19940835 Ver 1_Complete File_19940908

BJO/clh
Attachment
cc: COE, Asheville Field Office
John Donley, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
R.W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 :engineer
Beverly J. Grate, Planning & Environmenta'
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental

Iredell County, SR 1907
Bridge No. 366 over South Yadkin River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1907(1)
State Project No. 8.2821101
TIP Project No. B-2577
I Ni
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date __?ar H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
0 28 94 ??
Date pop Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Iredell County, SR 1907
Bridge No. 366 over South Yadkin River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1907(1)
State Project No. 8.2821101
TIP Project No. B-2577

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Beverly J.
Project P1

Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
ing Engineer
,,,,C: 1111,, tt.
?•.•`'?rk CARot
ESSIpN. 9
s
SEAL
17282 i
r
• q
Iredell County, SR 1907
Bridge No. 366 over South Yadkin River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1907(1)
State Project No. 8.2821101
TIP Project No. B-2577
Bridge No. 366 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge
R Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated; therefore, this project has been
classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
To minimize environmental effects, sedimentation control guidelines
and all Best Management Practices will be implemented throughout
construction. No special or unique environmental commitments are proposed
as part of this project.
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The proposed project consists of the replacement of Bridge No. 366
over the South Yadkin River on SR 1907 in Iredell County. The project
area is shown in Figure 1.
The project is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right
of way acquisition is scheduled to begin Fiscal Year 1995, and
construction is scheduled for Fiscal year 1996.
The current cost estimate for the project includes $27,250 for right
of way acquisition and $1,000,000 for construction. The T.I.P. shows
$26,000 for right of way acquisition and $1,000,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING BRIDGE AND ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Bridge No. 366 was constructed in 1950. The structure consists of a
timber deck supported by steel I-beams on a timber substructure. This
structure has 14 approach spans at about 5 meters (17 feet) and a main
span of 12.2 meters (40 feet). Bridge No. 366 is 7.1 meter (23.4 feet)
wide and 85 meters (280 feet) long. The approach roadway width is 6.8
meters (22.3 feet). The present posting on the structure is 6350.3
kilograms (7 tons) for single axle vehicles and 10886.3 kilograms (12
tons) for trucks with trailers. The sufficiency rating is 48.7 compared
to 100 for new structures. The bridge has an estimated remaining life of
10 years. The structure sits 6.0 meters (20 feet) above the river bottom
and carries two travel lanes, each approximately 3.4 meters (11 feet) in
width. There is approximately 11 meters (36 feet) of existing right of
way.
One ran-off-the-road type accident was reported in the vicinity of
the bridge during the period from February 1991 through January 1993.
2
Two school buses currently cross Bridge No. 366 with approximately 4
trips per day.
IV. ROUTE FUNCTION, LAND USE, AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SR 1907 is classified as a non-federal aid rural minor collector in
the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Agriculture and forestry are the primary land uses for the county.
The project area can be described as a rural setting, with moderately
large agricultural fields and forested tracts dominating the landscape.
The current traffic volumes of 500 vehicle per day (VPD) is expected
to increase to 800 VPD by the year 2013. The projected volumes includes
2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles. The
posted speed limit is 90 km/h (55 mph).
V. ALTERNATIVES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 366 were studied. Each recommends
replacing the existing bridge at the present location with a structure 85
meters (280 feet) long with a clear deck width of 8.5 meters (28 feet).
This clear deck width will provide two 3.4 meter (11-foot) lanes and 0.91
meter (3 foot) shoulders. The approach roadway will be 6.8 meters (22.3
feet) wide with 12 meters (4 feet) grassed shoulders. 2.1 meter (7 foot)
shoulders will be provided in areas with guardrail. The design speed for
each alternative is 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 1 would replace the existing structure at the existing
location with road closure. Traffic would be maintained on other
secondary roads-during construction.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) will replace the existing structure at the
existing location with an on-site detour to the east of the existing
bridge. The proposed detour structure is 45.7 meters (150 feet) long and
will be constructed at an elevation 0.8 meter (2.5 feet) lower than the
existing bridge.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance
Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due
to its age and deteriorated condition.
The "no-build" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
SR 1907.
Relocation to the north or south of the existing alignment provides
no improvement to the roadway alignment. There is no improved alignment
to the north or south that provides a feasible alternate to the studied
alternates.
10
VI. COST ESTIMATES
Table 1 shows the estimated cost of both alternatives.
Table 1. Cost Estimates
1
r'
RECOMMENDED
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structure $ 470,000 $ 470,000
Roadway Approaches 189,800 189,800
Structure Removal 32,200 32,200
Temporary Detour N/A 172,000
Engineering & Contingencies 108,000 136,000
Right of Way Acquisition 25,000 27,250
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: 825,000 1,027,250
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 366 should be replaced in its existing location as shown
in Alternate 2, Figure 2. This alignment will provide a 100 km/h (60 mph)
design speed. The proposed right of way width is 18.3 meters (60 feet).
Construction easements, extending outside the proposed right of way, will
be required on the east side of the proposed bridge. Traffic should be
maintained on an on-site detour structure located to the east of the
existing structure.
The recommended replacement structure is 85 meters (280-feet) long
with a clear deck width of 8.5 meters (28-feet) with 0.9 meter (3 foot)
shoulders and a minimum 0.3% gradient for deck drainage. The approach
roadway will be 6.8 meters (22.3 feet) wide with 1.2 meters (4 feet)
grassed shoulders. 2.1 meters (7 feet) shoulders will be provided in
areas with guardrail. The detour structure will be 45.7 meters (150 feet)
in length with a roadway grade approximately 0.8 meters (2.5 feet) below
the existing roadway grade.
The Division 12 Engineer has commented against the Alternate 2
recommendation and maintains that an on-site detour is not cost effective
due to low traffic volume.
A benefit cost analysis (based on 500 vehicles per day and 11.84
additional miles of travel) indicates cost of additional travel would be
approximately $684,565 during construction. The estimated cost of
providing an on-site detour is $197,750 resulting in a benefit cost ratio
of 3.5. This rate indicates an on-site detour is economically justifiable.
Coordination with Iredell County emergency services and school bus system
officials indicated road closure would cause major problems for emergency
services and would be costly to the school bus system.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
The project is located approximately 14.9 kilometers (9 miles) north
of the city of Statesville. Iredell County is in the central-western
Piedmont Physiographic Province and is characterized by moderately sloping
to steep hills and associated narrow bottomland floodplains.
A. NATURAL SYSTEMS
1. Stream Characteristics
The South Yadkin River streambed width is approximately 24
meters (80 feet) wide with a channel width of 21.3 meters (70 feet)
(at the point of crossing). Average water depth is 0.9 meters (3
feet), although there are some deeper pools. Substrate can be
classified as unconsolidated soft mud. During the July 22, 1993 field
investigation flow was moderate to sluggish and the water was very
turbid. Nutrient overload is also a major problem, originating from
animal waste of an adjacent livestock pasture. The effects of
excessive animal waste on stream ecosystems are well documented, and
mainly include eutrophication. Fish larvae are extremely sensitive
to eutrophication, because dissolved oxygen is severely depleted and
toxins are often produced by algae.
a. Water Resources Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to waters affected by the proposed
project, include decreases of dissolved oxygen, and increases in
water temperature. This is due to removal of the streamside
canopy and removal/burial of aquatic vegetation. Water clarity
can be reduced during construction activity, from sedimentation
and substrate disturbance, however water is already turbid.
To minimize increases in turbidity, Best Management
Practices will be implemented during construction.
Alterations of water levels, due to interruptions or
restrictions of surface water flows are likely during "in-water"
construction activities. The project will be designed such that
"in-water" construction activities will be minimized.
The placement of minor amounts of fill in the floodplain
area will not affect the floodplain. The proposed bridge
replacement project will not increase the 100 year floodplain
elevation more than 1 foot.
2. TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Animals observed during the July 22, 1993 site visit are
denoted by a (*) in the text.
5
a. Roadside Communities
The existing roadside shoulder is routinely mowed, being
almost uniformly populated with fescue (Festuca sp.). Low
growing herbaceous plants such as dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), chickweed (Stellaria sp.), henbit (Lamium
amplexicaule) and wild onion (Allium canadense) are scattered
throughout. The slopes which are less routinely mowed, support
dense vegetation, including smooth sumac (Rhus labra), winged
sumac (R. copallina), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), sunflower
(Helianthus se), trumpet creeper (Cam psis radicans), sericea
(Lespedeza cuneata) and milkweed (Asclepias sp.).
Various species of birds and mammals feed along roadsides
on seeds, berries, roots and insects. These species include:
the Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), northern cardinal
(Cardinalsis cardinalis)*, American robin (Turdus migratorius),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), white-throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus)*.
Snakes such as the black racer (Coluber constrictor) and eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) may venture into this habitat
to feed on insects and small mammals. The red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis)* was seen soaring above the project area.
They often feed along open areas such as roadsides and pastures
on small mammals, reptiles and insects.
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginans), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis)*, and raccoon (Procyon lotor) frequently
forage nocturnally in these habitats, or travel along roadways
between habitats. These animals are often roadkill victims.
Consequently roadkill attract a large number of scavenger
species including turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)* and common
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), as well as domestic dogs and cats.
b. Pasture
Fescue dominated livestock pasture occurs northeast of the
bridge. Other herbaceous plants including dandelion and wild
onion, are sparsely scattered. Deadly nightshade (Solanum
americanum) is abundant in some areas. Dense patches of
vegetation consisting of species occurring on side slopes of the
roadway, are scattered throughout, becoming more abundant near
the roadway and forest. These areas offer cover for various
rodents and eastern cottontail. Predators such as the black rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)*
and red fox (Vulpes vulpes)* prey on these rodents. Few animals
are expected to reside in the more open areas of the pasture,
with the exception of fossorial animals such as the eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus). Birds such as the American robin,
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) and mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura)* often feed in pastures on seeds, insects and
other invertebrates.
6
C. Alluvial Forest
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix
ni ra), river birch (Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus
americana), and hackberry (Celtic laevigata) comprise the
streamside canopy. Beech (Fa us grandifolia), yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and red maple (Acer rubrum) also occur
within the floodplain. Box elder (Acer ne undo), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana) and American holly (Ilex opaca) are
understory species. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) is abundant
along streambanks. Other shrubs occurring in the forest are
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), strawberry bush (Euonymus
americana) and fetterbush (Leucothoe sp). Several herbaceous
species were observed including Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), avens (Geum sp.), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), violet (Viola spp.), sedge (Carex spp.) and false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica).
The canopy and mid-story of this community serve many
purposes, including nesting/cover and food source. Birds are
the most prominent group of vertebrates found in the canopy.
Wood boring and defoliating insects are abundant and are
consumed by several bird species, including, downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens)*, red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes
erythrocephalus), yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius),
pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), blue-gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea) and white breasted nuthatch (Sitta
carolinensis)*. Fruits, seeds and new shoots of trees, and
vines as well as insects offer forage to the tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor)*, red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus)*, eastern
bluebird (Sialia sialis) and blue jay (C_yanocitta cristata)*.
Other vertebrate species which utilize the canopy component
of this community include: the grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis)*, Virginia opossum, grey treefrog (H. chrysoscelis
and H. versicolor) and eastern pipstrelle (Pipstrellus
subflavus), a -very small bat common in the piedmont, found near
bodies of water.
The numerous shrubs of this community provide a significant
food source (berries) and offer shelter and 'nesting habitats to
a large number of birds: yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata)*, wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), ruby crowned
kinglet (Regulus calendula), solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius),
gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and Northern cardinal.
Ground nesting birds found in this type of habitat include
black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia), swamp sparrow
(Melospiza georgiana) and rufous sided towhee (Piplo
erythrophthalmus).
The forest floor is heavily covered with leaves and fallen
branches, providing cover for the American toad (Bufo
americanus), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), ground skink (Scincella
lateralis) and southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), which
dwell under the litter layer, feeding on earthworms, beetles,
ants and other invertebrates.
d. Terrestrial Community Impacts
Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of the three plant community types
described. The estimated acreage loss to these communities is
listed in table 2. Estimated impacts were derived using the
entire proposed right of way. Project construction often does
not require the entire right of way and therefore actual impacts
may be considerably less.
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE
Community
Alternate MOF AF RC
1 0.00 (0.0) 0.00 (0.0) 0.06 (0.2)
2 0.11 (0.3) 0.00 (0.0) 0.06 (0.2)
Impacts in hectares (acres), based on 24 m (80 ft) of right of way. MOF,
AF and RC denote Mesic Oak/Hickory Forest, Alluvial Forest and Roadside
Communities, respectively.
3. AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Autochthonous (produced within the stream ecosystem) energy
sources include planktonic and benthic micro and macro algae as well
as aquatic vascular vegetation. Fallen logs in the water offer an
attachment substrate for algae. Knotweed (Polygonum sp.) and lizard
tail (Saururus cernuus) growing on sediment islands within the
streambed also contribute to the food web of the stream.
Gamefish such as chain pickeral (Esox nigra), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides)*, sunfishes (Le omis spp.) and catfish
(Ictalurus spp.) are common occupants of small piedmont rivers. Only
one fish, a largemouth bass was observed in the river. An abundance
of eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)* were observed in the
drainage ditches flowing into the river. Other species which may
occur in the South Yadkin River near project crossing, include
shiners (Notropis spp.), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas),
tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) and creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus).
8
Several other animals representing all vertebrate classes are
integral parts of the aquatic system. The northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus) and the two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineata) may occur under rocks and logs within the streambed.
Frogs which prey on a large amount of aquatic insects are abundant in
this habitat. Species which may be present include pickeral frog
(Rana palustris), southern leopard frog (R. sphenocephala) and
bullfrog (R. catesbeiana)*.
Reptiles such as the Queen snake (Regina septenvittata),
northern water snake (Nerodia si edon) and the snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina) are common occupants of piedmont streams, often
basking on limbs over water.
The belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)*, a piscivorous bird
common throughout the state, which nests within the stream
embankments, was observed near the stream. Several nest holes were
also observed.
Mammals likely associated with the stream community include the
semiaquatic muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and mink (Mustela vison) as
well as raccoon.
a.' Aquatic Community Impacts
Anticipated impacts to the aquatic communities can be
attributed to construction related sedimentation and erosion.
Although sedimentation and erosion may be temporary processes
during the construction stage of this project, environmental
impacts from these processes may be long-lived and irreversible.
Erosion and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to
aquatic ecosystems. Strict adherence to Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for protection of surface waters will be
implemented, to ensure the biological integrity of the water
bodies impacted by this project.
4. SPECIAL TOPICS
a. Waters of the United States
No wetland communities were identified within the project
right of way. Construction of the proposed project will have no
impact on any jurisdictional wetland communities.
b. Federally Protected Species
As of July 13, 1994 the Fish and Wildlife Service listed no
federally protected species for Iredell County.
Construction of this project will not adversely impact any
federally protected plant or animal species.
9
C. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are three federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Iredell County. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa
for which there are not enough evidence to warrant a listing of,
Endangered, Threatened and Proposed Endangered.
TABLE 3. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Iredell County
Scientific Name Common-Name Habitat NC
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle NO T
Delphimium exalatum tall larkspur YES E-SC
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil YES C
NC Status: T, E and SC denote Threatened, Endangered and Special
Concern respectively.
C denotes Candidate Species, which at this time are not afforded
State protection.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and animals
revealed no records of North Carolina rare and protected species
occurring near the project area.
B. HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are no known historic structures located within the area of
potential effect. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated it
is unlikely any historic structures eligible for the National Register
will be affected by the project. Therefore, the SHPO recommended no
historic architectural survey be conducted for this project (see SHPO
letter in the Appendix).
Because of federal funding involvement in this project, NCDOT
conducted an archaeological assessment of the bridge replacement project
area in order to comply with relevant regulations regarding the
documentation and protection of significant archaeological sites,
specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),
as amended. The survey was carried out in accordance with the Federal
Highway Administration's procedures for compliance with the NHPA and the
Federal-Aid Highways Act.
10
The archaeological survey was conducted on July 15, 1993 by NCDOT
staff archaeologists. One prehistoric isolated find was located during
the survey. This site, 31ID204, consisted of a single quartzite thinning
flake recovered from the top 10 centimeters of 'a shovel test pit. Site
No. 31ID204 is not significant. No other artifacts or archaeological
features were found in the project area. Unless design changes dictate
additional evaluation, no further archaeological work will be required
prior to the start of construction activities. The SHPO has concurred
with this determination (see letter in Appendix).
C. FARMLAND
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. These soils are designated by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), and typically produce a high crop yield with a minimum expenditure
of resources.
Coordination with the SCS resulted in the determination that the
proposed improvement will impact no prime farmland soils, but will impact
0.3 ha (0.75 acres) of important farmland soils. According to the SCS,
sixty-one percent of the farmland soils in Iredell County have the same or
higher relative value. Completion of the site assessment portion of the
Farmland Conservation Impact Rating (Form AD-1006) indicates that the
total site assessment value of the farmland is rated 93 on a scale from 0
to 260 points. Values over 160 points generally indicate that
consideration of mitigation and other alternatives should occur. Because
the project will impact less than one acre of important farmland soils
which received a relatively low site assessment rating, no further
consideration of farmland impacts is necessary.
D. TRAFFIC NOISE and AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Mooresville Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources. Iredell County has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project
is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of the
region.
The project consists of two alternatives to replace the existing
bridge over South Yadkin River. Both alternatives propose to replace the
existing bridge in the existing location. Also, the project will not
increase traffic volumes, and no additional through travel lanes are
planned. Due to the aforementioned factors, the project's impact on noise
and air quality will be insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for Air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520 will be followed. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and
air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
11
E. PERMITS
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the jurisdiction of
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide permit 33 CFR
330.5(A)23, for impacts to surface waters of the South Yadkin River is
likely to be applicable. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or in part,
by another Federal agency or department. That agency or department has
determined that the activity is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation, because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 Water Quality General Certification is also required, prior to issue
of the Nationwide #23. Final permit decisions lie with the Army Corps of
Engineers.
BG/plr
IGJREo
f
a
4
?? 7° 18>a ZLK ?? ?j ?y I x158 ?W
y
7
1816 C?LkB? \ 1869
/ 1_897 Ct?Bk ` .
.? 1 J \ ?
I V
AO
97
18]0 p V?2
j - ?
? E
.I .j ` .

a 1856 y(? .d
ll 19?x 19>5 `^ 1896
1
h ' 190] ?
1906
Sa a 1
1626

s
9
J
1 77
1
v en
\0 9
\? q 1e
999 F;? 2ooe
1.d 27
isJ
87x S-
585

186 _
ivoo (`¢
n 102 n (l
Ch.
G1.
190]

? ?)
59d e(
?
•
Iv
G9ek 1
f:.
1.01596
= an
1901 190? ?+ I873
190a
BRIDGE NO
366
; :'•
3 . \
1e6;
a .7 1561 IIS a 29°? " j

585 IS]2 /
1582 -D / 1651 l 1905
/ 151
7 / / D
1574 15721 FAS 71
1710 • 157
1381 1571 .7 Cr

I seo I

es
°,a 1e?7 sn .51

?2
Ins
.?.'? -
0 - is
fAS
d 2t
130
d ? $
.
.
O
v 1559 _
:6 113
~
0
u•
7Z \S
--t7
- j
7
90 ed
? 15]9
/ 1.
\° 15]1
7 / 1560
0 J
t } 1351
( STATESVILLE
SOUTH ; lsso Jc POP. 18 622
.7 1351
.a
575 y

1 1561
- p SSa i
Jo- l4
1570 tl
J U
h? J6 r0 1550

Lway
TATES`/IIIE

\
a ST
1
1563, POP. 1,905
Scotts 2W/ 1379
3
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 366 ON
SR 1907 OVER THE SOUTH YADKIN RIVER
IREDELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2577 FIG. 1
0 kilometers 3 0 miles 2
1 1 1 1 1 I
-1,91 C BRIDGE NO. 366 1892

ry
189 h :? ? 1907 _ - -
190
19 5
1899 2006 4
,StIOW .
Croak
Ch. 119-07
1903.. Cree k
1904 a
1904
1905
57V I,
1571 7,
1558

N*ot*? ( ? ?f
r
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
BRIDGE NO. 366 ON SR 1907 OVER THE
SOUTH YADKIN RIVER
IREDELL COUNTY
T. I P. NO. B - 2577
FIG. 3
'Pf?1L?l
AP"',f
STAT,
A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 26, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 366 on SR 1907 over
South Yadkin River, Iredell County, B-2577,
8.2821101, BRZ-1907(1), ER 93-8232
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On March 23, 1993, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend.that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our concerns.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
r
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 '1 ?C?
Nicholas L. Graf
March 26, 1993, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
601? David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
T. Padgett
t

s
J??7? Sf?ATF o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
t
r
3
f
4
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 22, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #366, SR 1907 over South Yadkin
River, B-2577, Iredell County, ER 94-7321
Dear Mr. Graf:
SEP 2 71993
2 Q
kDiVISI CN OF GHWAYS 1R0NM0
Thank you for your letter of August 24, 1993, concerning the above project. We
have reviewed the archaeological report for the above project.
One archaeological site (31 ID204) was identified within the area of potential
effect. Based upon our review of the report, we have determined that site
31 ID204 is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No further
work is recommended in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
r yr c fl c? .
- .,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ./L. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
SCE
O
A 2 ??P

JAMES B. HUNT. IR
GOVERNOR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 2, 1993
SAM HUNT
?f
FEB - 91993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
P,
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacement of Bridge No. 366
on SR 1907 over South Yadkin River, Iredell County,
B-2577
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for March 23, 1993 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Maria Lapomarda, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
ML/plr
Attachment
-dt 110ao C lojtA?
11A 1,?
?, o

4 1 4
4
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 211Jg3
TIP # B- a6--
State Project#
F.A. Project#
Division io
County ell_
^
Route--SRADI
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
Purpose of Project: Re -acre Obsolete Bridge
Description of Proje t: _RPOIQ r- de. 3? cxr-r
Method of Replacement:
1. Existing Location - road closure
2. Existing Location - on-site detour
3. Relocation
4. Other - Will there be special funding particil)atiori by municipality,
developers, or other" Yes No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)
, (%)
Page 1
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: Currentq15VPD Design Year VPD
TTST % DT %
Typical Roadway Section:
Existing Structure: Length aX, feet Width a!Q feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Len};th_______feet Width.-----feet
or
Culvert - Size ____CU_ feet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length_._ feet Width feet
or
Pipe - Size -inches
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) .............................. $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., uti.L.,
and acquisition) ................................ $
Force Account Items ................................. $
Total Cost ...................................... $
TIP Construction Cost ............................... $}
TIP Right of Way Cost ............................... $ a1 ??
TIP Total Cost ...................................... $ 7 -75;(11)
Page 2
BitI DGL
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Additional Comments:
Prepared By M. L"Ornaf Date--ad 093
Page 3
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 366
IREDELL COUNTY
B - 2577
1/93 FIG. 1
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
Mr. Eric, Ciola OEM- OEA
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
(`. Lor nn?d RAE
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE "PLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
i
loan
-A
s ?sz
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JP_ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
April 14, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Maria Lapomarda /'" 4
?
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 366 on SR 1907 over the South Yadkin River, Iredell
County, State Project 8.2821101, TIP No. B-2577
On March 23, 1993 a scoping meeting for the subject project was held in
the Planning and Environmental Conference Room. The following people were in
attendance:
Robin Stancil
David Foster
Eric Galamb
David Yow
John Taylor
Dave Kolmer
Ray Moore
Jerry Snead
Don Wilson
Betty Yancey
Charles Mullen
Danny Rogers
James Bridges
Bill Goodwin
Rob Hanson
Maria Lapomarda
State Historic Preservation Office
Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res.
DEM - Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Hydraulics
Location and Surveys
Right of Way
Traffic Control
Program Development
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
During the meeting, two alternatives were identified. The first is to
replace Bridge No. 366 in the existing location with an on-site detour. The
detour structure should be 150.0 feet long and constructed on the east side
at an elevation 2.5 feet lower than the existing bridge. The construction

April 14, 1993
Page 2
cost for this alternative has been estimated at $1,000,000. The other
alternative in to replace the bridge in existing location with road closure.
Construction cost for Alternative 2 has been estimated at $800,000. Both of
these alternatives will be studied in the Categorical Exclusion.
The South Yadkin River is a water supply watershed. However, this
project is outside the critical area of the watershed. The water quality of
the river is classified as a WS III Water Supply. The South Yadkin River is
also frequently used by canoeists. This public use should be preserved by
allowing safe passage under the bridge.
Attached for your review are the revised scoping sheets. Thank you for
your assistance in this part of our planning process. If you have any
questions about the meeting or scoping sheets, please call me at 733-3141.
ML/pl r
Attachment

• L
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date '211183
Revision DateAalq3
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning ?-
Design
TI P# 13- ??T] Q p
State Project# B.?Oo2???1
F.A. Project#_ RRz- ??_
Divisio
County-
Route.?1$Z_- _
Purpose of Project: Rep ]_t?ce Obsolete-lirid?e
Description of Project: C CIdoo. ?--
Method of Replacement:
1, Existing Location - road closure _
2. Existing Location- on-si.te detour ?- -
3. Relocation _
4. Other
Will there be special funding par Licipatiyn by municipality,
developers, or other*" Yes-
- N o
If ves, by whom and amount: ($)
a" I' it e 1

t
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: Current5,&0-_VPD Design Year__&O-Q_VPD
TTST I % DT _3 %
Typical Roadway Section:
Existing Structure: Length_a$,Qfeet Widthca3-D feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - LengthjM?Qfeet Width oZB.Ofeet
or
Culvert - Size _____@- feet by -feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length _/?.(Q feet Width p3
or
Pipe - Size -inches
Construction Cost (including engineering;
and contingencies) .............................. $_
Right of Way Cost (including rel., uti.l.,
and acquisition) ................................ $ 015, ow _
Force Account Items ................................. $
Total Cost ....................................... $J?,a
TIP Construction Cost ............................... $_ )11
TIP Right of Way Cost ...............................
s
TIP Total Cost ...................................... $?
Page 2
_1
?,e.5in7po-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IAMEs B. HUNT, IR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
April 14, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Maria Lapomarda 0AAa,CQce4?ta_,tdjv-
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 326 on SR 2145 over Fifth Creek, Iredell County,
State Project 8.2821201, TIP No. B-2578
On March 16, 1993 a scoping meeting for the subject project was held in
the Planning and Environmental Conference Room. The following people were in
attendance:
Robin Stancil State Historic Preservation Office
Eric Galamb DEM - Water Quality
John Taylor Roadway Design
Dave Kolmer Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulics
Stan Aiken Location and Surveys
Betty Yancey Right of Way
Charles Mullen Traffic Control
Danny Rogers Program Development
Wayne Elliott Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental
Maria Lapomarda Planning and Environmental
During the meeting, two alternatives were identified. The first is to
replace Bridge No. 326 in the existing location with road closure. The
construction cost for this alternative is $400,000. The other alternative is
to replace the bridge in existing location with an on-site detour. The
detour structure should be 80.0 feet long and constructed on the east side at
an elevation 2.0 feet lower than the existing bridge. Construction cost for
Alternative 2 has been estimated at $525,000. Both of these alternatives
will be studied in the Categorical Exclusion.

April 14, 1993
Page 2 .
Vaughn's Mill Place is located on the south bank
State Historic Preservation Office feels this propert,
listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
an architectural survey of the property.
Attached for your review are the revised scoping
your assistance in this part of our planning process.
questions about the meeting or scoping sheets, please
ML/pl r
Attachment
of Fifth Creek. The
y could be eligible for
The NCDOT will perform
sheets. Thank you for
If you have any
call me at 733-3141.

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
U
Date J?q-
Revision Date qha q3
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning
Design
TIP#13-
State P.A. Projject#&?-
Project#p?iYJ?.1_
Division_ I?
R o u t e -5_- -
Purpose of Project: Replace Obsolete Br_id?e
D e, s c,+h pti o n of Project:
??P hr1CIM(
Method of Replacement:
1 • Existing; Location - road closure ?____
2. Existing Location,.- on-site detour -
:3. Relocation
4. Other Will there be special funding pZ,rticiPation bti• municipality,
developers, or other:' Y
If ves, by whom and amount: ($)
Page 1

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: Current 33C")D _VPD Design Year VPD
TTST_p_% DT? %
Typical Roadway Section:
Existing Structure: Lengthg1Qfeet WidthJ1.$ feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Length./aV•Ufeet
or
Culvert - Size
Wi.dth.A.Q feet
feet by feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length_____feet' Width feet
or
Pipe - Size inches
Construction Cost (including engi.ncer•ing
and contingencies) ............................... $_40Q,?QOO _
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition) ................................ $ Q41000
Force Account Items ................................. $_
Total Cost ................... $ yc?'
TIP Construction Cost ............................... $_5D-1=
TIP Right of Way Cost ............................... $ .DDO
TIP Total Cost ........................ $?
Page 2
d?.. S?Aifa
ryxmr?
•? Gux ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, IR SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 14, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Maria Lapomarda J#aA?a_
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 314 on SR 2322 over Fourth Creek, Iredell County,
State Project 8.2821301, TIP No. B-2579
On March 16, 1993 a scoping meeting for the subject project was held in
the Planning and Environmental Conference Room. The following people were in
attendance:
Robin Stancil State Historic Preservation Office
Eric Galamb DEM - Water Quality
John Taylor Roadway Design
Dave Kolmer Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
Abdul Rahmani Hydraulics
Stan Aiken Location and Surveys
Betty Yancey Right of Way
Charles Mullen Traffic Control
Danny Rogers Program Development
Wayne Elliott Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental
Maria Lapomarda Planning and Environmental
During the meeting, two alternatives were identified. The first is to
replace Bridge No. 314 in the existing location with road closure. The
construction cost for this alternative is $550,000. The other alternative is
to replace the bridge in existing location with an on-site detour. The
detour structure should be 110.0 feet long and construction on the south side
at an elevation 2.0 feet lower than the existing bridge. Construction cost
for Alternative 2 has been estimated at $750,000. Both of these alternatives
will be studied in the Categorical Exclusion.

April 14, 1993
Page 2
Located near the bridge are a waste water treatment plant and a power
substation. These utilities may cause problems during construction.
Attached for your review are the revised scoping sheets. Thank you for
your assistance in this part of our planning process. If you have any
questions about the meeting or scoping sheets, please call me at 733-3141.
ML/pl r
Attachment
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCORING s1-lEE`1'
Date--Q]_' Revision Date qA::93
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning ?
Design
TIP# 13-- a5-7q
State Project#
F.A. Project#-9p Z- ,--3 Q-
Division County 1? P --
Route_
Purpose of Project: Rlt?ce Obsolete liridr,^e
Description of Project: Method of Replacement:

1, Existing Location - road closure f
2. Existing Location,.- on-site detour
3. Relocation
4. Other. Will there be special funding Participation by municipality,
developers, or other'' 1-es
- No
If yes, by whom and amount: ($)_
Page 1

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Traffic: Current_Y&Oa-VPD Design Year $50Q-VPD
TTST I % DT%
Typical Roadway Section:
Existing Structure: Length_,]L.Qfeet Wi.dt:hJ11_feet
Proposed Structure:
Bridge - Length./35D-feet
or
Culvert - Size
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length
or
Pipe - Size

Width.%.Z•(L feet
feet by _-feet
fee't.., Width feet
inches
Construction Cost (including engineering;
and contingencies) .............................. $., OOC?
Right of Way Cost (including rel., ut.i.l. ,
and acquisition) ................................ $
Force Account Items ................................. $
Total Cost ...................................... $_595,cco
TIP Construction Cost ............................... $ 3ab.,CM
TIP Right of Way Cost ............................... $ y...QQ
TIP Total Cost ...................................... $?3 10 i COQ
Page 2