20010229 Ver 1_Complete File_20010213

MULIVED
NOV 1 u
? 1997 c' c t
ENVIRONMENTALSCIENCES ?- f Cry f I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B.,GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
November 7, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3305 Bladen No. 43 NC 53 Jeff Ingham
B-3194 Iredell No. 67 US 64 Jeff Ingham
B-3200 Lenoir No. 153 SR 1152 Bill Goodwin r?
B-3204 Madison No. 25 US 25-70/NC 213 John Williams ?
B-1303 Northampton No. 76 US 258 Bill Goodwin
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information 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 projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
December 17, 1997 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 2:00 P. M. in the order shown
above. These meetings typically last 10 to 15 minutes per project, so all attendees should plan to
arrive at the beginning of the 2:00 P. M. session as applicable. You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or e-mail them to
[e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
HFV/bg
Attachments

0A0229
t

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVHRNOR
February 9 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Iredell County, Bridge No. 67 over the Yadkin River on US 64;
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-64(40); State Project No. 8.1822501; TIP
No. B-3194
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on November 1999. The bridge will be
replaced with a bridge approximately 96.0 m (315.0 ft) in length at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained,
during construction, using a temporary on-site detour alignment located approximately
15.0 m (50.0 ft) west of the existing bridge. The temporary detour will require a
temporary bridge approximately 50.3 m (165.0 ft) in length. Total project length will be
approximately 426.8 m (1400.0 ft). Project construction will not impact any wetlands.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project. The DOT asks that the bridge replacement
work for the bridge to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 23.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit,
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
I
(DWQ), for their review. The DOT is requesting that the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) provide comments to the COE concerning permit requests.
The DOT will follow Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BD&R attachment). The entire existing bridge, both superstructure and
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete. Both the bridge rail and the asphalt-
wearing surface will be removed without dropping them into Water of the United States.
Tfiere is potential for other components of the deck to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete bridge is approximately 340 cubic yards. The existing cross section is 7.0 m
(23.0 ft) wide. The proposed cross section is 9.2 m (30.0 ft) wide. The current right-of-
way for this project is 30.3 in (100.0 ft) and the proposed right-of-way is 24.4 in (80.0 ft)
for the new permanent structure and 18.3 in (60.0 ft) for the temporary detour alignment.
The current structure has reinforced concrete deck girders on RC bents. In order to
remove the existing bridge and to construct the new bridge, a temporary work pad will be
constructed. This bridge demolition has been classified as a Case 3 Bridge Demolition.
It is anticipated that construction of a temporary work pad will be authorized
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). The DOT is therefore requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit
authorizing the construction of the causeway. Enclosed are construction drawings of the
temporary causeway and a completed preconstruction notification form for a Nationwide
Permit 33 and General Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
I t
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
() Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mrs. Marella Bunsick, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. John E. Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC, Eastern MT. Coordinator
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E. Structure Design
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental

3/25/96
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
P
rtment of Transportation
0. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
CITY: Raleigh
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS,
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Iredell NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Cool Springs
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge NO. 67 on US 64 over the Yadkin River in Iredell Count
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER
RIVER BASIN: Yadkin
Yadkin River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
1
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A EXCAVATION: N/A
FLOODING: N/A OTHER: N/A
DRAINAGE: N/A TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED
0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION) :
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:

CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
2
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 112" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): See attached permit drawings
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To install a temporary work pad to
replace the inadequate bridge no. 67 over the Yadkin River
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): The temporary workpads must be installed to remove the old
bridge structure and to construct the new bridge structure.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: date of letter(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: December 22, 1997
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [
3
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ J
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Agriculture
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
WNER'S/AGENT' SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
2 lz? -i
DATE
VICINITY MAP
e'?
1 Q??
STA 16fOOOO -L-
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 8J622501 AQ
FAPROJECT BRSTP-641401
-DET -
STA 30+00.00 -L-
END STATE PROJECT 6JBZ2501
FAPROJECT BRSTP-64(40)
i
US 64
C
LEGEND
LINE W LINE WT
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY 4-6 PROPOSED BRIDGE 6
L
WETLAND
?--YI L
4-6
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
6
DENOTES FILL IN 2
WETLAND
® PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48' 15
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER
® 2 EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES 6
& ABOVE
® DENOTES FILL
SURFACE WATER R 2
2
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY 2 2
FILL IN WETLAND - WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
® IN WETLAND 2
DRAINAGE INLET
DENOTES TEMPORARY

FILL IN SURFACE
® 2
WATER ROOTWAD 2
", "" "• • DENOTES MECHANIZED
2
• " " CLEARING
2
?-- ?- FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP 2
TB 2-4
?- TOP OF BANK
WE 2 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER 2
- - EDGE OF WATER O
OR PARCEL NUMBER
? 2 IF AVAILABLE
- -
- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - F - PROP.LIMIT OF FILL 2 - BZ I BUFFER ZONE 1 2
2 BOUNDARY
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY

- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND 2 -- BZ 2 BUFFER ZONE 2 2
BOUNDARY
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE 2
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE 2
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE

EASEMENT 2
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
PLANT BOUNDARY

- WATER SURFACE
?- -- 2
2
X LIVE STAKES
X
X
X
X N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORT ATION
E2D BOULDER 6 DIVISION OF HIGHWA YS
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS IREDELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1822501 (B-319 4)
REPLACE BRIDGE 7;67 O VER
SOUTH YADKIN RIVER ON US 64
II SHEET- OF _ ISHEET _ OF _ I
? cn
1 / .I H o J oc cx Z
w w
r? 1 I x ,? _---' \{? o z A v w e o
Po?
a Il I / 1 w ? ? ?
? 1° s ? U A a w? GwLI
+ 1
S2 W ?? I 'I I ? I ? ? I I
I I I I I x w
?x
? I 4\ I ? a
o
b ti? Y
\ ,b ? w
Q ?X
I
' I k
/ I \
k I Ix
I
/ I I I I I I `
/k I x I I ? ?
/ I I II ? ? H
?k ?I? IXIIII ?a
i ?,? `' I l I x
R U
! I ` II I w
? 1 Ilk I w ?
oz i ?? I s 1? F z
?I ? ? I 1 cw
? s
I ?i ?

I

z
H w

oz

C?
? w U ? q

t? + O Z A o O
O U

1
p
z

L z N
O ? H
I W
C7 N ?
V r ?

1 t.0 O
o
.a
U
r Q
0
1 + d,
"' -
o >

/ w w O
N U
J / ~ to C:
'`
? Ln (

? 3

z
O W
ONN
..?N O
O
MOO O + '
N(7) ti
? n
J M
N
.

3
l11
+
r-4,°'
o ,

Y
2 F M
li t/
1
U
O
- - ?- O O
N
0
N
?/ a
3 Q1 O Ln
W _
/ N 00
ZD lD O

+
10 / Li > N
1
O J J
L
(.D
I
a. LLI J
Li
N u O
O C Q
L
U
/
O O
O
'p ui / cj O 3
Q)
to / L
C
0 ui
L
/
Q

O

O O O

Q,
O
co
ti ti ? ?

a O
s o

O a
F~ ® U a
p z w u Q w
? A W w
U ? O

d rj)
?.*
O
j
? W
A A a• ? F
? F?
U
C? ® 3 o

0

Q
W
o
M
J N M ?
Q
O T
O
U p
O
O
oo Q
O
_

/•s W n
d C
r?
Q? a
m
W n
< o
U

U

I
WW
E I-
N
W
m
(n
p N ?

Q-

r
N E

- O
W
c?
I U
N F-
1- N
a
N
N
O
O

0-1 U<
U Z
Q U
Q O
Ln
m I 3 Wv p p U O
i i
wI O
LL
: lL
° I-
E
O
W J.
W D
J
W
}
CD I
V1 O
> x
Q
W
n' 3
Z)
I
1
PROPERTY OWNERS
SITE NAME ADDRESS
I William Bates 232101d Mocksville Hwy
Statesville, NC 28677
I James Bobbitt 153 Bobitt Drive
Cleveland, NC 27013
I Roy Lane Burgess 2352 Mocksville Hwy
Statesville, NC 28625-9492
I John Summer 642 Snow Creek Road
Statesville, NC 28625
L m u
d ?
FN- U
--------------
U
a
:E ow
? N
LL. LL
N
O
2U
Wp
«R y
25 C ?
? U
C C ?r LO p
N C 1i{ ? O
Vu'?U E
--------------
a
U. co
CL U) M
E C5
? c
F
3
U
U) L
N ? u
c
4.?
? U m
C/)
vi Z Q ? M
Q _ N
v3
pN
C C u
IL d
Q
W
d j
co
U
N a
w
J
111
N LL
N+
N
-I IT1
1-
Z
f0
?_ O 1pA
= J N
O w ?
W cG
y ?
Z ?
? O
a
i

FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of' Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case 1 - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case I (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page] of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
• If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would-require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
• If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
• Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3

FINAL
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included in
these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall he revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP 's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Page 3 of 3
?d M STATE,,
V
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 9 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
01 0229
LYNDO TIPPETT
SFCRETARY
SUBJECT: Iredell County, Bridge No. 67 over the Yadkin River on US 64;
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-64(40); State Project No. 8.1822501; TIP
No. B-3194
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on November 1999. The bridge will be
replaced with a bridge approximately 96.0 m (315.0 ft) in length at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained,
during construction, using a temporary on-site detour alignment located approximately
15.0 m (50.0 ft) west of the existing bridge. The temporary detour will require a
temporary bridge approximately 50.3 m (165.0 ft) in length. Total project length will be
approximately 426.8 m (1400.0 ft). Project construction will not impact any wetlands.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project. The DOT asks that the bridge replacement
work for the bridge to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 23.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit,
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
(DWQ), for their review. The DOT is requesting that the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) provide comments to the COE concerning permit requests.
The DOT will follow Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BD&R attachment). The entire existing bridge, both superstructure and
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete. Both the bridge rail and the asphalt-
wearing surface will be removed without dropping them into Water of the United States.
There is potential for other components of the deck to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete bridge is approximately 340 cubic yards. The existing cross section is 7.0 in
(23.0 ft) wide. The proposed cross section is 9.2 m (30.0 ft) wide. The current right-of-
way for this project is 30.3 in (100.0 ft) and the proposed right-of-way is 24.4 in (80.0 ft)
for the new permanent structure and 18.3 m (60.0 ft) for the temporary detour alignment.
The current structure has reinforced concrete deck girders on RC bents. In order to
remove the existing bridge and to construct the new bridge, a temporary work pad will be
constructed. This bridge demolition has been classified as a Case 3 Bridge Demolition.
It is anticipated that construction of a temporary work pad will be authorized
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). The DOT is therefore requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit
authorizing the construction of the causeway. Enclosed are construction drawings of the
temporary causeway and a completed preconstruction notification form for a Nationwide
Permit 33 and General Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
y- & 1;2
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
U Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mrs. Marella Bunsick, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. John E. Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC, Eastern MT. Coordinator
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E. Structure Design
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental
3/25/96
DEM I D :
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #I): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 25201
_ SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Mangier
Protect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Iredell NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Cool Springs
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridae NO. 67 on US 64 over the Yadkin River in Iredell Count
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Yadkin River
RIVER BASIN: Yadkin
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
1
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A EXCAVATION: N/A
FLOODING: N/A OTHER: N/A
DRAINAGE: N/A TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION
OTHER:
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
2
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): See attached permit drawings
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To install a temporary work pad to
replace the inadequate bridge no. 67 over the Yadkin River
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): The temporary workpads must be installed to remove the old
bridge structure and to construct the new bridge structure.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: date of letter(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: December 22, 1997
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [ ]
3
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Agriculture
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
WNER'S/AGENT' SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
Iz-o -r
DATE
??9\ lam`'
2161 2,6<
2,63 r:
?,W,h
Coal sprimp
265 ,
J? l
r A2-01

I '
t'
VICINITY MAP ?

STA /6+00.00 -L-
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 8.1822501
FAPROJECT BRSTP-64401
I
24
I
J
?Q
Q?
-DET -
US 64
STA 30+00.00 -L-
END STATE PROJECT 6J822501
FAPROJECT BRSTP-69(401
e
LEGEND
LINE W LINE WT
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY 4-6 PROPOSED BRIDGE 6
L
WETLAND
?-W L
4-6
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
6

DENOTES FILL IN
2 LL

WETLAND
®
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
r?
12'-48' 15

DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER
® 2 EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
6
& ABOVE
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER 2
2
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY 2
2
FILL IN WETLAND r-r'L WOODS LINE
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND 2
DRAINAGE INLET
D
DENOTES TEMPORARY

FILL IN SURFACE
® 2
WATER ROOTWAD 2
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
•
•
2
• CLEARING
•
•
•
2
?- FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP 2
TB 2-4
TOP OF BANK
WE 2 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER 2
- EDGE OF WATER O
OR PARCEL NUMBER
? 2
IF AVAILABLE
- -
- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL 2 - BZ I BUFFER ZONE 1 2
2 BOUNDARY
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY

- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND 2 - BZ 2 BUFFER ZONE 2 2
BOUNDARY
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE 2
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE 2
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE

EASEMENT 2
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
PLANT BOUNDARY

- WATER SURFACE
?- - 2
2
X LIVE STAKES
X
X
X
X N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORT ATION
BOULDER 6 DIVISION OF HIGHWA YS
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS IREDELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1822501 (B-319 4)
REPLACE BRIDGE X67 O VER
SOUTH YADKIN RIVER ON US 64
I I SHEET- I SHEET OFD
1 I•o \ UP) o w?
?(23 ' ?'?-? F w w o z?
o
I I _ f? ® w w U?
e w
?I . ?1° s 1\? A ° a wx H ?
SZ W ?I ? I I x? \I + \
I ? I I? I( I w
\ I ? I Y N O
Hy Y
N ^X-k-
I
\ I
$ jk 4
' I k
/ I \
I I X
I I I I I Y
,' NIA Ixl I as
x ?? Il\ I I I ?
R v
I I ` I XIS .I w
\ I IIk ? w ?
oZ \ F z
'b ? I ? w d
1 - 1 N
I t ;??' ?I ? I I
? I ? I

z

H ? o z

®
x o
O-W

H o ? mz
A Z ? G O
A U
W
Er
O
,?
N a ~ W F
\ \ W >
0-1

ti

1 o Z a

1 +

L z N

L 2 W
a
Ol

r m U
Vn .a

1 t° o U
U') +
o
N
z
N
' w w O

J / V) `
E-4
~
00 N N 3
z O W

h O
O
8
rn00g t Z +
"Mr-

n
J M
N
O it ?o e
-
Y rh
U?W(n
O
_ o+ O O
N
o N
/
/ Q
3m Lin
w_
Dw
O
O
+
N
LL >
O LLI

U

'
J
CL LLJ _J

Li
O O
'
L 0
C' x
O O CL
x

w
/
C) +
3
N N
(n
O / L

O
+ Q
3

? Z
/
G

O U
O a) OD
ti ti
z
o

d oz
l;
O
z

o A W U O

? A A °" w H H

z rA

5•` 0
m
?

Q
W
O N
M

J M
CL
O T L
U °
O
o ° a
O OJ
0
a 11 (0
I , Q Q ? CL

W WQ-
N? (A
W (n
C
p N O-
Q
r
N
= O
C7 (>?
Y F J N
V) O
D

00 ?; Q

u Z

Q
U

Q O

U)
? I 3 ? O O U N
C
W
N i i
WI O
W LL
O

O
CL
J.
W

J

w E
O
x I
N O
> a,
Q U)
W
CL 3 .
ZI

PROPERTY OWNERS
SITE NAME ADDRESS
William Bates 232101d Mocksville Hwy
Statesville, NC 28677
James Bobbitt 153 Bobitt Drive
Cleveland, NC 27013
Roy Lane Burgess 2352 Mocksville Hwy
Statesville, NC 28625-9492
John Summer 642 Snow Creek Road
Statesville, NC 28625
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IREDELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1822501 (B-3194 )
REPLACE BRIDGE #67 OVER
SOUTH YADKIN RIVER ON US 64
SHEET _ OF _

t ? u
H U
U
O N
? N
W
LL
N
?
O
?
U
W
? O
c ?
rn
a y

T
C O
2 S U uQi
L
C
i O O W
o
? LLIU E ,
pL °D
N U
F
0 p 0
F 0
U d

3 F Z LL
O
W !3q
S a ?'
w

H C

IL ?

N

92

cn d
? a
>aim
-

1
.5
Q

N
C
(L N ?
3
a
w
g ?
? v>
N U
a

J
W
+
A
LL
F l
1 1 7
y
J
w z O
r

FINAL.
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case 1 - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
FINAL.
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
• If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Exnlosives
In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of'explosives in a.form that will he included in
these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall he revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Page 3 of 3
Iredell Count\
Bridue No. 67. on US 64
Oyer South Yadkin River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-64(40)
State Project 8.1822501
TIP Project B-3194
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
APPROVED:
II-/6-99
Date
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
,//Z-3 y
Date
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Iredell C'ountN.
Bride No. 67. on L'S 64
( )\ er South Yadkin River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-64(40)
State Project 8.1822501
TIP Project B-3191
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch By:
Date Dennis Pipkin, P.E. /
Project Planning Engineer
1144', h ?L R) i
Date Wayn Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
?pnu111111•
R??'•
.•???? CA
1-12
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager SEAL =
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
6976 -
Ilk
V. PR •
'••111113111.10 "'
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
B-3194. Iredell County
Bridge No. 67, on US 64
Over South Yadkin River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-64(40)
State Project 8.1822501
1. Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Resident Engineer:
Revegetation: The temporary detour structure and approaches will be removed after the
new bridge is completed, and the area will be revegetated with appropriate plant species.
2. Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition: The entire existing bridge, both superstructure and substructure, is
composed of reinforced concrete. Thus, there is a potential for components of the bridge to be
dropped into Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the bridge will be as much as approximately 340 cubic yards. During
construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Categorical Exclusion Document Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
November, 1999
lredell Count.
Briduc No. 6-17. on US 64
Over South Yadkin River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-64(40)
State Project 8.1822501
TIP Project B-3194
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 67. in lredell County. Bridge No. 67 carries US 64
over the South Yadkin River, in the east central part of lredell County. NCDOT and FHWA classify
this action as a Categorical Exclusion, due to the fact that no notable environmental impacts are likely
to occur as a result of project construction. NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 67 at the same location as
shown in Figure 2. The new bridge will be approximately 315 ft in length, and 30 ft in overall width.
A travelway of approximately 24 ft will be accommodated, with an offset of 3 ft on each side. The
new bridge will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. Total project length
will be approximately 1400 ft.
A temporary on-site detour bridge will be constructed to the west (upstream) of the existing
bridge to accommodate traffic during construction. The temporary bridge structure will be
approximately 165 ft in length, with a roadway elevation approximately 3 ft below that of the existing
bridge.
The estimated cost for this proiect is $2,003,000. including $78,000 for Right-of-Way
acquisition and $1.925,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2000-2006
Transportation lmpro%ement Program is $2.817,000; including $110,000 in prior-year cost, $822,000
for Right-of-Way acquisition, and $1.885.000 for construction.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS:
A design exception may be necessary for this project due to the sight distance associated with
the sag vertical curve.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies US 64 as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The land use of the surrounding area is primarily farming and rural residential,
with sparse areas of commercial/retail development.
Near Bridge No. 67, US 64 is a two lane, paved facility, with a 20 ft travelway, with 1 ft
paved shoulders on each side, and 6 ft wide or greater grassed shoulders on each side.
Horizontal alignment for this roadway is good in both directions.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 67 in 1928. The bridge has an asphalt wearing surface on a
reinforced concrete floor. This floor is placed on a reinforced concrete deck girders. The bridge has
end bents and interior bents of reinforced concrete. The deck of Bridge No. 67 is 32 ft above the
stream bed. Water depth in the South Yadkin River is approximately 4 ft at the bridge vicinity.
Bridge No. 67 is 314 ft long. xyith a 20.0 ft bridge road\?ay \yidth. It carries two lanes of traffic and is.
not posted for \\eight limits.
According to Bridge Maintenance data, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of'47.5 out of a
possible 100.0. However, the bridge is classified as Structurally Deficient for a Primary Route (US
64), the width is excessively narrow, and the 70 year old concrete is deteriorating. Also, this bridge is
not a good candidate for rehabilitation and widening.
The current traffic volume is 2,000 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to increase to 4,500
VPD by the design year (2025). No speed limit is posted in area, therefore it is assumed to be 55 mph
by statute.
Traffic Engineering accident records indicate there were 3 vehicle crashes reported in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 67 between June 1, 1994, and May 31, 1997. Two of these crashes involved
vehicles striking deer. The third crash occurred when a utility trailer became detached, crossed the
center line, and collided with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. No fatalities were involved
in any of these crashes.
The Transportation Director of Iredell County Schools indicated that there are 6 school busses
crossing the bridge twice per day, for a total of 12 trips per day. He stated that road closure would
cause time delay problems, but this could be accommodated.
IV. ALTERNATES:
One method of replacing Bridge No. 67 was studied. The alternate involves a replacement
bridge approximatel% 315 ft in length, and 30 ft in overall width. A travelway of approximately 24 ft
will be accommodated. %%ith an offset of 3 ft on each side.
The approach roadway will consist of a 24 ft travelway plus a 2 ft paved shoulder on each
side. Total shoulder width including grassed portions will be a minimum of 8 ft on each side.
Alternate One: (Recommended) Replace bridge on existing location with a new structure. This
alternate would involve approximately 1 100 ft of approach work. Traffic would be maintained on-site
during construction on a temporary detour structure located just west (upstream) of the existing
structure.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither
practical nor economical. The bridge is classified as structurally deficient and is too narrow for a
primary route.
2
V. COST ESTIMATE.
Estimated costs of the alternate studied is as follo\N s:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Structure Removal
Temporary Detour
Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
Total Construction Cost
Right-of-Way and Utilities
Total Project Cost
Alternate 1
Recommended
$642.300
175.500
78,300
575.000
273.900
180.000
$1,925,000
78,000
$ 2,003,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 67 at the same location, as shown in Figure 2. The new
bridge will be approximately 315 ft in length, and 30 ft in overall width. A travelway of
approximately 24 ft will be accommodated, with an offset of 3 ft on each side. The new bridge will be
at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge, and will not require substantial new work
on approach roadways. Total project length will be approximately 1400 ft.
A temporary on-site detour bridge will be constructed to the west (upstream) of the existing
bridge to accommodate traffic during construction. The temporary bridge structure will be
approximately 165 ft in length, with a roadway elevation approximately 3 ft below that of the existing
bridge.
The project will require approximately 1100 ft of approach work.
The completed project will provide a design speed of 60 MPH.
The approach roadway will consist of a 24 ft travelway plus a 2 ft paved shoulder on each
side. Total shoulder width including grassed portions will be a minimum of 8 ft on each side.
Where design requires guardrail, the shoulder will be at least 11 ft wide. The new structure
and roadway approaches will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing roadway.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 1 be constructed, in order to maintain traffic on site during
the construction period. Due to the high traffic volume, road user costs for an off site detour are
prohibitive. No reasonable detour route exists. Also, the Planning Division of the Iredell County
government states that road closure would hamper emergency vehicle response.
The environmental impacts of the recommended Alternate 1 do not have the potential of
causing substantial impacts to the environment.
The Division Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternate 1.
3
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) due to its limited scope and
insubstantial environmental consequences.
The bridge project will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project. No adverse effect on families or
communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic or religious opportunities in the area.
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities or wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance are in the vicinity of the project.
Construction of Alternate 1 will not have a substantial adverse impact on the floodplain or
associated flood hazard.
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low for a project of this size and magnitude.
There are no kno%%n hazardous %%aste sites in the project area.
B. Architectural & Archaeological Resources
Architectural Resources
A meeting was held with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), NCDOT, and the
Federal Highway Administration to evaluate potential effects of the project. No architectural
structures within the area of potential effect are considered eligible for the National Register.
Therefore, the SHPO recommended that no further evaluation be performed. See appendix for SHPO
Concurrence Form dated July 16, 1998.
Archaeological Resources
The SHPO indicated that there are no known or potential archaeological sites within the area
of potential effect. Therefore, the SHPO recommended that no archaeological surveys be conducted
in the project area. Thus, it is concluded that the project will have no effect on any archaeological
resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. See appendix for SHPO clearance
letter dated December 22, 1997.
4
C. Natural Svstems
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Project Description
The proposed project crosses the South Yadkin River northeast of the town of Cool Springs
(Figure 1). The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 67 on US 64 over the South Yadkin
River in lredell County.
The entire existing bridge, both superstructure and substructure, is composed of reinforced
concrete. Both the bridge rail and the asphalt wearing surface will be removed without dropping them
into Waters of the United States. There is potential for other components of the deck to be dropped
into Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with
demolition of the existing concrete bridge is approximately 340 cubic yards.
The bridge will be replaced with a bridge approximately 315 ft in length at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The existing deck width is 22.8 ft wide,
and the proposed deck width is 30.0 ft wide.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using a temporary on-site detour bridge
located approximately 50 ft west of the existing bridge. The temporary bridge will be approximately
165 ft in length. Total project length will be approximately 1400 ft.
Regional Characteristics
lredell County is in the central-western Piedmont Physiographic Province and is
characterized by moderately sloping to steep hills and associated narrow bottomland floodplains.
lredell County's terrain is gently-sloping to steep, well-drained with a subsoil of reddish clay, on
granite, gneiss, and schist. (USDA, 1960). The lowest elevation in the county is 700 ft where the
South Yadkin River crosses the Davie County line and the highest place is 1,760 ft at Fox Mountain
in the northwestern part of the county. Most of lredell County is drained by the South Yadkin River.
Soils
Generally, soils are characterized into soil groupings called Soil Associations. The project
study area lies in the Cecil Association. The Cecil Association makes up 51 percent of the county
with deep, gently sloping to steep, well-drained soils with a subsoil of reddish clay, on granite, gneiss
and schist (USDA 1960). There are five soil types located in the project area. A brief description of
each soil type is provided.
Madison gravelly fine sandy loam 10-15% slopes, eroded (MdD2) is generally on side slopes
that border drainage ways and is in most cases, severely eroded. It has a surface layer of reddish-
brown gravelly clay loam with occasional rock outcrops and stones on the surface. Small schist
pebbles are on the surface, and as much as 20 percent of the surface is made up of pebbles. The
subsoil is red to yellowish-red, friable gravelly fine sandy loam and mica content increases with
depth. The bedrock is chiefly made up of quartz mica schist with an abundance of garnet. This
soil is low in fertility and organic matter and is medium acid to strongly acid. The soil also has
moderate available water capacity and moderate permeability. Its Capability t Init Is IVc- I and its
\yoodland grouping is 413.
Madison Gravelly fine sandv loam. 1 S-25% slopes (MdE) is generally on side slopes that border
deeply cut drainage ways and its profile is not so well-developed. There are occasional rock out
crops and stones. Small schist pebbles are on the surface, and as much as 20 percent of the
surface is made up of pebbles. The subsoil is red to yellowish-red. friable gravelly fine sandy
loam and mica content increases with depth. The bedrock is chiefly made up of quartz mica schist
with an abundance of garnet. This soil is low in fertility and organic matter and is medium acid to
strongly acid. The soil also has moderate available water capacity and moderate permeability. Its
Capability Un:t is VIe-1 and its woodland grouping is 4A.
Madison gravelly fine sandy loam, 6-10% slopes, eroded (MdC2) is on ridges and side slopes and
is usually severely eroded. This surface layer is reddish-brown gravelly clay loam with gullies
and a few surface stones. Small schist pebbles are on the surface, and as much as 20 percent of
the surface is made up of pebbles. The subsoil is red to yellowish-red, friable gravelly fine sandy
loam and mica content increases with depth. The bedrock is chiefly made up of quartz mica schist
with an abundance of garnet. This soil is low in fertility and organic matter and is medium acid to
strongly acid. The soil also has moderate available water capacity and moderate permeability. Its
Capability Unit is Ille-1 and its woodland grouping is 4A.
Cecil soils, 15-25% slopes, eroded (CsE2) are on side slopes that border deeply cut drainage
ways with depth to bedrock no more that 36 inches. The surface layer is generally 3-5 inches
thick and is made up of a light-brown sandy loam made up of a red clay loam. Many area are
severely eroded with a few gullies with exposed bedrock. These soils are low in natural fertility
and organic content and are strongly acid. They also have moderate available water capacity and
permeability. Its Capability Unit is VIe-1 and its woodland grouping is 4B.
Mixed alluvial land (Mm) contains unconsolidated alluvium recently deposited by streams and is
nearly level. This soil is exposed to overflow and has no profile development. Its color ranges
from light gray to yellowish brown and its texture ranges from loamy fine sand to silt loam. This
soil is also droughty and is low in fertility. Its Capability Unit is Ilw-1 and its woodland grouping
is 1.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by
the proposed project. Water resource assessments include physical characteristics, best usage
standards, and water quality aspects.
Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Yadkin River Drainage Basin. There
is one water resource, South Yadkin River, in the project study area crossed by US 64 (Figure 2).
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects water quality
conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the
streams to which they flow. The classification for the South Yadkin River [DEM Index No. 12-108-
6
(12.5). 9'1 /941 is Water Source IN' (WS-IN'). Class N'1'S-IN' waters are suitable for all Class C uses.
which includes aquatic life propagation and sur\ ival. fishing. -,? ildlife. secondary recreation and
acriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human bod\ contact with \\aters on an infrequent or
incidental basis.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW). Water Source (WS I or WS II). or
outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The South
Yadkin River is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a
National Wild and Scenic River.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
As the South Yadkin River crosses US 64 at the study area, it is approximately 50.0 ft wide
and ranges in depth from 3-7 ft with an easterly, moderate flow. The substrate in the study area is
composed of a sandy loam with occasional cobble and rubble.
Water Quality
This section addresses the quality of the water resources within the project area.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the DWQ, is part of
an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates organisms, which are sensitive to water quality conditions. There is no BMAN
monitoring station on the South Yadkin River within the project region.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these communities. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Representative animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range
distributions) are also cited.
Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk (*).
Terrestrial communities
Descriptions of the three terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant communit\
classifications. Terrestrial wildlife relationships are discussed after the three terrestrial community
descriptions.
Pasture
This community is located on the southwest side of the existing bridge and will be impacted
by the temporary on-site detour. The fescue dominated pasture community is contiguous with the
roadside community. The pasture also contains other plant species including, wild onion, chickweed,
goldenrod, and dandelion.
Disturbed roadside
This community is located on both sides of US 64 and will be impacted by both the bridge
replacement and the on-site detour. Because of mowing and the use of herbicide, this community is
kept in a constant state of early succession. It contains the maintained powerline right of way. It will
also be impacted by both the bridge replacement and the on-site detour. This community is composed
of panicum, goldenrod, passion flower, milkweed, rose, trumpet vine, indian hemp, honeysuckle,
ragweed, indian strawberry, wood sorrel, white clover, red clover, thistle, and Queen Anne's Lace.
Riparian floodplain
This community is on the north and south sides of the South Yadkin River, contiguous to the
north with the roadside community and to the south with the pasture community. Since this
community is within the existing powerline right of way, only shrub layer and saplings are present.
Species inhabiting the riparian floodplain include, jewelweed, five fingers, hazelnut, yellow poplar,
red maple, false nettle, wild parsnip, panic grass, honeysuckle, wingstem, Virginia creeper, fescue,
blue grass and trumpet creeper.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The roadside communities, riparian floodplain, and pasture adjacent to forested tracts provide
rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals and birds
associated with ecotones between these communities are woodchuck, white-footed mouse, least
shrew, southern short-tailed shrew, hispid cottonrat, eastern cottontail rabbits*, ruby-crowned kinglet,
Carolina chickadee, bluebird, downy woodpecker, white-breasted nuthatch, northern cardinal*, indigo
bunting*, yellow-billed cuckoo *, blue jay*, tuffed titmouse*, acadian flycatcher*, mourning dove*,
and barn swallow*.
Reptiles and amphibians inhabiting these community types include, queen snake, black rat
snake, copperhead, garter snake, american toad, fowler's toad, fence lizard, and five-lined skink.
Aquatic Community
This community consists of the South Yadkin River. Research has shown that a large amount
of food chain energy of stream communities is derived from allochthonous (produced outside the
river ecosystem ) sources. in the form of terrestrial detritus. Rocks. fallen debris( logs. sticks. etc.).
and lo\\ velocit\ areas in the river trap detritus within the river. The detritus is then decomposed b\
heterotrophic microorganisms. such as bacteria and consumed by macroinvertebrates. such as aquatic
insects. In turn, the aquatic insects are then consumed by larger organisms. The amount on
allochthonous energy input within a river varies seasonally. Autochthonous (produced within the river
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.
Aquatic insects found in this community include the water strider, riffle beetle, crane fly,
stream mayfly and black-winged damselfly.
Gamefish such as chain pickerel, largemouth bass, and sunfishes occupy the South Yadkin
River. Other fishes, such as shiners, golden shiners, eastern mosquitofish, darters, chubs, daces, and
catfishes may occupy the South Yadkin River.
Several other animals representing all vertebrate classes are integral parts of the aquatic
system. The northern dusky salamander and the two-lined salamander may occur under rocks and
logs within the river bed. Frogs which prey on mostly aquatic insects are abundant in this habitat,
such as pickerel frog, southern leopard frog, bullfrog, northern water snake and snapping turtle.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
This section addresses potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in
terms of the area impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered.
Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the clearing
and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table I summarizes
potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated impacts to
terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lengths described in section 1. 1. and the entire
proposed right-of-way width of 100.0 ft for the bridge replacement and 60.0 ft for the on-site detour.
However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Impacted Area (acres)
On-Site Detour"
, Pasture 0.00 0.34
Disturbed Roadside 0.02 0.90
Riparian Floodplain 0.21 0.00
Total Impacts 0.35 1.28
*Permanent Impacts
**Temporary Impacts
9
Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of the South Yadkin River will result from the replacement
of Bridge No. 67. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e.
substrate and water quality). Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following
impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to Best Management Practices
(BMP's).
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section addresses two regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and
protected species.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States,"
as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes
to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface
waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the
public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation and hydrology. Jurisdictional wetland impacts are an estimated 6,000 sq.ft. (0.14 acres)
and are considered as a minimal impact (less than 1 acre). Jurisdictional wetlands within the project
area are located on North and South sides of the South Yadkin River in the roadside and pasture
communities.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear ft of the stream that
is located within the proposed right-of-way. Sixty linear ft of jurisdictional streams could be impacted
by project construction.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in
charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
10
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted. authorized, reuulated, funded or financed in ?\hole. or part. b, another Federal
agency or department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the council on
environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a substantial effect on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit
from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
Waters of the United States, specificall% wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by
the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics
in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing
the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of
the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
11
Compensatory actions often include restoration. creation and enhancement of \ aters of the
United States. specifically wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Nation\\ ide Permits
that result in the fill or alteration of.
• More than 1.0 acre of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation:
• And/or more than 150.0 linear ft of streams will require compensatory mitigation.
This project has an estimated 0.14 acre of potential wetland impacts and 60 ft of potential
stream impacts; therefore, compensatory mitigation is not likely to be required. If a mitigation plan is
required, written approval of the final mitigation plan must be obtained from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due
to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 14 May 1999, the FWS lists
only the bog turtle as a federally protected species for lredell County.
As of May 2, 1997, the southern subspecies of the bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened
due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A) to the northern subspecies. It is known from the following
counties: Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Cherokee, Clay, Forsyth, Gaston,
Haywood, Henderson, Iredell, Macon, McDowell, Surry, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes and Yadkin.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements for this species along with a
conclusion regarding potential project impacts are addressed below.
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle)
Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: 01 May 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in) in length.
It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright orange or yellow blotch on each side of
the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. The bog turtle inhabits damp grassy fields,
bogs, marshes, and clear slow-moving streams with a muddy bottom in the mountains and western
Piedmont.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
12
Suitable habitat, damp grass\ fields. bogs. marshes. and along clear sloe-mop in( strums
ith muddy bottom. is not found \\ ithin the project area. Additionally the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats showed no record of this species being obser\ed in the project area.
Therefore. no effect to this species will result from construction of this project.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, thus it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The land use zoning in the project area allows agricultural, commercial, and residential uses,
as well as light industrial uses. The bridge is located in a sparsely settled rural and agricultural region.
Farms and their associated dwellings and outbuildings, as well as traditional dwellings and mobile
homes characterize the area. The bridge is surrounded by Chewacla (Cw) soil. This soil is only
considered Prime Farmland when it is elevated and well drained. Thus it is concluded that the project
will have no effect on Prime Farmland.
13
N
/I
' ?? _ • Flfth . • ?•
uNE A
( o m
C?. T / % 35. 50'
I Lone
V
HOW 2 1,! Hickory
?' /
19
Cott&
o /
My.
e.
CN North Carolina Department of
V Transportation
/ , Division of Highways
M
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Iredell County
Replace Bridge No. 67 on US 64
Over South Yadkin River
B-3194
Figure One
.4
l `r P ?
(JTP \Si \S b \V??\?6` ?I
i
r"I
J 0 TO w wolf saw

Oe
101,
' ;?? tlt?!! .+.r?- River
,.:o°?_ ,? _. South Yadkin
ww?
rl

r-4 Y6? Y?y •t v
Ilk
411
Ilk
it .
? JR ? v??

O
3
E
GA
E 4)
o
r o rx
u w i O O
0 ou c 15

"
O O R O
V
?
o a
a? ?
C C `
p m
? y
_1
v? .?+ W
?
? VJ

r to _? ?., ?

S

df'

N
Looking south across
Bridge No. 67
IITl1--.
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Iredell County
Replace Bridge No. 67 on US 64
Over South Yadkin River
L
E9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor ' or
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 5, 1997
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements, Robeson, Columbus, Bladen, Edgecombe,
and Iredell counties, North Carolina, TIP Nos. B-3305, B-3194, B-3170,
B-3329, B-3112, B-3142, B-3148, B-3226, B-3229.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
conducted site visits as need and have the following preliminary comments on the subject
projects. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Nlemo
December 5. 1997
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free),area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Brid2C Replacement \,lemo 3 December 5, 1997
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure be on a nc%\ alignmei the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with crass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
B-3305 - No specific concerns.
2. B-3194 - No specific concerns.
3. B-3170 - The Tar spiney mussel (Federally listed as endangered) may be
present at this site. We recommend that Tim Savidge be notified of this
project and a field meeting may be necessary. Anadromous fish use fishing
Creek so the guidelines apply (See Item 9 above).
4. 13-3329 - Anadromous fish use Town Creek so the guidelines apply (See Item
9 above).
5. B-3112 - No specific concerns.
6. B-3142 - No specific concerns.
7. B-3148 - Manv endemic fish and mollusks (status unknown). We recommend
that Tim Savidge be notified. High Quality sedimentation and Erosion
Controls should be used. In-stream work should be avoided from March 15 to
June 1.
8. B-3226 - No comment.
9. B-3229 - No specific concerns.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

r11 "
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
December 22, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #67 on US 64 over South Yadkin River,
Iredell County, B-3194, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-64(40), State Project 8.1822501, ER 98-
7935
Dear Mr. Graf:
On December 17, 1997, Debbie Bevin 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.
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, there are several structures over fifty
years of age within the general project area, including Bridge #67. We recommend
that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate these structures for National
Register eligibility and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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.
10o East Jones Street • Ralcch. N(,r.h Car(-Ilna '7001 ''S()7 an
Nicholas L. Graf
December 22, 1997, 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,
Z??/Zv
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: `9 F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

T? lid = BRSTP-6-1(40) TH, = 13-3, I'a4 C ozolli: Ircdcll
CONCURRENCE FORA FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Proieci Description: Replace Bridi-,e No. 6 on US 64 over South Yadkin River
On July 16. 1998, representatives of the
E] North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
K Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
E] North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
? Other
revie%ved the subject project at
F? Scoping meeting
E) Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
F-? Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fift, years old within the project's area of potential effects.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
E] there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the
properties identified as Bridue #67, Lazy River Ranch, and House #l and barn are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is
necessary.
E] there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Sinned:
Represen i DOT
/: .
FHW
Vlk.
Representative, SHPO

State Historic Preservation- Officer
it the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
l?
Date
Date
11)(0
f
11'a surve% report is prepared. a final cope of this form and the attached list %%ill he included.