20201587 Ver 1_B-5394 MCDC signed 7_2023_20231220

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
NCDOT MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
TIP Project No.: B-5394
State Project No.: 46109.1.1
Project Location: Bridge No. 279 on SR 1832 (Eagle Mills Road) over Hunting Creek
in Iredell County, NC.
Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace Bridge No. 279 on SR 1832 (Eagle Mills Road) over Hunting Creek,
east of I-77 and north of Eagle Mills, in Iredell County, NC (refer to Appendix A, Sheet
1). The purpose of the project is to replace a structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete bridge.
Constructed in 1975, Bridge No. 279 is a weight -restricted, single -lane, six -span
wood/steel bridge that is 151 feet long with a clear roadway width of 14.8 feet. The
existing structure carries 200 vehicles per day (2016 ADT), which is anticipated to
increase to 325 vehicles by 2040. NCDOT Structure Management Unit records and the
National Bridge Inventory indicate that Bridge No. 279 has a superstructure condition
rating of 4 (poor condition) out of 9. Bridge railings, transitions, and guardrail ends each
have a rating of 0 (does not meet currently acceptable standards). This structure has been
identified as a high priority bridge replacement due to sub -standard deck geometry and
structural deficiencies.
Bridge No. 279 would be replaced in place with an off -site detour (refer to Appendix A,
Sheet 1). The proposed three -span, prestressed, concrete cored -slab structure would be
approximately 192 feet long. The proposed bridge typical section includes one eastbound
lane and one westbound lane, each 10-feet wide, with a minimum clear roadway width of
30.83 feet. The concrete barrier rail on the bridge would be approximately 3.5 feet tall.
The project length is approximately 1,550 feet and the proposed design speed is 50 mph.
Preliminary plans are included in Appendix A.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: Although the new bridge would
completely span Hunting Creek, proposed impacts include the placement of riprap to
provide bank stabilization underneath the new bridge structure and use of a temporary
work pad within a portion of the stream during mechanized removal of the existing wood
piles located mid -channel. In accordance with Sections 404 of the Clean Water Act, these
proposed impacts would be authorized under Regional General Permit 50 (RGP 50) for
the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States associated with
maintenance, repair, and construction projects conducted by NCDOT. As the project
would involve construction of the replacement bridge on a new alignment, an RGP 50
Pre -Construction Notification will be sent to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Wilmington District and a 4135 General Certification will be requested from the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR).
07/21/23 1 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
Special Proiect Information:
Environmental Commitments - The list of project commitments (green sheet) is
included at the end of the checklist.
Alternatives Evaluation:
• No Build - The No -Build Alternative would not eliminate the structural and
geometric deficiencies of the existing bridge, and thus is not a viable option.
• Build Alternatives - The following Build Alternatives were considered:
1. Rehabilitation - The bridge was constructed in 1975. With a superstructure
condition rating of 4 and a deck geometry appraisal rating of 0, this structure
has been identified as a high priority bridge replacement and rehabilitation
alternatives are not considered prudent.
2. Off -site Detour (Preferred Alternative) - An approximately 6.0-mile off -site
detour utilizing Trivette Road (SR 1821), Mullis Road (SR 1816), Zion
Liberty Road, and Union Grove Road (SR 1832) was evaluated and
determined to be acceptable. Due to the limited width of the existing single -
lane bridge, the new bridge would be constructed just north of the existing
structure. This alternative minimizes construction time and overall project
cost, as compared to construction of an on -site temporary detour bridge or
staged construction.
3. On -site Detour - An on -site detour would require construction of a temporary
detour bridge, resulting in a longer construction schedule and increased
construction costs. Additional challenges associated with this alternative
include multiple residences requiring driveway access throughout
construction, steep grades in the project area, and numerous utility relocations.
In consideration of these issues and since an acceptable off -site detour was
available, the on -site detour alternative was not advanced.
4. Staged Construction - Staged construction would require a larger impact
footprint to accommodate shoring. This alternative was not carried forward
due to the availability of an acceptable off -site detour and the greater impacts
and construction cost for the shoring needed to stage construct the new bridge.
Relocations — Although acquisition of approximately 1.74 acres of additional right of
way is proposed, no relocations would result from the proposed project.
Detour - Traffic would be managed with an off -site detour. The detour would follow
Eagle Mills Road (SR 1832) south to Trivette Road (SR 1821), northwest to Mullis Road
(SR 1816), west to Zion Liberty Road, north to Union Grove Road (SR 1832), and
southeast back to Eagle Mills Road (SR 1832), for an approximate distance of 6.0 miles.
Threatened & Endangered Species — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Information
for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ lists four species for the project study area (PSA).
07/21/23 2 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
Survey results for these species, as well as northern long-eared bat (NLEB) and bald
eagle, are described below.
Glyptemys muhlenbergii (bog turtle, Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance to the
northern population) — BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NOT REQUIRED
No suitable habitat exists in the PSA.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower, Endangered) — NO EFFECT
Although suitable habitat is present in the PSA in the form of roadside edges and
utility clearing areas, an on -site survey on August 26, 2022, and again on October 21,
2022, found no H. schweinitzii within the PSA. Additionally, there are no known
occurrences within 1 mile of the PSA. Therefore, it is recommended that this project
will have No Effect on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf -flowered heartleaf, Threatened) - NO EFFECT
An on -site survey indicated there is suitable habitat present within the PSA, in the
form of a north facing slope with a sparse understory and thick overstory. NCDOT
Division 12 Environmental Staff surveyed the area on May 23, 2022, and found
multiple Hexastylis plants. It was determined that all plants on site were Hexastylis
virginica, a related species that receives no Section 7 protection under the
Endangered Species Act. Given there are no H. naniora plants in the PSA and no
known occurrences within I mile, it is recommended that this project will have No
Effect on dwarf -flowered heartleaf.
Perimyotis subflavus (tricolored bat, Proposed Endangered) MAY AFFECT, NOT
LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT [MA;NLAA])
Potential habitat for this species exists within mature trees that are present in the PSA,
and within the bridge itself. On -site surveys for bat presence on May 23, 2022, found
no evidence of bat utilization of the current structure. Due to the lack of utilization
evidence within the structure and lack of known occurrences within 20 miles of the
PSA, it is recommended that this project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely
Affect the tricolored bat.
Myotis septentrionalis (northern long-eared bat [NLEB], Threatened) - NO BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Although currently listed by IPaC for the PSA, under the recommendation of the
NCDOT Biological Survey Group and the USFWS Asheville Regulatory Field Office,
projects that fall into the range that extended from the September 2022 area are
currently outside of the consultation range; therefore, no Biological Conclusion will be
recommended.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) — BALD & GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT
There is suitable feeding habitat in the form of large creeks and streams within 1.13
miles of the project, but no nests were observed during the onsite investigation. Due
to the lack of observed nests and no known bald eagle occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the study area, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
07/21/23 3 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
Cultural Resources — The NCDOT Archaeology Group reviewed the proposed project
and determined that no archaeology survey is required. Similarly, the NCDOT Historic
Architecture and Landscapes Group reviewed the project and determined that the bridge
itself is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and there are no
properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) greater than 50 years of age; therefore,
no survey is required (refer to Appendix B).
Floodplain:
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics
Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and
roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown
in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine the status of project regarding applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Public Outreach - Property owner letters were mailed to impacted residents prior to
initiation of field surveys. No comments were received.
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
Item I to be completed by the Project Manager. YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed
under the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental
documentation is not required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state Environmental Assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? 9 - Reconstruction of existing crossroad or
railroad separations and existing stream
crossings, including, but not limited to,
pipes, culverts, and bridges;
If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
Items 2 — 4 to be completed by the Project Manager. I YES NO
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
07/21/23 4 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative ❑
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact -to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed ❑
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
LItem 5-8 to be comnleted by Division Environmental Office
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on ❑
wetlands; surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries;
parklands; prime or unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized
scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the ❑
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on ❑
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats?
If any questions 2 through 8 are answered 'yes ", the proposed project may not qualms as a
Minimum Criteria project. A state Environmental Assessment (EA) may be required. For
assistance, contact the Environmental Policy Unit at (919) 7076253 or EPUe,ncdot.gov.
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Items 9-12 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer: ft j YES NO
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
® ❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action? (Schweinitz's
sunflower, dwarf -flowered heartleaf, tricolored bat; refer to
Threatened & Endangered Species text, p.3)
10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
® ❑
fill in waters of the United States? (Refer to Anticipated Permit or
Consultation Requirements text, p.1)
11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
Items 13 —15 to be completed by the Project Manager.'
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
❑
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the ❑
National Register of Historic Places?
07/21/23 5 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of ❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Questions in Part " C" are designed to assist the Project Manager and the Division
Environmental Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or
federal resource agency may be required. Ifany questions in Part "C" are answered
It yes ", follow the appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project
construction.
Response to Question 9 -
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower, Endangered) - Although suitable habitat
is present, an on -site survey on August 26, 2022, and again on October 21, 2022, found
no H. schweinitzii within the PSA. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within I
mile of the PSA. Therefore, it is recommended that this project will have No Effect on
Schweinitz's sunflower.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf -flowered heartleaf, Threatened) — Suitable habitat is present.
NCDOT Division 12 Environmental Staff surveyed the area on May 23, 2022, and found
multiple Hexastylis plants. It was determined that all plants on site were Hexastylis
virginica, a related species that receives no Section 7 protection under the Endangered
Species Act. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within I mile of the PSA.
Therefore, it is recommended that this project will have No Effect on dwarf -flowered
heartleaf.
Perimyotis subflavus (tricolored bat, Proposed Endangered) - Potential habitat for this
species exists within mature trees that are present in the PSA, and within the bridge itself.
On -site surveys for bat presence on May 23, 2022, found no evidence of bat utilization of
the current structure. Additionally, there are no known occurrences within 20 miles of the
PSA. Therefore, it is recommended that this project May Affect, but is Not Likely to
Adversely Affect the tricolored bat.
Response to Question 10 -
Hunting Creek is the only jurisdictional stream identified in the project study area (refer
to Appendix A, Sheets I and 4). Although the new bridge would completely span
Hunting Creek, proposed impacts include the placement of riprap to provide bank
stabilization underneath the new bridge structure and use of a temporary work pad within
a portion of the stream during mechanized removal of the existing wood piles located
mid -channel. In accordance with Sections 404 of the Clean Water Act, these proposed
impacts would be authorized under RGP 50 for the discharge of dredged or fill material
in waters of the United States associated with projects conducted by NCDOT. As the
project would involve construction of the replacement bridge on a new alignment, an
RGP 50 Pre -Construction Notification will be sent to the USACE Wilmington District,
and a 4135 General Certification will be requested from the NCDWR.
07/21/23 6 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
PART D:( To be completed when either cate2ory #8, 120) or #15 of the rules are
used.
Items 16- 22 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Project completion date:
19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
20. Total acres of wetland impacts:
21. Total linear feet of stream impacts:
22. Project purpose:
ocuSigned by:
Prepared by: a ft, SfWt)A S Date: 7/21/2023
LD3
Laura Stevens, AICP
Parrish and Partners, LLC
DocuSigned by:
7/24/2023
Prepared by: � � Date:
5�F-3d7�dBB �h56...
Jeffrey L. Wyatt
Division 12 Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
LbDSOcuSigned by:7/24/2023
Approved by: Date:
Josh White, PE, PLS
Division 12 Bridge Program Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
07/21/23 7 of 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Iredell County
Bridge No. 279 on SR 1832 (Eagle Mills Road) over Hunting Creek
TIP No. B-5394
NCDOT Division 12
Continued Coordination and Outreach
• In order to have time to adequately reroute school buses, the Division Project
Manager will contact the Iredell County Schools Transportation Director ((704-
872-5321 ext. 8912; jimmy calvertniss.kl2.nc.us) at least one month prior to
road closure.
The Division Project Manager will coordinate with emergency management
officials (Iredell County Director Fire Services and EM [704-832-2161;
kent. rg eene(2co.iredell.nc.us], Union Grove Fire & Rescue [704-539-4400],
Iredell County EMS [704-878-3025], Iredell County Sheriff's Office [704-878-
3180; decampbellgco.iredell.nc.us]) to discuss detour planning for emergency
vehicles.
NCDOT Division 12, NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Floodplain Coordination
• The Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics
Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the bridge structure
and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were
built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
• The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC FMP, to determine status of
project regarding applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of Agreement, or
approval of a CLOMR and subsequent final LOMR.
State Minimum Criteria Checklist Determination Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
July 2023

�n Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
I N
.0
!f t!
a
r
0 300 600 1,200 US Feet
Pp
NORTH 04 O
9
�! 7
% 0
h
99r ��P
�JFNTOF TRAN5e0
f�
8
• op, right:\K)201 "� Nations"14Gew graphic Socie c`
Quad Map -
Brooks Crossroads
B-5394
SR 1832 (Eagle Mills Rd) over Hunting Creek
Bridge #279 Replacement
Iredell County, Division 12
Figure 3
Date:
June 17, 2021
Drawn By:
TVF
Checked By:
LMS

:f�yr�• P yy� � � ,t.
vc AL
y'
� �.2b r..
46
OF
• ���111 ► r , � � il'
}
� ♦ A
J+ r
N
4r
100 200 400 Feet N(C CM& NMaKar, yV�crogoft

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
APPENDIX A
Preliminary Design

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
--- 2� - 82 - - -- Yadkin 2Irede
1824
828
1824 pr .86
m _ " 1984 z r 1.� 1827
.61,•,,
• ® V 1832 -
2916 2016 / 1822 _9 1825
33„„n
63 N
1826
1822' 1823
rt 92
Eeulah CFO .
985
917 EGIN
1821
J a3 .63 P JECT
2 ® Ea le
816
43 1816 �c�
51 UIli -�. M2118
® 20 1821 1e ��• F2 79 1832
co 3 a
1820 „2 2032
20 34 E
'
1983 2031 "2p �� PROJEC
e tia S az1
5
DETOUR
VICINITY MAP N. T.S.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IREDELL COUNTY
LOCATION: REPLACE BRIDGE NO.279 ON SR 1832 (EAGLE MILLS ROAD)
OVER SOUTH HUNTING CREEK
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND STRUCTURE
o°
-"N
e_1
r 00
r�
70�"'
v
STATE
STATE PRO]ECT REFERENCE N
SNOT
T AL
N.Co
B-5394
46109.1.1
WA
PE
46109.1.2
WA
ROW/UTILITIES
46109.1.3
WA
CONSTRUCTION
1�
-- ---- --- - - - - -
SR 1832 EAGLE MILLS ROAD Y °
BEGIN BRIDGE / END BRIDGE
-L- STA.17+66.B2 -L- STA.I9+59.25
RIGHT OF WAY PLANS
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II. UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
i
GRAPHIC SCALES
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTH
Prepared in the Office of:
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
50 25 0 50 100
ADT 2016 = 200
1132S N COMMUNITY HOUSE RD
SUITE 260
PARRISH PARTNERS
NOR?
ADT 2040 = 325
V = 50 MPH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-5394 = 0.257 MILES
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277
�41
Zola STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PLANS
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-5394 = 0.037 MILES
JOSHUA WHITE, PE
P.E.
SIGNATURE:
NCDOT CONTACT
CHAD ROGERS, PE
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
50 25 0 50
100
FUNC CLASS =
LOCAL
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-5394 = 0.294 MILES
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
2022
1231/
a
Q
��p oQa
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
PROJECT ENGINEER
SUBREGIONAL TIER
LETTING DATE:
10 5 0 10 20
0827/2024
CURTIS HALL, PE
P.E.
SIGNATURE:
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
P A V
E M
E
N
T
S C H
E D
U
L
E
PROP.
APPROX. 2" ASPHALT
CONCRETE
SURFACE
COURSE,
TYPE S9.5G,
C1
AT AN
AVERAGE RATE OF 224
LBS. PER
SO.
YD.
PROP.
APPROX. 3" ASPHALT
CONCRETE
SURFACE
COURSE,
TYPE S9.5G,
C 2
AT AN
AVERAGE RATE OF 16B
LBS. PER
S0.
YD.
IN EACH
OF THE TWO LAYERS.
PROP.
VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT
CONCRETE
SURFACE
COURSE,
TYPE
G"3
AT AN
AVERAGE RATE OF 112
LBS. PER
S0.
VD.
PER 1"
DEPTH. TO BE PLACED
IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 1.5"
OR GREATER
THAN 2" IN
DEPTH.
E1
PROP.
APPROX. 4" ASPHALT
CONCRETE
BASE
COURSE, TYPE
B25.00,
AT AN
AVERAGE RATE OF 456
LBS. PER
SO.
YD.
PROP.
VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT
CONCRETE
BASE
COURSE, TYPE
B25.00,
E 2
AT AN
AVERAGE RATE OF 114
LBS. PER
SO.
YD.
PER 1"
DEPTH. TO BE
PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS
THAN 3"
OR GREATER THAN
5.5" IN DEPTH.
J 1
PROP.
6" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
J 2
PROP.
8" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
R I SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
T I EARTH MATERIAL.
U I EXISTING PAVEMENT.
W I VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE WEDGING DETAIL)
-DW-
(DRIVEWAY)
I
2' (10'-15') 2'
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 3
-DWI-
STA. 10 + 00.00 TO 10 + 92.91
-DW2-
STA. 10 + 00.00 TO 10 + 95.46
-DW3-
STA. 10 + 10.00 TO 11 + 43.42
-DW4-
STA. 10 + 00.00 TO 10 + 56.34
-DW5-
STA. 10 + 05.00 TO 10 + 63.64
* -DW6-
STA.10+00.00 TO 11+38.24
* FOR SOIL DRIVEWAYS USE 6" ABC FROM
EDGE OF PAVEMENT TO M LIMITS.
EXIST
GROUND
EXIST VAR.
GROUND
_L_
(EAGLE MILLS RD)
(L
I
I
8' 3' 10' 10' 3' 8'
7' 7'
WiGR � t W/GR
4:1
4:1
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
-L-
STA. 11 + 25.00 TO 17 + 66.82
STA. 19 + 59.25 TO 26 + 75.00
MR
42" VERTICAL
CONCRETE BARRIER RAIL
_L_
(EAGLE MILLS RD)
CE
i
33' OUT TO OUT
30'-10" CLEAR WIDTH
0" 10, I 10'
i
lit
mn
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
B-5394 2A
ROADWAY DESIGN PAVEMENT DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
EXIST DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
GROUND UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
5:1
PARRISH&PARTNERS
VAR. EXIST 11325 N COMMUNITY HOUSE RD
GROUND surrE 260
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277
42" VERTICAL
CONCRETE BARRIER RAIL
11 - 24" CORED SLAB
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2
—L— BRIDGE
STA. 17 + 66.82 TO 19 + 59.2 5
C2
C3 E2
3"
MIN
Wedging Detail For Resurfacing
DETAIL 1
0
LL+ 7'-8.33'
VAR.
FDPS 3'
?7 EXIST
GROUND
GRADE TO
THIS LINE
DETAIL NO. 2
SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
USE WITH —L— TYPICAL SECTION
17+16.00 TO 17+54.47 (BEGIN APPROACH SLAB)

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3Fn_Fa?a_aRRn_AAnF_RA?niF�F�Q55
�I
S Vgy44
5 66°3�,5g° E
IZp 6\'
I----------
� 59
S 660�
LPl
PI Sto 10+62.76
PI Sto
15+29.46
Sto 24+64.82
PI Sto 27+39.22
L =
5° /7' 03.2" (LT)
0 =
77° 52' 49.6" (LT)
L =
28' 04' 3/.8" (RT)
L
= /9' 28' 14.1" (RT)
D =
4° /2' 46.5"
D =
11° 27' 33.0"
D =
/1° 27' 33.0"
D
= 6° 21' 58.3"
L =
125.43'
L =
679.64'
L =
245.01'
L =
305.84'
T =
62.76'
T =
404.03'
T =
125.01'
T
= 154.41'
R =
1,360.00'
R =
500.00'
R =
500.00'
R
= 900.00'
e =
5.0%
e =
6.0%
e =
6.0%
V =
MATCH EXIST.
V =
40 MPH
V =
40 MPH
V =
40 MPH
RUNOFF = 108'
RUNOFF = 108'
RUNOFF = l08'
NOTES:
SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- PROFILE
SEE SHEET 6 FOR DRIVEWAY PROFILES
SEE SHEET S-ITHRU S-XX FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
-UWb-
PI Sto /0+36.75
PI Sto 10+88.05
L = 72` 37' 29.2" (RT)
L
= 36' 56' 12.7" (LT)
D = //4° 35' 29.6"
D
= 95' 29' 34.7"
L = 63.38'
L =
38.68'
T = 36.75'
T
= 20.04'
R = 50.00'
R
= 60.00'

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
APPENDIX B
Cultural Resources Correspondence

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
16-02-0016
--�-_= update
ON= HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
rr is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
B-5394
County:
Iredell
WBS No.:
46109
Document
Type:
PCE
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
Typ e s :
NWP 3 or 14
Proiect Description:
Replace Bridge No. 279 on SR 1832 (Eagle Mills Rd) over Hunting Creek.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, relevant background reports, historic designations roster, and
indexes was undertaken on March 7, 2016. Based on this review there are no NR, DE, LL, or SL
in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The bridge itself, Iredell County Bridge No. 279, was
built in 1975 was identified as a Surveyed Site. The structure does not exemplify any distinctive
engineering or aesthetic type and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
Iredell County online tax data reveal no properties in the APE greater than fifty years of age. No
survey is required. This project was resubmitted in March 2023. There are no properties over
50 ears of age. No Survey is required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the Proiect
area:
Using HPO GIS website and county tax data provides reliable information regarding the structures in the
APE. These combined utilities are considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of
historic resources being present.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
Project Tracking No.:
16-02-0016
o6 NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORMS
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
�o valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No
WBS No.
B-5394
46109.1.1
Federal Permit Required?
Project Description:
County: Iredell
Document: Libr/Mcc
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: nw3 or nw14
NOTE: Revised in March 2023 to consider new designs which results in a longer APE. NCDOT proposes
to replace Bridge No. 279 over Hunting Creek on SR 1832 (Eagle Mills Road) in Iredell County, TIP 9 13-
5394. This is a state funded project, however a federal permit (Nationwide Permit 3 or Nationwide Permit
14) is required from the USACE. Therefore, this is a federal undertaking and Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act applies.
The original review, dated 11/4/2016, considered the project as a Low Impact Bridge Replacement project
(LIBR), and, as such, had a minimal footprint, limited new impacts, and an offsite detour. For this revised
review, a longer project length has been studied for a preliminary design which would construct the new
bridge on the north side of the existing Br. No. 279. Since the APE has been expanded and includes
potential impacts no considered earlier, a revision of the archaeological is necessary. The revised Area of
Potential Effects (APE), for purposes of this revised review, is 100 feet wide to either side of the roadway
centerline, and 2000 feet long (0.38 miles). This results in a similar width to the original review, but an
extension in length of about 1400 feet. This APE allows for multiple alternatives with the most recent
designs having a project length of about 1550 feet.
An offsite detour is no longer being considered as an alternative. Construction of a new bridge north of the
existing crossing is preferred. Much of the APE has already been modified by the construction of the
existing SR 1832 and bridge, and the previous alignments and crossings at this location.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The project limits have been expanded and available preliminary design mapping has a new bridge adjacent
to the existing on the north side of SR 1832. New ROW is expected on the north side of the APE for
placement of the road realignment, cut and fill, and also easements may be required.
USGS mapping (Brooks Crossroads) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). The project
area along SR 1832 passes through rural landscape, with a cleared yard and residence on the northwest
quadrant, light woods to the northeast and southeast, and forest to the southwest. Generally, SR 1832 slopes
moderately towards Hunting creek from the north, afterwhich there is steep terrain on the southern side.
Some utilities and driveways are noted in the aerials, as are guardrails.
The topography along Hunting Creek varies in this section of Iredell County. There are some locations
along the medium sized creek of moderate or broad floodplains, but here there is very little or none. Figure
2 illustrates the sloped, hilly terrain present at the project using contour lines diplayed at 2-foot intervals.
From the north, the soils are described using a eroded notation, either Fairview sandy clay loam (FrD2, 10-
15 percent slopes) or Fairview sandy clay loam (FwE2, 15-25 percent slopes). The southern APE has soils
described as the very steep and stony Rhodhiss-Stott Knob complex (RhF, 25-60 percent slope) with more
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "formfor the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2020 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 0438B3F0-E424-4B8D-A4DE-8A203FCEC955
Project Tracking No.:
16-02-0016
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2020 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 5