to allow for continuation of present creek flows, thereby protecting
system integrity.
Categorical Exclusion
September 2000
3

1
Gaston County
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road)
Bridge No. 23 over Branch of Catawba Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-2445(1)
State Project No. 8.2812001
T.I.P. No. B-3456
Bridge No. 23 is included in the NCDOT 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program and
is part of the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 23 will be replaced just north of its existing location with a reinforced concrete box
culvert. Traffic service will be maintained on the existing bridge during the construction period.
The estimated cost for the proposed improvement is $1,294,000. The current estimated cost of
the project, as shown in the NCDOT 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program, is
$402,000 including $31,000 for right-of-way and $371,000 for construction.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) crosses over a branch of Catawba Creek in the southeastern area of
Gastonia County approximately 0.5 kilometers (0.3 miles) west of SR 2439 (Beaty Road).
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) is a two-lane facility, classified as a minor arterial in the Statewide
Functional Classification System, that provides a link between NC 274 (Union Road) and
SR 2439 (Beaty Road). The development in the general vicinity of the bridge is suburban
residential. The Gaston Country Club and Golf Course is located near the western end of the
route.
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) has a pavement width of 5.5 meters (18 feet) and shoulder widths of
1.5 meters (5 feet) in the area of the bridge. The roadway approaches are on downgrades toward
the bridge varying from 4 to 6 percent. The eastern approach is on tangent horizontal alignment.
The western approach has sharply curved horizontal alignment that carries across the bridge and
has poor sight distance.
4
I I
t
The traffic volumes on SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) were 3600 vehicles per day (vpd) in 1998 and
are projected to be 4800 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes include 1 % truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 % dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is 56 kilometers per hour
(35 miles per hour) in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge No. 23 as shown in Figure 3 has overall length of 11.9meters (39 feet) and a clear
roadway width of 7.3 meters (24 feet). The existing two-lane, one-span, structure consists of
timber deck supported by steel I-beams on concrete abutments and was constructed in 1955. The
posted weight limit is 15.4 metric tons (17 tons) for a single vehicle and 19.0 metric tons (21
tons) for a truck-tractor semi-trailer. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 46.7 compared to a
rating of 100 for a new structure. Bridge No. 23 is elevated approximately 4.0 meters (13 feet)
above the stream surface.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from January 1, 1995 to
December 31, 1997. The accident involved a vehicle traveling west and running off the south
side of the road just west of the bridge. The accident involved property damage estimated at
$2500.
Overhead utility lines are located along the north and south sides of SR 2445 (Kendrick Road)
and one line crosses diagonally over the bridge. A sewer line parallels the branch on the eastern
bank. An aerial sewer service crosses over the branch immediately upstream of the bridge.
There are no utilities attached to the bridge.
Three school buses cross the present bridge 2 times per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis the recommended replacement structure is a reinforced
concrete box culvert consisting of 3 barrels at 2.4 meters by 2.4 meters (8 feet by 8 feet). Two
alignment alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 23. Alternate A consists of
replacing the bridge in its present location while maintaining traffic service on-site with a
temporary detour located on the north (downstream) side of SR 2445 (Kendrick Road).
Alternate B consists of replacing the bridge on new location just north (downstream) of the
present bridge while maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during the construction period. A
minor realignment of the eastern approach will be necessary to maintain traffic during the
5
w
I
construction of Alternate B. An alternative on the south (upstream) side was not investigated
since it would worsen the horizontal alignment of the western approach and construction would
encroach on the stream.
The Gaston Urban Area 1991-1992 Thoroughfare Plan recommends the eventual widening of
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) from NC 274 (Union Road) to SR 2439 (Beaty Road) to a multilane
facility. The completion of TIP Project U-2712 and other city bond projects northwest of the
study area will provide a more direct and attractive travel route for commuters in the surrounding
areas. The overall effects will result in a dampened level of traffic growth for this section of
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road).
The recommended replacement structure is a reinforced concrete box culvert, 3 barrels at 2.4
meters by 2.4 meters (8 feet by 8 feet), approximately 43.3 meters (142 feet) long, and at a 60-
degree skew. Given the current density of development and the traffic projection of 4500
vehicles per day in the design year 2025, a "two-lane" replacement structure is recommended.
The new approaches will have a pavement width of 7.3 meters (24 feet) and grassed shoulders
2.4 meters (8 feet) in width including 0.6 meters (2 feet) paved. Alternative A provides a design
speed of 56 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour) and Alternate B provides a design speed of
80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour). The alternatives are shown in Figure 2. The posted
speed limit is 56 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour) in the vicinity of Bridge No. 23.
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternate was also considered but would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic service provided by
SR 2445 (Kendrick Road).
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
6

41
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are shown in the
following table:
Alternate A
With on-site detour Alternate B
With on-site detour
Structure Removal $8,904.00 $8,904.00
Structure $115,000.00 $215,000.00
Roadway Approaches $268,185.00 $689,784.00
Engineering and Contingencies $57,911.00 $136,312.00
SUBTOTAL $450,000.00 $1,050,000.00
Temporary Detour $400,000.00 $125,000.00
Right-of-Way / Const. Easements / Utilities. $60,000.00 $119,000.00
TOTAL $910,000.00 $1,294,000.00
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 % has been included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 % for engineering and contingencies.
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative B is recommended because it improves the substandard alignment of the stream
crossing. The long term safety benefits provided by the improved alignment of Alternate B are,
considered adequate to justify its slightly higher cost and environmental impacts. Bridge No. 23
will be replaced on new location immediately north of the present bridge with a reinforced
concrete box culvert consisting of 3 barrels at 2.4 meters by 2.4 meters (8 feet by 8 feet). The
new crossing will have 7.3 meters (24 feet) of pavement with 2.4 meters (8-foot) wide shoulders
including 0.6 meters (2 feet) paved. The grade of the new crossing at the stream will be
approximately 3.0 meters (10 feet) above the elevation of the existing bridge grade. Traffic will
7
%

be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. A slight realignment of the existing
eastern approach as shown will be necessary to maintain traffic during the construction of
Alternate B.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
An off-site detour utilizing SR 2439 (Beaty Road), NC-274 (Union Road) and SR 2444 (Gaston
Day School Road) was investigated. This routing (see Figure 1) is 10.1 kilometers (6.25 miles)
long and consists of two-lane roadways with characteristics similar to SR 2445 (Kendrick Road).
A road user benefit-cost analysis was performed based on 3000 vpd and an average additional
travel length of 10.1 kilometers (6.25 miles). The road user cost of additional travel would be
approximately $1,850,000. for the 12-month construction period. The estimated cost of
providing an on-site detour is $400,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 4.7. This ratio
indicates justification to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Gastonia
South and Belmont Quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands
Inventory mapping (7.5 minute quadrangles), Natural Resources Conservation Service draft soils
mapping (USDA 1989), and recent aerial photography (scale 1:1200).
The site was visited on June 23, 1999. The study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the study corridor was assumed to be
approximately 366 meters (1200 feet) in length and 61 meters (200 feet) in width. Impact
calculations for both detours and bridge replacements are based on approximate construction
limits.. The area within right-of-way for Alternate A has a length of 207 meters (680 feet) and
width of 23 meters (75 feet); while the area within right-of-way for Alternate B has a length of
335 meters (1100 feet) and width of 53 meters (175 feet). Special concerns evaluated in the field
include potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection in this
tributary of Catawba Creek.
EcoScience Corporation biologists, Alexander P. Smith, Joseph W. Albiston, and Melanie C.
8

Doyle conducted the fieldwork for this investigation. Mr. Smith is a senior scientist with 13
years experience in the environmental field; Mr. Albiston is a project scientist with 2 years of
experience in the environmental field; and Ms. Doyle is a project scientist with 2 years of
experience in the environmental field.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al.(1968). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three
parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population
distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick
1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et al. 1994, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Water quality information
for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DEM 1995, DWQ 1998a).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal-protected species with ranges which extend into Gaston
County (May 14, 1999) was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition,
NHP records documenting presence of federal- or state-listed species were consulted before
commencing the field investigation.
Project Area
The proposed project is located in a suburban area of Gaston County approximately 2.4
kilometers (1.5 miles) southwest of Elmores Crossroads (Figure 1). The study corridor is
approximately 0.6 kilometers (0.4-mile) northwest of the intersection of SR 2445 (Kendrick)
Road and SR 2439 (Beaty Road). Land use in the vicinity of the bridge is primarily hardwood
forest with urban/disturbed land. Residential dwellings are situated near the study corridor east
of Kendrick Road and northwest of the tributary crossing. No structures associated with these
dwellings occur within the study corridor, but the associated maintained yards are located within
the northeast portion of Alternate B.
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the southern Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina. Topography is characterized as gently rolling, with narrow to broad, flat floodplains
associated with rivers and streams. The study corridor primarily occurs on gently sloping
9

10
uplands with a single crossing of the unnamed tributary. Elevations range from a low of
approximately 189 meters (620 feet) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the tributary
bed to a high of approximately 198 meters (650 feet) (NGVD) at the ends of the study corridors
(USGS Belmont quadrangle). The dominant soil along the study corridor is Pacolet sandy loam
(Typic Kanhapludults). Other soils include Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) along
the banks of the unnamed tributary and Cecil-Urban land complex (Typic Kanhapludults) on
upland slopes.
Pacolet soils occur on upland slopes adjacent to SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) on both sides of the
unnamed tributary. This series is characterized as well drained and moderately permeable, and is
typically found on upland slopes and narrow ridges. Pacolet sandy loam is considered a non-
hydric soil within Gaston County (MRCS 1996).
Chewacla soils occur within a narrow corridor that includes the unnamed tributary and adjacent
banks. This series is characterized as somewhat poorly drained and moderately permeable, and
typically occurs on floodplains and along creeks and rivers. Chewacla loam is considered to be a
non-hydric soil with hydric inclusions in Gaston County (MRCS 1996).
Cecil-Urban Land complex occurs on upper slopes supporting residential development in the
northwest portion of the study corridor. The designation "Urban Land" is used for areas where
more than 85-percent of the surface is subject to impervious cover. Characteristics of the
original soils (drainage, horizons, degree of compaction) have been drastically altered by
development. Cecil-Urban Land complex is characterized as well drained and moderately
permeable, and typically occurs on broad ridges with slopes of 2 to 8 percent. Portions of this
mapping unit are typically developed and are characterized by 25 to 50-percent impervious
surface cover. Cecil-Urban Land complex is considered to be a non-hydric soil in Gaston
County (MRCS 1996).
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-08-37 of the Catawba River Basin (DEM
1995). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03050101 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Region.
This unnamed tributary to Catawba Creek originates approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles)
southwest of the subject crossing from one drainage seep and four ponds. The tributary joins
Catawba Creek approximately 0.6 kilometers (0.4 mile) east of the crossing. Catawba Creek has
been assigned Stream Index Number 11-130 by the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management (DEM).
10

Stream Characteristics
The unnamed tributary is a well-defined, perennial, Piedmont stream. The channel is somewhat
incised with no adjacent wetlands. Bedrock, scattered boulders, cobble, and coarse sand
characterize the bed. Both banks are moderately steep, with the east bank rising approximately
4.3 meters (14 feet) in elevation to a maintained utility line corridor, and the west bank rising
approximately 1.2 meters to 3.0 meters (4 to 10 feet) in elevation to a hardwood forest
community.
In the vicinity of the existing road crossing, the top of the channel banks are approximately 12.2
meters (40 feet) wide and drop approximately 4.3 meters (14 feet) to an approximately 3.0
meters (10 feet) wide bed. During the site visit, water depth was approximately 10 centimeters
to 15 centimeters (4 to 6 inches) and flow was relatively slow.
In the vicinity of the proposed Alternate B crossing, the top of channel banks are approximately
3.0 meters (10 feet) wide and drop approximately 0.9 meters Q feet) to an 2.4 meters (8 feet)
wide bed. This section of the tributary is characterized by a narrow 0.6 meters to 1.5 meters (2 to
5 feet) wide terrace adjacent to each bank bounded by moderately steep slopes. There is some
evidence of flooding on the terraces; however, flood events appear to be irregular in occurrence.
Best Usaae Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C has been assigned to Catawba Creek from the source to Lake Wylie, at the
Catawba River (DWQ 1998a). Class C uses are aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to activities
involving human body contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis (DWQ 1998b).
No waters designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW),
Water supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the
study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed
project area is summarized in the Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan
(Draft) (DEM 1995). User support information concerning water quality is available for a
monitored stream segment [approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5-mile) below the study corridor on

Catawba Creek]. Sampling data indicate a water quality rating of Poor at this station (DEM
1995).
The Catawba Creek sub-basin supports seven point dischargers, one major point-source
discharger (with a total permitted flow of 34 million liters (9 million gallons) per day, and six
smaller dischargers. The major discharger is the Gastonia Catawba Creek Waste Water
Treatment Plant. Non-point source discharges in the vicinity of the project appear to include
urban runoff and construction. Catawba Creek is Not Supporting its water quality classification
usage throughout the lower half of the sub-basin (DEM 1995).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Using best management practices (BMPs) during construction
can minimize impacts. 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.
The existing bridge is to be placed by a reinforced concrete culvert. The culvert will be
countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage and to allow for continuation of present creek
flows, thereby protecting system integrity. Long-term impacts to this unnamed tributary to
Catawba Creek are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources,
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project.
There is little potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into "waters of the United
States." Therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from removal of the existing bridge.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be
applied for the removal of this bridge.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: mixed mesic
12
I
hardwood forest, maintained/disturbed land, and urban land. These plant communities are
described below.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) -This community is dominated by a
mature canopy of hardwoods with a well-defined understory and scattered herb layer. Mesic
mixed hardwood forest occurs primarily north of SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) on relatively
undisturbed ridges and slopes down to both banks of the unnamed tributary. This community
closely resembles that, by the same name, described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Canopy
species include southern red oak (Quercus falcata), American beech (Fagus grandifolia),sweet
pignut hickory (Carya glabra), white oak (Quercus alba), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The understory is comprised
of sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), Chinese privet (Ligustrunr
sinense), silverberry (Elaeagnus umbellata), flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida), red mulberry
(Morus rubra), and American holly (Ilex opaca). The herbaceous layer on the forest floor is
comprised of asters (Aster sp.), violet (Viola sp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), Nepal microstegium (Eulalia vimineum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
rattlesnake plantain (Goodyeara pubescens), false solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa),
muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Immediately adjacent to
the tributary, this plant community includes species adapted to wetter conditions, such as
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), black willow (Salix
nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), soft rush (Juncus effusus), greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), and false-nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica).
Maintained/Disturbed Land - This community is dominated by a herbaceous layer with no
canopy or shrubs. Maintained /disturbed land is located on road shoulders and in utility corridors
along SR 2445 (Kendrick Road) and on the east side of the tributary. This community generally
is maintained mechanically by mowing. The herbaceous understory consists of vasey-grass
(Paspalum urvillei), sericea (Lespedeza cuneata), broom-sedge (Andropogon sp.), joe-pye-weed
(Eupatorium fistulosum), goldenrods (Solidago sp.), pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), and
blackberry (Rubus sp.). Tree seedlings within this community include southern red oak, white
oak, and post oak (Quercus stellata).
Urban Land - This community is dominated by mixed grass/herbaceous vegetation and contains
occasional shrubs and clumps of mature trees. Urban land is located northwest and south of SR
2445 (Kendrick Road). This community contains both maintained lawns associated with
residential development and areas that appear to be succeeding pasture. Common herbs include:
Bermuda grass (Cynodon dacrylon), fescue (Poa sp.), fleece flower (Polygonum sp. ), English
plantain (Plantago lanceolata), sericea, vasey grass, and elephant's foot (Elephantopus
13

tomentosus). Landscape and native tree and shrub species include: southem red oak, white oak,
post oak. American beech, black gum, flowering dogwood, red maple, and tulip poplar.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within the projected construction limits. A summary of potential plant
community impacts is presented below in hectares (acres).
ESTIMATED IMPACT
PLANT COMMUNITY
Alternate A Alternate B
Bridge #23 Temp. Detour Bridge #23 Temp. Detour
Mixed Mesic HW Forest ------------- 0.20 (0.50.) 0.33 (0.81) -------
Maintained/Disturbed 0.16 (0.40) 0.02 (0.05) 0.23 (0.56) -------
Urban Land 0.07 (0.18) 0.03 (0.07) 0.19 (0.48) 0.08 (0.20)
TOTAL: 0.23 (0.58) 0.25 (0.62) 0.75(l.85) 0.08(0.20)
From an ecological perspective, the impacts of bridge replacement in place are minimal relative
to construction on new alignment. No new fragmentation of plant communities will be created,
as both alterations will result only in relocation of ecotonal boundaries.
Permanent impacts to plant communities resulting from implementation of Alternate A are
restricted to narrow strips 0.23 hectares (0.58 acres) of disturbed communities
(maintained/disturbed land and urban land) adjacent to the existing bridge and road facilities.
Temporary impacts associated with the Alternate A detour primarily includes 0.20 hectares (0.50
acres) of mature hardwood forest, which will be replanted when bridge construction is complete.
Permanent impacts to plant communities resulting from implementation of Alternate B are
approximately three times [0.75 hectares (1.85 acres)] that of Alternate A. Additionally,
Alternate B permanently impacts include 0.33 hectares (0.81 acres) of mature hardwood forest.
Proposed temporary impacts of Alternate B [0.08 hectares (0.20 acres)] are less than for
Alternate A [0.25hectares (0.62 acres)] and are limited to a disturbed community (urban land).
Wildlife
Terrestrial
The study corridor is characterized by mature, relatively-undisturbed hardwood forest and open
14
r
to broken-canopied disturbed land. These contrasting communities provide food and cover for a
variety of wildlife. Wildlife observed within the study corridor are typical of rural, residential
communities.
Mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc.) or sightings noted include: tracks of racoon (Procyon lotor), a
road-kill striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Opportunistic and characteristic species which are expected to frequent woodlands and fringe
areas include: gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), and various rodents.
Birds observed in forested land include: northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), red-shouldered
hawk (Buteo lineatus), and Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Also within the
hardwood forest was evidence (lines of horizontal holes in tree bark) of yellow-bellied sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus varius). Birds observed in open land include: indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea),
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),
common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Other species expected to occur
within the study corridor include: song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), eastern screech owl (Otus
asio), and American robin (Turdus migratorius).
The only terrestrial reptile observed during field surveys is the eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina). Expected species include: eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix). The American toad (Bufo americanus), a terrestrial amphibian, is also expected.
Aquatic
No sampling was undertaken in the unnamed tributary to Catawba Creek or adjacent tributaries
to determine fishery potential, but a possible sunfish (Lepomis sp.) was observed from the bank
upstream of the existing bridge. Species which may be present on site include: rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), greenfin shiner (Notropis
chloristius), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis).
Due to stream size and potential intermittent nature, there is little potential for game fish within
the study corridor. Tributaries are intermittent in nature and may not carry adequate hydrology
to support fishes during drought conditions.
Limited surveys did not result in documenting any aquatic reptiles or amphibians in the unnamed
tributary. The on-site stream reach provides suitable habitat for snapping turtle (Chelydra
15

serpentina), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens),
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), mud salamander (Pseudotriton montanus),
and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements will be
restricted to roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances will have short-
term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns. However, long-term
impacts are expected to be negligible. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be
avoided by constructing the culvert to allow the system to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to down stream habitat from increased sediment during
construction will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic
populations. The culverts will be sized to insure continual stream flow in these tributaries.
Construction of temporary structures associated with Alternate A will have short-term impacts
on uplands and the stream within the project foot print. The mobile nature of both local wildlife
and fish populations will allow these species to vacate the project area during construction and
return following bridge replacement and removal of temporary structures.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the unnamed tributary to Catawba Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33
CFR Section 328.3). The waters of the unnamed tributary to Catawba Creek exhibit
characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, Piedmont streams that are permanently flooded, with
unconsolidated bottoms (R2UBH) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987). No wetlands occur within the construction limits of either Alternate A or
Alternate B.
The area and lengths of stream to be affected by development is shown as follows:
16

POTENTIAL
OPEN-WATER
IMPACT
Alternate A
Alternate B
Bridge #23 Temp. Detour Bridge #23 Temp. Detour
Area [hectares (acres)]
Lengths [meters(fi)]
0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) 0.02 (0.06) ------------
24.3(80) 24.3 (80) 42.7 (140) -----------
Detour impacts are temporary in nature. Fill material will be removed and surfaces will be
restored to pre-project contours on completion of the construction activities.
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into "waters of
the United States" during construction. Therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from
bridge removal. This project can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions
other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
NCDOT will coordinate with the various resource agencies during project planning to ensure
that all concerns regarding bridge demolition are resolved.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874,65916,
December 13, 1996) has been issued by the COE for CEs due to expected minimal impact.
DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, -use of this
permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor
impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify
under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the
Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
Temporary impacts to the tributary and adjacent uplands associated with construction activities
will be mitigated upon project completion by re-establishment of pre-project contours, removal
of temporary fill material, and replanting disturbed areas with native species. A final
17

determination regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S. rests with the COE and DWQ. Fill or
alteration of more than 45.7 meters (150 linear feet) of streams may require compensatory
mitigation in accordance with 15NCAC2H.0506(h).
The construction of Alternate B will result in the conversion of approximately 0.19 hectares
(0.47 acres) currently under roadbed and maintained shoulder to naturalized communities. This
area will be restored to pre-construction contours and planted with native vegetation.
Protected Species
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (F;) or Threatened (T), Proposed (P) for
such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A]) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range", "Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is
likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range", and the term "Proposed" is defined as "any species proposed for
official listing as Endangered or Threatened" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Whenever a species which is not
Threatened or Endangered closely resembles a Threatened or Endanger species, such species
may be treated as Threatened and Endangered, and would be referred to as Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance or Endangered due to Similarity of Appearance. State designations for
federal-listed species in Gaston County includes Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Proposed
Threatened (PT). The following federal-protected and FSC species are listed for Gaston County
(December 20, 1999 FWS list):
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name Status Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenburgii T (S/A) T
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T E (PT)
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E E
Bog Turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 7.6
centimeters to 10.2 centimeters (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 alteration. As a result, the bog turtle is listed as
Threatened within the northern portion of its range, and within the southern portion of its range,
which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T [S/A]) to the northern population. The listing bans the collection and interstate
18
I
and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. 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. NHP records indicate that bog turtle has not been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) of the study corridor.
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not
required. However, this project is not expected to affect the bog turtle since palustrine aquatic
emergent wetlands do not occur within the study corridor.
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 1.8 meters (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. 1980).
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water. Eagles
forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 229 meters to 457 meters (750 to 1500
feet) from a nest tree are considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987).
The FWS recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting
within this primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary
out to a distance of 1.6 kilometers (l mile) from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing
activities should be restricted to the non-nesting period. The FWS also recommends avoiding
alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing
activities within 457 meters (1500 feet) of known roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This species nests in tall trees near large, open bodies of
water, which it requires for hunting fish. NHP records indicate no documented populations of
bald eagle within or in the vicinity of the study corridor. The nearest confirmed occurrence of
this species is along the shores of Lake Wylie approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) to the
southeast. Bald eagles were not observed during field studies conducted in support of this
document. Based on available information and results of current field surveys, the proposed
project will not affect the bald eagle. NO EFFECT.
Schweinitz's sunflower - Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial
19

herb that grows to approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet) in height. The stem may be purple, usually
pubescent. but sometimes nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but
alternate above; in shape they are lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The
leaves are rather thick and stiff, with a few small serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and
the lower surface is usually pubescent with soft white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms
from late August to frost; the yellow flower heads are about 1.5 centimeters (0.6 inches) in
diameter. The current range of this species is limited to 10 known populations in North Carolina
in Union. Stanly, Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, and Rowan Counties. This species occurs on upland
interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in texture. The species requires
open areas protected from shade or excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies.
Disturbances such as fire maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (FWS
1994).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This species of sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of the
Carolinas, occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in
texture. The species requires open areas protected from shade or excessive competition,
reminiscent of Piedmont prairies. Both maintained/disturbed land and urban land provide
appropriate habitat for this species. NHP records indicate that the nearest documented
population of Schweinitz's sunflower occurs on the shoulder of Catawba Creek Cove Road (SR
2650) approximately 6.4 kilometers (4.0 miles) southeast of the study corridor. Schweinitz's
sunflower was not observed during the initial field visit; therefore, additional field surveys were
conducted September 21, 2000. Areas of potentially-suitable habitat within the study corridor
were identified, and systematic plant surveys were conducted within those areas . Surveys were
conducted by walking transects through vegetation until the entire area was covered. Distance
between transects was a maximum of 3 meters (10 feet). Areas containing known plant
associates were closely scrutinized, and plant species similar in appearance to Schweinitz's
sunflower were identified and recorded. Areas which did not meet the habitat criteria were
discounted and left unsurveyed.
The survey was conducted by EcoScience (ESC) biologists Edward C. Swab and Shay Garriock.
Mr. Swab is an ecological consultant with seven years experience in the environmental field.
Mr. Garriock is an ESC Project Scientist with five years experience in the environmental field.
Schweinitz's sunflower was not found during systematic surveys of the study corridor. As
mentioned above the nearest documented population is 6.4 kilometers (4.0 miles) southeast of
the study corridor. Based on this information, the proposed project will not result in direct
impact to Schweinitz's sunflower. NO EFFECT.
20
J

Federal Species of Concern
"Federal Species of Concern" (FSC) do not receive protection under federal law, but should be
considered during project planning. Species with the FSC designation may or may not be listed
as Endangered or Threatened in the future. The only FSC species listed for Gaston County
(December 20,1999 FWS list) is Georgia aster (Aster georgianus), which is also listed as state
Threatened. Georgia aster typically occurs in thin woods, old fields, and pastures, all of which
are habitats present within the project corridor. Georgia aster was not observed during the site
visit, and this species has not been documented within 3.22 kilometers (3 miles) of the study
corridor.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina
Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of
1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).
The only state-listed species documented from the vicinity of the study corridor is smooth
magnolia vine (Schisandra glabra), which has a listing of T-SC. This occurrence is located
approximately 4.8 kilometers (3.0 miles) west of study corridor on a bank of the South Fork
Catawba River near the crossing of Upper Armstrong Bridge (SR 2519). This species typically
occurs in "heavy woods" of bottomlands or on bluffs along creeks in rich sandy-silt loams (Kral
1983). The study corridor does not provide appropriate habitat for this species.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings. The project was coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA
procedures.
21

B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the project area of potential effects (APE) was conducted by staff of Ko &
Associates on March 4, 1999. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later a
NCDOT staff architectural historian reviewed these photos. None of the properties were
considered to be eligible, and in the meeting between SHPO and NCDOT on April 1, 1999 a
concurrence form was signed to this effect. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In their May 6, 1999 letter, the SHPO stated "We have conducted a review of the project and are
aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as currently proposed."
Given the limited scope of the project, no effects on archaeological sites are anticipated.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe
bridge. Inconvenience to motorists will be negligible since traffic will be maintained on site.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. One residence may be relocated
by the proposed construction. NCDOT's Relocation Assistance Program will minimize the
impacts of relocation and will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS -133-5 through 133-18).
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project is excluded from the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) since the
22
J
project is located within the urban area of Gastonia. (7 CFR Part 658).
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project, therefore Section 4 (f) does not
apply.
The project is located in Gaston County, which is within the Charlotte-Gastonia non-attainment
area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
designated these areas as "moderate" non-attainment area for 03. However, due to improved
monitoring data, these areas were re-designated as "maintenance" for 03 on July 5, 1995.
Section 176 ( c ) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform
to the intent of the State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP). The current SIP does not
contain any transportation control measures for Gaston County. The Gaston Urban Area MPO
2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2000-2006 Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program (MTIP) have been determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The
USDOT air quality conformity approval of the LRTP was October 1, 1999 and the USDOT air
quality conformity approval of the MTIP was October 1, 1999. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
There has been no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analyses. This is an air quality neutral project.
The replacement of the existing bridge will not result in increased noise levels. The noise levels
will increase during the construction period, but will only be temporary. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous
waste sites in the project area.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
XI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies:
23
41
*US Army Corps of Engineers- Wilmington District
*US Natural Conservation Service
State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources
*NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
*NC Division of Water Quality
*NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Land Resources
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
NC Division of Forest Resources
NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation
* Mayor of Gastonia
Chairman, Gaston County Commissioners
*Centralina Council of Governments
Asterisks (*) indicates agencies from which written comments were received. The comments are
included in the appendix of this report.
The City of Gastonia made the following comments in their correspondence dated April 19,
1999;
"Upgrade should accommodate City's water and sewer utility crossings". The project
will be designed to accommodate the City's utilities. Any adjustments of the utilities
will be coordinated with the City.
"Upgrade should provide clearance for bikeway/greenway under the bridge".
Subsequent coordination with the City staff determined that no bikeway/greenway is
proposed along the stream in this area.
"Upgrade should accommodate a three-lane roadway with a bike lane". The
replacement structure is a box culvert that can easily be expanded in the future to
accommodate a multi-lane facility. This section of roadway does not correspond to a
bicycle TIP request, nor is it a designated bicycle route. At the present time NCDOT
has no indication that there are any unusual number of bicyclists using this road. There
does not appear to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this project.
"Upgrade should provide sidewalks on both sides of bridge". It is the policy of
NCDOT to replace sidewalks when existing sidewalks are involved with a proposed
project. There are no existing sidewalks in the vicinity of this bridge replacement. For
construction projects where sidewalks do not already exist, it is the policy of NCDOT
24

that it will not participate in the construction of sidewalks except where the project
would create hazards for pedestrian movement and certain situations where pedestrian
facilities provide significant benefits to the movement of pedestrian traffic. The
proposed new stream crossing will provide a two-lane roadway with 2.4 meters (8-foot)
wide shoulders and will not create any hazards for pedestrians. There is no indication
of pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of the existing bridge. NCDOT policy does allow
sidewalks to be constructed by the municipality or constructed as part of the project
with reimbursement by the municipality.
25

REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100
PP.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1995. Catawba River Basinwide Water
Quality Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998 b. Guidance Manual for Protecting and Maintaining
Riparian Areas. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in
the Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kral, Robert. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-Related
Vascular Plants of the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Atlanta, GA.
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.
26
1
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 1996. Hydric Soils: Gaston County. United
States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide, Section II-A 2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. 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, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishers of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1989. Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
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.
27

74 29 - 1-, 85 85
74 74 " Franklin Ave, -
321 321 ~ 29 7
N 74
\ N J ENVIL
GASTONIA
0
' po / P
0 16
a2712 ll..++ J1 ???'
J -"
CBAMAON
-7 f
1 P • ? ?4 `
17
321 v
`/
3
I I ?"
??$OUTH OASTONIA JACKSON -
(UNINC.) KNOB
1 r _-
_ lri
onl Mvvldpa
Growd.n A ?. I
BRIDGE NO. 23
7
?"Unlon Ch. 1
Y
321
STUDI5 DETOUR-
'S Iilyh Sho81§? _,.tf? 8Mi5?';
? t ?? Stank
111c, I
,' 1 G A JR?aI t
(O xv aal??, T
,? 1f z
o r
oto
NORTH CAROLINA DBPARTMBNT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNDW AND BNVIRONXBNTAL BRANCH
0
°4r µca
T 4
BRIDGE NO. 23
SR 2445 OVER BRANCH OF CATAWBA CREEK
GASTON COUNTY
B-3456
VICINITY MAP
0 2 4 6 8
GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES) FIGURE I
E? ?
4
MWA FAA
It
EAST VIEW
WEST VIEW
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
BRIDGE NO. 23

FIGURE 4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
_ WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
`?- IN REPLY REFER TO May 4, 1999
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-520.1
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to your letters of March 18, 1998, requesting our comments on
B-3455, Bridge No. 24 over a Branch of Catawba Creek on SR 2444, Gaston County"
and "B-3456, Bridge No. 23 over a Branch of Catawba Creek on SR 2445, Gaston
County" (Regulatory Division Action ID # 199930733 and 199930732, respectively).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
bridge improvements/replacements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control
or navigation project. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
May 4, 1999
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
T-3455, Bridge No. 24 over a Branch of Catawba Creek on SR 2444, Gaston County"
and "B-3456, Bridge No. 23 over a Branch of Catawba Creek on SR 2445, Gaston
County" (Regulatory Division Action ID # 199930733 and 199930732, respectively)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section at
[phone]
Gaston County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Based on a review of Panel 285 of both the May 1980 Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) and Flood Hazard Boundary Map, Bridge 24 is a crossing of Forest Brook
Branch, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined. From a review of Panel 305 of the FIRM, Bridge 23 crosses an
unnamed tributary that is mapped approximately. For Bridge 24, reference is made to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) "Procedures for'No Rise'
Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways", copies of which
have been furnished previously to your office. Improvements to both bridges should be
designed to meet the requirements of the NFIP, administered by FEMA, and be in
compliance with all local ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to community flood
plain regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steve Lund Project Manager Asheville
Field Office Regulatory Division at [phone]
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on
design of the projects, extent of fill work within waters of the United States, including
wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, in order for the
proposal to be considered for authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project
planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed
activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the
aquatic environment. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts
often results in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than
minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to
be addressed in the project planning report:

May 4, 1999
Page 2 of 2
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Offsite detours are always preferable to onsite (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an onsite detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-the-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is
necessary for temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used
to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation, including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life, including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on
recreational navigation.
g. In addition, to be considered for authorization, discharge of demolition material
into waters and wetlands and associated impacts must be disclosed and discussed in
the project planning report.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Lund.
f

Norm Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore. P.E.. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch.'NCDOT
FROIM: Joe H. Mickey, Jr. Regional Coordinato
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 1. 1999
SUBJECT: B-3456. Bridge No. 23 over a branch of Catawba Creek on SR 2445. Gaston
County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review- and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project. Biological. staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission have reviewed the scoping sheets for the subject project and have not identified any
special concerns regarding this project. A formal scoping response outlining our informational
needs for preparation of the environmental document will be provided upon request through the
State Clearinshouse. `
Thank -•ou for the opportunity to reyieNti' and comment durins the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regardins these comments. please contact me at 336/3366-
2 98`' `
,Rao FQ
7D ?''Q9

STATE OF NORTH G\ROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. MORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 7, 1999
Memorandum
To: Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attn: Ms. Nancy Campanella
From: Arthur H. Petteway, PE, Senior Project Engineer L.;
Rail Division
Subject: Response to project "Start of Study" letters for Group XVI Bridge
Replacement Projects.
Your letters dated March 18. 1999 transmitted for our review information on the following bridge
replacement projects:
Pro ect County Description
B-3455 Gaston Bridge No. 24 over a branch of Catawba Creek on SR 2444
B-3456 Gaston Bridge No. 23 over a branch of Catawba Creek on SR 2445
After reviewing the information. our office finds no rail interaction anticipated on these projects.
Thank you for your continued assistance in notifying the Rail Division of these upcoming
projects.
If we can be of further assistance. please contact me at [phone].
Cc: James B. Harris, PE
RAIL Di\ isio\ ENGI\EERI\G &\ S-\FETI BR.-\\Cli
rl l??\F .ilu, l3-`5(11 w h? tram r',
9 r?
?•?o •I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NOR.R1s TOLSON
GOVERNOR
SECRETARY
March 29. 1999
L ?
MEMORANDUM TO: William D. Gilmore. P.E.. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Chrffs B. Yates, Director
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge Replacement Project:
Bridge No. 23 on SR 2445 over Catawba Creek.
Gaston County. TIP No. B-3456.
In your memorandum of March 18, 1999. you requested our comments regarding
the proposed improvements to the subject project.
This section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request. nor is it a
designated bicycle route. At the present time we have no indication that there are an
unusual number of bicyclists using this road. There does not appear to be an), special need
for bicycle accommodations on this project.
We appreciate the opportunin• to comment on this project. If there is a need for further
information. please contact Tom Norman. Facilities Program Manager, at 715-2342.
CBY/rwd
Cures B. fates
:?n•aron of Br: rcle and Pedestrian Transportation
Phone (9191 '15-_340- Far 1919) 71 ±-i4__
Emar,• cbrares 5 mail dot state nc its

w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Junes B. Hunt Jr., Govcmor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 6, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David brook
f?-Cll
Deputy State Hi one Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge 213 over branch of Catawba Creek on SK
24457 B-3456, Gaston County, ER 99-8633
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1999, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and Histore
Jeffrey J. Crow, Dircctor
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural,
historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore,
we have no corrultent on the project as currently proposed.
The above conlmtrnts 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 Fart 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. if you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Rencc Gledhill-Farley, environmental review eoordutator, at
919/733-4763"
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Thomas Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-:807
r
- =$tZSSp-Z S ! TIP = B'3y5 CO Ccur C-5? ,
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Bic-.'Proicc: Dcscmution K_egjQ 0 -5f+ aC, Qo 23 cn SR. 214q OV ¢X
On a q rcorescncativcs or the
?,Nlorth Carolina Dcoartnlcrt orTr-..nsporation (NCDOT)
Fcdc:al Highway Adminisi.-cion (FH%vA)
?orth Carolina Scatc Historic Prescrration Ofcc (SHPO)
Odic-
-,:IC Suoicc: ?rclcc:
?A cocinc Tcc.:nc
? ,;Istorlc arCal[ccural ,cscurcLs ?l1CtC'_r» 1: rc,.'IC•. scssic n;C011511Itcn

no orocc.^.:cs c..7 old \\1ch111
_ :,c'_ arc no proccrt:c5 ics5 .aa^ Ca:S Old \?'i1IC:1 ..:C CCnSiCz:: ^. tO ii1CC: L::[cc:cn
Consldc =ticn G \vichin L,c =rcjcc.*s cr pccc.-,,al
? -
i (llS ) \cichin tilt urclCC: S a.-= Or occcniia.
i,C:C arc DfCOCrtICS 0?'C' ?:S Old : atiaCilCd
?aC: 5 : ' CC :CS
?i:ctc>_. .- ?-?• • ?•?
but oascd on the histcriccl inj?ior,::acion a?•ailaolc and i::c 7rc-c"-
1d ... as -P•ro p e-( •{ 1 cS ! - E2 ar: , nsidc: ct
`cr vat:onai Rc_ls[c: =d no _.aiu:Clan or Is
inc. arc no National Rc^ISCC: -hSiCd 7raccrtlcs \Clcinn :11C crClcc: 5 aC.a CC -c[cnci 1

1?l U
R csc:: vc. CDOT
/L?
9/l
A, jbfdlc Division Administrator, or ochcr rccc:ac Agcac:

Dacc
Daic
Rc cscnca ivc, SHPO
?ZlaEc l;isxrlc Prescrvacion Otilcc:

_;::r: e. , sm is rc: r._.....,._, C- %- ,;i ..u, or.:.
r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
April 8, 1999
ern
NCDENR
ME"IOR-ANDL":
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E.. Manager. NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated March 18, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for
bridge replacement TIP B-3456. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the proposed bridge will
span the Catawba Creek in Gaston County. The DWQ index number for the waterbody is 11-130 and the
stream is classified as class C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters. Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Bodv Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout
Water) classifications.
B. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
C. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources. the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ if impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre, or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
04/08/99
Page 2
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridles with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
If the project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, mitigation will be required if wetland impacts
exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) I).
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool, their
inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Qualit}
Certification requires appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc; John Dorney, NCDWQ
Nancy Campanella, NCDOT

C:\ncdot\TIP B-3456\B-3356 scoping cornments.doc

C17y O GASTON/A
ENG/NEER/Ng DwsloN
April 19, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore. PE
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
In response to your letter dated March 18, 1999, concerning the upgrade of Bridge No. 23
over a branch of Catawba Creek on Kendrick Road (SR 2445), the following information
is provided by the City of Gastonia.
1. Upgrade should accommodate City's water and sewer utility crossings
?. Upgrade should provide clearance for bikeway/greenwav under bridge
3. Upgrade should accommodate a three-lane roadwav with a bike lane
4. Upgrade should provide sidewalks on both sides of bridge
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter. please
do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Yours very truly.
Q?N
DONALD K. LOWE
Citv Traffic Engineer
cc: Danny O. Crew. City Manager
Donald E. Carmichael. Director of Public Works & Utilities
J. Philip Bombardier, Asst. Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Debby P. Key, Project Administrator
Michael W. Bynum, Civil Engineer II
Jack L. Kiser, Director of Planning

kp;? ?_? coq

a-Z,
(eR?a ee-
M _
PO Box 1748 • CwsroNia Non& Cwollm • 28053-1748
[phone] FAx [phone]

0
?N
'PAP
Gaston County Schools
shaping our future
Edwara D. Sooler Ed.D.
suoanrnencenl
Central Adnuni,Italive OltrcC
?43 Osceo n S(re91
P O. t3o, 1327
G.1- Ionia. NC 20053
170a) 866-S 100
FAX(%04)866.6175
09oarlr^fnt of
Eaceononat Children
730 W Garrison Soutavard
Gastonia NC 20052
(700 866.6160
FAX 1704) SE5.6191
Uw+slor of
Ri!SOW ee M.1nagemo-nt
2152 Hotitn;.n Road
134slonle. NC 28054
(%441666.5'29
FAX t704) 866.6193
5CnOpl Nuthtlon Proarrms
500 Rwd Sleet
Lowell NC :0098
[phone]
FAX (704) 8:44744!
SIall Development Center
236 Eighth Avenue
Clamerlon. Nr 28032
[phone]
FAX [phone]
TeacCer AijsovKe Comer
366 w Garrison Ovulevara
Gaslav3. NC 28052
(70d 1666 .6 174
FAX[phone]
?! .n.
?1 n? -17-0 --
May 31,1999
Mr. Gerald Knott, Section Chief
School Planning
Department of Public Instruction
Per your request concerning Gaston County School Buses crossing
bridge N's 24 on SR 2444 and 23 on SR 2445, we have one hielt school
one elementary school and one exceptionnl bus crossing each of these
bridges twice each day.
if you have any fi)rther questions, please contact me at S66-613 I
Baxter L; Starr,
r ??1
irector of Trans olZation
p

United States
,partment of
,riculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
4405 Bland Rd.
Suite 205
Raleigh. NC 27609
[phone]
USDA
Mr. William D. Gilmore. P. E.. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
P. O. Box 2520
Raleigh. NC 27611
Attention: Ms. Nancy Campanella
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
April 19. 1999
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on B-3456, Bridge No. 23 over a Branch of
Catawba Creek on SR 2445, Gaston County. North Carolina.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time.
Sincerely,
Man, T. Kollstedt
State Conservationist
The Nature: Resources ConseNahon Service worKs hand-In-hanc wrtn the
American -ecole to conserve natural resources on ,nvate land AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ErAPLOYER
North Carolina Department of Transl orta(lon
SHELBY RIGHT OF WAY OFFICE~
D E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR a DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.2812001 COUNTY Gaston Alternate 1/A
10. No.: B-3456 FA PROJECT BRSTP-2445 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on SR 2445 over Forest Brook Branch of
Catawba River in Gaston County
ESTIMA TED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 2 s 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-MIM 0 150-250 0 20-40M 13 IW250 1
Y°° No Explain all "YES' answers. 40-70M 250400
0
0
40-TOM
32 250-400
12
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 63 400400 3
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 of T§ 600 u• 3
displacement? TOTAL 0 0 183 .. 21
X 3. Will business services still be available after. REMARKS (Respond.by Number)
X 4. Will any business be displaced?
3-No, Permanent Displacement of Business
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6-Realtors, MLS, Real Estate Publications, Rental Agents,
newspapers and on ground Investigation.
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8- Last resort housing will be administered In accordance to
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? State law.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
X 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? 11-Section 8 Housing is available in Gaston County.
X- 1- s-publlehousing available? -....- - ?___- ---•__-- --
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12- DSS housing is available however not applicable given
available during the relocation period? no displacees on this alternate.
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 14-Realtors, MLS, Real Estate Publication, City and County
financial means? Rental Agents, and on the Grou ons.
\v
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list ?
G
sources). ?
15. Number months estimated to complete .;r.
00
9q
RELOCATION? FO Months;;;;
\°?
t
%1b
6
?pv
Q
?c'ir?jgJEC-f ID

Monica S. L •;F??""
Right of Way A Wt Date Approved by Date
Ongmal d 1 Copy: State Right of Way Agent
2 Copy Division Right of Way office
A

E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
SHELBY RIGHT OF WAY OFFICE
[PROJECT: 8.2812001 COUNTY Gaston Alternate 2/8
ID. NO.: B-3456 FA PROJECT BRSTP-2445 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 23 on SR 2445 over Forest Brook Branch of
Catawba River in Gaston County

ESTIMA
TED DISPLACEES -
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP
Residential 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Businesses
Farms
0
0
0 0
0 0
VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE

Non-Profit
0 0 0
0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
0 0 0.20n 0 3 0.150 0 0-20M 2 t 0-150 0
Yes No
Ex ANSWER ALL OUESTtONB
plain all 'YES' answers 20jOr 0 150-250 0 2040M 13 150-250
.
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 40-70M
70-tDON 0 250.400
1 400600 0 40-TOM 32 250.400 12
70
100

X 2
Will
h
l 0 -
M 63 400-600 5
. sc
oo
s or churches be affect by 100 up 0 $00 uP 0 100111110
eg

di
l
? o ur 3
75

X

3 sp
acement
Will b
i
TOTAL
1 .;--.:,?? ^..:
0 . ,_
.; •;.,M :?::i'. 185 ; ;•.:,:• ; ' 21
`
. us
ness services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X 4. Will arty business be displaced?
3-No Permanent Displacement of Business
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 6-Realtors, MLS, Real Estate Publications, Rental Agents,
newspapers and on ground Investigation.
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7.
8 Will additional housing programs be needed? 8- Last resort housing will be administered in accordan
e t

.
x
Should Last Resort Housing be considered? c
o
State taw

X 9.
Are there large, disabled. elderly, etc. families? .
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11-Section 8 Housing Is available In Gaston County

-X- -11-Is public•hous4ngavadableR .
X 12. is it felt there will be adequate OSS housing housing is available

available during the relocation period? .
F
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means? 14-Realtors,
MLS, Real Estate Publication, City and County
Rental Agents, and on the Ground Investigations.
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
sources).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 8 Months

Mono . Lo
Right of Way t Date
Form Is • 00 .-A nlroK Approved by
Date
Original & 1 CODy: State Right of Way Agent
2 Copy Division Right of Way office