20011501 Ver 1_Complete File_20011016

`o?oF W A rFgOG
r
p <
Ms. Trish Simon
Division 12, NC DOT
P. 0. Box 47
Shelby, NC 28151-0047
Dear Ms. Simon:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FILE COPY
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
October 22, 2001
DWQ # 01-1501
Iredell County
A
On October 16, 2001 the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications regarding your plan to
impact 95 feet of streams for the purpose of replacing a bridge ( #337) with a concrete head wall and culvert in SR2133 in Iredell
County. Approval from DWQ is required to disturb these areas. Please provide seven copies of the following information and refer to
the DWQ # listed above in your reply. In particular as described in 15A NCAC 213 .0502, we will require you to clarify why you have
applied for 95 feet of stream impact while the sketch map shows impacts greater than 150 feet. Also discuss how fish passage will not
be impaired by this project, how much blasting is needed and how you will address its possible effect on aquatic life such as fish, and
discuss why a natural channel relocation is not proposed to realign the channel to into the culvert.
Please call Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone] if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules or procedural
materials. This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505©. The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not hear you by writing within three (3) weeks we will assume you no
longer want to pursue the project and will consider it withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Domey
cc: Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Asheville Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy

A&M
Wetlands/401 Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
.,JIORANDUM
I'O: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NCDOT - Bridge 337 on SR 2133
Project Number 01 1501
Recvd From DOT
Received Date 10/16/01 Recvd By Region
Project Type culvert
County Iredell
County2
Region Mooresville
:ertificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
lermit Wetland Wetlond Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet'
Type ., mpp Impact Score Index Prim. Sup` Basin, Req. Req.
14 F- ME-
[U@) N ?- 12-108-12- ?F_ 30,706. F- I 90.00 I -
Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y O N Did you request more Info? O Y O N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y 0 N
Mitigation required? O Y O N Recommendation: O Issue O Issue/Cond O Deny
'rovided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 355531 Longitude (ddmmss) $Q51a¢
:omments:
Regional Office Page Number 1
Central Office
litigation Wetland
M1419 -'ationTytpe' Type Acres Feet
o if,
QF WAT ?9
? r
Q T
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Ms. Trish Simon
Division 12, NC DOT
P. 0. Box 47
Shelby, NC 28151-0047
Dear Ms. Simon:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FILE COPY
October 22, 2001
DWQ # 01-1501
Iredell County
On October 16, 2001 the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your applications regarding your plan to
impact 95 feet of streams for the purpose of replacing a bridge ( #337) with a concrete head wall and culvert in SR2133 in Iredell
County. Approval from DWQ is required to disturb these areas. Please provide seven copies of the following information and refer to
the DWQ # listed above in your reply. In particular as described in 15A NCAC 26 .0502, we will require you to clarify why you have
applied for 95 feet of stream impact while the sketch map shows impacts greater than 150 feet. Also discuss how fish passage will not
be impaired by this project, how much blasting is needed and how you will address its possible effect on aquatic life such as fish, and
discuss why a natural channel relocation is not proposed to realign the channel to into the culvert.
Please call Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone] if you have any questions or would require copies of our rules or procedural
materials. This project will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0505©. The processing time for this
application will begin when this information is received. If we do not hear you by writing within three (3) weeks we will assume you no
longer want to pursue the project and will consider it withdrawn.
Sincerely,
Domey
cc: Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Asheville Corps of Engineers
Central Files
File Copy

Wetlands/401 Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
R
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WO Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NCDOT - Bridge 337 on SR 2133
Project Number 01 1501
Recvd From DOT
Received Date 10/16/01
Recvd By Region
Project Type culvert
County Iredell
County2
Region Mooresville
Certificates Stream Stream Impacts (ft.)
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req. ME
F14 F- O V _0N F_ 12-108-12- F -crr-- 30,706. F__ F?-?-^ 90.00 rF_-
107 ?5N F-1 I F-1 F
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet

Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? 0 Y 0 N Did you request more Info? 0 Y 0 N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y 0 N
Is Mitigation required? 0 Y t0 N Recommendation: 0 Issue 0 Issue/fond 0 Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 355531 Longitude (ddmmss) 804514
Comments:
Above the exisiting bridge the stream flows through pasture and there is considerable evidence of
impacts from cattle accessing the stream. At the bridge the stream flows over bed rock and drops
10-15 feet through a series of step pools down to Kinder Creek. The stream is a perennial with good
flow but no fish or other significant aquatic life was observed. The existing bridge and road bed is
approximately 12 feet above the creek.
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
F W A IF Michael F. Easley, Governor
\0?0 RpG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
> Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
November 26, 2001
Iredell County
DWQ Project No. 011501
Bridge No. 337 on SR 2133 over Kinder Creek
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Ms. Trish Simon, Division Environmental Officer
NCDOT Division 12
P.O. Box 47
Shelby, NC 28151-0047
Dear Ms. Simon:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to incur 90
linear feet of pipe impacts with 25 feet of riprap for inlet and outlet bank stabilization and to excavate
bedrock material and divert water temporarily for the purpose of constructing Bridge No. 337 over
Kinder Creek on SR 2133, as described in your application dated 12 October 2001 and additional
information provided in letters dated 30 October 2001 and 6 November 2001: After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number
3289. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 14 when the Corps of
Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge
and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404
permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing and send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre or if stream impacts exceed 150 linear feet,
compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For
this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. To the extent practicable, the pipe should be placed in a manner to mimic existing stream grade
and flow conditions so that any existing or future aquatic migration potential will not be
precluded during normal flow. If the pipe is to be placed on grade, structures may need to be
installed inside the pipe to mimic current stream dimensions and base flow conditions. Structure
should be placed one foot below the streambed. The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream
above and below the project shall not be modified by deepening or shallowing stream waters or
by modifying the floodplain. Any damming or freefalling waters associated with the installed
pipe should closely mimic existing stream conditions.
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within IS days of
ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
3. Stormwater shall be directed through vegetated buffer areas or retention basins, and not routed
directly into the stream.
4. All work shall be performed during low flow conditions.
5. Blasting shall consist of the minimum amount necessary. Should the blasting and excavation
remove the bedrock grade control structure and change the stream dimensions, NCDOT shall be
required to install rock veins, weirs, step pools or whatever structure is necessary to restore the
stream to natural conditions.
6. Upon project completion, the temporary cofferdam and bypass should be removed and the
affected areas restored to pre-existing conditions.
7. Existing vegetated buffers shall not be mowed in order to utilize it for storm water sheet flow.
8. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be planted
when practical. If necessary, rip-rap must be limited to the stream bank below the high water
mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water.
Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed
"Certificate of Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401
Certification has been completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form
and return it to the 401Wetlands unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon
completion of the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings. 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. N.C. 27699-6714. This
certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the revie«• of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions. pleas telephone Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715
or Mr. Pete Colwell of th-- Mooresville Regional Office at 704.663.1699.
Si
1 r 11 ?.f ?t?z
fie J. v, h.D
\A in_ Director
Attachment 1 7
Pc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineer
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
" bl"
®r,001-t
FILE COPY
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR
P.O. Box 47, Shelby, N.C. 28151
November 6, 2001
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/40I/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
SECRETARY
Re: DWQ # 01-1501- Permit Application for Iredell County, Bridge #337, SR 2133
Mo"Cation
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele:
I am in receipt of your comments letter dated October 22, 2001 concerning the
Department of Transportation's application regarding our plan to replace Bridge #337
with a 142"x 91" corrugated metal arched pipe with concrete inlet headwall on SR 2133
in Iredell County.
Mr. Ron Linville, with the Wildlife Resources Commission, has also voiced issues
concerning this project. Therefore, I am writing to clarify the permit application and also
to address his concerns. The linear footage of 70 feet of pipe impacts in the permit
application was erroneous. As requested by Mr. Linville, NCDOT has re-measured the
footage of stream to be impacted by the proposed pipe. The actual linear footage of pipe
impacts is 90 feet with 25 feet of ripup for inlet and outlet bank stabilization In
addition, approximately 10 cubic yards of stream excavation will be necessary to place
the new pipe on the proposed location. Mr. Linville did originally express concerns via
e-mail that the impact was greater than 150 feet; however, after his field visit to the site
on October 19, 2001, he and I agree that the impacts do not exceed this threshold as
indicated in your letter.
It is anticipated that SR 2133 will be paved in the near future. This will necessitate that
the road be upgraded and widened; therefore, the crossing at the bridge will need to be
widened and the grade raised. Based upon these plans, replacing the existing bridge
decking and refurbishing the bridge is not a viable option. The relocation of the channel
and the natural channel design option was not considered on this project due to property
access (right of way) restrictions.
P.O. Box 47 Shelby, North Carolina 28151-0047
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
r
11/06/01 2
It will be difficult to estimate the amount of blasting required for this project until the
removal of the existing abutment and the excavation of the site. It is anticipated that the
south abutment of the existing bridge and a portion of the bedrock (as shown in the
attached picture) will be removed for the new pipe placement. Based upon the visible
bedrock around the bridge, it is likely that bedrock will be found in the area of the
proposed pipe alignment. Therefore, based upon a "worse case scenario", to place the
pipe on new alignment an area -20 feet wide, -3 feet deep and -30 feet long (1800
cubic feet or - 70 cubic yards) of bedrock would be blasted, and -600 cubic yards of
earth excavated outside of the stream channel. It is anticipated that -10 cubic yards of
the stream channel will also need to be excavated to place the new pipe on the proposed
alignment. The stream is of poor quality, most likely due to livestock operations
upstream of this site. No fish were observed in the stream on any of the site visits. The
majority of the blasting, if needed, will be done along the stream bank; therefore, impacts
to any aquatic life present in the stream will be minimized.
The invert of the pipe will be set 6"-12" below the existing streambed on approximately a
3% grade. There are several small cascades among the bedrock and boulder complexes
in the project area; therefore, the pipe grade will closely mimic the existing average
stream grade. Existing stream dimensions at the pipe inlet and outlet will be maintained.
The pipe will be installed in such a way as to utilize an existing floodplain bench at the
pipe outlet and NCDOT plans to construct a "floodplain bench" at the pipe inlet.
Installed in this manner, the pipe should not significantly impact any aquatic passage.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 704-480-
9020. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Trish Simon
Department of Transportation
Division 12 Environmental Officer
Cc: Mr. John Hendrix, Asheville Corp of Engineers
Mr. Dan Holderman, NCDOT Division 12 Bridge Engineer
File

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
P.O. Box 47, Shelby, N.C. 28151
November 6, 2001
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Re: DWQ # 01-1501- Permit Application for Iredell County, Bridge #337, SR 2133
Modification ,
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele:
I am in receipt of your comments letter dated October 22, 2001 concerning the
Department of Transportation's application regarding our plan to replace Bridge #337
with a 142"x 91" corrugated metal arched pipe with concrete inlet headwall on SR 2133
in Iredell County.
Mr. Ron Linville, with the Wildlife Resources Commission, has also voiced issues
concerning this project. Therefore, I am writing to clarify the permit application and also
to address his concerns. The linear footage of 70 feet of pipe impacts in the permit
application was erroneous. As requested by Mr. Linville, NCDOT has re-measured the
footage of stream to be impacted by the proposed pipe. The actual linear footage of pipe
impacts is 90 feet with 25 feet of riprap for inlet and outlet bank stabilization. In
addition, approximately 10 cubic yards of stream excavation will be necessary to place
the new pipe on the proposed location. Mr. Linville did originally express concerns via
e-mail that the impact was greater than 150 feet; however, after his field visit to the site
on October 19, 2001, he and I agree that the impacts do not exceed this threshold as
indicated in your letter.
It is anticipated that SR 2133 will be paved in the near future. This will necessitate that
the road be upgraded and widened; therefore, the crossing at the bridge will need to be
widened and the grade raised. Based upon these plans, replacing the existing bridge
decking and refurbishing the bridge is not a viable option. The relocation of the channel
and the natural channel design option was not considered on this project due to property
access (right of way) restrictions.
P.O. Box 47 Shelby. North Carolina 2 8 1 5 1-0047
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
i "
11/06/01 2
It will be difficult to estimate the amount of blasting required for this project until the
removal of the existing abutment and the excavation of the site. It is anticipated that the
south abutment of the existing bridge and a portion of the bedrock (as shown in the
attached picture) will be removed for the new pipe placement. Based upon the visible
bedrock around the bridge, it is likely that bedrock will be found in the area of the
proposed pipe alignment. Therefore, based upon a "worse case scenario", to place the
pipe on new alignment an area -20 feet wide, -3 feet deep and -30 feet long (1800
cubic feet or - 70 cubic yards) of bedrock would be blasted, and -600 cubic yards of
earth excavated outside of the stream channel. It is anticipated that -10 cubic yards of
the stream channel will also need to be excavated to place the new pipe on the proposed
alignment. The stream is of poor quality, most likely due to livestock operations
upstream of this site. No fish were observed in the stream on any of the site visits. The
majority of the blasting, if needed, will be done along the stream bank; therefore, impacts
to any aquatic life present in the stream will be minimized.
The invert of the pipe will be set 6"-12" below the existing streambed on approximately a
3% grade. There are several small cascades among the bedrock and boulder complexes
in the project area; therefore, the pipe grade will closely mimic the existing average
stream grade. Existing stream dimensions at the pipe inlet and outlet will be maintained.
The pipe will be installed in such a way as to utilize an existing floodplain bench at the
pipe outlet and NCDOT plans to construct a "floodplain bench" at the pipe inlet.
Installed in this manner, the pipe should not significantly impact any aquatic passage.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 704-480-
9020. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Trish Simon
Department of Transportation
Division 12 Environmental Officer
Cc: Mr. John Hendrix, Asheville Corp of Engineers
Mr. Dan Holderman, NCDOT Division 12 Bridge Engineer
File
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hendrix, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 19, 2001
SUBJECT: Review of an application by North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Bridge #337 Replacement, SR2133, Unnamed Tributary of
Kinder Creek, Iredell County
NCDOT is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field
biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977
(33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
I conducted a site visit on October 19, 2001. The project consists of replacing an
existing timber bridge with a 70' long, 142" x 91" CMPA with a concrete headwall.
Total impacts are indicated to be 70' of stream piping plus 25' of riprap on the inlet and
outlet ends. This removes a stream meander that provides grade control functions. It
appears that the total linear footage of stream impacted could be approximately 100' or
more depending on how the structure is located and installed. Headwater stream
confluences are found in this general vicinity. Small runs and minor cascades are present
within the bedrock and boulder complexes. No fish were observed in this tributary
although suitable habitats may occur. Dairy operations may impact water quality and
habitats upstream.
We recommend that the NCDOT consider replacing the existing bridge decking
instead of installing a culvert as the bridge support structure appears to be substantially
Bridge 337, Iredell County 2 October 19, 2001
sound unless this project requires a wider road. If the decking is replaced, we
recommend that the old footing under the bridge be removed to prevent the deposition of
debris. However, based on the information provided by the applicant and our knowledge
of the project area, we will not object to the pipe installation provided the following
recommendations are implemented:
1. To the extent practicable, the pipe should be placed in a manner to mimic existing
stream grade and flow conditions so that any current or future aquatic migration
potential will not be precluded during normal flow scenarios (especially if
upstream conditions improve). If the pipe is placed on grade, structures may need
to be installed inside the pipe to mimic current stream dimensions and base flow
conditions. However, if blasting will be used anyway, it would be preferable to
install the pipe roughly 6" to 12" below streambed grade for the same effect. The
dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the project must not
be modified by deepening or shallowing stream waters or by modifying the
floodplain. Any damming or freefalling waters associated with the installed pipe
should closely mimic current stream conditions.
2. NCDOT should measure the stream thalweg properly and report the correct linear
footage of stream that will be lost due to the project, including riprap and lost
stream reaches.
3. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
4. The use of riprap should be minimized. Riprap should not interfere with aquatic
life migration upon project completion.
5. Any blasting should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize damage to
any aquatic species in the area.
6. The temporary cofferdam and bypass should be removed and the affected areas
restored to preexisting conditions immediately upon project completion.
Prior to final plan approvals for the pipe option, geotechnical surveys could
determine the extent of rock present and the amount of blasting/hauling that will be
necessary. This data could be used to compare bridge refurbishment costs and new pipe
installation costs. Refurbishing the existing bridge could be economically practical.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you
have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: John Dorney, DWQ
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Trish Simon, NCDOT
Marella Buncick, USFWS
r
FILE COPY
r
%
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
.n,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
P.O. Box 47, Shelby, N.C. 28151
October 30, 2001
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality/40I/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Re: DWQ # 01-1501- Permit Application for Iredell County, Bridge #337, SR 2133
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I am in receipt of your comments letter dated October 22, 2001 concerning the
Department of Transportation's application regarding our plan to replace Bridge #337
with a 142"x 91" corrugated metal arched pipe with concrete inlet headwall on SR 2133
in Iredell County.
Mr. Ron Linville, with the Wildlife Resources Commission, has also voiced issues
concerning this project. Therefore, I am writing to clarify the permit application and also
to address his concerns. The linear footage of 70 feet of pipe impacts in the permit
application was erroneous. As requested by Mr. Linville, NCDOT has re-measured the
footage of stream to be impacted by the proposed pipe. The actual linear footage of pipe
impacts is 90 f?gt with 25 feet of riprap for inlet and outlet bank stabilization. Mr.
Linville did originally express concerns via e-mail that impact was greater than 150 feet;
however, after his field visit to the site on October 19, 2001, he and I agree that the
impacts do not exceed this threshold as indicated in your letter.
It is anticipated that SR 2133 will be paved in the near future. This will necessitate that
the road be upgraded and widened; therefore, the crossing at the bridge will need to be
widened and the grade raised. Based upon these plans, replacing the existing bridge
decking and refurbishing the bridge is not a viable option. The relocation of the channel
and the natural channel design option was not considered on this project due to property
access (right of way) restrictions.
P.O. Box 47 Shelby, North Carolina 28151-0047
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
10/30/01 2
It will be difficult to estimate the amount of blasting required for this project until the
removal of the existing abutment and the excavation of the site. It is anticipated that the
south abutment of the existing bridge and a portion of the bedrock (as shown in the
attached picture) will be removed for the new pipe placement. Based upon the visible
bedrock around the bridge, it is likely that bedrock will be found in the area of the
proposed pipe alignment. Therefore, based upon a "worse case scenario" ,
approximately an area 20 feet wide, 3 feet deep and 30 feet long would be blasted. The
stream is of poor quality, most likely due to livestock operations upstream of this site.
No fish were observed in the stream on any of the site visits. The proposed alignment of
the pipe would require minimal blasting in the stream. The majority of the blasting, if
needed, will be done along the stream bank. Impacts to any aquatic life present in the
stream will be minimized.
The invert of the pipe will be set V-12" below the existing streambed on approximately a
3% grade. There are several small cascades among the bedrock and boulder complexes
in the project area; therefore, the pipe grade will closely mimic the existing average
stream grade. Existing stream dimensions at the pipe inlet and outlet will be maintained.
The pipe will be installed in such a way as to utilize an existing floodplain bench at the
pipe outlet and NCDOT plans to construct a "floodplain bench" at the pipe inlet.
Installed in this manner, the pipe should not significantly impact any aquatic passage.
Enclosed is a corrected sketch of the proposed project and photographs of the area around
the bridge. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me
at 704-480-9020. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
444 /) -S , `ti11--4!1-?
Trish Simon
Department of Transportation
Division 12 Environmental Officer
Enclosures
Cc: Mr. John Hendrix, Asheville Corp of Engineers
Mr. Pete Colwell, Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. Ron Linville, Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Dan Holderman, NCDOT Division 12 Bridge Engineer
File

CW srm,,vi r c-c .,6j
t eucw ?D r.bAl
/Sb
s2 tl32 5/ Z/33
'210' L.,oz?s, ?// GG7.lG G>U
77ti r 1lr7W-1-j4wr caao S J
? ` , g E ? 2aG.K ?. ? autr ?aiG PrrcLS
i
ST7"
?7 2!o'G K Zo './ - -
T? -16ce- 8,L1
laGf4c 6?J

•-
I
PLA-L,)
Cam'' S n?`l ti lLrt? c

/Z tom! STI AJ `-7
?OG1t ,
IT J
^?vc?2r 44 c,c.. orb av li ? ", ? %? tit' jL=
w?
Sc ? : / Z.o ,
i
72 ?? ? o F C-,c.G15 n ??? SnZvr" }, ti ?
}. TD .?? foUL
5 , Aeaoi?
r'caz?? i??J g?f

l•ic),o--
'D1U. IZ- belohe rr)O-W k-7 rC7AJrf?.^
5 ? GI 3'?
!o/a/
wn
to
{
i?
i
i
j
Directly upstream of the existing Bridge #337 on SR 2133, Iredell County.
? '

Downstream of the existing Bridge #337 on
covered area on the left of the stream in this
the proposed pipe. The outlet of the propose
(marked by an X).
12133, Iredell C
iotograph is the a
pipe will extend

ffF tt
RE: Bridge 337 replacement
Subject: RE: Bridge 337 replacement
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 200109:34:11 -0500
From: "James R. Linville" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCWRC
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]:?
"[e-mail]. miI" <[e-mail]>
CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Just received a new letter on this project from Trish indicating 90' of
impacts with 25' of riprap for inlet and outlet bank stabilization. As
long as the actual instream impacts are 90' and no more (riprap), they are
probably fairly representing the situation. I will not provide further
written comments unless you need more than my previous memo. I have no
problem with mimicking existing cascade situation provided they do not
create drop outlet scenarios that will preclude any potential or future
aquatic life passage, providing they reconnect the floodplain benches to
maintain stream depth and width. There isn't a lot of water there due to
the drought. Baffles may be useful to mimic dimensions through the culvert
(and on both ends to tie into floodplain benching) if they can't get this
one down close to 12". Suspect there are fish upstream in deeper pool
areas but can't say for sure. Definitely anticipate some aquatic life even
with cattle situation. This is a fairly long tributary.
Please advise if you need more from me.
James Ronald Linville
NCWRC Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and
this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the
health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal.
Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Aldo
Leopold
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] (SMTP:[e-mail])
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 4:31 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Bridge 337 replacement
John,
I completely agree with Ron Linville on this one, while the pictures look
pretty dismal, I would hate to see this stream so impacted by DOT
activities. We should be striving to make things better and I don't think
that putting a culvert in here does that, in any way. I think DOT needs to
assess the possibility of redecking the existing bridge and if that isn't
feasible they need to look for ways to minimize their impacts.
thanks
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
1 of 2 11/5/011:59 P]
Bridge 337 replacement
Subject: Bridge 337 replacement
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:30:41 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: j ohn.w. hendrix @ usace. army. mi I
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
John,
I completely agree with Ron Linville on this one, while the pictures look
pretty dismal, I would hate to see this stream so impacted by DOT
activities. We should be striving to make things better and I don't think
that putting a culvert in here does that, in any way. I think DOT needs to
assess the possibility of redecking the existing bridge and if that isn't
feasible they need to look for ways to minimize their impacts.
thanks
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
1 of 1 11/5/011:59 P?
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Hendrix, Permit Coordinator
Asheville Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 19, 2001
SUBJECT: Review of an application by North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Bridge #337 Replacement, SR2133, Unnamed Tributary of
Kinder Creek, Iredell County
NCDOT is requesting a letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and field
biologists on our staff are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977
(33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
I conducted a site visit on October 19, 2001. The project consists of replacing an
existing timber bridge with a 70' long, 142" x 91" CMPA with a concrete headwall.
Total impacts are indicated to be 70' of stream piping plus 25' of riprap on the inlet and
outlet ends. This removes a stream meander that provides grade control functions. It
appears that the total linear footage of stream impacted could be approximately 100' or
more depending on how the structure is located and installed. Headwater stream
confluences are found in this general vicinity. Small runs and minor cascades are present
within the bedrock and boulder complexes. No fish were observed in this tributary
although suitable habitats may occur. Dairy operations may impact water quality and
habitats upstream.
We recommend that the NCDOT consider replacing the existing bridge decking
instead of installing a culvert as the bridge support structure appears to be substantially
Bridge 337, Iredell County 2 October 19, 2001
sound unless this project requires a wider road. If the decking is replaced, we
recommend that the old footing under the bridge be removed to prevent the deposition of
debris. However, based on the information provided by the applicant and our knowledge
of the project area, we will not object to the pipe installation provided the following
recommendations are implemented:
1. To the extent practicable, the pipe should be placed in a manner to mimic existing
stream grade and flow conditions so that any current or future aquatic migration
potential will not be precluded during normal flow scenarios (especially if
upstream conditions improve). If the pipe is placed on grade, structures may need
to be installed inside the pipe to mimic current stream dimensions and base flow
conditions. However, if blasting will be used anyway, it would be preferable to
install the pipe roughly 6" to 12" below streambed grade for the same effect. The
dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the project must not
be modified by deepening or shallowing stream waters or by modifying the
floodplain. Any damming or freefalling waters associated with the installed pipe
should closely mimic current stream conditions.
2. NCDOT should measure the stream thalweg properly and report the correct linear
footage of stream that will be lost due to the project, including riprap and lost
stream reaches.
3. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
4. The use of riprap should be minimized. Riprap should not interfere with aquatic
life migration upon project completion.
5. Any blasting should be accomplished in a manner that will minimize damage to
any aquatic species in the area.
6. The temporary cofferdam and bypass should be removed and the affected areas
restored to preexisting conditions immediately upon project completion.
Prior to final plan approvals for the pipe option, geotechnical surveys could
determine the extent of rock present and the amount of blasting/hauling that will be
necessary. This data could be used to compare bridge refurbishment costs and new pipe
installation costs. Refurbishing the existing bridge could be economically practical.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you
have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Cc: John Dorney, DWQ
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Trish Simon, NCDOT
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Triage Check List a i I1
Date: //- S
To: ?RRO
?FRO
?WaRO
?WiRO
?WSRO
?ARO
`/ MRO
• D/
Steve Mitchell
Ken Averitte
Deborah Sawyer
Joanne Steenhuis
Jennifer Frye
Mike Parker
Pete Colwell
Project Name 17C j?07 --61Z;; Ri_ g 337 O? 5A 2-133
DWQ Project Number 0If7Q/
County I re-bA
From: (?ca a ei Qvi (vl?h Telephone (919) 733-
C-N
The file attached is being forwarded to you for your evaluation. Please call if you need
assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USGW topo maps
Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamilco, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concerns

Comments 6W i- _ 0?1- A ? ia;W 7 Lf • alyY G&

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGK N.C. 27611-5201 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 47, 1710 East Marion Street
Shelby, N. C. 28151-0047
October 12, 2001
Mr. John W. Hendrix - NCDOT Projects
US Army Corp of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, N. C. 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Hendrix:

OCT 16 ????a
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes the following
project for your issuance of a Section 404 Permit. We believe this project can be accomplished
under NWP #14, Road Crossing and NWP #33, Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering.
COUNTY: Iredell
LOCATION: Bridge 9337 on SR 2133, 2.0 miles south of Harmony
STREAM: Unnamed tributary to Kinder Creek
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the replacement of an existing timber
bridge with a 70' long, 142"x 91" CMPA with an inlet concrete headwall and associated riprap at
the inlet and outlet for stabilization on approximately 0.15 acre ofNCDOT right of way. It is
proposed that the pipe be placed at a skew on new location and that 70 feet of the existing stream
channel be filled. There is a large amount of bedrock/boulders in the area; therefore, blasting will
be required to install the proposed pipe. Also, due to bedrock in the project area, the invert of the
pipe will be placed on top of the bedrock and will be on approximately a 3% grade. The grade of
the road will be raised 4 feet to eliminate a steep grade at the adjacent intersection. I have
enclosed a PCN application, a sketch of planned activities, a soil survey map, and a location map
relative to the proposed project.
Pqt%,,
,;I -417
Mr. John W. Hendrix
Bridge #337, SR 2133
October 12, 2001 - Page 2
It is proposed that the watercourse be managed during construction following NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Pipe/Culvert Replacement Activities by the use of a cofferdam and a
temporary bypass which will extend approximately 10 feet beyond the upstream and downstream of
the proposed pipe site.
The stream affected by the project is classified Class C waters and is located in the Yadkin River
Basin. There is a short section (-20-30 feet) of bedrock and boulder falls downstream of the
existing bridge. The vegetation surrounding the stream in the small riffle/pool area is mainly kudzu
and the land use upstream is pastureland with livestock access.
The project is located on an unpaved rural secondary road and is not located within a critical or
protected water supply watershed area nor is the stream crossing within '/z mile of the critical area
of a water supply source; therefore, hazardous spill basins are not required. Enclosed is the
NCDOT hazardous spill basin checklist and "Guidelines for the Location and Design of Hazardous
Spill Basins".
A review of the Natural Heritage information for the threatened (T/SA -Threatened due to
similarity of appearance) species listed for Iredell County, the bog turtle (Clemmys inuhlenbergii),
did not reveal any known sites in the vicinity of the proposed project. I have conducted a survey
for the bog turtle in the project area on October 10, 2001. None were observed. It was
determined that neither the bog turtle nor suitable habitat was located in the proposed project area.
No significant effect on this species is anticipated. A review of the available information from the
National Register of Historic Places was also conducted. It is anticipated that no historic sites will
be affected by the proposed project.
By copy of this letter, we are asking Neil Trivette, NCDOT Area Roadside Environmental Engineer
to comment on the above project. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting concurrence from
the Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the State Historic
Preservation Office.
By copy of this letter, I am forwarding seven (7) copies of the application package to John Dorney,
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetland Unit for review. A $200.00 check is enclosed
for application processing.
Your earliest consideration for this request would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any
questions, please call me at 704-480-9020.
Mr. John W. Hendrix
Bridge 9337, SR 2133
October 12, 2001 - Page 3
Respectfully yours,
M.L. Holder, P.E.
Division Engineer
Twelfth Division
BY:
Trish Simon
Division 12 Environmental Officer
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Michael L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Dan Holderman, P.E. , Division Bridge Engineer
Mr. Neil Trivette, Area Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, WRC
Mr. Brian Cole, USF & WS
Mr. John Dorney, DENR,DWQ,401/Wetlands Unit (7 copies)
File
Office Use Only: Fonn Version April 2001
e
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 011 J
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 14 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Mike Holder N.C. Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 47
Shelby North Carolina 28151
Telephone Number: 704-480-9020 Fax Number: 704-480-5401
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Trish Simon
Company Affiliation: N.C.Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 47
Shelby North Carolina 28151
Telephone Number: 704-480-9044 Fax Number: 704-480-5401
E-mail Address: tsimon?2(dot.state. nc.us
Page 3 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge 9337 Replacement on SR 2133. Iredell County
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): NCDOT Right of way
4. Location
County: Iredell Nearest Town:Harmony
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): 0.4 miles east of Harmony. Turn
right on SR 2133 and travel 2.0 miles to Bridge 9337.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°55'31 N/80°45' 14W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Bridge
on an unpaved secondary road.
7. Property size (acres):0.15 acres (NCDOT right of way)
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Unnamed tributary to Kinder Creek,
Class C Waters
9. River Basin: Yadkin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 12
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The project consists of replacing an existing
deficient timber bridge on concrete abutments (Bridge #337) with a 70' long 142" x 91"
CMPA with a concrete headwall at the inlet and a total of 25' of riprap at the inlet and outlet
for stabilization. The pipe will be placed on new location, eliminating 70' of stream channel
The_.grade will be raised 4' to eliminate the steep road grade at the adjacent intersection
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: A trackhoe will be used for
excavating and riprap work. Blasting of rock and existing concrete abutments
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The surrounding area is rural, wooded
and pastureland.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: SR 2133 is an unpaved secondary road.. There are no plans for further permit
requests at this time.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts NO WETLAND IMPACTS
Page 5 of 12
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(ves/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet
Type of Wetland***

1,1ZA c:acn uupace wparatciy ana iuenuiy temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://w%?,iv.fema.aov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact

Site Number Length of Average Width Perennial or

(indicate on Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?

ma (linear feet) Before Impact (please specify)
1 Abandon and fill 70 ft Unnamed tributary to 8 ft Perennial
of stream channel Kinder Creek
Concrete head-
wall and
1 placement of 10 ft outlet,
riprap around pipe 15 ft inlet
inlet and outlet for
stabilization.
loft
Temporary above &
1 cofferdams for below ,< «
pipe placement proposed
inlet and
outlet
" List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
wlaw.usas.oov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., ww'%v.topozone.com,
www.map(juest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: Fill in stream = 70 feet
Total linear footage of riprap for bank stabilization on inlet and outlet = 25 feet
Temporary impacts due to cofferdams = 20 feet.
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U. S. NO OPEN WATER IMPACTS
Page 6 of 12
Open Water Impact
Site Number

indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

acres
(if Name p Watcrbody
applicable) Type of Watcrbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay. ocean, etc.

List each impact separately and identity temporary unpacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation NO POND CREATION
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
It is proposed that Bridge 9337 be replaced with a CMPA due to the cost associated with the
replacement of the bridge with a bridge or bottomless arch pipe. It is estimated that the
replacement of bridge to bridge or to a bottomless culvert on footings is approximately five times
more than replacing the bridge with a CMPA.
It is also proposed that the pipe be vlaced_ in new location and to fill 70 feet of the existin
channel. It is proposed that the invert of the CMPA will be on top of the bedrock at
approximately a 3% grade. The grade is being raised 4 feet to eliminate a steep grade at the
intersection adjacent to the project site Due to the bedrock in the area the placement of the
CMPA at this location will require blasting The discharge of the water from the proposed
CMPA will be downstream of the filled section of stream.
There is a short section (--20-30 ft) of bedrock and boulder falls downstream of the existin
bridge (Bridge #337) before the unnamed tributary reaches the main channel of Kinder Creek.
There is a heavy layer of kudzu surrounding the tributary in this area. The stream is classified
Class C water. There is fenced pastureland with livestock access upstream of Bridge 9337,
which has degraded the upstream channel and streambank in areas.
Page 7 of 12
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htm1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
PERMANENT IMPACTS DUE TO FILL IN STREAM < 150 FEET• MITIGATION NOT
ANTICIPATED.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at htti)://h2o.enr.st.ite.nc.us/wm/indcx.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Page 8 of 12
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Page 9 of 12
* Zone I c.\tends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 c\tends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The current bridize is paved on an unpaved secondary road. There are no plans to pave the road
at this time; therefore, there is no increase in impervious acreage.
XH. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
X1H. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A

Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 12
LI , t•Z
C 0 U N r y
O V.•_rJ??
S
i4 "t "0 000' ij:
. p p\: `oa ? ? ? ?,, ? ?r ?C_ ? ?? • etc ?. I ,u?- ?? ?s ,
a Y / YV.
I?r
y ? r. :i ?I .? ? •
,. ? \S ? ? 4• C O
ra.
(rte u
0 Ra ?N Z
Al tp
uii f.. '4
? J ?J 'ti u? $
10
i ?? I r• \W
N
• Yr ? ? `?j (? .` 10 MOCpSVMlf-
10 wWTON &,L M -
_ur?l C rM ?? w t7lJ \ u1N N
N--? ire a ate' r
4 i
• ? e ? by ^ ] / JJ•?,
?y le, t ?_ / NG DTr UAW
O~ I c1, 1 Z - i?44PE rr?f{stJ7??
-5 -7
L urw?i
/ ' •f 'r d! 'V` ` l!/ f \
1 I? ? ? `? 4l % l; frr .? S? ??,1v ? •?i if ?,I,?y ` i ? 4 1 "yj , y?$ r?-??', .,,++I
ti t. Pte, 1 4 `''? 1?? '.` `? 1' 4'k? L ?,? ',;'•,;':*? 4 _,,,? ?. ?5i •,,t
f
17
''•,,?'r"' *?..? J''? . 1 ; 1 .[ j ?V ?`'t•. _ ! 5s i <' /l ?r`I ?. r., . ?^. r' . Lt / ` ?/ . 1 ,'.V'_•„ r
1
`\,? `?ti°s.,? -?.`-„y, `I ?r l ? t "`t ' '?/ }??1 `) i ? I? ? 1 '? F f ??/ "' '' ,l i t , ? 'k5?•
r '__.L? .,,,R?`-..? r' R, ? ??/ r / `'1 I i r? 1 ? i ' I ??'-••1, ?'?, ??f ?.i
?Z'';'' 1? ?,.
.•y?• _..., +ti`?.x^.,? .lf•Lt ?? •;?r"?,?'1'??'+,??\??', ?.t'?\ ir??. ?I??/'??,I<??r? ? ?'.??`"rS""' .. r ' .. ? ,
Tt)
i rte: t .?"'?,A? ? z er'''r. • y
-ti 5'1+. ? ~ ?'i°•`? `? ' ` s,'+ t S?,?r/' t ,ti'/ M sst fl ? if ?'f,+ `.?,.',,t
' •, .r'f _? `-',1'? ?I pi`s
l ? { /.? ? /?, rl ? .••\°x 'l?• , _r `?.li`. 1 ' 'VV"`a,
1 ? .'+? r l 1 5 t• /' '
'??='''y,•"" ?+?.. ? '.-?/ ? +,,,, .? `,,..may°. ?;
1 _?^° ?? `' ? . ? 5• *:? ? ? ti x`y,? Y r {f r,?.?? ter`
R A,.rAl`, ..'`
;f
IN
Name: HARMONY Location: 035° 55' 31.3" N 080045112.9" W
Date: 10/10/2001 Caption: Bridge # 337 Replacement on SR 2133, Unnamed tributary to
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet Kinder Creek, Class C Waters, Yadkin River Basin
Copyright (C) 1997, RUptech, Inc.
a V v 44" 4. r3ouc.,L-4 F?LS
i
/So - - - - - - - - - - - - et4.isro r7 ZIo?G, K Zoe -
s2 t, a z. ?' SAC. ?i ? 3 \ I ? Goy c-+c?/7o >?? rwr5
I I 3 ?'
i
70' God, ?i? ?auc?Gc?rc? / 174h'' or- au/s n xjs, Srn y?
7-D d .4 *3 *.j?Du 45--J
`L" /v?v(JVSc?)
Cam, 5 n ? ti lZr'1? c TOP ni r3W,Zoc?,..

3 ?9 ti4?7)4y-

l•1cboT
I ??=?Et:,L. Gvr,rc?rt-1
S Q. Z/ 3 3
?3!517
lo/o/.-
Upstream of Bridge #337 on SR 2133 on an unnamed tributary to Kinder Creek, Iredell
County

Project came: p
. ? r. J '9
. ? -a
t River Basin: ,'V
?•.. ,_..,i' County: T t = _ ti / 1
I:valuator.
OWQ Project Number. Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: ' • 1,i•J
• /% 3 - .. ~? ,
Signature.
Date: I r QUAD: !/ r4
rT /;J ', Longitude: (( ' ;.? •. LAxatioNDircetions: J ? .
l/ J.'/nJt? c? ci/ /ili'laCl•'?:..
*PLEASE NOTE: !/r..lu.ror sn! (andow,.r astrNh.r rhr ftanrrt is a mu-rn.dt dweh, rhtn wt ofrhir form is na ntrrx.ry. ?,?) { `?
Atr0./in the bnrProfeasiawall.dBementuftheenlr,.tor, the?nurr u.-.de itch ..d nW. m.d?ed nu.ral aae.u-rhir
ruin; epte.. ah..14 not 6. made
Primary Field Tndicators rcxleoneN..wrre.c.y
1. ('n.. ?r?r•?Io..v
A ..n..r
%V nU
t) l r
Ctr n
1) Is There A ?jMc-Pool Sequence? 00 01 02 0-3,
Is The USDA TcXrUre In
2 Sucamocd
DiReront From Surmundin• Terrain?

0

0 L

02

-3•'
3) Are Natural Levees Prescm, 00 1 02 03
a) Is The Channel Sinuous? 00 01 02 1?Y
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) Floodplain Present? 00 01 02
0) u t ne L.nannet tararded? . 00 Q.1'? 0 2 03
':) Are KeCent Alluvial Deposits Pracnt? 00 0 1 Oz t->-
a) ts t ncre A Uank:ull Bench Present? 00 01 Q_r/ 03
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Prescnt?
9)(•AorE:'IBed A dank C+.ued BY D-Al•a AN wri/our si.-, n,. SCwe.0g0
01
02
G)-7?
10) H A 2nd Order Or Grater Channel (As Indicated On Topo
N
I
'
0
an .And
Or
n Field) Prcunt? No-0
PRLIIARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICA TOR P01,Y7-5: #VALUEI
11, tis•drolo¢v
1) Is There A Groundwalcr Absent Weak Moderate Stronn

Fl.-M,charee Present? 0 0
0 1
02
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATORP01lYTS. 3 #VALUEI
Ill. Bialnnv Absent Weak Modernle Strontr
1) Arc Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 01 02 01 00
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 0 02 0 1 00
3) Is Periph}ton Present? 00 0
11 02 t?.?
d) Are Bivalves Present? 00 ,
,
e1 02 03
#VALUEI
'?
Secondary Field Ind
icators:(eiRao?.A.-emrerue.)
1. Ccomornhnio¢v Absent Weak Moderate Strnn?
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 00 00.S 01
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 00 00.5 01 (aTT
Does Tcpognpny Indicate A
3) Nntunl Oraina2e Wav?
00
00.5
01 _

1.5 ..
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYLYDICA TOR POINTS: i I
,.-, D #VALUE!
IL Hrdrnln,
1
Is Thta Ycu's (Or Last's) Lcall,ucr Absent Weak Moderate Stronn•
'
)
Present In Srrenmbcd? 2.S 01 00.5 00
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Prescm? 00 - 00.5 0 1
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 00 00.5 01
((
Is Water In Channcl A.Q >48 Hrs. Since
Last A'nowe Rain? (•vprE"rOnrh l•d,r.,.dr..e Amw Sirs nh.Lre A
ed as BeO+•) DOS _
0 t
V 3.5 "
5) Is There Water In Channel Dunn; Dry _ Conditions Or In Gmwinq Srasnnh 00 00.S 0 t
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sidcs Of Channel (01 1, t nucwq 3 0 no-0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYLYDICATORPOINTS.
111. Uloloty C)
Absent #VALUE!
Weak
dtoderve
Stron7
1) Are Fish Present? 00 G-fS- 01 01's
2) Are Amphibians Present? 00 e-05 01 01.s
3) Arc AquaticTurtles Present? 00 ?
5
C7"D.S 01 01.5
4) Art Crayfish Present? 00 40:5 01 01.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 00 00.s 01 01.s
6) Are Iron Oxidinng Baeterim Fungus Present? 00 0 0.5 d•t! 0 1S
n Is Filamentous Algae Present? 00 ,
0 0.5 0 l 01.S
8) Are Wcdand Plants In Sucambed? SAY
r• Ao rE: //7.,.1 Aarexe r>t.ul Pr..,r /. S,t....brd Ar Aaee 02 Mostly OBL
0 1 Mostly FAC%V
0 Mostly FAC
0 Mostly FACU Mostly UPL

At-,t SAip rau S,,p U.vL=SAPAr --t 0.7s 0.S 00
00
SECONDARYQIOLOGYLYDICArORPOINTS. ?L #VALUEI
TOTAL PO/NT.S (Pr;,nnn•«Svrnndnn•I- ----4VALUEI (I/Grtottr Than Or Eque? To j9Poin es The Srrccnt if A(Ltesr twermiarm)

IMI
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK(i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.)
1 I ? /
WATF.RBODY/RIVER BASIN ±?%/ T/ G, rte? l? il??'r ?i r J,J
COUNTY/CITY
RF,CENT WEATHER CONDITIONS
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME DATE J0//D/D/
P SP NP Ohservation Comments or Description
? Fish/Si1e111isIVCrustaccans Present
? Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibiwis Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Chaimel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
v Channel Substrate
(i.e. rasel. cobbl roc coarse sand)
4..
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50%u closure)
r Undercut Banks/Instrcam Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacemt ToiContig. With Channel
(Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thrnueh Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
-" Adjacent Floodplain Present =7
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
/ Ilydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
r
Important'ro Domestic Water Supply? YIN
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils iMup?+,Y / N
Determination:
Approx. Drainage Area: IQ
Perennial Channel (stop) 11'fmportant Channel: LF PROJECT i•IGR. Initials _
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of import:mdunimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
,ta
Evuluator's Signature:
(if othLl{than C.O.E. project manager)
P-=Prescnt SP-=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 1114/98
NCDOT
HAZARDOUS SPILL BASIN CHECKLIST
Division: 1Z-_ County: i,e - Project ID: 5825.?f-
River Basin: Bridge No: X37
Route: -5G Z/ 33 Stream: K ???c Ge??
Water Quality Criteria:
Stream Crossing Blue Line On USGS
ORW
WSI
WS II,III OR IV, Crossing Within 0.5mi of W.S. Critical Area
Roadwav Criteria:
Route Designation-
Yes No
Arterial Urban r r?
Arterial Rural r" r?
Additional Site Information:
Yes No
r? r
r_ r?
r- [-?
F r?
Yes No
Is a Hazardous Spill Basin Required? r 1-v`
Criteria Based Upon NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters" (March, 1997).
APPENDIX O
SHEET I OF 2
GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN
OF HAZARDOUS SPILL BASINS
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvment projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas such as; parking sites at rest
areas, weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close
proximity to particularly sensitive waters such as; outstanding resource waters and
water supply sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management practices to protect receiving
waters is in accordance to the general policies and criteria presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The following
is additional specific guidance in the location and design of the basins:
APPLICABLE LOCATIONS
Basins will be provided at stream crossings on highways
functionally classified as a rural or urban arterials and,
The stream(') is identified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or a WS-1 watersupply, or
The stream(l) crossing is within 1/2 mile of the critical
area (2) of a water supply source classified as WS-II, WS-III
and WS-IV.
Provision of basins at crossings of those streams on highways
functionally calssified as collectors and local streets and roads can
be evaluated on a site by site basis with consideration for:
traffic volume, traffic type, accident potential related to the highway
geometries, receiving water quality, and the feasibility of basin
construction at the site.
APPENDIX O
SHEET 2 OF 2
(1) For the purpose of these guidelines "stream " will be defined as those depicted as
blue lines on 7-112 minute (1:24000 scale) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles.
(2) Critical area is defined as extending 112 mile from the normal pool elevation of
a reservoir; or 112 mile upstream of, and draining to an intake. This would
make the effective area for hazardous spill basins placement, within 1.0 mile of
the normal pool or upstream of an intake.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The volume of spill containment storage provided will be
approximately 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume
from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period
event.
• A means will be provided such that the normal free flow of
runoff at the basin outlet can be interrupted to cause containment
of hazardous runoff. This can be accomplished by providing a
mechanical control gate or by constructing a minimum control
section in the outlet channel that could be readily blocked by such
simple mean as shoveled earth material or stacked bags.
The mechanical gate alternative will generally be utilized in areas
where normal operational activities would allow close scrutiny
and control, reducing the potential for problems with vandalism.
Examples would be rest areas, weight stations and within
controlled access.
? VNZ o?
f ye i''1r?
? f=
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
PAYMENT %
RECEIVED
J
MEMO TO: John Dorney, DENR/DWQ/401/Wetlands Unit
FROM:
DATE:
Trish Simon, Division 12 Environmental Officer y S
October 12, 2001

SUBJECT: Pre-construction Notification
?•,
. `° q,rAV9 lit'{ ;i
Enclosed are seven copies of a pre-construction notifica"t i Nfiit application for
a bridge replacement project in Iredell County for your review-and comments.
is
Post Office Box 47 Shelby, North Carolina 28151-0047
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:
O 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.
Pagel 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,
five 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 Aruty Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall be 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

Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross,Jr.Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
_ Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
-2- OD
I'?S .T i?l 5m6r DWQ# Ol-I?b? f ? r Q?
W is e 12- ?JrQ XR k County
N C_ Z)
C111 G__
Dear NY. S,
rY1U/` ??
On 0 &6w the Div' on of Water Quality (D ) was notified by receipt Rf your
applications regarding your plan to ds for the purpose of in ,Treb_eQ?
County. Approval from DWQ is required to disturb these o f%c, Please provide seven copies
of the following information and refer to the DWQ # listed above in your reply. In particular as described in
15A NCAC 2B .0502, we will require you to lacat treams-and-ponds-on the-pr-opefty. Please show
these on maps of suitable scale (for instance V = 100 et) so we can begin to determine your projects'
compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.0500.
Please call 7e at [phone] if you have any q
procedural materia This project will remain on hold as in
.0505(c). The p7wIr ssing time for this application Will begin I
hear from you iti ng within three (3) weeks we will assume
will consider i ithdrawn.
(jf
/ /I (--, - Sincerely,
John R. Dorney
?6breSJ<<<?
Cc: DWQ Regional Office
R k),% 1,1e- Corps of Engineers
File CoPy
Lions or would require copies of our rules or
mplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
;n this information is received. If we do not
ou no longer want to pursue the project and
d", r 9
w
S I f tQ/ri'l t o ? ?u??
? Ic?c ?i s?t ?s P
_ P
ass
6 WO
V
V?D
1
Central Files IY,?\
NIZUEr R
y\uw
CAI_
G? 0?')"`?SS t s s`
W55
V
1re n
(lip h oj?xj ?f
I s 1/ U
Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Wetlands/401 Unit [phone]
Faz [phone]

f/lItialt
calve
I

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-s2oi LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 47, 1710 East Marion Street
Shelby, N. C. 28151-0047
October 12, 2001
Mr. John W. Hendrix - NCDOT Projects
US Army Corp of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, N. C. 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Hendrix:

,- T f ??QI

The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, proposes the following
project for your issuance of a Section 404 Permit. We believe this project can be accomplished
under NWP #14, Road Crossing and NWP #33, Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering.
COUNTY: Iredell
LOCATION: Bridge #337 on SR 2133, 2.0 miles south of Harmony
STREAM: Unnamed tributary to Kinder Creek
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the replacement of an existing timber
bridge with a 70' long, 142"x 91" CMPA with an inlet concrete headwall and associated riprap at
the inlet and outlet for stabilization on approximately 0.15 acre of NCDOT right of way. It is
proposed that the pipe be placed at a skew on new location and that 70 feet of the existing stream
channel be filled. There is a large amount of bedrock/boulders in the area; therefore, blasting will
be required to install the proposed pipe. Also, due to bedrock in the project area, the invert of the
pipe will be placed on top of the bedrock and will be on approximately a 3% grade. The grade of
the road will be raised 4 feet to eliminate a steep grade at the adjacent intersection. I have
enclosed a PCN application, a sketch of planned activities, a soil survey map, and a location map
relative to the proposed project.
?? hlL/17
i:D
Mr. John W. Hendrix
Bridge #337, SR 2133
October 12, 2001 - Page 2
It is proposed that the watercourse be managed during construction following NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Pipe/Culvert Replacement Activities by the use of a cofferdam and a
temporary bypass which will extend approximately 10 feet beyond the upstream and downstream of
the proposed pipe site.
The stream affected by the project is classified Class C waters and is located in the Yadkin River
Basin. There is a short section (-20-30 feet) of bedrock and boulder falls downstream of the
existing bridge. The vegetation surrounding the stream in the small riffle/pool area is mainly kudzu
and the land use upstream is pastureland with livestock access.
The project is located on an unpaved rural secondary road and is not located within a critical or
protected water supply watershed area nor is the stream crossing within '/z mile of the critical area
of a water supply source; therefore, hazardous spill basins are not required. Enclosed is the
NCDOT hazardous spill basin checklist and "Guidelines for the Location and Design of Hazardous
Spill Basins".
A review of the Natural Heritage information for the threatened (T/SA -Threatened due to
similarity of appearance) species listed for Iredell County, the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii),
did not reveal any known sites in the vicinity of the proposed project. I have conducted a survey
for the bog turtle in the project area on October 10, 2001. None were observed. It was
determined that neither the bog turtle nor suitable habitat was located in the proposed project area.
No significant effect on this species is anticipated. A review of the available information from the
National Register of Historic Places was also conducted. It is anticipated that no historic sites will
be affected by the proposed project.
By copy of this letter, we are asking Neil Trivette, NCDOT Area Roadside Environmental Engineer
to comment on the above project. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting concurrence from
the Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the State Historic
Preservation Office.
By copy of this letter, I am forwarding seven (7) copies of the application package to John Dorney,
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401/Wetland Unit for review. A $200.00 check is enclosed
for application processing.
Your earliest consideration for this request would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any
questions, please call me at 704-480-9020.
A
Mr. John W. Hendrix
Bridge #337, SR 2133
October 12, 2001 - Page 3
Respectfully yours,
M.L. Holder, P.E.
Division Engineer
Twelfth Division
ar
Trish Simon
Division 12 Environmental Officer
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Michael L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Dan Holderman, P.E. , Division Bridge Engineer
Mr. Neil Trivette, Area Roadside Environmental Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, WRC
Mr. Brian Cole, USF & WS
Mr. John Domey, DENP DWQ,401/Wetlands Unit (7 copies)
File
Office Use Only: Form Vusion April 2001
1
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 0
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 14 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Mike Holder, N.C. Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 47
Shelby, North Carolina 28151
Telephone Number: 704-480-9020 Fax Number: 704-480-5401
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Trish Simon
Company Affiliation: N.C.Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 47
Shelby, North Carolina 28151
Telephone Number: 704480-9044 Fax Number: 704-480-5401
E-mail Address: tsimon(gdot. state. nc.us
Page 3 of 12
III. Project Information
3
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge #337 Replacement on SR 2133, Iredell County
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): N/A
Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): NCDOT Right of way
4. Location '
County: Iredell Nearest Town: Harmony
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): 0.4 miles east of Harmony. Turn
right on SR 2133 and travel 2.0 miles to Bridge 4337.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°55'31N/80°45' 14W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Bridge
on an unpaved secondary road.
7. Property size (acres): 0.15 acres (NCDOT right of way)
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Unnamed tributary to Kinder Creek.
Class C Waters
9. River Basin: Yadkin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 12
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: The project consists of replacing an existing
deficient timber bride on concrete abutments (Bridge #337) with a 70' long, 142" x 91"
CMPA with a concrete headwall at the inlet and a total of 25' of riprap at the inlet and outlet
for stabilization. The pipe will be placed on new location, eliminating 70' of stream channel.
The grade will be raised 4' to eliminate the steep road trade at the adjacent intersection.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: A trackhoe will be used for
excavating and riprap work. Blasting of rock and existing concrete abutments.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: The surrounding area is rural, wooded
and pastureland.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: SR 2133 is an unpaved secondary road.. There are no plans for further permit
requests at this time.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts NO WETLAND IMPACTS
Page 5 of 12
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet
Type of Wctland***

' List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but arc not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
?• 100-Year floodplains arc identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://NvwNv.femt.gov.
List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 0
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number Length of Average Width Perennial or

(indicate on Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
(linear feet) Before Impact (please specify)
ma
I Abandon and fill 70 B Unnamed tributary to 8 R Perennial
of stream channel Kinder Creek
Concrete head-
Nvall and
1 placement of 10 ft outlet, ,
?
riprap around pipe 15 ft inlet
inlet and outlet for
stabili7,ition.
loft
Temporary above &
1 cofferdams for below
pipe placement Proposed
inlet and
outlet
List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightming, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included
Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.pov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tonozone.com,
wlvw.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: Fill in stream = 70 feet;
Total linear footage of riprap for bank stabilization on inlet and outlet = 25 feet•
Temporary impacts due to cofferdams = 20 feet.
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S. NO OPEN WATER IMPACTS
Page 6 of 12
Open Water Impact Area of
Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number *
Type of Impact Impact
applicable)
(if (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
indicate on ma (acres bay, ocean, etc.

' List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation NO POND CREATION
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
It is proposed that Bridge 4337 be replaced with a CMPA due to the cost associated with the
replacement of the bridge with a bridge or bottomless arch pipe. It is estimated that the
replacement of bridge to bridge or to a bottomless culvert on footings is approximately five times
more than replacing the bridge with a CMPA.
It is also nrot)osed that the pine be placed in new location and to fill 70 feet of the existin
channel. It is proposed that the invert of the CMPA will be on top of the bedrock at
approximately a 3% grade. The grade is being raised 4 feet to eliminate a steep grade at the
intersection adjacent to the project site. Due to the bedrock in the area, the placement of the
CMPA at this location will require blasting. The discharge of the water from the proposed
CMPA will be downstream of the filled section of stream.
There is a short section (-20-30 ft) of bedrock and boulder falls downstream of the existin
bridge (Bridge 9337) before the unnamed tributary reaches the main channel of Kinder Creek.
There is a heavy layer of kudzu surrounding the tributary in this area. The stream is classified
Class C water. There is fenced pastureland with livestock access upstream of Bridge #337,
which has degraded the upstream channel and streambank in areas.
Page 7 of 12
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on'March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwet]ands/stnn.fzide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
PERMANENT IMPACTS DUE TO FILL IN STREAM < 150 FEET; MITIGATION NOT
ANTICIPATED.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.cnr.state.nc.ns/Nvm/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Page 8 of 12
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Page 9 of 12
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank: of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The current bridge is paved on an unpaved secondary road. There are no plans to pave the road
at this time, therefore, there is no increase in impervious acreage.
XU. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
X1U. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A

_/._2 _0
Applicant/Agent's Signature v Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 10 of 12
4 N 9. \? -?' ? K I N o 6
i9 NC C
U6 ol
t
91
cv?
JJ \:Y ? \: ? V \? 1.
. ?.' ) r? ?' J? w ? is
\.• T wr ;• iN r???P ?% :? - ~ U t?iS w y r Sabo-
4 OIL
rG
L'I
NN N\, __ R Y' _ u' v l
- N \r?i " O Ra NN J? " Z
?" 1 c = N H,- NN Lr ?s
10
29 pol
4 yful
io
~ GTH c s ?• ul? $
V1 L !ac Y
70 OCKSVLU
> I ? r. IaJJ°° / ? r
?e lY
ox TO W,470H ULL?
Cr.
.urn I S,a • (? N
ul T),
?, ?nP _ ?9 N L ?_ oT
., , ,ra oy °'" ? ? ? I c1. 1 Z - ? X111-'?F r?f(s?J7Lz>ri?
1?4 ac,
"o C `•? f al
?,? u ? fZ t?P[.?lr ?->^? EST OF ?5?. X33
(Joins sheet 12)
16 ?
M a

Md62 MdD2
-
r Cf :W I
. 1 v
N _ Ir YA ;;. cfC2 7

CBP G`. C

6
a, u
•'
r } CiD2s ". 1 MdC C
CID2 G
4 rRr",
v 4 Lf B2 •i4f
r ? CfD2

i
9
1 ?
i G7
r
l7 i
fB
00
C
i
µ
i
?? \N\?
1
:16
1112
1
r
67 l CfC2r Cf62
Lf
\C
? n
1
l.l'.D. r1?R i

1 1 V 1. yy
wM'l/
,
'?
u r
r -

I-, Cmc

e `LcC3
alC2 1
4f
?
L162
. y, ±
t
o r
r e
' G?,.7
I r I I o?
y
/
CcU3 IC2
(

.. C

CmC2 •' i s
,y
L162 '`
?? '
l?
Lf
E •?
?
?
, ?` r
?8p„••.r
ate
?

O D2
?E3.
t J CfC
L1 D2 11r

(Joins sheet 20
' ec S;
Upstream of Bridge #337 on SR 2133 on an unnamed tributary to Kinder Creek in Irede
_N,CDNVQ Stream 0-issif^ication Forin
Project Name ?er .Jro.) River Basin: t%3:
DW'Q Project Number. Nearest Nimcd Stream:
/
Count)'. -j- r ?? E 1, / L'valuator: I
Latitude: rJ N
Signature: J• ???Giv.??G^?
Data ' /J USGS QUAD: ?./ Longitude: E'G ` 7 S r`., f
?/ / / Location(Dirccdons:
'PLEASE N' OTE:lf-1ator•n/landowwrr asrre they thr/rature is• tnan-,eade ddcA then ? If fthis/orrn it d
n nrcrssary,
Ali.. i/in the brrr pro/rrsiond jud`untnr a/rht oduator, the/ rorurc it a man-dt ditch and nor a modi d n.rurol srreawt-!hi! /` .1?
-- J
ruin; Xplenr shad1 of Be Wed•
Primarv Field Tndieators: tarrro eN.•er reel •eJ
t. Ccnm^r?h^I^^v Ah rrt % ^p
A) drat
Cfr
I) Is There A Rifnc-Pool Sequence? 00 01 02
(a >'
2 Is The USDA Texture In S«nmbcd
Di)anent From Surrounding Terrain? 00 01 02
3) Are Naural Levees Present? 00 1 02 03
!) Is The Channel Sinuous? 00 01 02
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) Floodplain Pracnt? 00 01 02
6) Is The Channel Braided? 00 Q4-1' 0 2 03
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 00 01 02 6-s-'
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Pracnt? 00 01 04-?- _ 03
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present?
PN'OTE: IIBdd Baea Cwrd By D,,k,-g Ad HTTRODr Sbaarn Thrn
.k--o90
01
02
4a?
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Grater Channel (As Indicated On Topo
Man And/Or In Field) Present' Y? Yes^) 0 No-0
PRLNARYGEOAIORPIIOLOGYGVDICATOR POINTS:
11. Hvdrologv
Absent #VALUEI
Weak
MriderMe
Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dmhttme Present? 0 0 01 0 2
PRIAIAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
M. Biolnev 3
Absent #VALUEI
Weak
Moderate
Strone
1) Arc Fibrous Roots Present In Strcambed7 02 01 00
2) Are Rootcd Plants Present In Strcambed7 0 2 01 00
3) Is Periphyton Present? 00 01 02
4) Are Bivalves Pracnt] 00 l71 02 03
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: #VALUEI 1-0 Secondirv Field Tndicators:tcTo-a.N..amrrrL+r/
L Ceomornholoev Absent Weak Mnderate Strone
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 00 00.s 01
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channc17 00 00.5 01
3) Does Topograpny Indicate A
Natural Drainage Wav?
00
00.s
01
L7 1.5
SECONDAR Y GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
IL Ilvdroloev i L ?
Absent #VALUEI
Weak
Moderate
Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) LcalLUer
Present In Srreambcd?
13
01
0 0.5
0 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 00' 00.5 01
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 00 00.5 01
171.5
Is Water In Channel And >48 His. Since
)Lasth'nown Rain? r•.vor2'.rlD?,rhr,eir„dr+IY Abo,r Slla Tair SrrvAd a3-SrO?•r
003 _
01
1.5
Is There Watcr In Channel Dunng Dry
5) Conditions Or In Gmwing Season)?
00
00.5
01

.5
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channcl (Or In 14rWcm)7 tdT es•t,5 0 No-0
SECONDAR Y HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
Ill. Biology 9
Absent #VALUEI
Weak
Moderate
StronZ
1) Are Fish Present? 00 9155 01 01.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 00 a OS 01 01.5
3) Are AquaticTunics Present? 00 OS 01 01.5
+) Are Crayfish Present? 00 .s 01 01.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 00 00.s 01 0 IS
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bactcriw7ungcs Present? 00 00.5 10'1• 01.S
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 00 OS 01 01.5
8) Are Wctland Plants In Strc3mbed7 SAV
• Alosily OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(
NOT£:!l7e,er Aare•ee O/AB Me•n !^Srreo•,brd As Ndrd 02 01 00.75 00.s 00 00
Afwn Sr?y Thu Ay U.vLLfSSAYP...r•, •I
SECONDARY SIOLOGYLYDICATORPOINTS. -?r #VALUEI
TOTAL POINTS (Pr;^rnn•+srrnn,inr •1. 'W!*^LUEI (IfGrearer Than Or Equal To L Points 77ia Sirrant Is At Least Intermittent)
S
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICXNTINAME WC DATE
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) j ! 0 ?'4 e'1"A40,?7/ // Pi:,; ? 3 a
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN ??l??a??+aG? 71b,7t? ??i)?/-/? ?//t COUNTY/CITY
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS J'??f l?/ti 6??? I/
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shcllfistt/Crustaccans Present
Benthic :Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
t/ Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
V Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobbl roc coarse sand) [_
C t,
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50:o closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel
(Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
Secps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Ilydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y f.
??
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map?(Y&IN
Determination:
Approx. Drainage Area: 1 $n o
Perennial Channel (stop) mportant Channel: LF PROJECTIMIL Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) L_J Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemera) Channel (nojd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (nojd)
Evaluator's Signature: ??-
(if othC7"than C.O.E. project manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4/98
NCDOT
HAZARDOUS SPILL BASIN CHECKLIST
Division:- County: 1-?-?-L- Project ID: 58ZSZ
River Basin: t,/A)t?k) Bridge No: X37
Route: -5 ? Z/ 33 Stream:
Water Quality Criteria:
Stream Crossing Blue Line On USGS
ORW
WSI
WS II,III OR IV, Crossing Within 0.5n-ii of W.S. Critical Area
Roadway Criteria:
Route Designation-
Yes No
Arterial Urban r r-?
Arterial Rural F C?
Additional Site Information:
Yes No
r? r
r r_?
XT..- XT-
Is a Hazardous Spill Basin Required?
1 V
Criteria Based Upon NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters" (March, 1997).
APPENDIX O
SHEET 1 OF 2
GUIDELINES FOR THE LOCATION AND DESIGN
OF HAZARDOUS SPILL BASINS
Hazardous Spill Basins are provided in new highway construction and major
improvment projects at strategic locations along arterial system highways to aid in
containment and clean up of accidental spills. The determination of these strategic
locations is based on concentrated truck usage areas such as; parking sites at rest
areas, weight stations, and runaway ramps, as well as for highway segments in close
proximity to particularly sensitive waters such as; outstanding resource waters"and
water supply sources.
The strategy is to configure the highway segment of concern such that any
potential spill runoff would be directed through a facility (basin) where the flow could be
interrupted and temporarily stored to prevent hazardous material from reaching a
receiving stream.
The use of these basins and other management practices to protect receiving
waters is in accordance to the general policies and criteria presented in the departments
document "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". The following
is additional specific guidance in the location and design of the basins:
APPLICABLE LOCATIONS
Basins will be provided at stream crossings on highways
functionally classified as a rural or urban arterials and,
The stream(') is identified as an Outstanding Resource
Water (ORW) or a WS-1 watersupply, or
The stream(l) crossing is within 1/2 mile of the critical
area (2) of a water supply source classified as WS-II, WS-III
and WS-IV.
Provision of basins at crossings of those streams on highways
functionally calssified as collectors and local streets and roads can
be evaluated on a site by site basis with consideration for:
traffic volume, traffic type, accident potential related to the highway
geometries, receiving water quality, and the feasibility of basin
construction at the site.
APPENDIX O
SHEET 2 OF 2
(1) For the purpose of these guidelines "stream " will be defined as those depicted as
blue lines on 7-112 minute (1:24000 scale) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangles.
(2) Critical area is defined as extending 112 mile from the normal pool elevation of
a reservoir; or 112 mile upstream of, and draining to an intake. This would
make the effective area for hazardous spill basins placement, within 1.0 mile of
the normal pool or upstream of an intake.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
The volume of spill containment storage provided will be
approximately 10,000 gallons plus the estimated runoff volume
from a rainfall intensity equating to a two year return period
event.
A means will be provided such that the normal free flow of
runoff at the basin outlet can be interrupted to cause containment
of hazardous runoff. This can be accomplished by providing a
mechanical control gate or by constructing a minimum control
section in the outlet channel that could be readily blocked by such
simple mean as shoveled earth material or stacked bags.
The mechanical gate alternative will generally be utilized in areas
where normal operational activities would allow close scrutiny
and control, reducing the potential for problems with vandalism.
Examples would be rest areas, weight stations and within
controlled access.