20050673 Ver 1_Complete File_20050629

O?OF WATFT
r
p 'C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek. P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 29, 2005
DWQ# 05-0673
Gaston County
Donald K. Lowe, City Traffic Engineer UIN (r-zk
City of Gastonia Engineering Department D
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748 JUL 0 6 2005
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions WEri.ACNDSAND S OR?y TER WH
Dear Mr. Lowe:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to permanently
impact 75 linear feet (If) of Kaglor Branch (a perennial stream) and 0.05 acres of Wetland B and temporarily
impact approximately 80 If of Kaglor Branch and 0.13 acres of Wetland C. Permanent impacts are proposed
for the purpose of replacing an existing bridge and providing bank stabilization and temporary impacts are
proposed for providing a temporary detour bridge and bank stabilization as described in your application
received by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on April 19, 2005, and additional information received on
June 21, 2005. The location of the project is Tulip Drive in Gastonia, Gaston County. After reviewing your
application, we have determined that this project is covered by Water Quality General Certification Number
3404. This certification corresponds to Regional General Permit 198200031 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE). Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits before
proceeding with your project, including those required by (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Non-Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the associated 404
permit unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design that you described in your application (unless modified
below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ in writing and you may be required to submit a
new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval
letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in
the future) exceed one acre, or if total impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet,
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 21-1.0506 (h)(6) and (7). For this approval
to remain valid, you must adhere to the conditions listed in the attached certification and those listed below:
1. Disposal of old bridge material into surface waters is not allowed. Strict adherence to the USACE guidelines
for bridge demolition will be required.
2. The temporary impact area within Wetland C shall be restored as per your correspondence to DWQ dated
June 15, 2005. This shall include restoring the natural grade and providing supplemental seeding using a
commercially available wetland seed mix.
3. The existing, off-site storm water management pond, located adjacent to Wetland B, shall not be disturbed by
construction of either the temporary detour bridge or the new bridge. This shall include maintaining the outfall
for the pond.
1, Mop Carolina
Agwraffil
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301
Intemet h2o.enr.statemus Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone[phone]
Fax [phone]
An Equal opportunity/Aflinnebw Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Page 2
4. Riprap must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow conditions.
5. The presence of equipment in the channel must be minimized. Under no circumstances must rock, sand or
other materials be dredged from the wetted stream channel.
6. Erosion and sediment control practices must utilize Best Management Practices (BMP) and be in full
compliance with all specifications governing the proper design, installation, and operation and maintenance of
such BMP in order to protect surface water standards:
a. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures
must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of
the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all
construction sites, borrow pit sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or
leased borrow pits associated with the project.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface
Mining Manual.
c. The reclamation measures and implementation of these measures must be in accordance with the
requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
7. Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel, when possible, in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
8. Temporary dewatering sites must be restored to pre-existing conditions unless more natural geomorphic
conditions can be provided.
9. No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened.
10. The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified.
Disturbed floodplains and streams should be restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
11. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to
prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
12. All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.
13. Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to
surface waters is prohibited.
14. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent
practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable,
they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within 30 days after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project.
15. The City of Gastonia and its contractors and/or agents shall not excavate, fill or perform mechanized land
clearing at any time in the construction or maintenance of this project within waters and/or wetlands, except
as authorized by this Certification, or any modification to this Certification (e.g., no work shall occur outside of
the footprint of the plans provided). In addition, there shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into
jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this Certification without appropriate modification. If this
occurs, compensatory mitigation may be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
Page 3
16. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. Please
include photographs upstream and downstream of the structure to document correct installation.
17. Continuing Compliance. The City of Gastonia shall conduct its activities in a manner so as not to contravene
any state water quality standard [including any requirements for compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act] and any other appropriate requirements of state and federal law. If DWQ determines that such
standards or laws are not being met (including the failure to sustain a designated or achieved use) or that
state or federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, DWQ
may reevaluate and modify this certification to include conditions appropriate to assure compliance with such
standards and requirements in accordance with 15 A NCAC 2H.0507(d). Before codifying the certification,
DWQ shall notify NCDOT and the USACE, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0503, and
provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 21-1.0504. Any new or revised conditions
shall be provided to NCDOT in writing, shall be provided to the USACE for reference in any permit issued
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless
you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If
you have any questions, please telephone Polly Lespinasse in the Mooresville Regional Office at 704-663-
1699.
Sincerely,
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Rob Ridings, DWQ Wetlands Unit
Central Files
File Copy

Website:
www.rwhitehead.com
1000 W. Morehead Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28208
Mailing Address:
Post Office Box 35624
Charlotte, NC 28235
704 372-1885 Voice
704 372-3393 Fax
RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Charlotte Atlanta Jacksonville Richmond
Rock Hill Charleston Kansas City Raleigh
June 15, 2005
Mr. Ian McMillan
Environmental Specialist III
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
° C @C
JUN I
DENR - Wig; .t
WTLMAND S7UiW i!
Subject: Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement, Gaston County
State Project 8.2812301 (B-4344)
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1213(4)
Gastonia, NC
DWQ No. 05-0673
Dear Mr. McMillan:
In response to correspondence to Mr. Donald K. Lowe, City Traffic Engineer -- City of
Gastonia Engineering Department, dated June 10, 2005 (attached), we are providing
the following:
1. One half size (40' scale) bond print of plan view depicting the new bridge
(Sheet No. 4), and
2. One half size (1" = 40' Horiz. ; 1" = 8' Vert.) bond print of profile view
depicting the new bridge.
Additionally, and following discussions at the site on June 14, 2005 with Ms. Polly
Lespinasse, we will make it clear in the construction plans that:
1. A geotextile fabric will be placed under temporary fill where the detour
alignment will have a direct impact on wetlands "B" and "C",
2. The geotextile fabric will act as a delineation between natural ground and
temporary fill,
3. After Tulip Drive is re-opened to traffic, the temporary detour will be removed
and the area will be restored to original contours,
4. The geotextile fabric will be removed,
5. The original ground will be supplemented with a commercially available seed
mix suitable for propogation in wetlands, and
6. Add a "DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
POND" note for the area above wetland "B". The stormwater management
pond will continue to function and drain to the north side of Tulip Drive via an
existing pipe.
As indicated in our permit application dated March 5, 2005, the project will result in
unavoidable impact to 0.05 acre of wetland "B". Mitigation for this minimum impact
N:\I'I<OJ\2982\C0RRESP\transmittal letter NCDFNR 6-15-05 response.doc
Mr. Ian McMillan
June 15, 2005
Page 2 of 2
consisted of the avoidance of the eastern most portion of wetland "B" with permanent fill. Temporary
disturbance to wetland "B" will be restored as described above.
Please call with any questions you may have.
Sincerely, 1? AV'--
Brian 8/lit.G„? D. Dehler, PE
Project Manager
Encl.
cc: Mr. Donald K. Lowe - City of Gastonia
Michael Iagnocco - Ralph Whitehead Associates
Ms. Polly Lespinasse - DWQ Mooresville Office
N:APROJ\2882\CORRI.SP\transmittal letter NCDLNR 6-15-05 response.doc
o?oF ??a A rF,?QG
i
Donald K. Lowe, City Traffic Engineer
City of Gastonia Engineering Department
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 10, 2005
RE: Permit Application for Bridge Replacement, Tulip Drive, Gaston County, Federal Project BRZ-
1213(4), State Project 8.2812301, TIP Project B-4344, DWQ No. 05-0673, Received April 19, 2005
Dear Mr. Lowe:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Based on our review, the following information is needed for this office to complete
the processing of your application:
• A scaled, plan view drawing depicting the new bridge.
• A scaled, profile drawing depicting the new bridge.
• The application indicates there will be 0.05 acres of permanent impacts to Wetland B. The application
states that mitigation will be provided as restoration. Please provide additional information on the
restoration. In addition, what appears to be a wetland treatment system is located adjacent to Wetland
B. Please indicate how impacts and/or restoration in Wetland B may affect this wetland treatment
system.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 2H.0507(a)(5), we will place the certification request on hold until we are provided the
necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place the 404 Permit
application on hold.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone].
Sincerely,
Cc: Steve Chapin, USACE Asheville Field Office
Ian McMillan, DWQ Wetlands, Central Office
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
File Copy

D. Rex Gleason, P. E.
Surface Water Protection
Regional Supervisor
Npae
Caro ina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 Phone [phone]
Internet h2o,enr.state.nc.us Mooresville, NC 28115 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
LUM WETUMAD ANOCIAM
CONIMTWO BOX s iNOINew
PAL DDZ
PAL BOX
/1111! VII?w? I.?f1Y tY? Wtt
?J 'PO66 ??d82\0STATION\RDWY\Final Design\882-04.psh
0
m O
x C
o ao
r
S cn
? rZ
?
O
0
1 zm
0
N SOD
omr
?n
o
z

V) 2i
m
a
I

°
I I
II
ob
o
o
_o
i

N

-TI

O
I
I
I
i
lil
W
I I I NOS
i
cOyr
Ln
?oO
Iva C7
?0-15u 0,
??
as 1101
11011 p ?
b b "
? Sim
° a C
A? In
x
U M
fE (A A
I r
r
m

I

I ?-
m
<N
!F m
? 2
? I
? x

0
K IE ai ? ? . n}P
1
?
e o + IE ° m!?'
? o `a m I POT570. l3•l8a
h
IE If If bE z
fF fF $
' s x
o ?. c?
If
If- K If y m
$ i
I
K
IF K " f EX BEGIN C & 6
-L- SfA13.3Q
K LTgr rL ? pg?
{F If- V ?'„ N rL (? T
05
11
(n r
04
o (A CD
1? ? FDPS
F) N
N 03
I 02
? i
r 7-
14, BLS' c ; r s w
K _ z
I
Tg m m
'n 0
?e.. WC
i.
Q?
I
N, n o a'o
?' I • I? N
A

xl
N l?s m 19.7 _
?
J o
•
?^
o
00

-4 En
M -4
V
15
A
-n t-0
x+.

_VAR
FOPS

VAR
DPS
m

/9e 19&
00
n?

Ir /E'

v
FDPS
i? VAR
FLWS

END BG
-L-STA.AS•30A. A
RTMALw I
Ir l2' BEGIN TAPE END SSG
i }I -L- STA 15.4=
bob ? 02 02 LTWJ
o END TAPER ND TAPER
C ? L STAI { STAI
, RTA&W I LTIGW
FDPS
?? I+ POTS7a. 15.94.71 -n 0 m -,
I' I Mr{ N D RI T '?
AM.-420 V
p O I ? ,,? I 0-n F3 54
o 1 G) Np-4 r-0
OQ bo"?' 1 I ) o IZ/1C I/1 <?Z??p
(/? O W D
?I ob agog n acs ?? Z
o s
v?Z
m ?--? ` Rt W o 0
I? 'm N W
Z C- I O
k? i for o rn NC GR D
D 11? ,I mi Sri A is MAD
10-n ?,om 3
V IE' o ° N
r-
g mo
O m
$o fE cvq /? Nir(f) N
i
11f1w1?1?11?
F ." IK- i N x
?n `+ `+Y V f7T?7l -1 m p o
m z m
R° i / m m y AM = c'p m
? ? II I I i ?I m my zm m
m
t 00 z
Ae
x
?m $ ZD
I'S
_
e me m
MWN LM AD n
NNW m
m O M z
I
i i
N:\PROJ?2?92\?1STATION\RDWY\F.nel Design\882-5.psh
0) 0) 0) 0) (Y) --l v V
OD OD D &
m CD
m -N OD N 0) m OD
z
rlL

I
I
2
z
D
N
--I
m
mU)-v :ju
r- 0
m
• -c7
`?
°)W-o
mm00
I
wmw
I A?
-0-0
It Im 88
m $ ? BEGIN BRIDGE
0 /4-05,50
EL 696.60'
• PVC STA. 14.18.00
EL 696.64'
ox?r m -<
U) m .
N) OD
m m+
X m0
2 OvDm
rn ° PVT STA. 14.98.00
rn
m-o EL 696.66'
• h ten' N Da END BRIDGE
m ? ?, -L- STA 15.1050
x EL - 696.62'
0
c? ? m
?$ o1 m
-D ? ? m
qt) M i
r- D Z
D
0) C71D
mmm
J M G) x
O
UPS%
W
u ? ?A
? W
?O OvlAj ' v m
V z< m in
A
Z x
1 m
z
z
z
1 0
1 rn <
zo
?a
C
S
71 c7 U m
N ?
O) D) 0) J J V zz
co OD OD .O .D B m m
m 4 OD N 0) m 4? OD
O?O?WAG
o ?
Donald K. Lowe, City Traffic Engineer
City of Gastonia Engineering Department
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, NC 28053-1748
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
?aa?D
SUN 1 Inns
???,???Nga?o sioa??+??ew?
June 10, 2005
RE: Permit Application for Bridge Replacement, Tulip Drive, Gaston County, Federal Project BRZ-
1213(4), State Project 8.2812301, TIP Project B-4344, DWQ No. 05-0673, Received April 19, 2005
Dear Mr. Lowe:
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Based on our review, the following information is needed for this office to complete
the processing of your application:
• A scaled, plan view drawing depicting the new bridge.
A scaled, profile drawing depicting the new bridge.
• The application indicates there will be 0.05 acres of permanent impacts to Wetland B. The application
states that mitigation will be provided as restoration. Please provide additional information on the
restoration. In addition, what appears to be a wetland treatment system is located adjacent to Wetland
B. Please indicate how impacts and/or restoration in Wetland B may affect this wetland treatment
system.
Pursuant to 15A NCAC 21-1.0507(a)(5), we will place the certification request on hold until we are provided the
necessary information. Furthermore, until the information is received by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, we request (by copy of this letter) that the US Army Corps of Engineers place the 404 Permit
application on hold.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone].
Sincerely,
D. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Surface Water Protection
Regional Supervisor
Cc: Steve Chapin, USACE Asheville Field Office
Ian McMillan, DWQ Wetlands, Central Office
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
Mactec Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
File Copy
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
One
Npr ina
hCaro
Naturally
T
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 Phone [phone]
Internet h2o.encstate.nc.us Mooresville, NC 28115 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 501k Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
JrMACTEC MACTEC Engineering and Consulting
2801 Yorkmont Road, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28208
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Alan Johnson DATE: April 11, 2005
NCDENR-DWQ PROJECT NO.: 30100-1-0466
610 E. Center Ave., Suite 301 PROJ. NAME: Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Mooresville, NC SUBJECT: General Permit No. 31
28115
WE TRANSMIT TO YOU: HEREWITH UNDER SEPARATE COVER
SUBJECT: ACTION:
[]DRAWINGS []FOR YOUR INFORMATION
[]SPECIFICATIONS ®FOR YOUR COMMENT OR APPROVAL
[]CALCULATIONS []RETURNED FOR CORRECTION: RESUBMIT
[]REPORT []APPROVED AS NOTED
[]COST ESTIMATE []AS REQUESTED
®AS NOTED
COPIES I DATE I DESCRIPTION
03/14/05 1 General Permit No. 31 PCN
SENT BY:
[]MAIL
®CERTIFIED MAIL
[]EXPRESS
[]COURIER
[]HAND DELIVERED
[]FACSIMILE:
nave., (including transmittal
3/24/05 1 Check for $200.00 processing fee. I

REMARKS:
ID50673
Hi Alan,
Attached, please find seven copies of the General Permit No. 31 PCN and a check for $200.00 for the Tulip Drive
Bridge Replacement project in Gaston County. Please call with any questions. Thanks, and h Iffe ??W [a D
APR 1 9 2005
DENR WATER?UA
-ro LIno
CC:
/Joshua K. ger
Project Scientist
Direct Phone: [phone]
File (1)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal
Service. Thank you.
If transmission is not received in good order, please call Josh Ialinger at [phone]r rm R V 10118102
1) c'Ment5

t

1

March 14, 2005
f MACTEC
Mr. Steve Chapin
USACE - Asheville
151 Patton Ave., Room 208
Asheville, NC
28801-5506
050673
Subject: General Permit No. 31 Pre-Construction Notification
Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement Project
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
Gaston County, North Carolina
MACTEC Project 30100-1-0466
Federal Project BRZ-1213(4)
State Project 8.2812301, TIP Project B-4344
,. ,. OFFICE
APR 1 4 2005
i
TERr"' S
9[#/;:NRflWR1
APR 1 .9 2005
tNEn. ANDS AND TT?1'VATER BRANCH
' Dear Mr. Chapin:
On behalf of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), The City of Gastonia, and
' Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc. (RWA), enclosed please find a completed Joint Pre-Construction
Notification (PCN) Form (Attachment A) with accompanying figures, for a General Permit (GP) No.
' 31 in the above-referenced matter. RWA has retained MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
(MACTEC), to provide natural resources services for this project. The project area is located in
Gaston County, north of the U.S. Highway 321/Interstate 85 intersection. This PCN letter is provided
pursuant to GP No. 31 requirements.
Background
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge #167 on
Tulip Drive over Kaylor Branch in Gaston County, N.C. (Attachment B). Bridge No. 167 was
' constructed in 1970 and presently consists of a concrete deck with an asphalt-wearing surface on
channel beam girders. The deck is 90 feet long with a 29.1-foot clear roadway width consisting of
two 14.5-foot lanes. The existing bridge is elevated 13 feet above the streambed, and carries two
lanes of traffic (but is restricted to one lane for truck-tractor semi-trailer [TTST] units). According to
Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the existing bridge is 49.1 out of a possible
100 points. Tulip Drive is located in a light industrial area, is classified by the NCDOT as an Urban
' Local roadway, and serves businesses such as the Cookman Company, Fresher than Fresh,
Freightliner, and Stabilus. "A traffic count performed in 1999 indicated an Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) volume of 6,363 vehicles (9% trucks) on Tulip Drive" (RWA).
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
2801 Yorkmond Rd., Suite 100 - Charlotte, NC 28208
704-357-8600 - Fax: [phone]

I
Ir-;
L!

GP No. 31 PCN- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement March 14, 2005
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Ina
MACTEC project # 30100-1-0466
Scoping letter correspondence was forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on
August 12, 2004. Written USFWS response (dated September 23, 2004) included USFWS requests
for specific project design characteristics and for a protected species survey in the study area
(Attachment E). A protected species habitat assessment was performed on July 9, 2001 by MACTEC
(Attachment F). No protected species were identified during the field review. Recent field
investigations reveal that the original determination of "no adverse affect" are still valid. The
USFWS requested design characteristics will be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent
practicable. In order to maintain water quality in the area of the bridge the following measures have
been taken:
• Unlike the original flat bridge the new bridge will be arched to convey storm water;
1 • No deck drains were incorporated in the design of the new bridge;
• No change to channel morphology will occur;
• Bridge bents will be located outside of the bankfull channel;
• The existing bridge allows storm water to run off directly into the stream. The new bridge
will convey storm water through rip-rap and wetland areas to ensure higher water quality.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
In March 2002, MACTEC prepared a natural resources review of the bridge replacement study area.
This study area extended approximately 1,000 feet along Tulip Drive east and west, and approximately
500 feet upstream and downstream along Kaylor Branch (as measured from the existing bridge). Along
Tulip Drive, the study corridor ranged from approximately 60 feet wide at the easternmost and
westernmost study area limits, to approximately 100 feet wide at the existing bridge. Along Kaylor
Branch, the study corridor ranged from approximately 150 feet wide at the northernmost and
southernmost study area limits, to approximately 300 feet wide at the existing bridge.
1
Field observations within the study area indicated the presence of a jurisdictional stream channel
(Kaylor Branch) and four potentially jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands A, B, C, and D) nearby.
See Figure 2 (Attachment B) for approximate locations of these features. Wetland A (to the south)
' and Wetland D (to the north) are largely beyond the proposed temporary construction easement (TCE)
limits for the bridge replacement project. Wetlands B and C are located adjacent to (and south of)
Tulip Drive, within the TCE area. Refer to Attachment C for copies of the Approximate Waters of

F

t

Ll

n

GP No. 31 PCN- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement March 14, 2005
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
MACTECproject # 30100-1-0466
the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map, USACE Routine Wetland Determination forms, USACE
Intermittent Channel Evaluation forms, and N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stream
Assessment forms. Wetland boundary surveying was completed by Survey and Mapping Control
(SMC) in January 2004.
Impact Avoidance and Minimization
Three alternatives have been considered for the proposed project. The initial `No-Build' alternative
would likely allow continued deterioration of the bridge until it was unusable, and would then require
closing the road or continued intensive maintenance (RWA). Alternative 1 would involve
construction of a new bridge on the existing location of the existing bridge, while traffic was diverted
across a temporary detour bridge south of the current roadway alignment. There is no room on the
downstream (northern) side of the bridge for the detour bridge due to the location of existing
structures. Alternative 2 would involve staged construction of the new bridge at the existing bridge
location. Alternative 2 would restrict construction to one-half of the existing bridge while using the
remaining half for detour traffic. Evaluation of Alternative 1 and 2 indicated that anticipated
permanent stream and wetland impacts would likely be similar with either option (approximately 901f
and 0.03 acre, respectively). However, Alternative 1 would provide greater safety for the general
public and construction crews (i.e., no traffic adjacent to work area), less disruption of existing high
volume traffic patterns, and lower cost that Alternative 2. As a result, construction of a temporary
detour bridge (Alternative 1) was selected as the preferred alternative.
Implementation of Alternative 1 will involve a 105 foot replacement bridge (40 feet wide) constructed
at the existing bridge location. During construction, a 60-foot temporary detour bridge (30 feet wide)
will convey vehicular traffic around the construction site (approximately 70 feet upstream of the
existing bridge). Removal of the existing bridge will be completed in accordance with standard
NCDOT demolition specifications (Section 402-2) which stipulate that "excavated materials shall not
be deposited ...in rivers, streams, or impoundments," and that "the dropping of parts or components of
structures into any body of water will not be permitted unless there is no other particular method of
removal. The removal from the water of any part or component of a structure shall be done so as to
keep any resulting siltation to a minimum" (RWA). NCDOT also anticipates implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for the Protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge
Demolition and Removal. Following construction of the replacement bridge, the temporary detour
3

t

i

GP No. 31 PCN- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement March 14, 2005
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
MACTEC project # 30100-1-0466
bridge will be removed (along with associated riprap), and temporarily-impacted streambanks be
restored to pre-construction contours (or stabilized) and seeded/re-planted.
Unavoidable Impacts
The proposed Tulip Drive bridge replacement project will result in approximately 75 linear feet (If) of
unavoidable permanent impacts to Kaylor Branch, but this represents a direct replacement of the
existing bridge rather than a new impact. The project will permanently impact 0.05 acre of Wetland
B, and incidental temporary construction impacts of 0.13 acre to Wetland C (Attachment B - Figures
2, 3, and 4).
The proposed interim detour bridge will be constructed south of the existing bridge and roadway, and
will be removed once the new Tulip Drive bridge is completed. Riprap placed beneath the temporary
detour bridge will be removed at project completion, and pre-construction (or re-graded 3:1)
streambank contours will then be restored. Existing steel bents will either be cut off below the
streambed elevation, or will be removed during demolition of the existing bridge. Mitigation for
unavoidable impacts from the proposed project will include restoration of pre-construction terrain
contours in the temporary disturbance area, and streambank stabilization adjacent to the new bridge.
It is anticipated that the proposed project will be initiated in early 2005, and will require
approximately 12 months to complete (at an estimated cost of approximately $1,100,000).
Cultural Resources
Scoping letter correspondence was forwarded to the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
(NCDCR) on June 29, 2001 and on August 12, 2004, to request agency comments in accordance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as codified in 36 CFR Part 800.
Written NCDCR response (dated August 31, 2004) indicated that the NCDCR "is aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project" and that the NCDCR has "no comment on the
undertaking as proposed" (Attachment D). The NCDCR assigned review number ER 04-2240 to the
proposed project.
4
1
GP No. 31 PCN - Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
MACTECproject # 30100-1-0466
March 14, 2005
Protected Species
No individuals of protected species (or habitat for protected species known to occur within Gaston
1 County) were identified during MACTEC natural resources review field assessments. Scoping letter
correspondence was forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina
' Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on August 12, 2004. Written USFWS response (dated
September 23, 2004) included USFWS requests for specific project design characteristics and for a
protected species survey in the study area (Attachment E). The USFWS-requested design
characteristics will be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent practicable. A protected
species survey was previously conducted by MACTEC in July 2001 (in conjunction with the Tulip
Drive Natural Resources Review report, dated March 14, 2002). Recent field investigations reveal
that the original determination of "no effect" on protected species is still valid
1

I

t

GP No. 31 PCN - Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
MACTEC project # 30100-1-0466
March 14, 2005
Closing
Please refer to the attached PCN Joint Form (see Attachment A) for details regarding the proposed
bridge replacement project. Please contact Joshua K. Ellinger (at 704.357.8600) with any questions
you may have.
Sincerely,
MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC.
0/dl??
i Joshua K. Ellinger Allen W. Conger, P.W.S.
Staff Scientist Principal Scientist
By -&, With Permission
Enclosures: Attachment A: Pre-Construction Notification Application and List of Adjacent
Property Owners
Attachment B: Figures
Attachment C: Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map,
Wetland Determination and Channel Evaluation Forms
Attachment D: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR)
Correspondence
Attachment E: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Correspondence
Attachment F: Protected Species Section of MACTEC's Natural Resources
Review (dated March 14, 2002)
Attachment G: Jurisdictional Determination Package
6
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GP No. 31 PCN- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc
MACTEC project # 30100-1-0466
Attachment A
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION
(PCN) APPLICATION AND LIST OF
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
March 14, ZOOS

ICI
L_J
7
Office Use Only: 050673 Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1 I. Processing

1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: GP 31
' 3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Mr. Donald K. Lowe
Mailing Address: City Traffic Engineer
City of Gastonia Engineering Department
1 P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia NC 28053-1748
Telephone Number: 704. 866.6761 Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Mr. Brian Dehler
Company Affiliation: Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc
Mailing Address: 1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 200
Charlotte NC 28208
Telephone Number: 704.372.1885 Fax Number: 704.375.3393
E-mail Address: brian.dehler(a,rwhitehead.com

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
' drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
r 1. Name of project: Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4344
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Gaston Nearest Town: Gastonia
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): The project area is located in
Gaston County, north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 321 and Interstate 85. The bridge
to be replaced is located on Tulip Drive and crosses Kaylor Branch (stream channel).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):Lat: 35° 17' 11 "; Long: 81 ° 11' 42"
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
1 6. Property size (acres): The study area encompasses approximately 9.0 acres
1

11
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): The principal surface water feature
located within the study area is Kaylor Branch. Three Bottomland Hardwood Forest wetland
areas, totaling approximately 0.22 acre is located adjacent to the south side of Tulip Drive
(and west of Kaylor Branch).
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)

I
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The area proposed to be impacted is currently occupied by
an existing bridge. Areas immediately adjacent to the existing bridge are comprised of
Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Uplands are occupied by light industry.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Imnlementation of this bridee nroiect will involve a 105 foot replacement bridge (40 feet
wide) constructed at the existing bridge location. During construction, a 60-foot temporary
detour bridge (30 feet wide) will convey vehicular traffic around the construction site
(approximately 70 feet upstream of the existing bridge). Removal of the existing bridge will
be completed in accordance with standard NCDOT demolition specifications (Section 402-2)
r which stipulate that "excavated materials shall not be deposited ...in rivers, streams, or
impoundments," and that "the dropping of parts or components of structures into any body of
water will not be permitted unless there is no other particular method of removal. The
removal from the water of any part or component of a structure shall be done so as to keep
any resulting siltation to a minimum" (RWA). The City of Gastonia and NCDOT also
anticipates implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the Protection of
Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal. Following construction of
the replacement bridge, the temporary detour bridge will be removed (along with associated
' riprap , and temporarily-impacted streambanks be restored to pre-construction contours (or
stabilized) and seeded/re-planted. The types of equipment to be used includes but is not
limited to: Trackhoes, Bulldozers, Front-end Loaders, and Hand Tools.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge #167 on Tulip Drive over Kaylor
Branch in Gaston County, N.C. Bridge No. 167 was constructed in 1970 and consists of a
concrete deck with an asphalt-wearing surface on channel beam girders. The deck is 90 feet
low with a 29.1-foot clear roadway width consisting of two 14.4-foot lanes. The existing
bridge carries two lanes of traffic, but is restricted to one lane for truck-tractor semi-trailer
units. According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the existing
bridge is 49.1 out of a possible 100 points.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No other JDs or permits have been requested or obtained for this project. Please find a JD
package for your review located in Attachment G.
t

I
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
' and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
' listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed Tulip Drive bridge
replacement project will result in approximately 75 linear feet (If) of unavoidable permanent
impacts to Kaylor Branch, but this represents a direct replacement of the existing bridge rather
than a new impact. The nroiect will permanently impact 0.05 acre of Wetland B. and incidental
temporary construction impacts of 0.13 acre to Wetland C (Attachment B - Figures 2, 3, and 4).
The proposed interim detour bridge will be constructed south of the existing bridge and roadway,
and will be removed once the new Tulip Drive bridge is completed. Riprap placed beneath the
temporary detour bridge will be removed at project completion and pre-construction (or re-
graded 3:1) streambank contours will then be restored. Existing steel bents will either be cut off
below the streambed elevation, or will be removed during demolition of the existing bridge,
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts from the proposed project will include restoration of pre-
construction terrain contours in the temporary disturbance area, and streambank stabilization
adiacent to the new bridge. It is anticipated that the proposed project will be initiated in early
2005, and will require approximately 12 months to complete (at an estimated cost of
approximately $1,100,000).
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:

t

Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
indicate on ma) (acres) es/no (linear feet
1 Fill 0.05 Yes Adjacent Bottomland hardwood forest
2 Temporary 0.13 Yes Adjacent Bottomland hardwood forest
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.

** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
' online at http://Nvww.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.22 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.18 acre
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:

t
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
2 Bridging 75 Kaylor Branch 12 ft Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
' dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
1 downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.kov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.coni,
www.inapcitiest.com, etc.).
1 Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 75 if
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:

Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
' Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A

Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
' Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Three alternatives have been considered for the proposed project. The initial `No-Build'
alternative would likely allow continued deterioration of the bridge until it was unusable, and
would then require closingL the road or continued intensive maintenance (RWA). Alternative 1
' would involve construction of a new bridge on the existing location of the existing bridize, while
traffic was diverted across a temporary detour bridge south of the current roadway alignment.
Alternative 2 would involve staged construction of the new bridge at the existing bridge location.
1 Alternative 2 would restrict construction to one-half of the existing bridge while using the
remaining half for detour traffic. Evaluation of Alternative 1 and 2 indicated that anticipated
permanent stream and wetland impacts would likely be similar with either option (approximately
' 90 if and 0.03 acre, respectively). However, Alternative 1 would provide greater safety for the
general public and construction crews (i.e., no traffic adjacent to work area), less disruption of
existing high volume traffic patterns, and lower cost that Alternative 2. As a result, construction
' of a temporary detour bridge (Alternative 1) was selected as the preferred alternative.
Implementation of Alternative 1 will involve a 105 foot replacement bridge (40 feet wide)
constructed at the existing bridge location. During construction, a 60-foot temporary detour
bridge (30 feet wide) will convey vehicular traffic around the construction site (approximately 70
feet upstream of the existing bridge). Removal of the existing bridge will be completed in
' accordance with standard NCDOT demolition specifications (Section 402-2) which stipulate that
"excavated materials shall not be deposited ...in rivers, streams, or impoundments," and that "the
dropping of parts or components of structures into any body of water will not be permitted unless
' there is no other particular method of removal. The removal from the water of any part o
component of a structure shall be done so as to keep any resulting siltation to a minimum"
(RWA). The City of Gastonia and NCDOT also anticipates implementation of Best
' Management Practices (BMP's) for the Protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge
Demolition and Removal. Following construction of the replacement bridge, the temporary
detour bridge will be removed (along with associated riprap,, and temporarily-impacted
streambanks be restored to pre-construction contours (or stabilized) and seeded/re-planted.

1

t

t
VIIL Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
' if mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htlp://l12o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/strmgide.btnil.

?l

1

Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts from the proposed project will include restoration of
pre-construction terrain contours in the temporary disturbance area and streambank
stabilization adjacent to the new bridge. It is anticipated that the proposed protect will be
initiated in early 2005, and will require approximately 12 months to complete (at an
estimated cost of approximately $1,100,000).
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.ear.state.nc.us/wm/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:

L?
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
I IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
' Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
' If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
' Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
t If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
' Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
' justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
' Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
t
t
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3

t Drat I I
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
' If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
' Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
' XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The proposed project will result in replacement of an existing bridge and should result in only a
minimal increase in impervious area (due to increased roadway lane width) in the study area.
XIL Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
' wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No additional wastewater will be generated by the proposed bridge replacement project.

' XIII. Violations b DW
(required Y Q)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
' Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
' XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
' It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
' work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

Lj?,?
' - Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

?1
17

Page 14 of 14

'C M M N N
O d• O N v1
v O N M 0
M N
GAO N 00
' ? ? z 0 z
b X
.? El
a
'
U ?
a

O °o

0
o
CG
W kr)

N 00 ?
v1
M
t

_

? q
a? N -d ^Cl
0. ? Q Q
0

c) c)
Q 0 C) 0

G o, CN ON O
' ?o
C) oN
0 ON
O 00
V O
O O
O p
O 01
ON

U

U a
cu
' 0
a ? ? o
a, o a

Q, ? u, a0i
C7 ? ?

Q
?; 3 w 3 w
L Z z
Q
73

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GP No. 31 PCN - Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
MACTEC project # 30100-1-0466
Attachment B
FIGURES
March 14, 2005

' Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series: Gastonia North, NC (1970), MapTech (1997)
1
' EXPLANATION
North Carolina Vicinity Map
-?- Stream Channels
Roadways
® Urbanized Area
' Gaston Co. Vicinity Map
NOT TO SCALE Prepared: 3 1q t6
' Checked:
PA0141 Natural Resources/2001/0466 - Tulip Drive/Site Location Map.ppt
Tulip Drive Bridge AMACTECI Site Location
' Replacement
Gaston County, NC
Project 30100-1-0466 FI

i
i
i
i
i
1
y , 7
C J
/
1 i' -
? \
I I 8
,t ? 4 ;?
ObII J? ,?
a . ._
; I? +
a ., •1
al B ??
W! V? I
?, ?L C
I
f •

Tulip Drive Bridge
s

- Alan' ..??1. 1
13

Ii, r

A 'CIEP
?
(tiy- ,? ? ?./ ?. r - ?OaeverNroet• e, . ??
-
w
?'?F 1?I, „? ?`1? ? •f i 1 ' ?'tf7??>>- 5 4 119
7- +?
a U
CID,

7 trigs N Y ?
eig?i?f?

Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Gaston County, NC; Sheet No. 3 of 8, Dated 1976.
EXPLANATION
Stream Channels
ceB2 Soil Association
O Rankin Lake
NOT TO SCALE
R/30141 Natural Resources/2001/0466
Tulip Drive Bridge
Replacement
Gaston County, NC
SOIL MAPPING UNITS
ApB - Appling sandy loam, 1-6%
slopes
CeB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam, 2-
8% slopes, eroded
CfB - Cecil urban land complex,
2-8% slopes
CH - Chewacla loam, frequently
flooded
Co - Congaree loam, occasionally
flooded
HeB - Helena sandy loam, 1-6%
slopes
MaD2 - Madison sandy clay loam,
8-15% slopes, eroded
PaE - Pacolet sandy loam, 15-
25% slopes
Ud - Urdothents, loamy
Ur - Urban land
WeD - Wedowee sandy loam,
6-15% slopes
North Carolina Vicinity Map
Il7
i4 65
Prepared:
Checked: L /
- Tulip Drive/Soil Survey Map.ppt
A Soil Survey
MACTEC
Project 30100-1-0466 Figure 3

P:\30141 natural resource 3\2001\0466 - Tullp Drlve\Drawinga\replacement-rev.dwg Fri, 14 Jan 2005 - 9:54am mhorriso
M
r1

` i
k
11
t

o?i'9 Lk

v k.+
k ?l .Yk

? 7
I
i
L
t
?
?
//1 .
} ...
1
J
f
e
I
'
\ / \ \. ? ?J c w
J a L
i
s
\

?? ..,
m
z

.
w O •\ .

o V
,
I = L E = I E = = = `"r
P:\30141 natural resources\2001\0468 - Tulip Drive\Drowings\882-04 AutoCAD\DEfDRIDGEPLAN.dwg Fri, 14 Jan 2005 - 1:41pm mhortiso
1 n i
i
0
C' L., U i ? U i' 1
l r \
/ Ni <
C+ k

J J I [

I\j

0
A I
9
J¢ Co

PIj
~
? p` ! ? Ul
C7 co
I I rn
. Z
p ?
. }
ti ?a D
(n w
CIO
f
01

cil

00
0, coo

?
fir' `
` ,
\; '
??
N?
.1 \ I ... -
•

i.c

C) I
Y C o
o 1y
Cf) r?
tl a I) i? ii'
- "" ?

o - oM
.p U) 0

cn D
- C m
D
C
?1
J --I -A
D
D p
o •K ??
_-.

0 41- m

90

1
?I ? t7y) ?
j
01 Ii
' 9a

?t
t ° )1 t7i t- ([)

(A M Q

0

} I i7 5,:.
V

.? Z

Z

1
\
O D
rn ? i I
r ! s o
C) o Lf)
? :
,

O to

:3 Z C)
z
m
?U?
p l 1 ?'s
;U I D is is m3

O ".?
-D
fTl Z
D
? 3?.
;.

I7
= CSI = = = = G U
PA30141 natural resources\2001\0468 - Tulip Drive\Drawlna3\DetourDridaeD-11-8-04.dwo Fri. 14 Jan 2009 - 3:31pm mhorrieo

[ O
-

W
I
0 1

oN I
-0
°
1 Z
I ?D
1 ?A

°o
1 °
BEG
N GRADE
-D T- STA. 11+98.19
EL= 97.35'
N -
/ PVC STA. 12+45.00
EL= 96.88'
I
(A 0 r- a:
/ Nj rn II W II :< rr,

r

/ N
o?Wll+
00
rn / .° (D o
I o°
FT, C4

p
1T1
-
N
;U ;U

N 0
a

II II
M Z
? / r- r?
II to
PVC STA. 13+45.00
• 0
V) D F)
ED EL=695.3
II

°

V)
_
r '
z

O
-

+
o
-
-9
x o I o
O
C 'p
;U to

I
ro O

U)
PVC STA. 14+00.00
o° A< M 'U

II n m=
- `
- -m
-
- - o
EL =_695..$ ' II
- -? II
-
;, I (f w o 0o I
? +
m t BEGIN BRIpGE o o
1-
!
. -DET- S A. 14+10.00
114
?--
EL-695.7 - •o
o
- 1
=
fIl r ,I.
11 0 r4o

`'ft m
(0
END BRIDE
> (A Q a]
-U

L?
;U -DET.- A. 14+70.00
o c)
-q
-U
o 0 EL=695.7 I m

N a ?

/ to
PVC STA. 14+80.00
N to
<D
o N
/ I EL=695.6_E
II"
0 o o z
0

r o
N
C)
v o PVC STA. 15--40.00 --N
V EL=695.36
a
1 °

m
--i
I
02.<m-U
rn m

p -p Ln II +
O

:U +

? CL a)
iz (D
0

W ?D .
N
-U
O
=

a
D
?
c .
X co
t0
o to m o
?
z O PVC
` STA. 16+90.00
z 0 C: EL= 97.09'
o 2
U 9 z

`rl
?
? r ? -?!
C) -, _
V ° END CRApF
_ -D T- STA 16+90.51
1
? ? EL= 97.1
m

' _
-U O
O

D r
0
zn
>
y O
1 Zr
0 1 rD

W D ' Vp
' O°
1
rn
GP No. 31 PCN- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
MA CTE Cproject # 30100-1-0466
D

L
0
r

L
Attachment C
March 14, 2005
APPROXIMATE WATERS OF THE U.S. AND WETLANDS BOUNDARY MAP,
WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS, AND CHANNEL EVALUATION FORMS
n

u
0
n
En'
n

mi

f ZZ3
G

dwi,
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
614-1
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME DATE O o vl IU v?GY1 f
IOPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN 691or rgra,(1 r ! CQ' v-?JQ COUNTY/CITY G? S
CENT WEATHER CONDITIONS e?v(rh?;C?^-t rain
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present C T u
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
lo w
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) L
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others) an 1 r?'?r.? ,?r 4
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)
RifficlPool Structure
Stable Streambanks u'4 1V?ftw' t1?t 11 LA frll^
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand) `
c tl"
- - - Riparian Canopy Present (SP-?>50% closure) N%iglA, VViCA "y-un- V 1 b ' ???10?Y ?''^
Undercut Banks/Jnstrearn Habitat Structure Kd ldu/
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturatcd Bottom
(June thru Sept.) CoaY3el ayA J *1d{r SubSty;
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel r L? e^"a ?o l t? aQr1 tLl tS/ 1 ?n
1knportant To Domestic Water Supply? Y 6
?oerQS
goes Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y /6 Approx. Drainage Area:.'
Perennial Channel (stop) `J Important Channel: 75 LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) J
Q Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature: C&-eA;n?-,e ?1 ` /r "
(if other than C.O.E. project Manager)
= Present SP = Strongly Present NP = Not Present A-2

-? I. Geomorpholo;V
-.?11 Is Thcre A Riffle-Pool Sr
Y?4 cs '? b!))?? 2) Is The USDA Texture In
5) Is There An Active (Or
NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: I N) ) P Dr Rivet BasinCa+6lvb A
(?:p -
C,?klniP wcp-z
County: fiQ6.JZ ,) Evaluator. ?ry.i N Ra u?ne
DWQ Project Number: Neatest Named Strc=: Kc?q 141^ Latitude:35 a17 -06N Signature: Q 9j1" .
Date: C1J 0-1,12601 USGS QUAD: 9 rd-c k Longitude:81 "I tLtJ 'L4_ Location/DirtWons;T ` 8S C9 37 ?
*PLEASE NOTV If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, (fin the Tu 1 i? D)„
best professionai)udgrmew of the evaluator, the feature is a man made ditch and not a mod/fied natural stream-this rating system should not be
usa*
rimna Field Indicators: (en*owNr..berPerLLw)
PRL)IARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR
IT. Ilvdroloev Ahsent Weak Moderate Strome-
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow1Diwhnr_ze Present? 0 CL) 2 3
PRDLiRYIIYDROLOGYINDICATOR POIMS:
Ju. Iiiol- Absent Weak Moderate Stron.
a .I 1 Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambe 1 0
l???1 NA• --3;p2 Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed 2 0
3 Is Peri -h on Prtsent? 2 3
4 Are Bivalves Presen 2
t a PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POIMS:
Secondna Field Indienfor-n r i deo.wjv--urPeru-)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
H.Ii dml- Absent Weak Moderate -Strop-
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leatli= _ fTl n
J Are wraCK L nC3 n _Ts
„t rh, f (pll l? 4) Is Water In Channel And>48 Hm Since 0 S 1
Ury Q" Last Known Rnin?r)VOTE•ffplrrhWimtrdI" I9Ahm St6i11+IrS A>«feSRrln?
5) Is Thett Water In Channel During Dry 1] S 1 IS
Conditions Or In Growine Season)? -
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
Ell 1.5
2 Are Amphibians Pm-sent? 5
LRI 3 Are A nticTurtles Pteun 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 5
Are Macrobenthos Present? .5 5
Are lmn Oxidir;n acteriaTun s Present? .5 1 1,5
Is ilnmrntous AI ere Presrn 0 .5 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In S=mbed? SAV Mostly 0131, Mos CW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly LJPL
(` NOM- r7lomt Ah.n v Of All Plow In S--&W 2 1 75 S 0 0
,11 Norrd AMm G' This S< UNLESS SAV Perms .
SECONDARYBIOLOGYROICATOR POINTS: • 2
0 5 1 5 A-1
• TOTAL POINTS (Primary +secondarv)- (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Pohits The Stream 1S M Least Intcrmixe
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank t m=t"f u .
NOTE' led 4 M,}Cmurd Dlrchrn A.f t?777fOUTS7mrot
10)1, A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
- - . ..... - -1 L _n 1
0
Ski
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
_ 5. ?
Project Name: TA If River Basin: C?-QA,t/tj ? County: v??? Evaluator. ?? ?U•?7 V`Qru h r r'*P
DWQ Project Number. Nearest Narncd Strcarn 1,,., ?n Latitudes 7 tJ I,ttN Signature
C? P?
'fit'
^? e Cl.
Date: T1 TLA i-{ e'WI USGSQUAD: B Longitude8/a 1'92"14 -Location/Directions:
'PLEASE NOTE. If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a rnaa-made ditch, then use ofthis form is not necessary. Also, if le the
bat professional)udgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and nor a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be
used*
Primary Field Indicators: (CbckOneNamberPelL;ne)
1. Geomo holo Absent We Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
( _---2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambcd
S) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 U
' 01E: I/Ard h 11-kC-,wd By Ditch t r And R77710r? St.-try 17rn Scnn-O') _
10) [s A 2 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated le -\
PABL4RY GEOIIIORPHOLOGYINDICATOR
IT. Hvdrolocy Absent Weak Moderate Stun"'
1) Is There A Groundwater Z11,Z)
PRDIARY IIYDROLOGYINDICATOR
Secondary Field Indicators: (mmk0wNunberPerlJ-)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDAR Y GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR
II. Hydrology Absent Wenk Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leailitter
Since
???-4) Is Water In An
Rst Rnnw7T Is Wannel During Dry 0 5 I 1 S
rnnrI;t; f)r In rrnwins r--)l
SECONDARY IfYDROLOGY INDICATOR
Coddls?l?I?' 1
E / -If) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed7 SAV Mostly OBI, Mostly FACNV Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,

(• NOTF. If Total Absrnae Of All Plana in Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
11 As Nnrrd Atone Skin Rds Stsy UNLESSSAV SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: c
e A-3
TOTAL POINTS (Primarv +Seeondat•v)=3 ! W Greater Than Or Eaual To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermitte
PRIBIARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:_J'4?,_
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM ?.?
74 ?f ))r>'V?--
ACTION ID__ APPLICANT NAME DATE
&POSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN aq Inr Rm"/ CoOm ?IL7- COUNTY/CITY
CENT WEATHER CONDITIONS OVf/ii,11" 6,31 l
I L.)
P SP NP
19 Observation Comments or Description
ffp- Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present c?% / Cl^A
Benthic.Macro Invertebrates ?p16 `l
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Strcambanks ?w(G t? Ori eµ HEr- Hw0 , ctr "T
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand) r
za
Riparian Canopy Present (SP=/>50%closure) P ruo F? ?^ i0 Pe"K I ,
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure tAyJV AAgs
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue) Sri L
Persistent Pools/Saturatcd Bottom
(June thru Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel ' i
bV-W V`N;C- I IkV M , ?'wro n ? QCL 1lMJ'?-iLt?*o
portant To Domestic Water Supply? Y/@
_
[Joes Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map?a / N Approx. Drainage Area: 0 00 Oves
Perennial Channel
Intermittent Channel
Ephemeral Channel
Ditch Through Upland
(stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
(proceed) Q Unimportant Channel: LF
(no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
(no jd)
Evaluator's Signature: LA6 4 1/9 ?
(if other than C.O.E. project Manager)
JD/
= Present SP = Strongly Present NP = Not Present A-4
R R TT4 KSrT urn.
L}1W ProSeL-F 80160-1-0'
Project Nam?ea
County
Name of evaiuator
614
Dr ?HdQe? c ?e t Nearest Road ruj i ? Dri vf_
Wetland ea Z--[- acres Wetland Width L46 -60 fee
Date -2L )u 2601
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Soil series r146MI JOL
predominantly organic - humus, muck,
or peat
predominantly mineral - non-sandy
predominantly sandy
Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width 2100 feet
Adjacent land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, up-Dope, or radius)
X forested/natural vegetation i %
agriculture, urban/suburban %
impervious surface 0 %
Dominant vegetation
(1) ct 1I 1! lYd

(2) ??a y?t,?C r?cci dey>1Lc
(3) V i'boyrum df k' u YVI4
_ semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittanly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna -
_ Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin _ Carolina Bay
Bog forest - Other
raw
rim
LA
y?
*the
cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream charnels
--- -------- weight
R Water storage x 4.00
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = j 1
T Pollutant removal * x 5.00
I Wildlife habitat x 2.00 = a`
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 '-
G Recreation/Education x 1.00 =
Wetland
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, A-5
n n al nne n r rn d ius ---------
--------------------

GP No. 31 PCY- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph fi'hitchead Associates, Ina
DMACTEC project # 30100-1-0466
Attachment D
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL
RESOURCES (NCDCR) CORRESPONDENCE
f?
2
March 14, 2005
r,
0
0
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbcth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter D. Sandbeck, Administrator
August 31, 2004
Mr. Joshua K. Ellinger
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting
2801 Yorkmont, Suite 100
Charlotte, NC 28208
?Ysue` srnrF o.
aw.
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
RE: Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement, Gastonia, NC, NIACTEC Project 30100-1-0466,
Gaston County, ER 04-2240
Dear Mr. Ellinger:
Thank you for your letter of August 12, 2004, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
*Ie, ter B. Sandbeck
PBS:w

i
Location Mailing Address Tclephone/Fat
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)7334763/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]/7154801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [phone]/7154801
I
GP No. 31 PCN- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
MACTEC project # 30100-1-0466
I.J

u
Attachment E
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) CORRESPONDENCE
7
I
March 14, 2005
7
e

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 23, 2004
Mr. Joshua K Ellinger
Mr. Benjamin L. Leatherland
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting
2801 Yorkmont, Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
Dear Mr. Ellinger and Mr. Leatherland:
Subject: Request for Evaluation of the Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement over Kaylor Branch
in the City of Gastonia, Gaston County, North Carolina (MACTEC Project
No. 30100-1-0466)
We received your letter dated August 12, 2004, requesting our review of the subject project. The
following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e).
According to your letter, the City of Gastonia is proposing to replace the existing bridge over
Kaylor Creek. The project area is within a light-industrial area on the north side of Gastonia. No
details were provided about construction techniques or plans.
As with any stream crossing, we have several concerns we would like to have addressed. Bridge
design should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated
buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any
potential effects from the runoff of storm water and pollutants. The bridge design should not
alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. The bridges and approaches should
be designed to avoid any fill that will result in the damming or constriction of the channel or
floodplain. If spanning the floodplain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the
floodplain portion of the approaches in order to restore some of the hydrological functions and
reduce high velocities of floodwaters within the affected area. Measures to control erosion and
sediment should be in place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet concrete should never

mt
0-1
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Q This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Gaston County, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbaria, literature, and personal
communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records
a being added and old records being revised as new information is received. Please note that this list
cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should
not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated or
proposed.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent
counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
GASTON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Bald eagle
Clemnys muhlenbergii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
T(S/A)'
Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster
Schweinitz's sunflower
Aster georgianus
Helianthus schtveinitzii
CI
Endangered
KEY:
D
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C1 A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing.
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation
has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern
population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers
the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
November 12, 2003 Page I of 1
r,
GP No. 31 PCN- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph Whitehcad Dissociates, Inc.
AMCTECprojcct # 30100-1-0466

J
f-
s
EL
FL,

a
0
C
n

I
u
0
C
E
Attachment IT
March 14, 2005
PROTECTED SPECIES SECTION OF MACTEC'S NATURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
(DATED MARCH, 14 2002)

a
Natural Resources Review March 14, 2002
Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement LA IV Project 30100-1-0466
PROTECTED SPECIES
An endangered species is defined as a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Similarly, a threatened species is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, is the federal regulatory tool
that serves to administer permits, implement recovery plans, and monitor listed endangered and
threatened species. The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service administer the ESA.
North Carolina protects locally or regionally rare species in addition to federally listed species.
Protection for plants and animals in NC is recognized under two separate laws. Animals are
currently addressed by the NC Endangered Species Act, which is administered by the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission of NCDENR. Endangered, threatened and rare plants are
addressed in the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act, which is administered by
the Plant Conservation Program in the NC Department of Agriculture. The list of endangered,
threatened and rare plants is tracked and maintained by the NCNHP. A list of federally protected
species known to occur within Gaston County is summarized in the following table.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
Endangered
Bog Turtle
Bald Eagle
Clemntys muhlenbergii
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Threatened
Threatened
LAW's Ms. Catherine McRae performed a protected species habitat assessment on July 9, 2001.
No protected species were identified during field review.
4.4 Federally Protected Species
According to the NCNHP database of listed species ]mown to occur in Gaston County (NCNHP
database updated January 2001), one federally listed and state listed endangered plant species is
known to occur within Gaston County, Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schiveinitzii).
Additionally, one federally listed threatened and state listed endangered bird, the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalits), and one federally listed and state listed threatened reptile, the bog
turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), are currently known from Gaston County.
0 4-5
0
Natural Resources Review Alarch 14, 2002
Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement LAW Project 30100-1-0466
Following are brief descriptions of typical habitat and physical characteristics for each species.
Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) Federal/State Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is most commonly found along clearings, roadsides, transmission
line rights-of-way (R/Ws) and other infrequently mowed areas. The plant generally is
restricted to low-fertility, shallow clay soils, often with large quantities of rock
fragments, and/or gravel. Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial plant with tuberous
roots. Stems are generally a deep reddish color and are scabrous-pubescent. The upper
surface of the leaves is scabrous-pubescent and the lower surface is downy-pubescent.
Schweinitz's sunflower has yellow ray flowers and typically blooms from mid-September
through mid-October.
Biological Conclusion: A small area of potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower was
identified along the south side of Tulip Drive, west of Kaylor Branch. This area is
maintained road right-of-way, with patches of disturbed, bare soil. During field review,
this area was searched for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflower, which is identifiable in
vegetative form by the scabrous upper leaf surface, soft-pubescent lower leaf surface, and
scabrous stems. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were identified during the
field review. NO EFFECT
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocepltalus) Federally Threatened/State Endangered
The bald eagle is found throughout North America from northern Alaska and Canada,
south to southern California and Florida. The bald eagle is associated with coasts, rivers,
and lakes, usually nesting near large bodies of water where it feeds. Nesting habitat in
the southeast usually occurs in pine or cypress trees. The bald eagle is listed as a current
record for Gaston County. The bald eagle is a large raptor with dark brown plumage
except for the head, which is white in adults.
Biological Conclusion: No potential habitat for the bald eagle was identified during field
review, consequently, the current project should have no effect on the bald eagle or its
habitat. NO EFFECT
Bog Turtle (Clentunys ntuhlenbergii) Federal/State Threatened
The distinguishing feature of the bog turtle is a patch of orange, red, or yellow on the
temporal region of the head. It is one of the smallest turtles native to the United States.
The bog turtle is a habitat specialist and is most commonly found in bogs, swamps, and
wet meadows with grassy cover and full sunlight. They often burrow in the mud and are
considered a secretive species that may be difficult to find.
Biological Conclusion: The bog turtle is listed as a current record for Gaston County.
No potential habitat for the bog turtle was identified during field review, consequently,
the current project should have no effect on the bog turtle or its habitat. NO EFFECT
4.5 State Protected Species
State listed species, which are protected under state law, but not federal law, known to occur within Gaston
County include the above listed federally protected species with the addition of the following:
Georgia Aster (Aster georgianus) State Threatened
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus) State Species of Concern
Highfin carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer) State Species of Special Concern
0 Magnolia vine (Schisandra glabra) State Threatened
0 4-6
GP No. 31 PCN- Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Ina
?11ACTEC project It 30100-1-0466
a
Attachment G
JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION PACKAGE

n

L

r,
March 14, 2005

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
DATE: March 14, 2005
COUNTY Gaston TOTAL ACREAGE OF TRACT(S) Approximately 19 acres
PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Tulip Drive Bridge Replacement Project
PROPERTY OWNER (name, address and phone):
City of Gastonia Eneineerinij Department
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Attn: Mr. Donald K. Lowe, [phone]
NAME OF AGENT, ENGINEER, DEVELOPER (if applicable):
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.
1000 West Morehead Street, Suite 100
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
H Attn: Mr. Brian Dehler [phone]
STATUS OF PROJECT (check one):
( ) On-going site work for development purposes
( X ) Development in planning stages (Type of development: Transportation)
( ) No specific development planned at present
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Check items submitted - forward as much information as is available. At a minimum, the following first two items must be
forwarded.
( X ) Accurate location map (from County map, USGS quad sheet, etc.)
( X ) Survey plat of property in question
( ) Aerial photograph (from County Assessors office, or other source;
property boundaries shown on the photo would be most helpful)
( ) Topographic survey
( ) Conceptual site plan for overall development
( X) USACE Intermittent Channel Evaluation Forms/NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
( ) Routine Wetland Determination Form
(X ) SCS Soil Survey Sheet(s) (Gaston County)
(X) Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map

Signature of Property Owner or
Authorized Agent

i
Tulip Drive Bridge ?.;I' ?,r f r ?r f
77717
'e! T ! l \ e 1 1;
"N ir
n?•I ?-'' `? V
'I?. t. r ; ? `- '.?'11 i./, • ? ! `I rf'c•rsA??1) \•t?,YD?'. .? '.?".? Y 4l'f
f. r
'3 ndiv
stet
r i i t it 1 Jrr r? ?? 1,
IF A
i1 I 1
• I!' ? ?? 1+ftrR?. -7? F ??`? ? ? n ,.mAhill , •?` a 1:! ?'s"ar, ""t?... ..,
T! t. t 1 4 ° i'I
_• I x .
4yni lji. G tirmm.• rrA? 21 Qy?`r 1?n? _>
.tEpF"IMri??}j7)RII 1 5 !x' ?? 1 t t F ?' L
• ? ,r ,. IN f f.?e -y}t I ^^ slA,
` , ?/, Y-f4 ?• ?• , 'r•+1( ..:?. \? ., A`li-r r,!.f3c.P'.• } F`y s
?U + _._ ? ? -. +ft ? ??>> t?A ' ? j??5'i 1 aJ ?` ? jl.. ?'i•i!{''I...wn1! }1 ,"li 7,y a'•. _
K. ! ,r. SI;?N{e.? ,i .. '.?=l ?t i?. . ?i t Y r ? ?•lSl 4?
? N
t ''?, r. i ?.??•.., a t r.? ?} li?? .t?*•K' ?TP J J ? He ly. lied '1 s- 1
ke.
..r :?a?l?? ? ","?` x ?:?'•?'?., J ?? ?, ? T; - ? fl?'..?r_ ? 3 ?k-'..s .', -T?P?i iy?.? QX ??.r?;?l fdr;.. ? ?y ,?. ;,'• ? !``?
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Series: Gastonia North, NC (1970), MapTech (1997)
EXPLANATION
--?- Stream Channels
Roadways
F- -1 Urbanized Area
NOT TO SCALE
PA0141 Natural Resources/2001/0466 - Tulip Drive/Site Location Map.ppt
Tulip Drive Bridge 1,0MACTEC
Replacement Gaston County, NC
Gaston Co. Vicinity Map
Prepared:'ae 49
Site Location
1

4

71
4
Loh
eft Ttl
?' E F
4
Tulip Drive Bridge
,, ..?

;i

1C
%
r
I
11
.
r
. Jr
}1`
L = ,.
1
I r-?
Apt, ?,r
b
.:V ..
n
\
qtr C `„r,?. JI f \.
? f
rYnfll 1`•.? J\
,
cls
044

.
,
,
;
?
,? " is
?
'
•r/ ,
? I
?y:_
??? ??U ?,• ?' '`?.`C ? `', 't
' ?
?.1 , ry
.rrt
. Jenkins Nei, :f hs

SOIL MAPPING UNITS
ApB - Appling sandy loam, 1-6%
slopes
CeB2 - Cecil sandy clay loam, 2-
8% slopes, eroded
CfB - Cecil urban land complex,
2-8% slopes
CH - Chewacla loam, frequently
flooded
Co - Congaree loam, occasionally
flooded
HeB - Helena sandy loam, 1-6%
slopes
MaD2 - Madison sandy clay loam,
8-15% slopes, eroded
PaE - Pacolet sandy loam, 15-
25% slopes
Ud - Urdothents, loamy
Ur - Urban land
WeD - Wedowee sandy loam,
6-15% slopes
Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Gaston County, NC; Sheet No. 3 of 8, Dated 1976.
EXPLANATION
- I Stream Channels North Carolina Vicinity Map
cea2 Soil Association
O Rankin Lake
NOT TO SCALE
P:/30141 Natural Resources/2001/0466 - Tulip Drive/Soil Survey Map.ppt
Tulip Drive Bridge
Replacement OMACTEC
Gaston County, NC
Gaston Co. Vicinity Map
Ired:,-41W 3 jNW-
Soil Survey
3
mmmmm a - ==
P:\30141 natural resource s\200 1 \046 6 - Tulip Drive\Drawings\replacement-rev.dwq Frl, 14 Jon 2005 - 9:54am mhorrleo
•rli
a

a 4' •
N
(n
n .,

i p
`a !Li
t'
I
I
I

I

l' i
i
d?, f ?? I t i ? 1{
I
I I? I
r I
?It
ZJ-
U)
0
k 1
k
? \ k kk
\\ ' µ M k k -. ?.•
\ \\ r „ k k k If k k ;?? \ \ µ k IF µ k ? ? IF k ? 7
M.-• M k k k k ? k. k;
IF
F l ?.. kµ K Ni?? ?M
\ ff
, y
'I
il, IF , ,il-,t
I ? \ I 1 »? k; ' ; j i, I
"`4M1 k. ?i I ?,
:- I
P + I #
n '
T
IrA ,, t ''tt II
I

Li
5

?J

, to /
? ,I I I.. :
i I .c
`n
\
?g to a o?
\ ` ( ? II c, m
t
D \ \ SE ?,
I i
i I
' I
1 11 \ \ .?
f r j ? ,.

CD U)
`-
Z m
p ,
\
I I.
u
6 Z C
C i
Z ^ \
\ f \ J iI ?i
i 1

c
m o
O
o y

`
\

\ t
\
i
=
M D
o \
P f
}
1 n : \
k
r,
\ \ u 1
__..._
i .. __._....._ __ _ ..:a_.. ___ .__... ._._.r... __ ._

a

,
!
1
r
:
41
?, t I 411'
l
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
u?,p vriq?-,
VT ION IDAPPLICANT NAME DATE o Lt (POSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN ?s glor ?4 ?n 1 CQ a?J0. CeODUNTY/CITY ?C1S
I CENT WEATHER CONDITIONS S-4po:? _ . C??trhlx?^-f ra?v? t C-11
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present G T u

MIL- Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding,
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function) 1-1 L r
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
?? 4
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)

-
-
- RifIlc/Pool Structure
Stable Strcambanks ( M, ,, oek
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand) I
COW(
Riparian Canopy Present (SP=h50% closure) hi?tA, {/}(u >ft t?jyvw+ V 1 b • eta w.
Undercut BanksAnstream Habitat Structure nd (d1N
Flow In Channel
Wetlands AdjacentTo/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent PooWSaturatcd Bottom
(June thru ScpL) Uarsel av-A *ZArr gubS?Y
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel ?•l? f^"4 ?o, t I? Wti5 Qom' M ill I
portant To Domestic Water Supply? Y N
toes Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y I NT
Perennial Channel (stop)
Intermittent Channel (proceed)
Ephemeral Channel (no jd)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
n"'
Approx. Drainage Area: -Dou?S
Important Channel: 75 LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Q Unimportant Channel: LF
(attach map indicating location of imponant/unimportant channel)
Evaluator's Signature: r-Prt?l'I?f q` X t L,
(if other than C.O.E. project Manager)
U Present SP = Strongly Present NP = Not Present A-2
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
Q EVALUATION FORM ?'kd'
77; Rp DHy?-
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME DATE
IROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN aq I nr RT2("? CGt-6 V\lha.. COUNTY/CITY l/j
T CENT WEATHER CONDITIONS OVI(4 ki AJ- rai A
P SP NP
63 Observation Comments or Description
Fish/S hell fish/Crustaceans Present d% / crQ
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species (Discontinue)

-
-
- Rife/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks CN ' or, stfa;FA? g ,,4 , ar Fs
??lpjralw till
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, course sand) r
za
Riparian Canopy Present (SP4>50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure Uri CY 64v1Ys
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue) w? e
Persistent Pools/Saturatcd Bottom
(June thru Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
'JD/
?SQG1nw?G?d- ?(/ ?<?OYt?d ?allJ?B`?Lt3t0
_
inn portant To Domestic Water Supply? Y/@ ri (9
oes Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? / N Approx. Drainage Area: 0 00 Lives
Perennial Channel (stop) E] Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) F? Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature: ?I?VJ+O i///`
(if other than C.O.E. project Manager)
= Present SP = Strongly Present NP = Not Present A-4

Project Name ITAIfV D r "r' e Nearest Road Ta l t Dri V-e,
County hQ f t/1 Wetland ea ?- acres Wetland Width y 0 ' 6 U fee
Name of evaluator C - Q06 V-E'-?- - Date -2d U ??1
Wetland Location Adjacent land use
o
m
r
?o
F1,7
ro
iw
-? Wetland type (select one)*
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
_ Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
-
_ Pocosin Carolina Bay
A _ Bog forest - Other
*the ratiniz svstem cannot be applied to salt or bracld_sh marshes or stream channels --

1Z

Water storage weight
t
x 4.00 =

Wetland
Raring
A BanlJShoreline stabilization x 4.00 =#?
Pollutant removal * x 5.00 = X 70,
k
I
Wildlife habitat
x 2.00
I
N Aquatic life value x 4.00 ea .
?i Recreation./Education x 1.00 . <'
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >1 0% nonpoint disturbance within 112 mile upstream, A-5
uoslope, or radius