23-0233 Gaston Co

Type III Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
B-6051 & U-6143
48708.1.1 & 48326.1.1
0029074
A. Project Description:
Replace Bridge 91 over Catawba River (Lake Wylie) on US 29/74 (Wilkinson Boulevard) on the
border of Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties (B-6051) and improve intersection (U-6143) of US 74
(Wilkinson Boulevard) and NC 7 (Catawba Street) in Belmont, NC.
B. Description of Need and Purpose:
Needs:
U-6143 — Currently the intersection of US 74 and NC 7 is operating at Level of Service F for A.M.
right turn movements from northbound NC 7 to eastbound US 74 and also, for P.M. left turn
movements from westbound US 74 to southbound NC 7. During the evening peak hour, traffic
currently backs up onto the bridge from the intersection.
B-6051 - Gaston County Bridge No. 91 carries US 74/US 29 over the Catawba River between
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. US 74 is the emergency route during closures on section of I-
85 north of US 74. There are six lanes just east of the bridge and five lanes just west of the bridge
while the bridge only carries four lanes creating a bottleneck when 1-85 is detoured to US 74. The
structure is rated as functionally obsolete with a deck geometry rating of 2 out of 9.
Additionally, there is only 8' of navigational clearance between full pond elevation and the low steel
of the bridge. Based on coordination with Charlotte Fire Department, emergency response boats
require 16' of clearance full pond elevation. Duke Energy requires 12' of clearance above full pond
elevation over the middle third of the bridge.
Purpose:
B-6051/U-6143 — The purpose of this project is to address geometric deficiencies of the bridge and
its approaches on US 74, the emergency detour needs of 1-85, the navigational clearance
requirements over Lake Wylie and to improve the intersection of US 74 and NC 7 to address
deficient turning movements.
C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Type III
D. Proposed Improvements:
Replace Bridge No. 91 carrying US 74 to build a new bridge with six 12' lanes, a 4' concrete median,
5' offsets between the outside travel lanes and concrete barriers separating the travel lanes from 10'
wide multi use paths on either side of the bridge. The approaches will connect to the existing six lane
geometry on the western terminus (just west of NC 7) and to the existing five lane geometry on the
eastern terminus (just east of ISWA Nature Preserve entrance). Typical sections illustrating the
details of the new bridge, Wilkinson Blvd. and NC 7 are included in Figure 2 (Public Meeting Map).
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 1

The middle third of the bridge will be 12' above full pond elevation and 17' above full pond elevation
over the navigational channel.
Four lanes of traffic will be maintained on US 74 during peak hours throughout project construction.
The first phase would maintain 4 lanes of traffic on the existing Bridge 91 while constructing
approximately half of the new bridge (enough to temporarily allow four lanes of traffic) to the north of
Bridge 91. Traffic will then be shifted to the new structure while demolishing the old bridge. The new
bridge will then be completed by building the southern half for a total width of 109.5 feet.
The intersection of US 74 and NC 7 will be modified to an offset reduced conflict intersection design as
shown in Figure 2. Two left hand turn lanes will be included for traffic from westbound Wilkinson Blvd.
to Catawba St. and two right turn lanes will be included for northbound NC 7 traffic to US 74. Work will
extend approximately 670' along NC 7.
Ten -foot -wide multi use paths (MUP) will be included on both sides of NC 7 and US 74 throughout the
project along with appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities as shown in Figure 2. On the bridge, traffic
will be separated from the MUP's by means of solid barrier rails. Hazeleen Avenue carries less than
100 vehicles per day and therefore sidewalks, not MUP's, will be included on both sides. On the west
end of Moores Chapel Loop, an MUP will extend along the east side of the road to the terminus of the
work on the road. The west end of Moores Chapel Loop where it intersects with Wilkinson Boulevard
will have improved turning radii to meet current standards and will include a crosswalk. The east end
of Moores Chapel Loop currently intersects Wilkinson Boulevard at a severe skew. The skew cannot
be corrected because it is in a Duke Energy transmission corridor, and Duke does not allow
intersection modifications in their corridor. Because the west end will remain open, the east end will
be closed and roadway removed from the intersection to the old weigh station.
E. Special Project Information:
Traffic
Currently, US 74 carries 25,000 vehicles per day which is projected at 31,000 for 2045. As noted
earlier, the concern with the existing geometry is primarily for the intersection of US 74 and NC 7.
Multiple intersection types were considered but only two were carried forward from the initial
screening. A conventional intersection and a reduced conflict intersection.
The following 2045 peak hour volumes were analyzed for both intersections:
US 74/US 29 H
(Wilkinson Blvd) L
Hazeleen Ave.
6, Ln
435 (2,445)
I 75 (890)
(20) 5 - I
LrLb LrLb �
{165} 40
v f-4
Catawba St
F� US 74/US 29
E4' (Wilkinson Blvd)
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 2

The conventional intersection analysis as follows has two movements failing in the design year:
NC 7 Northbound and Hazeleen Southbound.
NNIF"
AM M==i
Hazeline Ave, SB
LTR
70.2 86.1
C F
L
72-1
44.9
E
D
US 74jUS 29, W B
TR
10.8
16.6
B
B
US 74jUS 29
LT
50-8
85.3
D
at NC 7j
Hazeleen
INC 7, NB
Ave
(Signalized
R
58.9
17.2
E
B
L
9.6
22.6
A
C
US 74jUS 29, EB
TR
34-7
40.2
C
D
Overall
37.1
28.0
❑
C
The reduced conflict intersection analysis works through the design year with capacity to spare.
INC 7, SIB
R
37A
43.2
D
D
U S 74jUS 29,
L
34.7
12.3
C
B
WB
US 74jUS 29 at NC 7j
TR
0.7
0.6
A
A
Hazeleen 4ve
(RCI Central
NC 7, NB
R
57A
8.5
E
A
Intersection -
US 74jUS 29,
L
36,6
38.8
D
D
Signalized)
EB
TR
27.3
16.5
C
B
Overall
34.0
13.5
C
B
U-Turn West of NC
7jHazeline Ave at US
US 74jUS 29,
WB
U
18A
10.3
C
B
US 74f US 29,
EB
T
0,0
D.4
A
A
74jUS 29
(Unsignalized)
US 74jUS 29,
WB
T
3.1
13.9
A
B
U-Turn East of NC
7jHazeline Ave at US
74jUS 29 (Signalized)
US 74jUS 29,
EB
U
33.2
39.2
C
D
Overall
5.8
14.4
A
B
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 3

All other intersections with US 74 serve less than 100 vehicles per day and were not considered in
traffic analysis.
US 74/ NC 7 Preferred Intersection
The two intersections described in the Traffic Section above were evaluated for multiple factors. The
RCI intersection was carried forward as the preferred intersection for the following reasons:
• Lower Cost ($0.5 million less for bridge plus reduced footprint/utilities/right of way)
• A Reduced Footprint translates to lower impacts on human and natural environment including a
smaller footprint on Kevin Loftin Park
• Better Traffic Performance through design year (level of service C for RCI compared to level of
service D for All Movement)
• Better traffic performance translates to lower congestion and emissions (Environmentally
Greener) and available capacity for future development that is likely to occur in the City (i.e.
around the future Capital Area Transit System (CATS) Light Rail - Silver Line)
• Capacity to carry higher volumes beyond the design year
• Improved safety with reduced left turns
• Given the focus on pedestrian accommodations throughout this project, based on a national
research project (20-points analysis), RCI's vs. All -Movement perform better with higher safety
for pedestrians.
The City of Belmont expressed strong concerns for the pedestrian aspect of the intersection and in
particular, did not like the way pedestrians would be zig-zagged through the median at the center of
the intersection strongly preferring the way conventional intersections handle pedestrians. Because of
the lack of development around the north leg of the intersection, the Department proposed offsetting
the Hazeleen leg of the intersection to the west 150 feet which resulted in a crosswalk that followed a
conventional approach. The City agreed to the approach and the result is illustrated as follows:
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 4

Project Costs
B-6051
U-6143
Construction
52,000,000
2,700,000
Right of Way
5,010,000
624,000
TOTAL
57,010,000
3,324,000
Combined Total Cost - $60,334,000
Local Officials Involvement - Since 2018 NCDOT has coordinated throughout project planning
beginning with scoping, working with the aesthetics committee on the bridge design and appearance,
working with local government on the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the
project limits, working with City of Belmont on the design of the improved intersection at US 74 and NC
7, coordinating with Charlotte Area Transit Systems (CATS ) on their future light rail plans,
coordinating with Mecklenburg County on impacts to the ISWA Nature Preserve and with the City of
Belmont on impacts to Kevin Loftin Park.
Public Involvement — In August 2022, over 1000 post cards were sent to residents and landowners
inside the project vicinity advertising the project and inviting them to comment on the project from
August 12 to 26, 2022. At the same time, a geo-targeting advertisement was also employed inviting
recipients to visit the website. One hundred and eight comments were received in that period via e-
mails, voice mails and responses on the website. Eleven of the comments received were supportive
of the overall project, and one of the comments opposed the project. The majority of commenters had
questions or suggestions on topics like bicycle and pedestrian accommodations, CATS Light Rail,
maintenance of traffic, aesthetics and others. All public meeting materials including the Public
Involvement Summary are posted on ConnectNCDOT:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/site/Preconstruction/division/divl 2/BR-
0020%20Gaston%2091 /Human%20Environment/Public%2OMeeting%2OMaterials?Web=1
CATS Light Rail - CATS is planning the Silver Line Light Rail which would travel from Charlotte to
Gaston County along US 74. At the project location, the Silver Line is planned for the north side of
US 74. The project is currently unfunded and preliminary planning and design are very limited but
coordination has taken place to share the design for B-6051/U-6143 with CATS. While CATS
preferred that NCDOT not include a turnaround on the City of Belmont side, they have confirmed that
their horizontal alignment can work with that design. They also preferred that NCDOT relocate the
existing east end of Moores Chapel Loop further east, but this is not within the scope of the project. It
would need to be done under the scope of their project. NCDOT has coordinated with CATS to
ensure the proposed bent spacing on the NCDOT bridge is compatible with the future Silver Line
bridge.
Project Square Grooves — This is a proposed private development effort to realign and extend
Moores Chapel Road (not Moores Chapel Loop) to connect with Old Dowd Road. If the project is
constructed prior the completion of the work for B-6051 on Moores Chapel Loop, Mecklenburg County
requested that this end of Moores Chapel Loop be closed and pavement removed to allow two parcels
owned by the county separated by the road to be joined. The City of Charlotte opposes closing the
road on the basis of connectivity. This issue will be re -considered if the project advances.
Aesthetic Enhancements — The outer bridge rail type is to be Texas Classic Rail. This is mitigation
for removing the historic bridge. Beyond that, local government representatives from the City of
Belmont, City of Charlotte, Gaston County, Mecklenburg County and the MPO's representing both
counties formed an aesthetics committee lead by Gaston -Cleveland -Lincoln Municipal Planning
Organization (GCL-MPO) for this project because of their desire to enhance the aesthetics of the
bridge. The project commitments list the aesthetics to be included. Figure 3 illustrates a few
representative visualizations. NCDOT will be contributing 1 % of overall project costs towards
aesthetics and local government will pay for the remainder of the enhancements.
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type /// CE Page 5

F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:
F3. Type III Actions
Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type III Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement,
Appendix C) answer questions below.
Yes
No
Does the project involve potential effects to Threatened or Endangered species
1
listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries
❑
[�
Service NMFS ? Field Screenings completed Spring '22 and Fall '22.
2
Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden
'22
❑
Eagle Protection Act BGEPA ? Field screening complete Spring
Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
3
reason, following appropriate public involvement? Post Cards and PI website
❑
[�
Au '22.
Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-
4
income and/or minority populations? No minority or low-income populations are
❑
[�
located within the DCIA and the project will enhance, not diminish, connectivity.
Does the project involve substantial residential or commercial displacements or
5
right of way acquisition? Two businesses will be relocated but not substantial when
❑
[�
compared with many businesses along US 74 in this area.
6
Does the project include a determination under Section 4(f)?
[1
❑
Is a project -level analysis for direct, indirect, or cumulative effects required based
on the NCDOT community studies screening tool? The project will not alter travel
7
patterns or notably reduce travel time. The project will minimally modify access to
❑
properties in the area and will not open areas for development or redevelopment.
Due to its minimal transportation impact -causing activities, this project will neither
influence nearby land uses nor stimulate growth. from Short Form CIA, Sept '22
8
Does the project impact anadromous fish spawning waters? Anadromous fish are
❑
resent in the Eastern part of NC, not in Gaston Mecklenburg Co.'s area.
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
9
High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d)-listed
[1
❑
impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)?
Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated
10
mountain trout streams? Trout counties are further west than the location of this
❑
[�
project.
Does the project require a US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
11
Section 404 Permit? Based on preliminary coordination with USACE, the project
❑
2
will likely qualify for a GP 50.
12
Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
R1
❑
Commission FERC licensed facility?
Does the project include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
13
(NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological
0
❑
remains?
14
Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas
Q
❑
stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.?
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 6

Does the project require work encroaching and adversely effecting a regulatory
floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a
15
water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650
❑
[1
subpart A? The Detailed Study will require the MOA submittal to have no rise in
1 00-ear water surface elevation for the Revised conditions.
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially
16
affects the coastal zone and/or any Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑
R1
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties are not in the eastern part of the state and
therefore not a CAMA counties.
Type III Actions (continued)
Yes
No
Does the project require a US Coast Guard (USCG) permit? USCG has indicated
17
in writing that the project does not require a USCG permit or navigational lighting
❑
2
see Attachment 8
Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
18
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? There are no
❑
2
Wild and Scenic Rivers within Gaston or Mecklenburg Counties.
19
Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) resources? CBRA
❑
2
resources are only found on the coastline of NC.
Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. US Forest Service (USFS), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), etc.) or Tribal (Trust) Lands? Source: GIS Search and
Final Survey parcel data, and Tribal Coordination (see Attachment 9). NCDOT
20
reached out to the Catawba Indian Nation, The Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band
❑
[�
of Cherokee Indians and to the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. Of
the four, only the Catawba replied, and indicated no concerns but to contact them if
any resources were discovered during construction.
Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or
21
construction of an interchange on an interstate? No control of access is proposed
❑
0
with this project.
Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness? Traffic patterns will be modified with the reduced conflict
22
intersection but the effect will not be adverse. The result will reduce accidents and
❑
2
improve efficiency of traffic at the intersection. Community cohesiveness will
potentially be enhanced by the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? Four lanes of traffic will be
23
maintained during peak hours throughout the project which will keep disruption to a
❑
0
minimum.
24
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan
❑
2
Planning Organization's (MPO's) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)?
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f)
of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act,
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, TVA, Tribal Lands, or other unique
25
areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or easement with public -use
❑
2
money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property? The project was
screened via GIS, scoping letters and inquiries with local government and is clear
of the concerns listed in this item.
Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) buyout
26
properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? The project was
❑
screened via GIS data and via Final Surveys Parcel Data which did not identify any
properties of concern.
F_
27
Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?
❑
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type /// CE Page 7

Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the
28
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? The FPPA does not apply to urban areas
❑
2
such as this study area for this project.
Is the project in an Air Quality non -attainment or maintenance area for a National
29
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)? Both Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
❑
are in Maintenance Areas. See response in Section G.
30
Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
❑
R1
affected the project decision?
G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked `Yes'):
Q 6 & Q 13 - Section 4(f) and Section 106
The project will impact two historic resources (Section 106) and two parks. There are no
archaeological resources of concern within the Project Study Area (see Attachment 1A, B &C)
• Gaston College - The western portion of Gaston College parcel (see Figure 2) is eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places. The impact is limited to the need to include an
additional guy wire on a power pole within an existing utility easement. The Historic
Preservation Office has determined that there is "No Adverse Effect" (see Attachment 2).
Because there is no new right of way needed, there is no 4(f) impact.
• Bridge No. 91— The bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Because of the navigational aspect of purpose and need, there is no option for avoidance
or preservation in place of the existing bridge, therefore, there is an adverse effect (see
Attachment 2). Attachment 4 is the Section 106 MOA detailing the conditions associated
with the Adverse Effect. The conditions of the MOA are also included in the Project
Commitments. A Programmatic 4(f) Bridge Form addressing the adverse effect is the
Attachment 5 to this document. Commitments from the Memorandum of Agreement
between SHPO, NCDOT and FHWA are included in the project commitments section.
• Kevin Loftin Riverfront Park - There are minor impacts to the park, partially resulting
from the City's request for MUPs along the road. A portion of the park will also be used for
drainage treatment. These impacts were presented during public involvement meetings
and there was no opposition to the work. The City of Belmont Parks and Recreation
Department concurs that the work will not adversely affect the activities, features or
attributes of the park (see Attachment 6). Federal Highways Administration has made a
finding of de minimis impact by the signing of this document.
• ISWA Nature Preserve — There are minor impacts on ISWA Nature Preserve resulting
primarily from shifting the entrance and driveway to allow for a turn lane requested by the
park staff. The addition of a MUP connecting ISWA Nature Preserve to Gaston County
would also result in a minor impact on the park. There are also minor drainage impacts
where drainage features are tied back into the drainage ditch in the park. There are also
minor drainage impacts where drainage features are tied back into the drainage ditch in the
park. These were presented as part of public involvement and there was no opposition to
the work. Mecklenburg County has stated in writing (see Attachment 7) that there are no
adverse effects to the activities, features or attributes of the park. Federal Highways
Administration has made a finding of de minimis impact by the signing of this document.
• Project Footprint Expansion — Expansions of the project footprint have been reviewed for
archaeology and architectural history ( see Attachments 1 and 3) with a determination that
no additional survey is needed. Regarding Historic Architecture, there is a weigh station on
the north side of Moores Chapel Loop that is outside of the study area but may be eligible.
If the study area is expanded, a detailed review of the property will be required.
• Mecklenburg County has recently purchased two parcels on either side of Moores Chapel Loop
with plans to convert it to a future park. The park falls under "joint development" provision of 4(f)
and is therefore not a 4(f) resource.
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 8

Q 9 — 303(d) listed waters /Buffer Rules — 303(d) listed waters are present in the Catawba River as an
impaired water due to Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in fish tissue within the additional study area. Since
the issue is not turbidity, no actions are required on the part of NCDOT as it relates to this project.
Catawba River Buffer Rules are applicable for this river. The project commitments address this with the
appropriately sized sediment control basin.
Q 12 — FERC — Lake Wylie is licensed under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license.
NCDOT is processing a conveyance application with Duke Energy. This will include processing a boater
safety plan and affects the design of the bridge to accommodate required navigational clearance.
Based on coordination with Lake Wylie Marine Commission, Duke Energy, Local Emergency Services and
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (who has navigational authority over inland waters) the project will
include 17' of clearance over full pond elevation in the navigational channel and 12' of clearance over full
pond elevation in the middle third of the bridge.
Q 14 — GeoEnvironmental — The GeoEnvironmental Phase I Report identifies two sites of concern that
will be affected by the footprint of this project. Both are located on a property at the corner of NC 7 and
US 74. One is currently operating as a gas station and the other was formerly a gas station. Once the
right of way impact is established, a Phase 11 GeoEnvironmental Screening will be requested. This is
included as a project commitment.
Q 27 — Noise Type I
The source of this traffic noise information is the B-6051 Traffic Noise Report, by RK&K, accepted
by NCDOT on March 10, 2023.
Traffic Noise Impacts
The maximum number of receptors in each project alternative predicted to become impacted by future traffic
noise is shown in the table below. The table includes those receptors expected to experience traffic noise
impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels as defined in the NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy.
Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative*
Traffic Noise Impacts
Residentia
Places of
Businesse
Alternative
I (NAC B
Worship/Schools, Parks,
s (NAC E
Total
etc. (NAC C & D
Build
2
6
0
8
*Per TNM 2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts, including noise barriers, were considered for
all impacted receptors in each alternative. Noise barriers include two basic types: earthen berms and noise
walls. These structures act to diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise.
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 9

Noise Barriers
A noise barrier evaluation was conducted for this project utilizing the Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) software
developed by the FHWA. The following table summarizes the results of the evaluation.
Preliminary Noise Barrier Evaluation Results
Alternative /
Square Feet
Preliminarily
NSA
Length
Number
per Benefited
Feasible and
Noise
/
Square
of
Receptor /
Reasonable
Barrier
Height'
Footag
Benefited
Allowable
("Likely") for
Location
(feet)
a
Receptor
Square Feet
Construction
s
per Benefited
2
Receptor
-Y3- RT /
Build / NSA 1
NC (Cat 7
652 / 9
6,079
2
3,040 / 1,500
NO3
Street) NB
-L- LT /
US 29/74
Build / NSA 2
WB, East of
804 / 30
24,132
1
24,132 / 1,500
NO3,4
Hazeleen
Avenue
'Average wall height. Actual wall height at any given location may be higher or lower.
2The likelihood of a barrier's construction is preliminary and subject to change, pending completion of final
design and the public involvement process.
3Barrier is not reasonable due to the quantity per benefited receptor exceeding the allowable quantity per
benefited receptor OR Barrier is not reasonable due to an inability to achieve at least 7-dBA noise reduction
for at least one benefited receptor.
413arrier is not feasible due to an inability to achieve a minimum of 5 dB(A) of noise reduction for at least two
impacted receptors.
Based on this preliminary study, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no noise abatement
measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR
Part 772. No additional noise analysis will be performed for this project unless warranted by a substantial
change in the project's design concept or scope.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Policy, the Federal/State governments are not responsible for
providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building permits are issued after the
Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the
approval date of the Categorical Exclusion (CE). NCDOT strongly advocates the planning, design and
construction of noise -compatible development and encourages its practice among planners, building
officials, developers and others.
Q 29 — Air Quality
Gaston County (Prior 1997 & 2008 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area):
The project is in Gaston County, which is within the Charlotte maintenance area for the prior 1997
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) as defined by the EPA. This area was
designated moderate nonattainment under the 1997 ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2004 and due to
improved air quality in the region was re -designated maintenance on January 2, 2014. The
Charlotte area was designated for the 2008 ozone NAAQS resulting in the 1997 ozone NAAQS
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 10

being revoked on April 6, 2015. On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA ("South Coast 11, " 882
F.3d 1138) held that transportation conformity applies for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS areas.
Transportation conformity for plans and TIPs for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated
without a regional emissions analysis pursuant to 40 CFR 93.109(c).
The project is in Gaston County, which is within the Charlotte maintenance area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS as defined by the EPA. The Charlotte area was designated marginal
nonattainment under the 2008 ozone NAAQS on July 20, 2012 and due to improved air quality in
the region was re -designated maintenance on August 27, 2015. Section 176(c) of the CAAA
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air
quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control
measures for Gaston County. The Gaston Cleveland Lincoln Metropolitan Planning Organization
2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the 2020-2029 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination on
the MTP and the TIP on April 5, 2022. The current conformity determination is consistent with the
final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the
project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
Mecklenburg County (Prior 1997 & 2008 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area):
The project is in Mecklenburg County, which is within the Charlotte maintenance area for the prior
1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) as defined by the EPA. This area
was designated moderate nonattainment under the 1997 ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2004 and due
to improved air quality in the region was re -designated maintenance on January 2, 2014. The
Charlotte area was designated for the 2008 ozone NAAQS resulting in the 1997 ozone NAAQS
being revoked on April 6, 2015. On February 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. District v. EPA ("South Coast 11, " 882
F.3d 1138) held that transportation conformity applies for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS areas.
Transportation conformity for plans and TIPs for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS can be demonstrated
without a regional emissions analysis pursuant to 40 CFR 93.109(c).
The project is in Mecklenburg County, which is within the Charlotte maintenance area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS as defined by the EPA. The Charlotte area was designated marginal
nonattainment under the 2008 ozone NAAQS on July 20, 2012 and due to improved air quality in
the region was re -designated maintenance on August 27, 2015. Section 176(c) of the CAAA
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air
quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control
measures for Mecklenburg County. The Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization
2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the 2020-2029 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a conformity determination on
the MTP and the TIP on April 5, 2022. The current conformity determination is consistent with the
final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant changes in the
project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 11

H. Proiect Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form):
NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS
STIP Project No. B-6051 & U-6143
Replace Bridge 91 over the Catawba River and Improve Intersection of US 74 & NC 7
Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties
Federal Aid Project No. 0029074
WBS Element 48708.1.1 & 48326.1.1
Structure Management Unit and Division 12 Construction- Bicycle and Pedestrian
Accommodations
MUP's will be included:
• along north side of US 74 beginning at Gaston College terminating at Moores Chapel Road
• along south side of US 74 beginning at Gaston College and terminating at ISWA Nature Preserve.
• along both sides of NC 7
• along east side of Moores Chapel Loop beginning at US 74 and terminating at the end of the
proposed roadway work on the road.
Sidewalk will be included:
• along Hazeleen Avenue.
Structure Management Unit- Aesthetics for Bridge
• Based on participation by local government, the rails, caps, and round columns on the new bridge
will be stained beige -white and trimmed with a stamped brick pattern and stained three colors.
• The bridge will also include pedestals with conduit and mounting plates. The Structure
Management Unit and NCDOT Lighting Group are currently coordinating with Duke Energy
regarding the specifications these lights will require for the bridge.
• The bridge will also include 7'x14' scenic overlooks on both sides near the apex of the bridge.
Structures Management Unit / Division 12 — Kevin Loftin Park Sidewalk
The project plans and construction will include a proposed sidewalk extending from and existing sidewalk
within Kevin Loftin Park near the boat ramp and connecting to the crosswalk on US 74. The cost of the
sidewalk will be reimbursed by the City of Belmont as part of the Municipal Agreement.
Structures Management Unit / Division 12 — Municipal Agreement
A municipal agreement will be required for reimbursement of the aesthetic enhancements proposed for
the Local Government Aesthetics Committee. The GCL-MPO representative, Randi Gates will coordinate
the percent of cost share between the various representatives to be included in the agreement. The
agreement will also cover a requested sidewalk in Kevin Loftin Park to be constructed with
B-6051 /U-6143.
Structures Management Unit— Plantable Medians on City of Belmont Side of Project
The medians will include curb and gutter perimeters leaving soil in the median in the center which the City
of Belmont will use at the completion of the project for plantings and natural area.
Division 10 & 12 Traffic Engineers — Posted Speed Limits
The posted speed limit ordinances through the project limits will be adjusted to 45 mph prior to the Let of
this project.
Structures Management Unit- Section 4(f) / Section 106 - Historic Bridge No. 91
• Bridge No. 91 will be photo documented prior to let of the project.
• Historic Bridge Plans will be provided to HPO
• The replacement bridge will:
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 12

o include church rail
o include end rails that emulate the curved end rail on the existing bridge including replica
plaques
Structures Management Unit / Division 10 and 12 — Weigh Station
The abandoned weigh station on the north side of Moores Chapel Loop is outside the current study area
but potentially historic. Division 10 has agreed that the property will not be touched as part of this project
including for the purposes of a staging area during construction. If this changes, the property will have to
be evaluated and if determined historic, have to go through Section 106 and Section 4(f).
Structures Management Unit - Navigational Clearance on Bridge 91
Based on coordination with Lake Wylie Marine Commission, Duke Energy, Local Emergency Services and
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (which has navigational authority over inland waters) the project
will include 17' of clearance over full pond elevation in the navigational channel and 12' of clearance over
full pond elevation in the middle third of the bridge.
Structures Management Unit /GeoEnvironmental Section — Phase II Study
The GeoEnvironmental Phase I Report identified two sites of concern that will be affected by the footprint
of this project. Both are located on a property at the corner of NC 7 and US 74 One is currently operating
as a gas station and the other was formerly a gas station. Once the right of way impact is established, a
Phase II GeoEnvironmental Screening will be requested.
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 13

Categorical Exclusion Approval:
STIP Project No.
WBS Element
Federal Project No.
Prepared By:
5/3/2023
Date
Prepared For:
Reviewed By:
5/3/2023
Date
Q
5/3/2023
Date
5uSigned by:
, 0it- Tams
John L. Wift; Pf6jE
RK&K
B-6051 & U-6143
48708.1.1 & 48326.1.1
0029074
Manager
David Stutts. NCDOT Structures Manaaement Unit
DocuSigned by:
John JaMT9b ,TjHff2Head
NCDOT, Environmental Policy Unit
Certified • If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion.
DocuSigned by:
Awl —
David Stu s, rojec ngineer, PEF Program Management
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required.
DocuSigned by:
5/8/2023 FL.�a.6 a a'."
Date for John F. uDivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Note: Prior to ROW or Construction authorization, a consultation may be required (please see
Section Vll of the NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement for more details).
v2019.1 B-6051 & U-6143 Type 111 CE Page 14

700
N
O
f
r LEGEND
DESIGN PUBLIC MEETING MAP
� 0 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING WETLANDS
- - TIP PROJECT B-6051 /U-61430
R�� �`,,,� 0 EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT 0 PROPOSED STRUCTURES, ISLAND,
0 0 PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CURB AND GUTTER
' EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE RETAINED
PROPOSED EASEMENTS
-GASTON IMECI<LENBURG CO� � PROPOSED ROADWAY � PROPOSED SIDEPATH /GREENWAY
> � � 0
LAKES, RIVER, STREAMS AND PONDS
0 EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
r 0 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
i BRIDGE NO, 91 OVER CATAWBA RIVER ON US 29 IUS 74 -0.0 � a EXISTING ROADWAY
HPB� HISTORIC AREA
� EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED • �
AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON US 29 IUS 74(WILI<INSON BLVD.)��u�►�OF llt�* 0 BUILDINGS o PROPOSED SIGNAL �
`- AND NC 7 (CA TA WBA S T*
A UGUST 2022I ilq_
. .,FICiURE 2
R 10 J k 'firI .f�Milo
•
■
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-6051 /U-6143
STATE EMPLOYEES
CREDIT UNION
J 'F
` ypB
ONALD
ARD AS
DAVID J. WORICK
R CLT EXPRE
�. D J. WORIC • JAMES K. YELTON
� •', r A E RITA V. YELTON
• r
I` ONALD WORICK
AND WIFE�+."TNN I'FE BARA WORICK Do■ = I r
\ ;;THUY► gUl NGUYEN_
�. .. _,
—Vol
Ora
MAIN, I WL
—`Now
�► _
1•� —
�� ROGER DAL
WILLARD CITY OF
�j BELMONT
GASTON COLLEGE
i '•.
1 � f
•
COLLEGE ,r
a
CITY OF BELMONT
i
KEVIN
I
r
LOFT11_
RIVERFRONT
CITY OF BELMO
PARK
DESIGN DATA
Functional Class. = Major Arterial
a
Design Speed = 50mph/�-
Max. Superelev. = 0.04
UTILITY INFORMATION:
Utility easements are approximated and subject to change.
SIDEWALK & MULTI -USE PATHS:
The construction of sidewalks and mutli-use paths are
contingent upon municipal agreements.
DRIVEWAY NOTE:
Driveways are not shown as maps are based on preliminary
plans and are subject to change. Driveway locations will be
finalized at a later date.
f-
DUKE POWER
COMPANY NORTH CAROLINA
IO STATE HIGHWAY I \
AND PUBLIC \
U1.2 - WORKS COMMISSION
Z; j I
NRIGHT �IW DUKE POWER COMPANY IUKE PO R 4 I NORTH
HIGHWAY
OMPANY MECKLENBURG C AND PUBLIC
Q'Y MECKLENBURG COUNTY
OPOTENTIAL PARK OTENTIAL PARK QO WORKS COMMISSION
IU
I ■ • � I
m
4i K CATO INDUSTRIAL #:
-
I
MECOUNTY G , _ _� •
�Iz ���•�� DUKE P
%mu� _COMF
DUKE POWER COMPANY L
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
.MONT
5
5' 1 D' 4. S' 2' 12' 12' 12' j� 17.5' 1 ?' 12' 12' 2' 4.5' 10'
Shared Shared
Path TYPICAL SECTION ALONG -L- Path
US 29-74 / WILKINSON BLVD.
4' Raised Median
Slatted Slotted
Barrier _� Barrier
Texas �i Texas
Classic Awl
` Classic
Barrier Barrier
"Clk -14W. low
1/ � •75' .75' 1 t 1r
10' 5' 12' 1?" 12, 4' 12' 1?' I 12' S' 10,
0 All
Shared Shared
Path TYPICAL SECTION ALONG BRIDGE ON -L- path
US 29-74 / WILKINSON BLVD.
1--s Tom:... _-xcL_ � t� •-z�—,'^-_�. _ _�-^-a.•e�a••f--r�-
- ISWA
. Y .. NATURE
PRESERVE
� _ - �•i � �. - .. 'far '� - _` .. ._ .Y . .
,`ir
or
T4
IS -
•ice ' , :,:. - , k t:.
Ok
� _�; �'• ! -��� .` �4L.
Lll
�� 1. -ram .• �^' j. �
Al
PRELIMINARY PLANS
• :` -r' '' +6 ADO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
-A. 100' 50' 0' 100' 200le
,t' ., ..'`'� " r `�1.' ` / x� � •, ,.,,� '�' .....: ,. � SCALE 1
100
` `•` Imagery source: NC OneMap
END TIP PROJECT B-6051 /U-6143
i w Ok
k z Wo
I \
-L-
US 29-74 / 221600
WILKINSON BLVD. 29,000
4' r
//4 �� a
—Y1— HAZELEEN AVE.
600
800
m
8/500
10,600
-Y2- CATAWBA ST.
-L-
28,600 US 29-74 /
36,400 WILKINSON BLVD.
2020
2045

View of Pedestrian Ovlogo
f
Driver's View Crossine Bridee
r �
s'
View from Kevin Loftin Riverfront Park
r :_
4
.W _ • T
I
I
1
IF
End Bent View
ter. •, _ �r
_ ,1L.,_ __
A46U�r
p
�*
View of Historic Replica Plaques,
Lighting & Multi -Use Path
f.: .

ATTACHMENTS

Project Tracking No.:
17-12-0050
o� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not 0
�srY;
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Structure 350091 (BR-0020) County: Gaston
WBS No: 67020.1.1 Document: State MCC
F.A. No: N/A Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE (not specified)
Project Description: NCDOT's Division 12 proposes to replace Bridge No. 91 on US 29/US 74
(Wilkinson Boulevard) over the Catawba River in Gaston and Mecklenburg counties. Bridge No. 91 was
constructed in 1933 and is considered to be functionally obsolete; therefore, it is scheduled to be replaced.
Since Preliminary Design Plans have not been developed yet, a Study Area for the project has been
generated in order to facilitate environmental planning purposes at this stage. The Study Area will be
centered on the bridge measure about 500 feet wide and about 2,000 feet from either end of the bridge
along US 29/US 74. Overall, the Study Area will encompass about 60 acres, inclusive of the existing
roadway, structure to be replaced, and any modern development.
13110Vlu/:11MKII K41110109J.3 07%*Toll]Zy9Y459OWI ►i.I/
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
This project was accepted on Friday, January 19, 2018. A map review and site file search was conducted
at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Thursday, January 25, 2018. An archaeological survey has
never been conducted at this bridge location, although several of the nearby islands within the Catawba
River have been surveyed. Only one (1) archaeological site has been recorded within one (1) mile of the
project area, that being within a powerline easement southeast of the Study Area. Digital copies of
HPO's maps (Belmont Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/)
were last reviewed on Tuesday, January 30, 2018. There is one (1) known historic architectural resource
that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (i.e. the bridge itself [Sloans Ferry Bridge, a
1933 steel stringer/multi-beam bridge]) located within or adjacent to the Study Area; however, intact
archaeological deposits associated with this resource would not be anticipated within the footprint of the
proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey
maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have
contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of
modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive -type disturbances within and surrounding the
Study Area.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE.
Although this is a State -funded project, a Federal permit is necessary. A permanent/temporary drainage
or utility easement will also be necessary; however, the need for additional ROW was not conveyed. The
size and shape of the Study Area have been drawn in a way to capture any possible impacts beyond the
NCDOT's existing 100-foot ROW along US 29/US 74. At this time, we are in compliance with NC GS
`No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Progr
1 of3 ATTACHMENT I
1 OF 4

Project Tracking No.:
17-12-0050
121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e. National Register -listed) archaeological resources located within
the project's Study Area that would require our attention. Based on the description of the proposed
project, activities may take place beyond the NCDOT's existing ROW; however, the exact location
cannot be determined at this time. From an environmental perspective, the Study Area falls within a
commercial setting along the banks of the Catawba River in the south-central Piedmont physiographic
region of North Carolina, and consists of various soil types. On the Gaston County side, the Study Area
consists of soils that have been heavily disturbed or have succumbed to varying degrees of erosion (e.g.
Urban land [Ur] and Gaston sandy clay loam, 2-8% slopes, eroded [GaB2]). On the Mecklenburg County
side, most if not all of the soils are considered to be steeply sloped and eroded as well (e.g. Cecil sandy
clay loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded [CeD2] and Pacolet sandy loam, 15-25% slopes [PaE]). Based on the
poor soil conditions and the level of commercial development, the preservation of intact archaeological
resources would not be anticipated. The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed several
projects within the vicinity of the Study Area for environmental compliance, including utility
upgrades/improvements (ERs 96-9138, 00-9210, 13-2894), residential development (ER 89-0201),
transportation improvements (ER 08-2567 [TIP# B-4752]), and a hazardous waste site (ER 10-0924).
Stating a low probability for intact and significant archaeological sites to be present, OSA did not require
an archaeological survey for any of these projects. More importantly, a cultural resource survey for the
Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Relicensing Project (Millis 2005 [OSA Biblio# 5430]) included several
islands in the vicinity of the Study Area as well as the riverbanks to either side of the Catawba. Although
numerous resources were identified and/or revisited, none was located within or adjacent to the Study
Area. Within five (5) miles of the Study Area, NCDOT's Archaeology Group has reviewed five (5)
transportation -related projects for environmental compliance under the Programmatic Agreement (PA)
with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO), one of which is located within one (1) mile of the
Study Area. An archaeological survey was not recommended for most of these projects, based on the
presence of heavily modified soils and/or poorly drained or eroded soil conditions. However, an
archaeological survey was recommended and conducted for the widening of 1-85 (PA 16-01-0004 [TIP#
1-5719 and C-5600G]) and for the replacement of Bridge No. 82 on US 29/US 74 over the South Fork of
the Catawba River (PA 16-01-0110). Four (4) archaeological sites were documented as a result of the
widening project; however, none of the sites was determined eligible for the NRHP. Three of the four
sites documented were cemeteries and, thus, are afforded some protection based on the nature of the
resource. Nevertheless, given the poor soil conditions and developed nature within the Study Area and
the results of previously reviewed and surveyed projects in the vicinity, there is a low probability for
significant prehistoric and/or historic archaeological materials to be present. Therefore, it is believed that
the current Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and significant archaeological resources.
No archaeological survey is required for this project. If design plans change or are made available prior
to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology will be required. At this time, no
further archaeological work is recommended. If archaeological materials are uncovered during project
activities, then such resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set forth for "unanticipated
discoveries," to include notification of NCDOT's Archaeology Group.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO AR CHAEOL OG Y SUR VEY REO UIRED
NCDOT AR
❑ Photos
Other:
❑Correspondence
January 30, 2018
LOGIST Date
jr Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Progr
2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 A
2OF4

Project Tracking No.:
17-12-0050
raI,er — 4
- ..---------
ark
41
it
14rtr3
n
Figure 1: Belmont, NC (USGS 1973).
I
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSUR VEY REQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Progr
3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 A
3 OF 4

-V CHANNEL � \
�Ai l
40
GaB2
�� �R�I m
y r
z
m GaD
GaB2 m GaE
` n
Ur
Ur
GaD2
i4
B Ch
Cn
GaE GaD2 Q
FD GaB2 /
T
CO
CfB w
\+� GaD2 GaE
i
MeB
CeD2
Pa E
CeB2
1/Mackie
Gaston
c
04rj d�� C#B2
w
Mill (6►onAandIOffice I ` I PaE
%2�,
CeD2
• CeB2
Earth�sta�Geographics, CN'E �yAirbus
IGN, IGP��isst�opo, and it,he GI- Use
CeB2

Project Tracking No.:
17-12-0050
o� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not 0
�srY;
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the .6
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. 4
PROJECT INFORMATION
Structure 350091 (BR-0020)
Project No: RESUBMITTED County: Gaston
WBS No: 67020.1.1 Document: State MCC
F.A. No: N/A Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE (not specified)
Project Description: NCDOT's Division 12 proposes to replace Bridge No. 91 on US 29/US 74
(Wilkinson Boulevard) over the Catawba River in Gaston and Mecklenburg counties. Bridge No. 91 was
constructed in 1933 and is considered to be functionally obsolete; therefore, it is scheduled to be replaced.
Since Preliminary Design Plans have not been developed yet, a Study Area for the project has been
generated in order to facilitate environmental planning purposes at this stage. The Study Area will be
centered on the bridge measure about 500 feet wide and about 2,000 feet from either end of the bridge
along US 29/US 74. Overall, the Study Area will encompass about 60 acres, inclusive of the existing
roadway, structure to be replaced, and any modern development. The Study Area has since expanded
to include an additional 17.7 acres. This PA form only covers the expanded Study Area.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
Because of an expansion to the original Study Area, this project was resubmitted and accepted on
Tuesday, September 18, 2018. A map review and site file search at the Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) was not deemed necessary. An archaeological survey has never been conducted at this bridge
location, although several of the nearby islands within the Catawba River have been surveyed. Only one
(1) archaeological site has been recorded within one (1) mile of the project area, that being within a
powerline easement southeast of the Study Area. Digital copies of HPO's maps (Belmont and Charlotte
West Quadrangles) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last
reviewed on Tuesday, September 18, 2018. There are no known historic architectural resources located
within or adjacent to the expanded Study Area for which intact archaeological deposits would be
anticipated within the footprint of the proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps
(NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and inspected to gauge
environmental factors that may have contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the project
limits, and to assess the level of modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive -type
disturbances within and surrounding the expanded Study Area.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE.
This is still a State -funded project for which a Federal permit is necessary. A permanent/temporary
drainage or utility easement will also be necessary; however, the need for additional ROW was not
conveyed. The size and shape of the expanded Study Area have been drawn in a way to capture any
`No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED "form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Progr
1 of3 ATTACHMENT I
1 OF 4

Project Tracking No.:
17-12-0050
possible impacts beyond the NCDOT's existing 100-foot ROW along US 29/US 74. At this time, we are
still in compliance with NC GS 121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e. National Register -listed)
archaeological resources located within the project's expanded Study Area that would require our
attention. Based on the description of the proposed project, activities may take place beyond the
NCDOT's existing ROW; however, the exact location cannot be determined at this time. From an
environmental perspective, the expanded Study Area falls within a commercial/residential area along the
eastern bank of the Catawba River in the south-central Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina,
and consists of three (3) soil types, all of which are considered to be eroded and severely disturbed by
modern development (Cecil sandy clay loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded [CeD2], Cecil sandy clay loam, 2-8%
slopes, eroded [CeB2], and Udorthents, loamy [Ul]). Based on the poor soil conditions and the level of
development, the preservation of intact archaeological resources would not be anticipated. As before, the
Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed several projects within the vicinity of the expanded
Study Area for environmental compliance, including utility upgrades/improvements (ERs 96-9138, 00-
9210, 13-2894), residential development (ER 89-0201), transportation improvements (ER 08-2567 [TIP#
B-4752]), and a hazardous waste site (ER 10-0924). Stating a low probability for intact and significant
archaeological sites to be present, OSA did not require an archaeological survey for any of these projects.
More importantly, a cultural resource survey for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Relicensing Project
(Millis 2005 [OSA Biblio# 5430]) included several islands in the vicinity of the expanded Study Area as
well as the riverbanks to either side of the Catawba. Although numerous resources were identified and/or
revisited, none was located within or adjacent to the expanded Study Area. Within five (5) miles of the
Study Area, NCDOT's Archaeology Group has reviewed at least five (5) transportation -related projects
for environmental compliance under the Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the State Historic
Preservation Office (NC-HPO), one of which is located within one (1) mile of the expanded Study Area.
An archaeological survey was not recommended for most of these projects, based on the presence of
heavily modified soils and/or poorly drained or eroded soil conditions. However, an archaeological
survey was recommended and conducted for the widening of 1-85 (PA 16-01-0004 [TIP# I-5719 and C-
5600G]) and for the replacement of Bridge No. 82 on US 29/US 74 over the South Fork of the Catawba
River (PA 16-01-0110). Four (4) archaeological sites were documented as a result of the widening
project; however, none of the sites was determined eligible for the NRHP. Three of the four sites
documented were cemeteries and, thus, are afforded some level of protection based on the nature of the
resource. Nevertheless, given the poor soil conditions and developed nature within the expanded Study
Area and the results of previously reviewed and surveyed projects in the vicinity, there is a low
probability for significant prehistoric and/or historic archaeological materials to be present. Therefore, it
is believed that the expanded Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and significant
archaeological resources. No archaeological survey is required for this project. If design plans change or
are made available prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology will be
required. At this time, no further archaeological work is recommended. If archaeological materials are
uncovered during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set
forth for "unanticipated discoveries," to include notification of NCDOT's Archaeology Group.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED `form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Progr
2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 B
2OF4

Project Tracking No.:
17-12-0050
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO AR CHAEOL OG Y SUR VE Y REQ UIRED
i�a,R � YNv�G
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
s
6
September 18, 2018
Date
Figure 1: Belmont, NC (USGS 1973) and Charlotte West, NC (USGS 1968 [PR80]).
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED `form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 200712015 Progr
3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 B
3 OF 4

G�FR CeB2 PaF� PA 00
50 (RESUBMITTED)
CeD2 �u C
q Replace Bridge No. 91 on
MeB
SON kpR CHANNEL LN Q a over the Catawba River
F<� G<FGaBlon & Mecklenburg Counties, NC
40, CeB2 )er
F , R = QStudy Are
O O-� _
r
m \ \Gaston C11111ry
PaE
ki, m . Local District Boundaries
�.
�dQl�K/ E C PaE
2 w NgpNBt VI) Mecklenburg Soll"ll
r 1 .Hydro.k line
• < _To S \ CeB2 CeD2 —
�/IrmNs p Q
*Np W \ P
'F 1 ) CeD2
CeD2
/DGF
CeB2
PaE
may`` CeD2
' r
'Aberfoyle Mill Village
-t • •F)berfoyle M�II (Ggne) and Offi a PaE
' CeB2
INESTp:QR P
,lf
CeD2
AT
YE ST �1�'
BRIp Yq
" B o o o - p @m " o o , o ,�_,,,o..,�,�IQ�HrytIE,E��a °nnc(a� on p�y'�9�.
,`fl o 0 o ad 1411131�INJ _.F7�dJ 'lh.�.yll W III

Project Tracking No.
Fl-7-12-0050
NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM;,.
�4 p This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this t'
project. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must
consult separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team. 4
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-6051 (aka BR-0020) County: Gaston/Mecklenburg
WBS No: 48708.1.1 Document: State MCC
Federal Aid No: N/A Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE, FERC
Project Description: NCDOT's Divisions 10 and 12 propose to replace Bridge No. 91 on US 29/US 74
(Wilkinson Boulevard) over the Catawba River in Gaston and Mecklenburg counties. Bridge No. 91 was
constructed in 1933 and is considered to be functionally obsolete; therefore, it is scheduled to be replaced.
Since Preliminary Design Plans have now been developed, the original Study Area for the project (which
has been reviewed twice now) has been expanded once more and submitted for additional environmental
review. The Study Area measures about 500 feet wide and about 2,000 feet from the west end of the
bridge and roughly 3,650 feet from the east end of the bridge. Overall, the Study Area now encompasses
about 91.15 acres, inclusive of the existing roadway, structure to be replaced, Y-line extensions, the
Catawba River itself, and any modern development. Since my last review, the Study Area has been
expanded along the Y-lines and now includes an additional 13.75 acres that were not considered as
Dart of anv previous environmental review. This PA form onlv covers the expanded sections of the
Study Area.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The resubmittal for this project was accepted for review on Wednesday, October 5, 2022. A review of the
databases maintained by the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) was deemed not necessary based on the
information compiled during the first two reviews for this project. As stated before, an archaeological
survey has never been conducted at this bridge location, although several of the nearby islands within the
Catawba River have been surveyed. Only three (3) archaeological sites have been recorded within one (1)
mile of the project area, the closest being within a powerline easement southeast of the Study Area.
Digital copies of HPO's maps (Belmont and Charlotte West Quadrangles) as well as the HPOWEB GIS
Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on Wednesday, October 5, 2022. There are two
(2) known historic architectural resources (North Carolina Vocational Textile School [GS3287] and the
Sloans Ferry Bridge [GS3298]) located within or adjacent to the overall Study Area; however, intact
archaeological deposits would not be anticipated for such resources within the footprint of the proposed
project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey maps, and
aerial photographs were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have contributed to
historic or precontact settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of slope as well as
modern, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive -type disturbances within and surrounding the
expanded Study Area.
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribes have
expressed an interest: Catawba Indian Nation, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENTARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NOARCHAEOLOGICALSURVEYREQU
1 of3 ATTACHMENT 1 C
1 OF 4

Project Tracking No.
1_17-12-0050
forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA
Procedures Manual.)
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably
predicting that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
This is still a State -funded project for which a Federal permit is anticipated. As part of the project's
resubmittal, permanent/temporary easements will not be necessary; however, additional ROW will be
required. The overall Study Area has been drawn in a way to capture any possible ground -disturbing
activities beyond NCDOT's existing ROW, including along the Y-line extensions. At this time, we are
still in compliance with NC GS 121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e., National Register -listed)
archaeological resources located within the project's expanded sections of the Study Area that would
require our attention (i.e., along Hazeline Avenue and Catawba Street in Gaston County, and along Moores
Chapel Loop in Mecklenburg County).
From an environmental perspective, the expanded Study Area locations along the Y-lines fall within
residential (Gaston side) and commercial (Mecklenburg side) areas along the banks of the Catawba River,
additionally located in the south-central Piedmont physiographic region of the state. Within Gaston
County, the Y-line extensions consist of four (4) soil types, all of which are considered to be eroded,
severely disturbed by modern development, or frequently flooded (Gaston sandy clay loam, 2-8% slopes,
eroded [GaB2], Gaston sandy clay loam, 8-15% slopes, eroded [GaD2], Cecil -Urban land complex, 2-8%
slopes [CfB], and Chewacla loam, frequently flooded [Ch]). Within Mecklenburg County, the Y-line
extension consists of two (2) soil types, both of which are considered to be eroded (Cecil sandy clay loam,
8-15% slopes, eroded [CeD2] and Cecil sandy clay loam, 2-8% slopes, eroded [CeB2]). Based on the poor
soil conditions and the level of development, the preservation of intact archaeological resources would not
be anticipated within the Y-line extension areas of the Study Area.
As before, the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed numerous projects within the vicinity of
the overall Study Area for environmental compliance, including utility upgrades/improvements (ERs 92-
7435, 96-9138, 00-9210, 13-2894, and 21-0583, and GS 21-2294), residential development (ERs 89-0201,
16-1492, 17-0557, and 20-1700), transportation improvements (ERs 08-2567 [TIP# B-4752], 18-1641, 19-
2816, 19-2937 [as well as the Charlotte Outer Loop project]), commercial development (ERs 18-3032, 21-
1953, 21-2259, and 22-1552), a new hospital (ER 21-0014), a borrow pit (ER 18-0611), and a hazardous
waste site (ER 10-0924). Stating a low probability for intact and significant archaeological resources to be
present, OSA did not require an archaeological survey for most of these projects. However, archaeological
surveys were recommended and conducted for large-scale projects like the Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Relicensing Project (Millis 2005 [OSA Biblio# 5430]), which included several islands and
the riverbanks to either side of the Catawba River in the vicinity of the overall Study Area. In addition,
one of the proposed corridors for the Charlotte Outer Loop intersects/overlaps with the Mecklenburg
portion of the Study Area. Although numerous resources were identified and/or revisited as part of these
two large surveys, none was located within or adjacent to the overall Study Area as currently designed.
Within five (5) miles of the overall Study Area, NCDOT's Archaeology Team has reviewed at least thirty
(30) transportation -related projects for environmental compliance under the Programmatic Agreement
(PA) with the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO), including this very project twice. An
archaeological survey was not recommended for most of these projects (28/30), based on the presence of
heavily modified soils and/or poorly drained or eroded soil conditions. Archaeological surveys were
recommended and conducted for the widening of 1-85 (PA 16-01-0004 [TIP# 1-5719 and C-5600G]) and
for the replacement of Bridge No. 82 on US 29/US 74 over the South Fork of the Catawba River (PA 16-
01-0110). Four (4) archaeological sites were documented as a result of the widening project; however,
none of the sites was determined eligible for the NRHP. Three of the four sites documented were
cemeteries and, thus, are afforded an additional level of protection based on the nature of the resource. No
archaeological resources were recorded at all from the survey for the bridge replacement project.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENTARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NOARCHAEOLOGICALSURVEYREQU
2 of3 ATTACHMENT 1 C
2OF4

Project Tracking No.
F-17-12-0050
Based on the information above and given the small size of the areas that have been added to the overall
Study Area, there is still a low probability for significant prehistoric and/or historic archaeological
materials to be present. Therefore, it is believed that the expanded Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to
contain intact and significant archaeological resources. No archaeological survey is required for this
project. If design plans change or are made available prior to construction, then additional consultation
regarding archaeology will be required. At this time, no further archaeological work is recommended. If
archaeological materials are uncovered during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with
according to the procedures set forth for "unanticipated discoveries," to include notification of NCDOT's
Archaeology Team.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ® Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos []Correspondence
Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST: NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
I
NCDOT ARCHAI]
II
p
October 5, 2022
Date
Figure 1: Belmont, NC (USGS 1973) and Charlotte West, NC (USGS 1968 [PR80]).
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENTARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NOARCHAEOLOGICALSURVEYREQU
3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 A
3 OF 4

er-
860 1.290 1.720
Feet
RESUBMITTAL #2
PA 17-12-0050 (TIP# B-6051)
Replace Bridge No. 91 on
US 29/US 74 (Wilkinson Blvd.)
over the Catawba River
Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties, NC
Study Area
Original Study Area
Extended Study Area (1 sl Pcesubmltlal)
oV-Line Expansions (2nd Pcesubmltlal)
NC Cemeteries
— Gaston Streets
— Mecklenburg Streets
HVARUr
Hydro24k_Ilne
OM-klenburyPu—lls
ATTACHMENT 1 A
4OF4

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
17-12-0050
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
74
W�Jmr
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS FORM
i AN This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
B-6051/U-6143
County:
Gaston/Mecklenburg
Formerly BR-0020
WBS No.:
Document
Type:
Fed. Aid No:
Not assigned
Funding:
❑ State ® Federal
Federal
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
USACE 404
Permit(s):
Type(s):
FERC Conveyance of
Easement Permit
Project Description:
[B-6051] Replace Bridge 91 over Catawba River (Lake Wylie) on US 74 (Wilkinson Boulevard)
between Belmont and Charlotte (Gaston/Cleveland Counties) and
[U-6143] Improvements to the intersection of Catawba Street and US 74 (Wilkinson Boulevard)
in Belmont, NC.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusion
On January 16, 2019 a search of NC HPOWEB GIS Service map revealed that in addition to the
National Register -eligible Bridge No. 91, the North Carolina Vocation Textile School is in the
Area of Potential Effects for this project. In a letter dated October 8, 2019, HPO concurred in the
recommendation that the school is eligible for National Register Listing. An Effects meeting was
held on June 28, 2022.
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Property Name:
North Carolina Vocation
Status:
DE
Textile School
Survey Site No.:
GS3287
PIN. -
Effects
❑ No Effect ® No Adverse Effect ❑ Adverse Effect
Explanation of Effects Determination:
The project stops at the existing curb in front of the school. There is an existing PUE that will not
change for the project. A guy wire will be placed within the existing PUE.
List ofEnvironmental Commitments:
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 2
1 OF 2

Property Name:
Bridge No. 91
Status:
DE
Survey Site No.:
GS3298
PIN. -
Effects
❑ No Effect ❑ No Adverse Effect ® Adverse Effect
Explanation of Effects Determination:
The bridge will be removed and replaced.
List ofEnvironmental Commitments:
A Memorandum of Agreement will be developed between FHWA, HPO, and NCDOT. FHWA
intends to apply its Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FHWA Projects that
Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
❑Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Correspondence ®Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Historic Architecture and Landscapes — ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
—Docu Signed by:
SLA, F., ,P
NCDOT Architectural Historian
—Docu Signed by:
06/29/2022
Date
07/05/2022
State Historic Preservation Office Representative Date
-- Do}'c{/u,SigrlV1
n1Aed by:
J N w "(Wxkr
Federal Agency Representative
06/29/2022
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes EFFECTS ASSESSMENT form far Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 2
2OF2

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
17-12-0050
Update
t HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
B-6051/U-6143 Formerly
County:
Gaston/Mecklenburg
BR-0020
WBS No.:
BP2,R015.1
Document
FCE
Type:
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
❑ State ® Federal
Federal
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
USACE 404 FERC
Permit(s):
Type(s):
Conveyance of Easement
Permit
Proiect Description:
[B-6051 ] Replace Bridge 91 over Catawba River (Lake Wylie) on US 74 (Wilkinson Boulevard)
between Belmont and Charlotte (Gaston/Cleveland Counties) and [U-6143] Improvements to the
intersection of Catawba Street and US 74 Wilkinson Boulevard in Belmont, NC.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
In June of 2022, an Effects form was signed by NCDOT, SHPO, and FHWA. Since that time
new study area was added to the project. A review of the additional study area was completed on
October 11, 2022. There is one potential historic site, a 1954 Weigh Station located on
Mecklenburg County PIN 05323102. Current plans propose to repave Moores Chapel Loop and
create a cul-de-sac beyond the parcel on which the Weigh Station sits. No survey is required at
this time. If designs change and the project encroaches on the parcel, an Eligibility Evaluation
will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there are
no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the proiect area:
Using HPO GIS website and county tax data provides reliable information regarding the structures in the
APE. These combined utilities are considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of
historic resources being present.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
shelbu Reap
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Date
October 11, 2022
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SUR VEYREQUIREDformfor Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Pagel of 3 ATTACHMENT 3
1 OF 3

�g c
Original APE
Additional Study Area
A
MECKLENBURG
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SUR VEYREQUIREDformfor Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3
2OF3

1954 Weigh Station
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SUR VEYREQUIREDformfor Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 3
3OF3

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
AND
NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
REPLACEMENT OF GASTON COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 91 ON US 74
OVER THE CATAWBA RIVER IN GASTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT TIP B-6051
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
Transportation Improvement Project B-6051 — the replacement of the structurally
deficient, four -lane Gaston County Bridge No. 91 on US 74 over the Catawba River in
Gaston County (the Undertaking) — will have an adverse effect upon Bridge No. 91, a
steel stringer bridge determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) (historic property); and
WHEREAS, the FHWA has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), as amended by 54 USC §§ 300101, et seq., and its
implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800; and
WHEREAS, NCDOT has participated in the consultation and has been invited by the
FHWA and the SHPO to be a signatory to this MOA; and
WHEREAS, the FHWA has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Council) of the adverse effect, and the Council has declined to comment or participate in
the consultation,
NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA, NCDOT, and the North Carolina SHPO agree that
the Undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations to
take into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic property.
STIPULATIONS
The FHWA and NCDOT will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
I. Photographic Recordation
Prior to the initiation of construction, NCDOT will record the existing conditions of
the Gaston County Bridge No. 91 in accordance with the attached Historic Structures
and Landscape Recordation Plan (Appendix A). Copies of the documentation will be
deposited in the files of the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (NC HPO)
and NCDOT's Historic Architecture Group.
B-6051 Memorandum of Agreement
December 21, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
1 OF 5

II. Design Replacement Structure
NCDOT will ensure the following elements are incorporated into the design and
construction of the new bridge:
A. Church Rail
B. New End Rails will emulate the curve of existing end rails and include replica
plaques
III. Unanticipated Discoveries
A. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(a), if NCDOT identifies any one or more
additional cultural resources during construction and determines them to be
eligible for the NRHP, all work shall halt within the limits of the NRHP-
eligible resource(s), and the FHWA and North Carolina SHPO will be
contacted. If, after consultation with the Signatories additional mitigation is
determined necessary, the NCDOT, in consultation with the Signatories, will
develop and implement appropriate protection and/or mitigation measures for
the resource(s).
B. Inadvertent or accidental discovery of human remains will be handled in
accordance with North Carolina General Statute Chapters 65 and 70.
IV. Dispute Resolution
Should any of the Parties to this Agreement object within thirty (30) days to any
plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this MOA, the FHWA shall
consult with the objecting Party(ies) to resolve the objection. If the FHWA or the
objecting Party(ies) determines that the objection cannot be resolved, the FHWA
will forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within thirty
(30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will either:
A. Provide the FHWA with recommendations, which the FHWA will take into
account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute; or
B. Notify the FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)
and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such
a request will be taken into account by the FHWA in accordance with
36 CFR Section 800.7(c)(4), with reference to the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendations or comments provided by the Council will be understood to
pertain only to the subject of the dispute; the FHWA's responsibility to carry out all
the actions under this Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute will remain
unchanged.
V. Amendments
Should any of the Signatories to this MOA believe that its terms cannot be carried out
or that an amendment to the terms must be made, the Party(ies) shall immediately
consult with the other Party(ies) to develop amendments in accordance with
36 CFR 800.6(c)(7). If an amendment cannot be agreed upon, the dispute resolution
process set forth in Stipulation III will be followed.
VI. Termination
B-6051 Memorandum of Agreement
December 21, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
2OF5

Any of the Signatories may terminate this MOA by providing notice to the other
Parties, provided that the Parties consult during the period prior to termination to
make a good faith effort to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that
would avoid termination. Termination of this MOA will require compliance with
36 CFR 800. This MOA may also be terminated by the execution of a subsequent
MOA that explicitly terminates or supersedes its terms.
VII. Duration
Unless terminated pursuant to Stipulation III above, this MOA will be in effect until
the FHWA, in consultation with the other Signatories, determines that all its terms
have satisfactorily been fulfilled or if NCDOT is unable or decides not to construct
the Undertaking.
Execution of this MOA by the FHWA, NCDOT, and the North Carolina SHPO, its
subsequent filing with the Council, and implementation of its terms is evidence that the
FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Undertaking, and that
the FHWA has taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on the historic property.
B-6051 Memorandum of Agreement
December 21, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
3OF5

AGREE:
Federal Highway Administration
By: co'—W. °- Date: 1 /23/2023
John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer
By: Date: 12/19/2022
Dr. Darin J. aters
State Historic Preservation Officer
Nor �tC499JW Department of Transportation
BY: Date: 12/22/2022
Jamie J. Lancaster, P.E.
Environment Analysis Unit Head
FILED:
By: Date:
[Name]
[Title]
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
B-6051 Memorandum of Agreement
December 21, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
4OF5

APPENDIX A
Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan for
the Replacement of Gaston County Bridge No. 91
Gaston County
North Carolina
NCDOT TIP B-6051
Photographic Requirements
■ Representative pictures of the Gaston County Bridge No. 91, including elevation and
oblique views of the bridge and its setting.
Photographic Format
■ Color digital images (all views) shot with an SLR digital camera with a minimum
resolution of 6 megabyte pixels, at a high quality (preferably RAW) setting, to be
saved in TIF format as the archival masters and labeled according to NC HPO
standards.
■ Drone photographic standards if different from above
■ File names for each image should follow the format:
SS# ResourceName_DateofPhoto_InitialsofPhotog-FrameNo.tif.
■ Printed inventory (photolog) of the images should be provided as a table with the file
name and description for each image — including subject, location, date, and
photographer information for each image.
■ Contact sheets should be printed on premium quality, bright white paper (241b) or
photo paper with a maximum of nine images per sheet. The back of the contact sheet
should have the following information written in archival black ink.
NCDOT TIP#
NCHPO ER#
NCDOT Photorecordation for MOA
Survey Site Number and Name of Property
Road Name
Vicinity or Town
County
Photographer's Name and Date of Photography
■ A labeled map with a key to the shots and photographs should be included in the
documentation.
■ The individual images, photolog, and map should be saved electronically on a
compact disc labeled similar to the contact sheets.
Copies and Curation
■ One (1) set of all above mentioned photographic documentation, including the
compact disc of labeled images, will be deposited with the North Carolina Office of
Archives and History/NC HPO to be made a permanent part of the statewide survey
and iconographic collection.
■ One (1) set of contact sheets shall be deposited in the files of the NCDOT's Historic
Architecture Group.
B-6051 Memorandum of Agreement
December 21, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
5OF5

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project To be determined prior to let
W.B.S. No. 48708.1.1 & 48326.1.1
TIP No. B-6051 & U-6143
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
B-6051/U-6143 — The purpose of this project is to address geometric deficiencies of the bridge
and its approaches on Wilkinson Boulevard, the emergency detour needs of 1-85, the
navigational clearance requirements over Lake Wylie and to improve the intersection of
Wilkinson Boulevard and Catawba Street to address deficient turning movements.
The project proposes to replace Bridge No. 91 carrying Wilkinson Boulevard to build a new
bridge with six 12' lanes, a 4' concrete median, 5' offsets between the outside travel lane and a
concrete barriers separating the travel lanes from and two 10' wide multi use paths on either
side of the bridge. The approaches will connect to the existing six lane geometry on the
western terminus (just west of Catawba St.) and to the existing five lane geometry on the
eastern terminus (just east of ISWA Nature Preserve entrance). Typical sections illustrating
the details of the new bridge, Wilkinson and Catawba Street are included in Figure 2 (Public
Meeting Map).
The intersection of Wilkinson Boulevard and Catawba Streets will be modified into an offset
reduced conflict intersection design as shown in Figure 2. Two left hand turn lanes will be
included for traffic from WB Wilkinson to Catawba and two right hand turn lanes will be
included for NB Catawba Street traffic to Wilkinson Boulevard. Work will extend approximately
670' down NC 7.
Yes No
Is the bridge to be replaced or rehabilitated
with Federal funds? 0 ❑
Does the project require the use of a historic
bridge structure which is on or eligible for the ❑
National Register of Historic Places?
3. Is the bridge a National Historic Landmark? ❑
4. Has agreement been reached among the
FHWA, State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), and the Advisory Council on Historic Q ❑
Preservation (ACHP) though procedures
pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act?
ATTACHMENT 5
1 OF 4

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found
not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
Do Nothing
Does the "do nothing" alterative:
a) correct the problem situation that caused
the bridge to be considered deficient? ❑
b) pose serious and unacceptable safety
hazards? 2 ❑
2. Build a new structure at a different
location without affecting the historic
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(Circle, as appropriate)
0(i)he present bridge has already
been located at the only feasible
and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental,
or economic impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
and/or (iv) The existing bridge cannot be
preserved due to the extent of
rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain
and preserve the historic bridge,
or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
Part of the Purpose and Need of the project is addressing navigational clearance
requirements of both the Duke Energy FERC License and of Charlotte Fire Department
who operate rescue boats that cannot pass underneath the existing bridge. The
existing bridge does not have sufficient navigational clearance to meet either need.
The structure must therefore be replaced to meet the purpose of the project.
ATTACHMENT 5
2OF4

3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without
affecting the historic integrity of the
structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements
and meet National Register
criteria
and/o (ii) The bridge is seriously
deficient geometrically and
cannot be widened to meet the
required capacity and meet
National Register criteria
The bridge cannot be rehabilitated or widened without compromising the historic
aspects of the bridge. Building a parallel bridge would not meet the navigational
clearance issue with the existing bridge as described in Item 2 above.
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
The project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following: (circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated, the historic integrity of
the bridge is preserved to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with unavoidable transportation needs, safety, and
load requirements.
b. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated to the point that the
historic integrity is affected or that are to be removed or
demolished, the FHWA ensures that, in accordance with
the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, or
other suitable means developed through consultation, fully
adequate records are made of the bridge.
c. For bridges that are to be replaced, the existing bridge is made
available for an alternative use, provided a responsible party
agrees to maintain and preserve the bridge.
Od. For bridges that are adversely affected, agreement among the
SHPO, ACHP, and FHWA is reached through the Section
106 process of the NHPA on measures to minimize harm and
those measures are incorporated into the project.
ATTACHMENT 5
3 OF 4

3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
discussed below:
• Photo Recordation of the Bridge and Preservation
• Providing Digital As -Built Plans
• Include Church Rail as part of the new bridge and details simulating the shape of
the existing end rail with replica plaques.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer [�
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [�
c. Local State and Federal Agencies [�
d. U.S. Coast Guard N/A
for bridges requiring bridge permits
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on July 5,
1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to
this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the measures to
minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
DocuSigned by:
5/3/2023� ,
Date David Stutts, Project Engineer, PEF Program Management
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DocuSigned by:
5/8/2023 FL.'o�ts.
Date for John Su iv ivision Administrator
Division Administrator, FHWA
4 ATTACHMENT 5
40F4

To: John Williams
From: Zip Stowe
Date: 12/13/2022
Hello John,
This is Zip Stowe, Recreation Director for the City of Belmont. I reviewed the maps that your company
provided for the Wilkinson Bridge & Catawba/Wilkinson intersection replacement on Kevin Loftin Park. The
Assistant City Manager, Kevin Krouse, and the Senior Planner, Tiffany Faro, reviewed the maps also, and we all
produced the same consensus. The project does not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that
qualify the sources for protection under section 4 (f).
The features qualifying the resources as 4 (f) include open space, access area, walking trails, etc. The
improvements shown on the map to the entrance off Wilkinson to Kevin Loftin Park Boat Access area are very
much needed. If more information is needed, please feel free to email me. My email address is
[e-mail]
Yours Truly,
Zip Stowe
Recreation Director
City of Belmont
PO BOX 431 1 1401 E CATAWBA 5T, BELMONT, NC 28012 1 WWW.CITYOFI ATTACHMENT 6
1 OF 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BD4B947-61E2-44CC-9FCF-973A082B0242
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Office of the County Manager
April 26, 2023
David S. Stutts, RE
Project Engineer-PEF/ Program Management
NCDOT Structures Management Unit
12033-C East Independence Blvd
Matthews, NC 28105
Subject: Section 4(f) de minimis determination for NCDOT Project B-6051 - Wilkinson Blvd at Catawba
River Bridge Replacement
Dear Mr. Stuffs,
This letter is a follow-up to a request from the North Carolina Department of Transportation ("NCDOT")
to review and concur with a Section 4(f) de minimis impact determination for the proposed Wilkinson
Blvd at Catawba River Bridge Replacement B-6051 Project. The project consists of the replacement of
Gaston County Bridge No. 91, which carries US 74/US 29 over the Catawba River, between Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties. The project will address geometric deficiencies in the US 74 approaches to the
bridge as well as navigational requirements for boating traffic under the bridge.
Within the boundaries of the project is Mecklenburg County owned and operated ISWA Nature Preserve.
The features qualifying the nature preserve as a 4(f) resource include publicly accessible open space and
walking trails. Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department has reviewed the impact to the
nature preserve resulting from the bridge replacement. Based on the small amount of County property to
be impacted by the project listed below, the County has determined that the project does not adversely
affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the ISWA Nature Preserve for protection under
section 4(f).
B-6051 Right of Way Impacts
Parcel it
Parcel Owner
PIN ilk (PARCEL ID)
Total Parcel Area
ROW Take
Permanent Easement Take
Temporary Easement Take
ROW Remaining
(Acres)
(Acres)
(Acres)
(Acres)
(Acres)
22
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
(11334107)
0.75
0.000
0.032
0.142
0.750
23
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
111334106)
14.182
O.O(YD
0.192
0.196
14.192
24
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
111334105)
8.037
0.113
0.343
0.413
7.924
Thank you for allowing Mecklenburg County to weigh-in on project B-6051. If you have any questions
related to the comments above, please contact Jacqueline McNeil at 980-314-2511.
PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS • PARTNERSHIP ATTACHMENT 7
600 East Fourth Street• Charlotte, NC 28208-2835 • [phone]
www.MeckNC.gov 1 OF 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8BD4B947-61E2-44CC-9FCF-973A082B0242
Sincerely,
DocuSignod by:
F. 016YI6
ella KF1 1OT410,
County Manager
Mecklenburg County
C: Leslie Johnson, Deputy County Manager
Lee Jones, Park and Recreation Director
Bert Lynn, Capital Planning Director
PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS • PARTNERSHIP
600 East Fourth Street• Charlotte, NC 28208-2835 • [phone]
www.MeckNC.gov

U.S. Department of
Homeland Security <�
Bin®E
United States
Coast Guard
Mr. David Stutts
Trasnportation Engineer Supervisor
NCDOT Structures Management Unit
1581 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1581
Dear Mr. Stuffs:
Commander
United States Coast Guard
Fifth Coast Guard District
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: (dpb)
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: Mickev D Sanders2(cr7uscq mil
Or CGDFiveBridges(cr7uscg mil
16590
01 NOV 2018
Coast Guard review of your proposed project as provided in an email dated October 31, 2018,
from Ms. Maggie Weiner with RK&K Engineers, on behalf of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, is complete.
Based on the documentation provided and our research, it is determined that a Coast Guard
bridge permit will not be required for the proposed US 29/74 Bridge across Catawba River, at
position (35.245750N,-81.008935W), at Gaston County, NC.
In addition, navigational lighting at the aforementioned bridge is not required, as per Title 33
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 118.40 (b).
The fact that a Coast Guard bridge permit is not required does not relieve you of the
responsibility for compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State, or local agency
who may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the project.
If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Mickey Sanders at the above listed address
or telephone number.
Sincerely,
HAL R. PITTS
Bridge Program Manager
By direction
Copy: Ms. Maggie Weiner, RK&K Engineers
CG Sector North Carolina, Waterways Management
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
ATTACHMENT 8
1 OF 1

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
September 20, 2019
Attention: David Stutts
NC Department of Transportation
1581 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
2019-193-31 Replacement of Bridge No. 91 on US 29174 over Catawba River in Gaston & Mecklenburg
Dear Mr. Stutts,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
ATTACHMENT 9
1 OF 1