20071704 Ver 1_Application_20071009

M SWE p~
./"a.y
ti
•~ 4uw ~•
~(~ ~ Iv11c~AEL F. EASZ.EY
( Qv 3 covExrrox
~C.
~~
I,
J
pti
~-~F
L
s
O
V

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIV~NT OF'I~CANSPORTATION
October 4, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 ~ ~ ~ ~ O
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 L~
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SEQtETARY
~~~~o~~~
OCT 0 ~J 2007
DENR - WAT'FR QUgLiTY
~TlAN0.4A!>!~ 3TCIliMWATF,R BRANCFI
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 & 33 Application for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 140 on SR 1581 (Damascus Church
Road) over Snow Creek, in Iredell County. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1581 (2), State Project No. 8.2822701 WBS Element
33505.1.1, TIP No. B-4157, in Division 12.
Dear Mr. Lund:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), permit drawings,
and 1/2 size plans. A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) was completed for this
project in September 2005 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are
available upon request. Due to the age and condition of the current structure, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 140
with a new bridge 156 feet in length and 33 feet in width. Despite avoidance and
minimization efforts, temporary surface water impacts of 0.03 acres of Snow Creek are
required. In addition, <0.01 acre of permanent surface water impacts are proposed for
bent installation. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Snow Creek, which is assigned as a "Class WS-IV" water by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ), is located in the Yadkin River Basin, Subbasin 03-07-06
within Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 03040102. There are no Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, WS-II, or watershed Critical Areas
(CA), within 1 mile of the project study area. Snow Creek is not identified as a 303(d)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] _ TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

stream by NCDWQ nor does the project drain to a 303(d) stream within one mile. No
moratoriums are present within the study area.
Permanent Impacts: There will be <0.01 acre of permanent surface water impacts
resulting from the installation of bents within Snow Creek.
Temporary Impacts: The implementation of a temporary workpad will result in 0.03 acre
of temporary surface water impacts to Snow Creek. These temporary workpads are
necessary for the removal of the existing structure and to construct the bent of the new
structure. In addition, at no time will the temporary workpads cover greater than 50% of
Snow Creek.
Utility Impacts: The relocation of the power pole lines and the telephone lines will not
impact Snow Creek. Therefore, there will be no impacts to jurisdictional resources due to
utilities for this project.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge has anasphalt-wearing surface, and the remainder of the bridge, both
superstructure and substructure, is composed of timber and steel. The asphalt surface
will be removed prior to demolition. The remainder of the bridge will be removed
without dropping into Waters of the U.S. During construction, Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Federally Protected Species
As of August 10, 2007 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists no
federally protected species for Iredell County (Table 1). However, the bog turtle is
included and carries a threatened due to similarity of appearance T (S/A) designation but
does not warrant federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
... ~_~_ ~ r._~_~..11-. D....~....~...~ Q.. nCoo 4'.~r 72nthnrfnrri C"nllnty_
1 {~R/IY 1 v J ~ ~

wF~ w,~s~ z ~-t~~

me -
~r.,:~~ a ,-.
~ ~ P ~ ~.~_~, r~ ~

me
N
tifi
S
~
~~. ~
~~ s Status x
k~,
~

Habitat.
-
b
Biolog~cal~ '~
o ~~~~ 4,:;~
.~
`~
Common Na c,
,:
a
cien
-~
~
` ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ .
~ .~"n~ a
r~ Conc7us7on.
~_,~
~.._ :~ ... ~
,, .~
~
f ~
„
~
~.~ _
.
og turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii (S/A) o /A
Avoidance and Minimization
NCDOT has minimized impacts to the fullest extent possible. Avoidance measures were
taken during the planning and NEPA compliance stages and minimization measures were
incorporated as part of project design.
• Preformed scour holes to provide outlet protection at the end of drainage pipes
and ditches.
• Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
The PCE identifies a design commitment for design standards in sensitive watersheds.
However, there are no ORW, HQW, WS-I, WS-II, or watershed CA, within 1 mile of the
2

project study area and Snow Creek is'not identified as a 303 (d) stream by NCDWQ nor
does the project drain to a 303(d) stream within one mile. Therefore, adherence to the
design standards in sensitive watershed is not warranted.
Mitigation
Construction for this project will impose both temporary surface water impacts and
permanent surface water impacts to jurisdictional waters. Nonetheless, due to the
minimal impact numbers and no HQW's for this project, no mitigation is proposed for
this project.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary and permanent construction
impacts to Snow Creek can be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23 and
33 (Approved Categorical Exclusion and Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering, respectively). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of Nationwide
Permits 23 and 33 authorizing the temporary and permanent surface water impacts of
Snow Creek.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3632 and 3634 will
apply to Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 respectively. All general • conditions of WQC
3632 and 3634 will be met. Therefore, we are not requesting written concurrence from
NCDWQ. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501 (a) we are providing two copies of
this application to NCDWQ for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. A copy of this permit application will be
posted on the NCDOT Website at www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Kris Dramby at t
[phone].
Sincerely,
~,
~t,/• Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc
W/attachment W/o attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., PRGM/TIP
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., PSU Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design Ms. Natalie Lockhart, Planning Engineer
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E. (Div. 13), Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan (Div. 13), DEO
3

Office Use Only' Form Version March OS
Dw No. 2 0 0 7 1 7 0 4
USACE Action ID No. Q
(If any particular item is not applicable to trigs project, please enter "Not appucanie° or ..rviH .J
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 & 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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:~919) 733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant 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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9

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 maybe 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: Replacement of Bridge No 140 on SR 1581 (Damascus Church Road)
over Snow Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4157
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Iredell Nearest Town: The town of Central is located
to the east and Hiddenite to the west Statesville is the lamest city located in close proximi~
to the project
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From the town of
Statesville travel off of Interstate 40 to US 115 heading north. Continue on US 115 North
fora roximatel 8 miles and cross over Snow Creek. Continue on US 115 North for an
additional 5 miles until reaching the intersection of SR 1581 (Damascus Church Road) and
US 115 At the intersection turn left on SR 1581 (Damascus Church Road) and travel for
~~roximately 1 mile until crossing_over Snow Creek and reaching Bridge No. 140.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35"56'15.22" N 80"58'54.11" W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Snow Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin River Basin
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at httg~//h2o enr state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 9

9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The site is located in a rural section of Iredell County
primarily surrounded b~a~-iculture and forested land The topography in the project area is
comprised of a downward slope leading into the nearly level floodplain of Snow Creek.
Elevation within theproiect area measures approximate1~985 feet above mean sea level.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project
will consist of replacing the existin¢ 146 foot structure that consists of timber deck on steel I-
beams The substructure consists of timber caps and piles with one abutment of mass
concrete The new bridge structure will be a new bridge of approximately 156 feet in length
and 33 feet in width The new bridge will have a 30-foot travelway accommodiating two 12-
foot lanes and will have 3-foot offsets on each side. The roadway grade of the new structure
will be~laced at an elevation approximately four feet higher than the existing grade at the
this location Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction. Construction equipment
will consist of heave trucks earth moving equipment, cranes, etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridge is structurally deficient and
according to federal guidelines is considered functionally obsolete. The replacement of this
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
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 future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
Page 3 of 9

riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. .All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should 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 maybe 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. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Permanent impacts totaling <0.01 acre
of surface waters will result from the construction of the interior bent of the new structure.
Temporary surface water impacts totaling 0.03 acre will occur in order to construct the
necessary temporary workpads.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
cenarately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no Distance to
Neazest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.00 acre
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, 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
m„ct he inclnrlerl Tn calculate acreage_ multiply length X width_ then divide by 43.560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres
Site 1 Snow Creek Temporary Perennial 40 feet 100 0.03
Snow Creek Permanent Perennial 40 feet NA <0.01

Page 4 of 9

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 100 0.03
Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavatinn_ dredQ-ing. flooding. drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6
List the cumulative im act to all Waters of the U.S. resultin from the roject:
Stream Im act (acres): 0.03
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00
O en Water Impact (acres): 0.00
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.03
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 100
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. 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.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Page 5 of 9

Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe 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. See Permit Application Cover
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 January 15, 2002, 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 maybe 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 NCEEP 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/ncwetl ands/strmgide.html.
1. 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.
N/A
Page 6 of 9

2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http•//h2o enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. 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 ^
3. 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 (required by DWQ)
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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No ® .
2. If "yes", 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.
Page 7 of 9

(s uare feet Miti ation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (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. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
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 __
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
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. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Page 8 of 9

XV. 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).
~- ~ :~ ~ <~r'acry ~,?t~p,ot ,~h0 la• 3-vim
~ Ap~licant/Agent's Signature ~ ~ ~ Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

SITE
..:,.~ ~y,_ LIED
MAY 24 2001
VICINITY
MAPS
UNf5i0N OF h1GHWAYS
PLEA-0FFICE 4F NATURAL ENVI~
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IREDELL COUNTY
PROJECT N0.33505.1.1 (B-4157)
Sheet
05/01/07
~ NORTH CAROLINA

rr v, ~u~ "
~.
`1/11=~-~, , -~ , ~, < <` ~ ~ ; , ~~ /~ ; ~~; i,~
i/~.Gj~~` -' ;~1 1 F~~~ il~rl~: ~ Ali%~~~'~~`,;`~t_~ 1~
_j v~ ,~ ~ ~
` ~~ .,~(;
/!~ ;
,7
/, ~ i~~~
~ {}}cr ~ -Mb
ll~ =
~_ ~~ c~-.
~`_ .•'
"~J~ Vii" \ 1``If', t ~ ~ \'_ ~ , l~ ~`f'~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~\ 1 ~'` •~ ~\~ ~.'_
--
y i ~ _ '~
`~
1 ~ ' 1 ' ~.
:~
,,
--_;f ~~ Z Jam,` ,, , ~~. ~ ~,~} ~ , -\ ~:~ , , . r ~. ~ , `~`1(, _ `( r,~~ -- -
.'
My r. ~.. ~ ~ , , ) ~ _. ` j
ti
~Jl' ~ s~._~ _ r
t~ ~ / _
` ff ~ r
}`.. .~ ~V~ \'~'~~'.-' ",l ~ }1 f`. 1 111
~ \"`~ ( \`-~ - f ~i/~.~ ~~ ~~`,. .j 1.},/`~ ~ r~~/'>) ~~h ~~',o~
L., 9 rte. i=0~ ; ^' ` Jt\\._y: ~; ,~\~ ~\,\sO
-~.:.
11 _ .._
i ~ ~ ~~ mil ,~ ', rl N~ ,-/ :/ ~'/ J ` .~%i:~' > ,~ ~ i ~ ~ (i~.~~ . ~,~ ~.`~, ,--f10~ , O~_
/ ~ ~,~
~i
,:Feet j~1 I ~ ~ ~\\ ~
~ 1 inch equals 2,000 feet
LOCATION
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IREDELL COUNTY
PROJECT N0.33505.1.1 (B-4157)
05101/07
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Central, NC

0
0
l
0
0
N
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IREDELL COUNTY
PROJECT 33505.1.1 (B-4157)
r.m~t or~wiry ,
~~~
0500107

l~
PROP. NO. PROPERTY OWNER NAME PROP. OWNER DEED BOOK & PAGE
3 MOLLIE B. COOK 1345/2198
4 JUDY D. BUDGICK 1294 / 911
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IREDELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 33505.1.1 (B-4157)
5/1 /2007
R:\Z-MISC\HYDRO\WETPROP B-4157.XLS
} ' ~~~ :
~.;,$RFn~tS

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
ft

1 -L- 22+55 to 23+47 Bride 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0 0 0

TOTALS: 0.03
t
Ih
Note: Permanent fill in surface water due to proposed bent: 19.2sgft (provided by NCDOT)
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
IREDELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 33 505.1.1 (B-4157 )
„a +-

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4157
State Project No. 8 282701
W.B.S. No. 33505.1.1
Federal Project No.
BRZ-1581(2)
A. Project Description:
® ~L>~11~
I
OCT ~ ~ 7061
WETLANA4A,V STCXt~.ti~.AU1~Ig~MK
The purpose of this project is to replace Iredell County Bridge No. 140 on SR 1581, over
Snow Creek. The replacement structure will be a new bridge of approximately 156 feet in
length and 33 feet in width. The new bridge will have a 30-foot travelway
accommodating two 12-foot lanes, and will have 3-foot offsets on each side. The
roadway grade of the new structure will be placed at an elevation approximately four feet
higher than the existing grade at this location.
The approach roadway, extending approximately 590 feet from the west end of the bridge
and approximately 610 feet from the east end of the bridge, will be widened to a 24-foot
pavement width providing two 12-foot lanes. Six-foot shoulders will be provided on each
side (nine-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a
Rural Local facility with a 60-mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 140 includes a 6-span superstructure composed of a timber deck on steel
I-beams. The substructure consists of timber caps and piles, with one abutment of mass
concrete. The existing bridge, built in 1955, is 20.0 feet in width and 146 feet long.
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 43.7 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. Also, the bridge is considered functionally obsolete
due to a deck geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9. Formerly, the bridge was also rated as
structurally deficient, with a structural evaluation of 2 out of 9. After the bridge was
included in the TIP program, this evaluation was upgraded due the addition of crutch
bents. The bridge is currently considered deficient according to Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines, due to a sufficiency rating of 43.7 coupled with a
rating of functionally obsolete. The bridge is therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.
Timber bridge components typically do not last beyond 30 to 40 years of age due to the
natural deterioration rates of wood. Past a certain degree of deterioration, structures with
timber piles become impractical to maintain and are programmed for replacement, as is
the case for this bridge. The bridge is nearing the end of its useful life.

c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
d. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of
right-of--way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding arena, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.

Studied Offsite Detour:
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bride Replacement Proiects
considers multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the
average road user resulting from the offsite detour. The studied offsite detour for this
project would include SR 1581, SR 1585, SR1583 and NC 115. The detour for the
average road user would result in approximately four minutes additional travel time (3.6
miles additional travel) which falls within the "Acceptable" category for the duration of
construction expected on this project. After consideration of other factors, including
emergency medical services comments, school busses, the low volume of traffic,
concurrence by Division 12, and potential costs, it was decided to utilize the offsite
detour.
According to the Transportation Director for the Iredell County School System, there are
three busses crossing the bridge twice each day. The school system will not have a
problem functioning utilizing an offsite detour during construction.
Emergency Management Services states that temporary closure of the road should not
create undue delays.
Alternatives Discussion:
Only one "build" alternative was studied. The "do nothing" alternate is not practical;
requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is neither practical nor economical.
E. Threshold.Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or im
ortant natural resource?
^
X
p
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? ~ X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
^
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ^
X

}
6
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ^ X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
~
and/or land use of adjacent property? ~_
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ~ X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore
in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X
,
.
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? ^ X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing

roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
~ ^
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X ^
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? ~ X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ^
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ^ X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which aze ^ X
important to history or pre-history?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public pazks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ^ X
(31J Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ~ X
of 1965, as amended?

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-41 S7
State Project No. 8.2822701
Vd.B.S. No. 33~0~.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-181(2)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Iredell County Bridge No. 140 on SR 1 ~ 81, over
Snow Creek. The replacement structure will be a new- bridge of approximately 1 ~6 feet in
length and ~ ~ feet in width. The new' bridge will have a 30-foot travelway
accommodating two 12-foot lanes, and will have 3-foot offsets on each side. The
roadway grade of the new• structure will be placed at an elevation approximately four feet
higher than the existing grade at this location.
The approach roadway, extending approximately X90 feet from the west end of the bridge
and approximately 610 feet from the east end of the bridge, will be widened to a 24-foot
pavement width providing two 12-foot lanes. Six-foot shoulders will be provided on each
side (nine-foot shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a
Rural Local facility with a 60-mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
y -~ ~- o.~ - ,-
Date Pr~ Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
Iredell County .
Bridge No. 140 on SR 1581
over Snow Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1581(2)
State Project No. 8.2822701
W.B.S. No. 33505.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4157
1. Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bride Demolition:
The existing bridge has an asphalt wearing surface, and the remainder of the bridge, both
superstructure and substructure, is composed of timber and steel. The asphalt surface will
be removed prior to demolition. The remainder of the bridge will be removed without
dropping into Waters of the U.S. During construction, Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Sedimentation & Erosion Control:
Design and construction will comply with the latest issue of NCDOT Standards for
Sensitive Watersheds.
Greensheet, Programmatic Categorical Exclusion, September 2005, Page 1 of 1

J1
.. ~~~
~„ ; !r, a.
~ d
c~
~ ~ o
~ ~
,~1~N + / o
~ \
_._~ G
~~~ ~~5~~
~,,,czr ~d°>~
~~0~ ~ro~zb
a ~
1z.~ ~ N ~
N
N
ryq 00
~ }- ~ o
` rw ~
r , e ~.
. ` I ,'J ( ~ .hip} ;' ~,~~ ~.•.....,Z, ..~ . ,,.• • ••~
~ ~ ~ j ~~ ~ ,
,,~'~ r '
~ '~ ~ ~ ~
(~ • ~ ~ j
_ ~ ~ ~ C~~.
- - --, - -~ ~ ~b d
{ ' r
~ t ~
'~ ~ t ~
r , L ~ ( ~-'
..
r ~~ ~~. ~~ a ~v~
,~-
_ ~~
L
1~ !h _
~' ~~ ~ r ~
. 1. i
~' ,' ~ ,

~o~ nr ;A
....--
8A8
anQ
`r c~
~~ce of A<<ti
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resou
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easle}•, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans. Secretan•
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Mai- 9, 2003
MEMOR_~I~TDL?M
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
,-, ~~
FROI~4: David Brook ! ~'~ .,~ ~=~%~ G?~1~c~
1
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 140 on SR 1581 over Snow, B-4157,
Iredell Countj-, ER03-0945
Thank you for your letter of April 7, 2003, concerning the above project.
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~,
~EIYEp
F~
MQ~ 1 ~ 2003 i
V
OF ~
~~'o ~~~ ~~`~~
/~~Nti1EN AL P~~~yS
Division of iatoncal Resources
David J. Olson, Director
a%e have conducted a seazch of our maps and files and located the following structure of
historical or architectural importance within the general area of this project:
Damascus Baptist Church Arbor (ID 18) 0.1 mi. SE of junction SR 1581 and
SR 1582
~%e recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian idenrif5* and
evaluate any structures over fifrc years of age within the project area, and report the findings
to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
lmowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that map be eligible for
conclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project We,
therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection tivith
this project.
The above comments .are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisor`- Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
www. h uo.d crstate.~nc.us
Location Melling Addroa TtlephonelF.a:
ADM1IINISTRATl01~' S07 N. Blount SL, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Scrvicc Crntcr, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •'733-8653
R~STOR,iTIQA 5! ~ t;. Bloun, St., Rulagh NC 4613 Mail Service Centu, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
SC!F;r~} ~, vL-t t,;N,ur 5' ` 1\. Blount St., F,eleigh NC 461 S Mail Scrvicc Crntr,, Raleigh NC 27649-461 fi [phone] ~• 7! 5~&G!

Ma~~ 9, 2UU3
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. if you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please ate the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Man- Pope Fury

~~
~ye e M
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easle}~, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretar}~
Jeftrev 1. CroH~. Deput}~ Secretan
Office of Archives and Histon-
i~~Ia~~ f. ?004
~TEMOR_~NDL'~1
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D.. Director
Project Development and En~-ironmental Anal=sis Branch
NCDOT Di~-ision of Highways
_ ~~~ h
FRO'~l: Da~-id Brook k!~`C~ ~' I~%~-~i.~ \~''~"u--
~;~~
-.•, ~ C
~_. •.G'
,•s~ } .ri
~s~,~ DEG _,r~~ y4c
'F~q~(GPMENt P~ ~'~
Division of Hi
David L. S. Brook., Director
SL-BJECT: Replace Bridge ?~io. l ~(1 on SR 1 S81 over SnoR- Creek, B-41S%, Iredell Counn-,
ERU~-094~ .
Thank ~-ou for tour e-mail of i\Zazch .il, ?OC-4, concerning the above project.
On _~pril 6, ?004, Sarah'~IcBnde of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT~ staff concerning tl~e above project. NCDOT provided azea and
aerial photographs at the~meeting.
Based on our~reviea- of the photographs and information discussed at the meeting, we offer
our comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures located
R-ithin the area of potential effect. Therefore, .z=e have no further comment on this project as
proposed.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the azea, it is unlikely that any- archaeological resources, which mfr be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the ~rojea
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preserc~ation
Act and the Advison• Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Pan 800.
wvvw.hpadcr.atate.n~us
Location Mailing Address Telen6one/Fsz
AL~MCIliiSTRATIOK 50 i i\. Biour; St F.alci~h, ~'~ 4617 Mail Service Cente,, Raleigh, NC 37694-46i' (9'9) ?33-4763 •?33-E65?
F:`C~''}^cTi!".~' C'n' R;n~~n~~% Gnu-~nF lY d!,1'AAai1C~-vir-(`~..,,.r Roi~~ni~. h1;^ 77!.OC~(,1- f010`'7::_n'CL'..~.:_49~1'.

'~Ia~ ;, ?~ ~~ i4
Page
"I'hani; r•c,u for dour cooperation and consideration. I f you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-l:.arle~~, en~-ironmental review coordinator, at
919; ?33-476.1. In all future communication concerning this J~roject, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: '~iar`- Pope Furr
Dennis Pipkin, PDIr?~

FINAL
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 140
on State Route 1581 over Snow Creek
Iredell County, North Carolina
(B-4157)
(State Project No. 8.2822701)
(Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1581(2))
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 02-LO-01
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
February 2003

n~
.,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ....................... ............................................................................ 1
1.2 Definitions .................................. ............................................................................1
1.3 Purpose ...................................... ............................................................................1
1.4 Methodology ............................... ............................................................................5
1.5 Qualifications .............................. ............................................................................5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ......... ...................................................................... 6
2.1 Soil ............................................ ............................................................................6
2.2 Water Resources ......................... ............................................................................ 7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .............. .....................................................................10
3.1 Terrestrial Community .................. .......................................................................... 10
3.2 Aquatic Community ..................... .......................................................................... 13
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ... .......................................................................... 13
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...... .....................................................................15
4.1 Waters of the United States .......... .......................................................................... 15
4.2 Permits and Consultations ............. .......................................................................... 18
4.3 Mitigation ................................... ..........................................................................19
4.4 Protected Species ........................ .......................................................................... 21
4.5 State Protected Species ................ .......................................................................... 23
5.0 REFERENCES ........................ .....................................................................24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Plant Communities and Land Uses occurring within the Project Study Area for
Bridge No. 140 (TIP B-4157- .......................................................................10
Table 2. Federally Protected Species. Listed for Iredell County, NC ................................21
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Iredell County, NC .......................23
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. General Location Map of B-4157 in Iredell County, NC ................................... 2
Figure 2. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map .......................................... 3
Figure 3. Plant Community/Land Use/Wetland Type Map .............................................. 4
APPENDIX
Exhibit A. GPS Located "Waters of the United States" and Jursidictional Wetlands.
GPS Located Points '
USACE and DWQ Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Natural Heritage Program Endangered Species List

~ Q
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
This project includes the replacement of Bridge No. 140 on State Route (SR) 1581
(Damascus Church Road) over Snow Creek in Iredell County, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Bridge No. 140 is approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) west of the Town of Central,
and approximately 5,300 feet 11620 meters) west of the intersection of Damascus Church
Road (SR 1581) with NC 1 15.
The existing bridge was built in 1955 and has a timber deck on steel i-beams with one
mass concrete abutment and timber caps and piles. The proposed project will replace the
existing bridge with an undetermined structure. A temporary detour to the north using
NC 115, Mountain View Road (SR 1583), and Cattlemans Road (SR 1585) would eliminate
the need for a temporary crossing during construction (Figure 2).
1.2 Definitions
A "bubble study" to obtain early environmental information for the project was undertaken
since no alternatives for the replacement of the bridge have been developed at this time.
The "bubble study" identifies a project study area around the existing structure to assist
with the development of the project alternatives. The project study area is approximately
2,300 feet (720 meters) in length and approximately 400 feet (122 meters) in width. The
project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) on all sides of the
project study area.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this Natural Resource Technical Report is to document this evaluation of
existing natural resources in the project study area to assist with the development of
project alternatives and the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE). Specifically, the
tasks performed for this report include: 1) an assessment of natural resource features
within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected
species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of potential environmental
impacts; 3) a preliminary assessment of on-site or adjacent mitigation potential; and 4) a
preliminary determination of permit needs. The environmental impact analysis is based on
potential impacts within the mapped project study area and does not take into account any
specific limits for design, demolition, or construction.
1

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIltONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
IREDELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0. 140 ON SR 1581
OVER SNOW CREEK
B-4157
Figure 1

~\:. '~c ='~ 4a~~ `~"~ ~ `3 " `~, ~ ~ ~:T~I-Oyu t ~, ~~y~ ~:,?~ ;~ _ ~ l ~ a~
y. 1! t. " I '.. ~ - t~r ~. ~ { ~f~ c :9^~ - '. , ~ r Ceml1 t `` - ~l ' ') `~\'.,'. 4 t - ,'t t ` '_ \.
,.r~-~~% ~, r.,t ~~ ',~ ^/• ~ Q'~`1 , :J /~'_ c ..f ~~ '.`i,~A[ n Iew Ck ' f - y`"'.~"'~~s,,--~
~.~ J~ 1" A ~'~\ Jl, tt 1 ~.
{ c '~. t
ti ~ E ~~\\ ~..r ~•. \' r'.1 ~ ~ i "~ -r~t r ~'~ 1`.l`."`j I~,i \~~\,/~ _ o_ i v i~ yF'~ ..~ -
` i ~. J~ s, i ~ :`. Y /' r ~ Y r ~ i I i f,-'~. ~~t ~ 't r .f
I ~ { ^~ :::
l } , ~ ~ ~ . M ~, µ \ 1 ` .' 'mil - ' 1f 4~ i~
,'r fj j !'~~'~ti~ ,~ 1~ ~s ~ \~~ \r'. \" rr) r f 'J r ~~ ~:~. ~~' '~ \ f ~~~ `''Y
,~ kL ~ ~ ~~ ~~ I r' ~ ~-^iy, ~ i t - r "' _ ~ r rr~ i ...~ ~~_~ tt ~\ .~ ~y."
J ~ :},: `!: ~~~,1 r_^ ~ ~ I/ I it, ~ ~." ~, /'-.\'l "` $i<y ` :, Ott
+~~ + + ~~ ".I .. 5 I ~ ~ _ii I~YY .._V I~~~OSQJ ~- 7 t ~~~' nx~` !'~~z^l • -~~y Jr~ _'Bpt +V~~~~~
- I /- { (~
( _ '_ \
^` f ~ $ ~./ ! ~ I ~ -// ~7~~`1'; `JIB `. ~f [ ~ I ~ Y -i
~ ~~f Jc to ... Ft `i ,~,..~, ? t~ r `\1 1 1~ ~~ ",.ft~ ~..4~~.`.
t ~ ~ , c nth ~~~ ~ ~. 1 0 /~ r~' ~,~J ~it~ i0' V 4 (`°' ` ~ `` ~ ;
4;
.c, t'.Y,~ ~+ ~^ ~ -~ ..-G _: - ~ ~~-_~.'~~ ~ ~.~ s,~J„~•`" ~f ` ,t~ via ~ -. ~~~ ~' ) ~ ~`n
_r\~- ~ , ~``~((( i "~ ~ -,~" _ ~~ ti~...- ~iti~--~ ~ ~ ~~ti~ t f ~ ~ `.' `~ ~ +i -..sue ~ iCi2I1 _J /~ ., ~ I ~ j__'
~` ~ c ~ i _
~~\\~~~i ~ \ ~~ r \ 41 t '_ri ~ ~~~~a~y - d _ - ~ fit' Pv ~ ft~~' S I\~ s ' •~~,~f { \~ /.'-
.~~t ~ ~ ~'~\ /) ~f.~> ~ i ?r_ .(I ~' J~~. ~ ~ s __ ~d ~~j ri ~,.~ ,,t x,,10 ?
~• j ~ ! tt ~. ' ~~~ (- ` ~: ~A~ ..'x ~- ~ j ~~ ~ Jib / ~r ~ TC r A
1 ' `~ t o 7y e,~r /~ ~ r c
^ ~ ! (~~ ~ : '{ •~~~ m T ~'~o-~`- r ~ fi'~~ 1- rte _' i o ~ '~ ti rr . 1
~~~ ~ ' L _r~\\ F ~:-l~:tl t 7' ~ ~4.; I ~yi/ I ~~,~•c ~' }-.' a I ~ > i t.~ ".! ~" !': /~~` 1f {S~ ~a ~~~~
_ V !t 0 ~. •~~V .mil 1k< - l r ~ .' / R! ~[ \
d \~ 3'
~n, ~ ~ / ~~ VSL,:. ~; I L~ s t' `~r •fj r r° t C $Eh~ a per.
`J,t B ~`"._. ,! IGrR! \. ~\~' _ Z ~ 1 ~}L ~~ _ ,!.~"` -.. ;' tk G ~ lr~ '~ '~,
- :a 1 ~'.r 19Z6\. ~~~ •-~J ;? ~ ~ '\.'r ~ .-,~ z'' ,~- ~. ~ c! ~ /'N^ S l~;.i \---'~ t `\~ l~(jryr ' a~i t'~f
r • !~ v i ~ ! ~j ~ 4 ~J I
`~~ y- i~"~ _4'\~ ~ `:~ i r tly' t~~IS~.r~~~~ t<< ~r J+. _'Lis~ 1: _~, ay >"~' ._~~ ~ r..l ~Q?.. -
- SI ° _ / / ~ 1 ~~.~~. y yt ~~ ~ ~Y ~trr rr a ~~ r -
J ~~ ! ,~ ~ r, - it ~
< ~ ` ~ ~ % ri'F f~rR t~~ d I 1
~\' _--/ ~ .rr.':~' I ''~. ~.~ r~./ (- 1. ,. S~,u,-~'~.: ! l' r> • ~, -, ~y.'r~ ' `i) ~'ai - ,` f~ `( s(..~qy~ ly _
r ~ ~ _ / y
~~ ° ~'"~.~ `;~~ ~ , r /! ~ \ ( .i ! ~ / ~ { ~`"`~ ~ i . l-fir C. .
1 t. i~, ~.~1 r r-~ ~Yi, `'r / 1 -~/"~~ll Q ~: ~74SJ-'~ /J rR~.#~P f "4 1..~.jJ1, t,, 1 ~ //jr.
~ i+ (rr"r ` ~.. ~ ~ ~ 't~`Fi `t ~\.. { ~ ` ~i ~.. ~-~~ 1 ~ -'1( i ,. r >/jr :^t r I~ y,'.!
`~ ./-'- ~ "`i. ~ ~ f : \ ~-. ,~ !~ ~•~ ~.~ :,~.~ ~~ ,d i';•'~ I ~ c~-~~sJ`r / J' ~- ~_ /~-y ~i'1i7~ r ~ 1,` f~~ I~C~I
r Ir
`~ // h~ ~~y~l;~..
.klir ~ ~ ~~.~ %C {If ,-'~ ` f'1, ~i \~ ~ r~ ~~ 7 ~.. ~, Z~%4:r§ ~~s -j rll '
i' --~ ~'^~ /'~ .- f~rv/~ \\ ~- :- 7 F~ ~ ~ :~` ~~ - ~i''~ ' r ,.(_>r'~ir.~'~~~ i ,- t{~ ~ 4 - /, 45~: ! .
.+,.~,-'.._~{' ~ ~ ~J ~r,,_\J ~;C IZ ~~ ~ \/~r ~ -~ ~~*.: ref, ?4 9~i~i r',.~_ ~ 1 c1~1~`.~//(i .•(,/a",
~ ~-i`..1 ' f " 4 ' ` o5i/ t' /tl \ r ~ rl fp ~ i \ ~ ~ ~ ! ~~ t
~F~h , '" (~!'SJ3' ~..-.-_- ` i 1'`~1. Cy"~~ _~~-/ , ' Y i /`J'.iyZ / ~/l' i'~` " ~~ -- ~ r l ry ~ \ ~ (~ ~~% `'! Jar ~~ ~~ '~
Ch , !:~ ~r- t ~-~~q`~ ~ t4 . / / r ~ ' .7 t i '. , ~ '~i~ {' h ~ ~t ~ I ~ ~ ~~ r
~r~ i~ ~t/~ ~~ '~ ~~^li ~~ ''~ -•\~~i ,`~ i J'~ -, ~ '~ -ty' ~/ l If r i~)r J./ r~ /~'c~
-_- ~208b ~ s1//~1~~ +. , ~ r `/J','` /~" ,~ r /. ~ ~ °3 .` ~.:./ ' ~..' 4~ yr r~ ! ::~~
ISi '_ /-' l:.°!/ `~? ~l,J• J~.~ ~~ `~~1. l'. ~ r, ', tBR ~. \\\._~~~ '~ ~ J' Irr .fl~~ I '(
S
Name: CENTRAL Location: 035° 56' 15.1" N 080° 58' 55.1" W
Date: 1/14/2002 Caption: B-4157
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Fi;ure 2
gnt (c) ~yai, maptecn,

~~ ~
1.4 Methodology
Data used in this investigation were obtained from a number of sources. The Central, NC
(1997), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map wa U S viF h dand
determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape characteristics
Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping was also reviewed
to determine what wetland types may be encountered in the field. Recent aerial
photography (1:2400 scale) taken in 2001 was also used in the evaluation of the study
area.
An aerial photograph of the project area serves as the base for mapping plant communities
and land uses. Plant community patterns were identified from available mapping sources
and then field verified. Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system
utilized by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley
1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford et a/.
(1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin eta/. (1979).
Water resource information for Snow Creek was derived from the Yadkin River Basin wide
Water Qua/ity Management P/an (DWQ 1998), the 2003. Draft Plan (DWQ 2003), and the
N.C. Division of Water Quality IDWQI internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
The most current USFWS list (updated January 2003) of federally protected species with
ranges extending into Iredell County was reviewed prior to initiation of the field
investigation. In addition, NHP records (including those on the internet) documenting
reported occurrences of federal and state listed species were consulted before commencing
the field investigation (Amoroso 20011• Expected population distributions were determined
through observations of available habitat and review of natural history and other
documentation found in Martof et al. (1980), Webster et al. (1985), and Menhinick (1991).
1.5 Qualifications
Field investigations associated with this bridge replacement project (B-4157) were
conducted on December 2, 2002. The H.W. Lochner Inc. environmental scientist team for
5

n 3
this project consisted of Ken Roeder Ph.D., Susan Smith, and Emily Fentress. Dr. Roeder
is the lead Environmental Scientist and has a B.S degree in Forestry, a M.S. degree in
Forest Genetics, and a Ph.D. in Forestry and Soils. He is a N.C. Licensed Soil Scientist and
Registered Forester, a Certified Senior Ecologist, and has more than twenty years
professional experience. Susan Smith is a Project Biologist with a B.S. degree in Forestry,
a M.S. degree in Wildlife Management, and more than ten years of professional experience.
Emily Fentress is a Staff Biologist with a B.S. degree in Biology and one year of
professional experience.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project study area is located in the Upper Piedmont Physiographic Province of North
Carolina near the transition to the Blue Ridge Mountain Province. The topography in the
project study area is generally characterized as strongly sloping to gently sloping on the hill
tops. Elevations in the project study area range from less than 890 to greater than
1,010 feet (270 to 300 meters) above mean sea level (USGS 1997). The project study
area consists of existing maintained right-of-way, upland forest, rural residential, and
agricultural areas. The project vicinity is rural-residential and agricultural. Surrounding land
uses include agricultural, rural residential, and forest lands.
There are potential cultural resources located within and immediately adjacent to the study
area. One resident nearest to the bridge, south of SR 1581, advised that at one time part
of the footprint of their house served as a community store. Just southeast of this house
is a 15 to 20 feet 14 to 6 meters) waterfall on Snow Creek with the remains of an.old mill
operation with stonework waterwheel and machinery still present. A cultural resources
investigation may be required for the project area.
2.1 Soil
The project study area is located within the Cecil-Madison soil association (NRCS 20021.
Soil associations contain one or more mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape.
Mapping units are named for the major soil series within the unit, but may contain minor
inclusions of other soil series. There are seven non-hydric soil mapping units mapped as
present within the project study area. Non-hydric soil mapping units within the project
study area include: Madison gravelly fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded;
Madison gravelly fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes; Madison gravelly fine sandy
loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, eroded, (Typic Kanhap/udu/ts); Wilkes soil, 10 to 15
percent slopes; Wilkes soil, 15 to 25 percent slopes; Wilkes soil, 25 to 55 percent slopes
(Typic Hap/uda/fs); and Cecil fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded (Typic
Kanhap/udu/ts). There are no hydric soil mapping units within the project study area (SCS
1991).
6

9

2.2 Water Resources
Stream Characteristics
Snow Creek is a blue-line perennial piedmont creek approximately 32 feet (10 meters) wide
and 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meter) deep. At the study area, Snow Creek meanders but
generally flows to the south. Signs of channel excavation occur at this bridge location.
Sediment deposits have accumulated at the upstream side of the bridge opening, especially
between the eastern end-bent and the first set of timber piers. Signs of high water flows
over this sediment deposition are present. The creek bed appears typical of middle to
upper Piedmont creeks consisting of medium to sandy sediments except where thin soils
expose bedrock. South of the bridge, Snow Creek meanders over exposed bedrock and
cascades over a 15 to 20 + feet (4.6 to 6.0 + meters) waterfall.
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-07-06 of the Yadkin River Basin
(DWQ 1998; DWQ 2003) and is part of the USGS hydrologic unit for the South Yadkin
(HUC No. 03040102) (USGS 1997). Snow Creek is a tributary of the South Yadkin River
which flows into the Yadkin River. Snow Creek is identified by Stream Index Number (SIN)
12-108-9-(0.6) by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) (DENR 2002a). The Yadkin River Basin is not currently subject to vegetated
riparian buffer requirements by the state.
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. At this location, Snow Creek has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of
"WS-IV" (Water Supply-IV) (DEM 1992, DENR 2002a). In the WS-1V designation, WS
indicates the waters are used as a water supply source for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes. WS-1 waters are those within natural and undeveloped watersheds in
public ownership with no permitted "point source" (wastewater) discharges. WS-I waters
are HQW (High Quality Waters) by definition. WS-II waters are used as sources of potable
water where a WS-I classification is not feasible. WS-II waters are generally located in
predominantly undeveloped watersheds and only general permits for discharges are
allowed. These are also HQW by definition. WS-III waters are used as sources of potable
water where a more protective WS-I or WS-II classification is not feasible. WS-III waters
are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds. General discharge permits are
only allowed near the water supply intake; whereas domestic and non-process industrial
discharges are allowed in the rest of the water supply watershed. WS-IV waters are used
as sources of potable water where a WS-I, 11, or III classification is not feasible. WS-IV
waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or protected areas, and
involve no categorical restrictions on discharges. WS-V waters are protected as supply
waters which are generally upstream and draining to class WS-IV waters, waters used by
7

6 ~
industry to supply their employees with drinking water, or as waters formerly used as
water supply waters. Note that all WS waters are also protected for class C uses.
The C designation indicates freshwaters designated for secondary recreation, fishing,
aquatic life including propagation and survival, wildlife, and agriculture (15A NCAC 02B
.0101(c}11))., Secondary recreation is any activity involving' human body contact with
water on an infrequent or incidental basis.
Snow Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, or as a
National Wild and Scenic River.
Water duality Information
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates (DEHNR 1989). There are no long-term macroinvertebrate monitoring
stations located on Snow Creek or within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) upstream or
downstream of the project study area (DENR 2003). Another measure of water quality
being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which
assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish communities. There
are no NCIBI monitoring stations located on Snow Creek or within 5.0 miles
(8.0 kilometers).upstream or downstream of the project study area (DENR 2002).
Section 303(d) Waters
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. A review of the 303(d)
list for North Carolina indicates that Snow Creek in the Yadkin River Basin is not listed as
an impaired waterway (DWQ 2002).
Permitted Dischargers
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater "point source"
discharges include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants,
and small domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices,
residential subdivisions, and individual homes (DWQ 2003). Storm water "point source"
discharges include storm water collection systems for municipalities and storm water
discharges associated with certain industrial activities. "Point source" dischargers in North
Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
(NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program and delegated to
DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). No permitted "point source"
dischargers are located on Snow Creek (DENR 2002b-.
Sources of "non-point source" pollution within the project study area include storm water
runoff from existing roads and other impervious surfaces.
8

Essential Fish Habitat
In 1996 the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandated the
identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for managed species as well as measures to
conserve and enhance the habitat necessary for fish to carry out their life cycles. Under
this Act EFH is defined as:
"those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or
growth to maturity" (16 USC 1802110)).
In North Carolina, EFH includes offshore areas as well as inland water habitats used by
anadromous fish species. Snow Creek has not been identified as used by anadromous fish
or classified as trout waters.
Impacts to Water Resources
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled
Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and Removal, as well as guidelines for calculating
maximum potential fill in the stream resulting from demolition. Bridge No. 140 is
composed of concrete, timber, and steel. The bridge is 146 feet (45 meters) long with a
clear deck width of 25 feet (7.6 meters). The superstructure will be removed without
dropping it into "Waters of the United States." Since the substructure consists of timber,
this will also be removed without dropping. any portion into "Waters of the United States."
The replacement of Bridge No. 140 can be classified as a Case 3 by the BMPs for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 1999). Case 3 bridge replacements have no special
restrictions beyond those outlined in BMPs for Protection of Surface Water and in the
Bridge Demolition supplements. All work potentially affecting the resource will be carefully
coordinated with the agency having jurisdiction.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction-related activities. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of astringent erosion control
schedule and the use of BMPs. The contractor will follow contract specifications
pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article
107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution pursuant to NCDOT's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. These measures include the use of dikes, berms,
silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff and the elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent waterways. Disturbed sites will be
revegetated with herbaceous cover after any temporary construction impacts.
It is recommended that there be no temporary fill associated with demolition and removal
of the superstructure and substructure. In-stream demolition and construction activities
should be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources and organisms.
9

Other impacts to water quality could ,include changes in water temperature and storm
water flow. Changes in water temperature result from increased exposure to sunlight due
to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased shade due to the construction of the
bridge. Changes in storm water flows could occur due to changes in the amount of
impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels if roadway or bridge surface area
increases.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Community
Existing Vegetation Patterns
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Agriculture, logging, selective cutting, reforestation, and other forestry practices
have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. One natural plant community occurs
within the project study area and. two additional communities/land uses resulting from
human activities have been identified. These communities total approximately 35.9 acres
(14.5 hectares) and do not include any open water areas attributed to Snow Creek [0.8
acre (0.3 hectare)] or impervious road surface (1.2 acres (0.5 hectare)]. Open water areas
of Snow Creek (0.8 acre (0.3 hectare)] are associated with the channel at the existing
bridge right-of-way. The plant communities and land uses within the project study area
were mapped on an aerial photograph base and field verified (Figure 3). A summary of the
coverage of each plant community and land use within the project study area is presented
in Table 1.
Table 1. Plant Communities and Land Uses occurring within the Project Study Area for
Rrirlnn Nn 1af) (TIP R-L1.1571_
Plant Community/Land Use Study Area Percent of Project Study
(acres)/(hectares) Area
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 17 2/7 0 47%
(Piedmont Subtype)
Agricultural Lands 17.0/6.9 48%
Rural Residential/ 1 7/0 ~ 5%
Maintained/Disturbed Land
Totals: 35.9/14.6 100%
10

Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
The Mesic. Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley 1990)
occupies approximately 17.2 acres (7.0 hectares) [47 percent] of the project study area.
This forest type is found throughout the Piedmont and ranges into some of the lower
elevation areas of the Blue Ridge. Under natural conditions these forests are uneven-aged
with old trees present. Reproduction occurs primarily in canopy gaps. Rare severe natural
disturbances allow for pulses of increased regeneration, which allows less shade-tolerant
species to become established and remain in the community. Disturbed areas have
increased amounts of pine and "weedy" hardwood species including yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). This type grades into
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest found in river and stream floodplains in which
separate fluvial landforms and associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish in
the Piedmont and lower elevation Blue Ridge Mountain valleys (Schafale and Weakley
1990). The canopy of .this type is typically dominated by mesophytic species such as
beech (Fagus grandifo/ia), red oak (Quercus rubra), yellow poplar (Liriodendron to/ipifera),
red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (A, saccharum), and, in the western Piedmont,
Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). Typical understory species include flowering
dogwood (Corpus f/orida), hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
American holly (//ex opaca). Shrub species may include deerberry (Vaccinium stamineum),
downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum), and American strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus) .
Along Snow Creek, northeast of the bridge, there is a strip of land along the incised creek
channel where yellow birch (Betu/a a//eghaniensis) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) have
been planted. The growth and performance of-the planted yellow birch indicates that site
conditions are poor for this species, probably due to shallow soils. Eastern white pine (P.
strobus) has also been planted throughout the project vicinity and in the study area.
Agricultural Lands
Agricultural Lands occupy approximately 17.0 acres (6.9 hectares) [48 percent] of the
project study area. This plant community type is man-created and not identified as a
natural community type by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Identified agricultural lands in
the project study area consist of fields which were used for pasture. Cattle were
observed.
Rural Residential/Maintained/Disturbed Lands
Rural Residential/Maintained/Disturbed Lands cover approximately 1.7 acres 10.7 hectares)
[5 percent] of the study area. This plant community type is man-created and not identified
as a natural community type by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Rural
Residential/Maintained/Disturbed areas include roadways, road sides, maintained residential
yards, sewer line corridors, and areas where other human related activities dominate the
11

landscape. Road sides and sewerlines are typically maintained by mowing and/or
herbicides. Species observed within the road right-of-way include blackberry (Rubes spp.),
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), white clover (Trifo/ium
repens), and other various road side grasses. Residential areas are dominated by numerous
native and ornamental plants .and various grasses. Vegetation within the rural residential
component of this type is diverse and has not been specifically identified.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. The only
evidence of mammals in the area was the presence of white-tail deer (Odocoi/eus
virginianus) tracks and a road-killed eastern cottontail (Sy/vi/ages f/oridanus). Other
mammals expected to occur in and around the project study area include silver-haired bat
(Lasionycteris noctivigans), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox (Vulpes vulpes),
and raccoon (Procyon /otor-, as well as rodents such as beaver (Castor canadensis), gray
squirrel (Sciurus caro/inensis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus /eucopus), and golden
mouse (Ochrotomys nutta//i~. Insectivores such as eastern mole (Sca/opus aquaticusl,
southeastern shrew (Sorex /ongirostrisl, and southern short-tailed shrew (B/arina
caro/inensis) may also be present in the project study area. No terrestrial reptiles were
seen, but the following species are expected to occur in the project area: five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus); broadhead skink (Eumeces /aticeps); fence lizard (Sce/oporus
undu/atus-; eastern box turtle (Terrapene caro/ina); copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix);
black racer (Co/uber constrictor); and rat snake (E/aphe obso%ta). No terrestrial or arboreal
amphibians were observed within the project area, but species expected to occur in the
area include pickerel frog. (Rana pa/ustris), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhouseii), and spring
peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
The following avian species were either seen or heard during the field assessment:
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos); Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura); Eastern Bluebird
(Sig/ia sia/is); Northern Cardinal (Carding/is carding/is); Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristatal;
Northern Mockingbird (/V/imus po/yg/ottos); Carolina Wren (Thryothorus /udovicianus); Blue-
grey Gnatcatcher (Po/iopti/a caeru/ea); Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis); and Hairy
Woodpecker (Picoides villosus). Other avian species .expected to inhabit the study area
include American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), Carolina
Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Downy
Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and Barred Owl (Strix varia).
Most of the terrestrial wildlife species occurring in the project study area are typically
adapted to life in fragmented landscapes. Vegetated water courses (or drainageways)
provide important wildlife corridors by connecting and allowing travel between habitat
fragments. Keeping the bridge replacement within the existing road corridor of the stream
crossing would minimize potential impacts to wildlife. A wider and higher opening under
the new bridge structure would also enhance wildlife movement at this stream crossing.
12

3.2 Aquatic Community ~
Snow Creek provides the only aquatic habitat located within the project study area
associated with B-4157. No distinct areas containing significant amounts of aquatic
vegetation were observed in the channel during the field assessment. A visual survey of
the stream banks and channel associated with Snow Creek within the project study area
was conducted to document the aquatic community.
Aquatic Wildlife
Fish were not sampled in Snow Creek as part of this study. Species expected to occur in
Snow Creek include golden shiner (Notemigonus cryso/eucas), rosyside dace (C/inostomus
funduloides), highback chub (Hybopsis hypsinotus), bluehead chub INocomis
leptocephalus), fieryblack shiner (Notropis pyrrhomelas), redlip shiner (Notropis chiliticus),
and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus). Anadromous fish species have not been
documented by Menhinick (1991) as occurring in the project study area. The North
Carolina Division of Marine Resources also advises (Personal Communication, Shawn
McKenna, NC Division of Marine Resources) that they believe anadromous fish species do
not range this far upstream in the Yadkin River Basin.
Snow Creek most likely provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians
and aquatic reptiles. High water following precipitation events dominated the study site
during field assessments in December 2002. No sampling for amphibians was undertaken.
No amphibians or aquatic reptiles were found in the course of the survey for other biotic
factors. Aquatic herpetofauna expected to occur in the project study area include northern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), green frog (Rana c/amitans), pickerel frog (Rana
pa/ustrisl, and common snapping turtle (Che/ydra serpentina).
Although none were observed, waterfowl expected to utilize this portion of Snow Creek
include Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), Mallard (Areas p/atyrhynchos), Blue-winged Teal (Areas
discors), and Canada Goose (Branta canadensis).
No in-stream benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted. All stream banks in the
study area were visually surveyed to locate freshwater mussel middens or other indicators
of benthic macroinvertebrates. Visual observation of Snow Creek and its stream banks
revealed no evidence of benthic macroinvertebrates. This may be due to the time of year
that the work was completed and the amount of leaf litter present.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Actual impacts associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 140 will vary based on the
alternatives that are developed. The following sections discuss the potential for impacts to
terrestrial and aquatic communities at various locations.
13

Terrestrial Communities
An in-place replacement of the existing structure will reduce permanent impacts to plant
communities and limit further community fragmentation. Impacts resulting from in-place
bridge replacements are generally limited to narrow strips at or adjacent to the existing
bridge structure and roadway segments. Potential impacts to plant communities within the
project study area would therefore be limited to areas at the bridge and immediately
adjacent to the road.
The least amount of impacts to terrestrial communities will occur if .Bridge No. 140 is
replaced along the center line of the existing bridge. If the alignment is shifted
downstream to the south, there will be less impacts to the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
(Piedmont Subtype) community. This southern alignment could also impact two meander
bends of Snow Creek; move SR 1581 closer to an occupied residence, the waterfall/pool
and old mill site; and require more fill along the south side of SR 1581. Shifting the bridge
upstream to the north would impact the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
community. No wetlands will be affected with either shift in the alignment since no
wetlands occur near this bridge site.
Wildlife expected to utilize the project study area are generally acclimated to fragmented
landscapes in this agricultural area. Animals are crossing the road through the study area.
Designing the new bridge on the existing alignment would limit impacts to wildlife to
current levels. Shifting the bridge location slightly north or south would not extensively
further fragment the habitat. If the current size opening under the bridge is maintained,
access for wildlife movement will be maintained at current levels. Any design options
which increase the under-bridge opening over the current size should be considered to
enhance wildlife movement. Reduction of opening size will reduce access for movement
by some species. There is sediment deposition under the existing bridge between the
eastern end-bent and the first set of timber piers, potentially limiting flood flow under the
bridge, but probably not significantly affecting animal movements through this corridor.
Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to downstream aquatic habitat would be avoided by bridging Snow Creek
to maintain normal flow and stream integrity. Support structures should be designed to
avoid open water habitats whenever possible. In addition, temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sedimentation during demolition and construction are
expected to be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute minimum. Removal of
the portion of the sub-structure in the creek bottom should be avoided if possible. If a
small cofferdam is used to redirect stream flow away from where demolition and
construction of the bridge abutments and piers is occurring, the stream bottom should be
restored immediately following completion of construction activities.
14

Waterborne sediment flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a floating silt
curtain. Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 feet (15 meters) from this
stream channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order
to minimize the chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel. Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BDR) will follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce
impacts during all construction phases.
Aquatic wildlife may be temporarily displaced during construction of this bridge
replacement project. Anadromous fish species are not reported to occur this far upstream
in the Yadkin River Basin and will not be affected.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the CWA. Additionally, wetlands are also classified as
"Waters of the United States" and are subject to jurisdictional consideration. Wetlands
have been defined by EPA and USACE as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas" [33 CFR 328.3(b)(1986)].
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soil; hydrophytic vegetation; and evidence
of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987).
The NWI mapping (USFWS 1997) for this segment of Snow Creek does not identify
wetlands adjacent to the creek throughout the study area. The field assessment verified
the NWI mapping in the project study area showing no wetlands (Cowardin et a/. 1979)
(Figure 3). On this project site, "Waters of the United States" consists entirely of the
Snow Creek channel.
The H.W. Lochner team assessed the project study area for jurisdictional wetland
boundaries based on current USACE methodology (DOA 1987). No wetlands were found
15

within the study area, and no wetland/nonwetland boundaries were subsequently located
with TrimbleTM' Global Positioning System (GPS) units. A map of the creek channel, a list of
GPS point coordinates for the creek channel, and the Wetland Field Data Forms showing
non-wetland areas are provided in the Appendix.
Jurisdictional Streams
Snow Creek is classified as a palustrine system (Cowardin et a/. 19791. Palustrine
systems are identified as those non-tidal wetlands that are dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and all such tidal wetlands where the
ocean-derived salinities are below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). This category of non-tidal
wetlands also includes wetlands that: a) lack such vegetation; b) occupy less than
20 acres (8 ha) in area; and c) lack a wave formed or bedrock boundary. These wetlands
can also occupy a basin where the deepest part is less than 6 feet (2 meters) at low water,
and where the ocean-derived salinities are below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt).
Cowardin Classification
Snow Creek is a blue-line perennial stream with slow to medium flow over substrate
consisting of fines, sand, gravel, and exposed bedrock. The channel ranges from
approximately 6 to 40 feet (2 to 12 meters) in width within the project study area.
Perennial systems in the middle and upper Piedmont generally have restricted movement
due to landscape, steep slopes, and incised channels. If present, floodplains are poorly
developed. Flow can be flashy due to localized precipitation events. Snow Creek may be
classified a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded/well drained
(PFO1 D) system north and immediately south of the bridge (Cowardin et a/. 1979).
Further south in the study area, Snow Creek flows over exposed bedrock and is classified
here as a palustrine, rock bottom, bedrock, and rubble (PRB1 /2) system. Snow Creek
flows over an exposed bedrock cliff face just outside of the study area creating a
waterfall/pool landscape. There are also the remains of an old mill site, including stone
work, steel waterwheel, and other artifacts south of the waterfall.
Natural Stream Channel Classification
The Natural Stream Channel Classification System uses several definitive criteria for
classification: 1) number of channels associated with a stream; 2) slope; 3) width-to-depth
ratio; 4) entrenchment ratio; 5) sinuosity; and 6) bed material (Rosgen 1996). This
classification system uses the first five criteria to assign one of eight channel types to a
reach of a stream. The eight types are designated A, B, C, D, D,4, E, F, and G. Use of the
Natural Stream Channel Classification System for a Level 1 classification requires the
identification of several features in the field, including bankfull width and depth (the stage
at which the controlling channel forming flow occursl, slope, sinuosity, and .valley
morphology.
16

At the time of assessment in December 2002 the creek was at a stage higher than
bankfull. It was not possible to take bankfull measurements in the field. As a result, some
of the classification criteria were estimated in order to determine the Rosgen Stream Type.
Rosgen methodology allows estimates of stream type to be made from calculations from
USGS mapping and field observations and measurements when they are possible to obtain.
Estimates of stream type were therefore made from measurements taken on USGS
mapping of the bridge crossing site.
Preliminary observations within the project study area indicate that at the Snow Creek
bridge crossing site, a "F" type stream segment is found in the project area (Rosgen 1996).
"F" type stream segments are gently sloped, relatively wide and shallow, and have an
entrenched channel with moderate to high sinuosity. "F" type stream segments are also
characterized by a lack of a developed floodplain, a meandering channel, and terraces
consisting of abandoned floodplains. South of the bridge the stream type reflects the
confinement of the channel by bedrock, while north of the bridge the stream type reflects
the deeply entrenched channel in alluvium.
Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
The study area contained no jurisdictional wetlands as defined by the (USAGE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). The limits of "Waters of the United States" consisting of Snow
Creek were identified and located with TrimbleTM' Global Positioning System (GPS) units.
Snow Creek, mapped by these GPS points, is shown on Exhibit A.
Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from temporary demolition and
construction activities associated with staging areas and/or temporary detours. These
temporary impact areas will be restored to their original condition after the project has
been completed. Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the final construction
limits and/or the final right-of-way of the new structure and approaches.
No temporary crossing of Snow Creek during demolition and construction appears
necessary. During the demolition and construction period, a detour of traffic along
Mountain View Road (SR 1583) and Cattlemans Road (SR 1585) is recommended. An
assessment of these routes may be necessary, however, to ensure that this detour can
handle the additional traffic volumes.
Since expected impacts to "Waters of the United States" will occur near the bridge and
approaches, potential impacts will be dependent on the final bridge design, the established
demolition and construction limits, the effectiveness of the erosion and sediment control
plan, and the skill and compliance of the contractor.
17

4.2 Permits and Consultations
The design and construction of the proposed project will determine if any impacts to
surface waters will occur. If impacts occur, permits and certifications will be required from
various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources. Surface water systems and wetlands receive similar protection and
consideration from the regulatory agencies. These permits are authorized under the CWA
and are under separate state laws regarding significant water resources.
Section 404 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 13441, a permit will
be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of
the United States." Potential impacts to "Waters of the United States" may be avoided if
the waters are bridged, no disturbance to the waters occur during construction activities,
and bridge demolition does not result in material falling into the waters.
It is anticipated that this proposed project will qualify as a ICE) under National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines.
Categorical Exclusions can be prepared for projects with no significant impact to the
human and natural environment. If permits are required under the CWA, it is expected that
the project will qualify for a Nationwide or General Permit.
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23-] is generally issued by the USACE
for projects having minor impacts. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, minor
impacts attributed to bridging and associated. approach improvements are expected to
qualify under a Regional General Bridge Permit designated for NCDOT bridges (Permit No.
031) issued by the Wilmington USACE District (USACOE-WD 19981. Notification to the
Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit is to be utilized. Nationwide
Permit No. 33 may be required if temporary construction including cofferdams, access, and
dewatering are required for this project. The USACE will determine final permit
requirements.
Water Quality Certification
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWO. prior to
the issuance of any Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires
that the state issue or deny water quality certifications for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States." Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401 Certification from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
18

Potential impacts to areas of Snow Creek will be limited to the actual right-of-way width
and will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project. Impacts to
Snow Creek are not expected due to the use of channel-spanniFlg structures. During
bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMPs will be utilized, including erosion control
measures. Floating turbidity curtains are also recommended to minimize the amount of
turbid water flowing off-site.
Riparian Buffers
Currently, North Carolina has rules in place for the protection and maintenance of
vegetated riparian buffers in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, and part of the Catawba River Basins.
These rules require wooded buffers of 50 feet (15.3 meters) along all blue-line stream
channels. In order to impact these buffers there must be a demonstrated "no practical
alternative", and an Authorization Certificate pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0259. must be
obtained for a proposed use that is designated as allowable with mitigation. It is also
possible within the rules to obtain a variance (15A NCAC 2B .0259) or to pay into a state
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund. Snow Creek is a designated blue-line stream (Figure 21,
however, these rules are currently not mandated for the Yadkin River Basin.
Section 9
Bridge construction or replacement, over navigable waters may require United States Coast
Guard Service (USCGSI authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 1 14-1 15. 33 CFR 115.70 gives:
"advanced approval to the location and plans of bridges to be constructed
across reaches of waterways navigable in /aw, but not actually navigated
other than by logs, log rafts, rowboats, canoes and small motorboats. In
such cases the clearances provided for high water stages will be considered
adequate to meet reasonab/e needs of navigation."
The open water area of Bridge No. 140 over Snow Creek is small in size and would be
given advanced approval by the USCGS.
4.3 Mitigation
Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b)
minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the
environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in
accordance with Section 4041b1(11 Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 2301, FHWA step-
down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the
USACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961)
(1977), and USFWS mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7644-76631 (1981).
19

Section 404(b1(1) Guidelines, the USA~CE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990 stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for. protection of wetlands.
Practicable alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation
can be discussed.
Federal Highway Administration policy stresses that all practicable measures should be
taken to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands which will be affected by federally funded
highway construction. A sequencing (step-down) procedure is recommended in the event
that avoidance is impossible. Mitigation employed outside of the highway right-of-way
must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.
Avoidance - Surface waters, but no jurisdictional wetland areas, are present within the
project study area. Potential stream impacts are discussed in Section 4.1. Actual impacts
to surface waters will be addressed when alternatives are developed. It may not be
possible to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional areas. Impacts can be avoided to streams
with the use of environmentally sensitive design. Impacts to the jurisdictional surface
waters can be avoided by bridging the stream channel, avoiding construction activities in
the stream channels, and avoiding deposition into the stream -channel during bridge
demolition and construction.
Minimization - Impacts to the stream can be minimized by designing support structures to
avoid wetlands or open water habitats whenever possible. The jurisdictional delineation
within the project study area will be utilized to further minimize stream impacts when
designing the proposed alignment within the project study area. Minimization of
jurisdictional impacts can be achieved by replacement of a bridge in-place and utilizing as
much of the existing bridge corridor as possible. This should result in a minimal amount of
new impact depending on the final design of the new bridge. Utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
Compensatory mitigation - Impacts to jurisdictional waters are not known at this time.
Impacts associated with the project could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with
native species and removal of any temporary fill material within the floodplain upon project
completion. If impacts are greater than 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare) compensatory mitigation
may be required, and if impacts are greater than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) compensatory
mitigation is mandatory.
North Carolina Riparian Buffers - Although not currently required in the Yadkin River
Basin, unavoidable impacts to stream buffers could still be mitigated. Mitigation may
consist of payment of a compensatory mitigation fee into the state Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund, donation of real property, or restoration or enhancement of a non-
forested riparian buffer.
20

Potential mitigation opportunities - No on-site wetlands mitigation or stream restoration
opportunities were identified in the study area. In the project study area, Snow Creek does
not have an adequate wooded riparian buffer immediately southeast of the existing bridge.
This area is part of the rural residential property along the road right-of-way.
4.4 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or Officially
Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). One federally protected species is listed for
Iredell County (USFWS list dated January 2003) (Table 2). The bog turtle has been
reported as an historic occurrence by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(Appendix) in the area of the Central, NC (1997), 7.5-minute USGS Quad Sheet. An
historic occurrence means that the reported occurrence is older than 20 years. No other
protected species were identified which may occur in the project area.
-..~r~ ~ Geao~~n., ar~rp~rp~ snPr_ies Listed for Iredell County, NC.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Biological Conclusion
Bog Turtle C/emmys muh/enbergii T(S/A)
~L N/A
.-_ .I ..4:....
T(S/A)- threatened in the soutnern V.J. uuC w muuiau~y u. aF•r•••+•••~~~-•• ••• ••••- ••--•-••-••• ~-~
N/A Biological Conclusion not required.
Bog Turtle (C/emmys muh/enbergii?
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches (8 to
10 centimeters). This otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the
presence of a bright orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof
et a/. 1980). Bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in
association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft
bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995). The bog turtle occurs from New York to northern
Georgia. In North Carolina, bog. turtle has a discontinuous distribution in the Mountains
and western Piedmont.
The bog turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-
collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the USFWS listed the bog turtle as
threatened within the northern and southern portion of its range. Within the southern
portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as threatened
due to similarity of appearance to the northern population (USFWS 1997). The listing
allows incidental take of bog turtle in the southern population resulting from otherwise
21

lawful activity. T(S/A) species are note subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological
conclusion is not required. No known occurrences of bog turtle have been documented
within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) of the project study area (NHP records review November
2002), although an historic record shows this species was reported to occur in the area
encompassed by the Central, N.C. 7.5-minute Quad Sheet (USGS .1997).
No surveys for bog turtle were performed due to the date of site assessment (December 2,
2002) when bog turtle are in hibernation underground. Bog turtle come out of hibernation
in the spring when they migrate to their preferred habitats. No bog, marsh, or wet pasture
habitats associated with shallow soft bottom streams occur within the project study area.
Snow Creek flows over bedrock in part of the study area. No sightings of bog turtle in
Iredell County have been reported to the NHP in the past 20 years.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: N/A
No suitable habitat for the bog turtle exists within the project study area. No
known recent occurrence of bog turtle has been reported in the immediate Snow
Creek drainage. Bog turtle is listed in the southern part of its range due to its
similarity of appearance to the northern population of bog turtle that is federally
protected. T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological
conclusion for this species is not required.
Ana/ysis Detai/s -
Methodology: analysis of the possible presence of and impacts to bog turtle was
conducted as an evaluation of existing information and analysis by the primary
investigators of the habitat requirements and occurrence of bog turtle in North
Carolina.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder and Susan Smith
whose credentials are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
Federal Species of Concern
The January 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC) (Appendix). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. However, these are listed since they may attain
federally protected status in the future. Federal Species of Concern listed for Iredell
County include three species (Table 3). None of these FSC are reported by NHP (records
review November 2002) to occur in the area covered by the Central, NC, 7.5-minute,
USGS Quad Sheet (USGS 1997) where this bridge replacement project is located.
22

r_w~,. 4 Cnrlcr~l Cnaciac of Concern (FSC1 Listed for Iredell County, NC.
Common Name .Scientific Name State
Status Potential
Habitat
Allegheny Woodrat Neotoma magister SC No
Tall Larkspur De/phinium exaitatum E-SC No
Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil Lotus he/%ri SR-T No
E- Endangered, T- Threatened, SR- Significantly Kare, sc- ~peciai ~.onceni, _~- ~a~~ ~~~~~~y~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~•
4.5 State Protected Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North Carolina status
of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). A review of the NHP
records indicates that no state listed species have been documented within 3.0 miles
(4.8 kilometers) of the project study area. This project will not affect any known
occurrences of state listed species.
23

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L., S. P. Hall, and J. T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Raleigh. 90 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). 1989. Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1988.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1992. Classifications and Water O.uality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin River Basin. N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. (08/03/92).
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR1. 2002a. North Carolina
Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/03-07-06.pdf on 9
December 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002b. Active NPDES
Permits. htt ://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/NPDESweb.html on 2 December 2002.
Division of Water Quality IDWa)• 2002. Fish Community Database.
http•//www esb enr state.nc.us/NCIBI.htm
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Yadkin River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, NC. May 1998.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/vadkin/yadkin_wa manaaeme_nt plan.htm
Division of Water Quality (DWQI. 2003. Draft Yadkin River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Reso2003.
Raleigh, NC. January
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/vadkin/YadkinPD_wa_dt_manaaement_plan010
3. htm
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
24

. ~ n
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. Soil Survey of Iredell County,
North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
~.uality (DWQ). 2002. North Carolina Water Quality and Impaired Waters List
(2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
http•//h2o enr state.nc.us/tmdl/PDFs/NCy2k2_integratedreport.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management
Practices For Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp.
Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Univ. N.C. Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1 182 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pogosa Springs,
CO. 365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). .1991. Hydric Soils of
the United States. June 1991.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Bog Turtle, (C/emmys muh/enbergii1.
http•//ecos fws qov/servlet/SgeciesProfile?sncode = C048
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Bog turtles in North Carolina. http://nc-
es fws qov/reptile/bogtur.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Central,
North Carolina, U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002a. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North Carolina: Iredell
County. January 2003. Asheville, NC.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1997. Central, North Carolina 7.5-minute series
topographic quadrangle.
25

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS1. 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
26

,, r.
APPENDIX
Exhibit A. GPS Located "Waters of the United States" and Jurisdictional Wetlands
GPS Located Wetland Points
USACE and DWQ Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Natural Heritage Program Endangered Species List
27

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 GVE Wt I LAND DELINtA 1 IVN MANUAL)
PROJECT: 8-4157 ~ DATE: 02 December 2002
APPLICANT: ~ NCDOT COUNTY: Iredell
INVESTIGATOR: K. Roeder, S. Smith QUAD MAP: Central, NC
Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: UPL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical
Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: 01
if needed, ex lain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant
S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant
S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Pines strobes C FACU
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 13.
7. 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Exc-uding FAC-): 0
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
~! Depth of Surface Water: 0 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other (Explain)
Remarks: Water only in stream channel

SOILS
01
Map Unit Name: Wilkes soil
(Series and Phase) Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy
(Subgroup): Typic Hapludalfs , Field Observations Yes
Confirmed Mapped Type?

Profile Description:
Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle Texture/Concretions
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast
p_2 A 10YR 414 None None Sandy loam
2.24+ B 10YR 5/6 None None Sandy loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks: Terrace slope above deeply cut creek channel above small floodplain
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:'
No Is this Sampling Point within a
Wetland?
No
No
No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
INVESTIGATOR:
8-4157
NCDOT
1987 COE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL)
DATE: 02 December 2002
COUNTY: Iredell
K. Roeder, S. Smith QUAD MAP: Central, NC
Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: UPL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical No Trarisect ID:
Situation)?
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: 02
if needed, ex lain on reverse
VFC~FT~4TInN
Dominant Plant
S ecies Stratum Indicator ~ Dominant Plant
S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Betula alleghaniensis C FACU+
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 13.
7. 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 0
Remarks: Birch appears planted in rows above creek channel.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available "
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: 0 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other (Explain)
Remarks:

SOILS
Well drained
Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy
Wilkes soil
Typic Hapludalfs
Profile Description:
th Inches) Horizon
Dep
0-3 A
3+ B
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Matrix Color
(Munsell Moi~
10YR 413
7.5YR 416
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Drainage Class.
Field Observations Yes
Confirmed Mapped Type?
Mottle TexturelConcretions
Mottle Colors
Munsell Moist AbundancelContrast Sandy loam
None None
Sandy loam
None None
Concretions er in Sandy
High Organic Content in Surface Lay
Soil
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Expain in Remarks)
~--- lain
ce slope above deeply cut creek channel above small floodp
Remarks: Terra
~-
HydrophyticVegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
WETLAND DES ERMamp ~ ~ pint
No Wetland?
No
No ~--
a
No

_ ;.. -, ; _ Form
Classification Evaluator: S. Srn(+h
NCUw Stream county: Iradcu
aA~~n S;gnature:
River Basin: y
ame: Bride Rcplacohw+~ Snw~ ~rcck. Latitude: 35' 5G' IL"
Project N ed Stream: erections:
Nearest Nam Location/D• Aiso,
s 1 ~ DWQProjectNumber: g~415~ ~' Longitude: ~0° 5B` 53°
C,cn} ra.l de ditch, then use ojthis form is not necessary•
USGS QUAD his rating
02 Dcc • ~~~' tee that the feature is n man-ma
pate: i evaluator and landowner agthe eature is a man_mnde ditch and not n modified natural strea
*pLEASE NOTE' j ud ement ojthe evaluator, I
ijin the best projessionnlj B
system should not 6e use ndtCatOCS: (Circle One Nnm6er Per Line) Stron
prima Field I Weak Moderate 3
A hcant
i
>' r;
`'-
I [s There A KttT1e""'"` V-
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
__ . ~....,, surrour+din Terrain
4 Is The Ana'°"'.
5) is There An Acri~ e (Or Relic)
• T '! ¢ Yes
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater C ann
On To ° GEOM Or In Field Present?
PRIMARY ORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS'-"
. -.QO..t
~ Ate~Recent Alluvial ve ~"`" ' " ~ 1
0
g is There A Bankfull Bench Present? V T t,u sf en r
9) Is A Conti uoun Bed & B ank Pi„esent?
I (ps Indicated
-y- u
1) Is There A erpue ent?er
Flow/Dischar ICATOR POINTS:~3.._-
pRIMARYHYDROLOGYIND ~,.eo..r
1S rci~ •• ----
q pre Biva ves Present?
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS'
Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Seconda . ti~o.,t
2
2 Is I Hero o ra by Indicate A 0
g) Does Top g P S 2.5
Natural Draina a Wa ? gOLOGY INDICATOR POINT '-~ Iy(odei
SECONDARY GEOMQ~ Weak
Absent 5
II. K drolo 5 1 1
l) is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter 5 1
Present In Streambed? 0 5 1
2 Is Sediment On Plants Or Debris Present? 0 .S
3 Are Wrack Lines Present>48 Hrs. Since ove kf fs t And N5 8e[ w' 1
4) Is Water In Channel And ,t~h Ind' a1 d!n #9 0 .5
ast Known Ramp N T
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry _
Conditions Or In Growin Season ?
Are H dric Soils Present In Sid ~N~ICATOR POINTScu~- Yes-i
6 Mc
SECONDARYHYDROLO .~QQnt Weak
Are ivta~,,,,,....__ 0
Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteri un
SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACN'
1 is Filamentous AI ae Present? l .75
$) Are Wetland Pb ence Of All P amblaStreambed 2
P
t.~
Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
Mostly FAC 0 0
.5 _~--
(" NOTE: 1Jr~~°t s
As Noted Abm~e Ski This to UNLESS SAV Presen
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS' ~ ~S Titan Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least rnrerrnitre+tfi
Prima +Secondar --~i~;;z(If Greater
TOTAL POINTS

~ i r•
~~f
hc~ E
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL ~`~-
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID B - M 5~ APPLICANT NAME N C~0 I DATE 2 Der_. 2002
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) gric~~ ICrrr„eK+ ~/++~
WATERBODY/RIVERBASIN how Creek COUNTY/CITY Irr~~~ l1]Uh4~
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS l\Il~~
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present

Benthic Macro Invertbrates

Amphibians Present/Breeding
~
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)

Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)

Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)

Riffle/Pool Structure

Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
(i.e. ravel, cobble, rock, coazse sand)
f Ripazian Canopy Present (SP =h 50% closure)
Undercut Banks/Instream Habitat Structure

Flow In Channel
~ Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
/ (June thru Se t.
/ Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present

~ Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
/
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /~
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? ~/ N Approx. Drainage Area:
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!lllllllllllllll/llllllll/l/lllllllllllllllllll//l/llllllllllllllllllll/lllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present

~7 GGLl l+l l 1\~+A ua w
•9 , v r
Search Criteria: Iredell, Listed
Search Results: 8 records found.
Major Group Scientific Name
-'a
Co~non Name State Federal State Global County
Status Status Rank Rank Status
Mammal Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat SC FSC S2 G3G9
Bird Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike SC - S3B,S3N G4T4
ludovicianus
Reptile Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle T T(S/A) S2 G3
Fish Carpiodes velifer Highfin Carpsucker SC - S2 G4G5
Vascular Plant Carex conoidea Cone-shaped Sedge T - S1 GS
Vascular Plant Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur E-SC FSC S1 G3
Vascular Helenium brevifolium Littleleaf Sneezeweed E - S1 G3G4
Plant
Vascular Lotus helleri Carolina Birdfoot- SR-T FSC S3 GST3
Plant trefoil
Current - Iredell - MAP -
HABITAT
Current - Iredell - MAP
- HABITAT
Historic - Iredell - MAP
- HABITAT
Current - Iredell - MAP -
HABZTAT
Obscure - Iredell - MAP -
HABITAT
Historic - Iredell - MAP
- HABITAT
Current - Iredell - MAP -
HABITAT
Historic - Iredell - MAP
- HABITAT
NC NHP database updated: January, 2003. Search performed on Thursday, February 6, 2003 at 11:00:44
Eastern Standard Time.
Total number of searches since 01/01/03: 410
Explanation of Codes
Do NOT bookmark this search results page, instead bookmark: www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html-
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/elements2.fin .2/6/2003

5earcn xesuns
L ..~ n ty';
Search Criteria: =Central
"b"
Quads: 3
Scientific Name (Habitat i State Federal State Global Quad
Major Group Common Name
link) Status Status Rank Rank Status
Reptile Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle T T(S/A) S2 G3 Potential - CENTRAL
Vascular Helenium brevifolium Littleleaf Sneezeweed E - S1 G3G9 Current - CENTRAL
Plant
Natural Hillside Seepage Boq - - - S1 G1 Current - CENTRAL
Community
NC NHP database updated: January 2003. Search performed on Thursday, February 6, 2003 at 11:09:01
Eastern Standard Time.
Total number of searches since 01/01/03: 256
Explanation of Codes
Do NOT bookmark this search results page, instead bookmark: www.ncsparks.net/nhp/quad.html
http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/quadstat.fm 2/6/2003

a
05 NOAiH ~
4q
y o~Z
N J
O / 2
4 /
`/ ~v
o-
~tii or A aNS~o
LOCHNER
H, W.LCCHNER,INC.
2840 PLAZAPLACE, SUITE 202
RALEIGH, NC 27612
0

FIGURE 3
NO WETLANDS !N STUDY AREA
---- STREAM
~ DlRECT/ON Of STREAM FLOW

V
O

i "° ~ r ~ ~
~.~~ ~ L 1~
i
um
l u~unuti
~A;r
R,
ea ~ L
J ~ 1 ~
1 ~ u
~ ~ ~ ~„s~ ,
Crwr G
r 1
f e ~
iaa f• `~~` -~
B80Af PR ~ 151 ~ ~ - ~ ~ S
0. ~ ,u,
~ P
140 0
1 ~
( ~~
+-~--~-F~~ OFF~ITE DETOUR
VICI11tITY MAP
BEGIN TIP PR
O
N
~~~~~~~~~ ©1F' I~~~~[~V~1Y~
IREDELL COUNTY
LOCATION; BRIDGE No. 140 OVER SNOW CREEK ON
SR 1581
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING
f~ STRUCTURE
SNOW CREEK
r
' ` **DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR THE DESIGN SPEED FROM 60 MPH TO 25 MPH.
V TITERS IS NO CONTROL OF ACCESS ON THIS PROJECT
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WTTHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
~ ~ CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHOULD EE PREFORMED TO THE LIMIT'S ESTABLISHED BY METHOD !II
l~
u,
P
~'
~? o
~~
~~
OT
0
~3
~~
~o
Qo

GRAPHIC SCALES
50 45 0 50 1 0

PLANS
A 50 15 0 50 100
~
s PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
Y ~ 10 5 0 10 10
A
~
A PROFILE (VERTICAL)
;,
o~
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2008 = 1139
ADT 1018 = 1917
DHV = ro %
D = 60 %
r = 3 %*
** v = ~o MPH
* TTST 1% DUAL 2%
FUNC CL9SS = LOCAL
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B11151 = 0,216 MILS
LENGTTI STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-~l57 = 0.035 MILE
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B~i157 = 0,251 MILE
rt"n rt"n niauev lYawa xo °PST
xw 1O1'"~
seen
•~• 8-4157 1
R"n 1p1.1a0. ti/.weiw mvmx
33505.1.1 BRZ-1581 P,E,
33505.4.1 BRZ-1581 2 RA"1lRil.

HYDRAULICS
SNGIM+.BR
RIGHT OF WAY DATE: TONY ROUSER, PE
MARCH 1,1007 ~PO~ axGe~r ROADWAY DESIGN
BNGINSSR
LBTITNG DA1Br JASON TALLEY,PE
MARCH 18.2008 r10~ "~
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT U56 P00. GONSTRUCI[ON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
, IOllry
1~
~ o
i
+,
°- ~~-x`~
P.enaea rn me o~nc~ dr
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 Bfrck Rld~~ Or„ Ra(~r~A NC, 21610
7W0 SfM1L1AD SP8CIMGTTONS
SR 1581 ~'' END _TIP PRO ECT B-41S7
(DAMASCUS cxURCH I-.>3,) ~ ` ~.;f, \ ~ . 30+2 .00
8-4157 -L- • ~'~ `~ SR 1581
(DAMAS'L\IlS CHURCH RD.)
,~^~'., ~
i `~~
® ~
! ® ~ ~ .
~ . _~.
y .
~ ~i
~~
~~ '~ TO NC i1S
TO SR ISBS ~~
<<
F ~ ~1 ~~
~ ~~A I~ ~ }
~~ r!
/r ~~'
/ r
r~~
sNOw cREEx

PAVEMENT SCHEDULE

1 PROP. APPROX. 41~" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE CDUABE, TYPE Bf6.6A,
C AT AN AVERAGE RATE Of 1DT1pLB8. PEA BQ. YD. IN EACH OF TWO
UYEAB.
PROP. VAR. DEPTN ASPHALT COHCAETE 6UAFACE CDUABE, TYPE BFB,6A,
C2 A
E
10
B
A
80
Y
I
P
T
BE PLACEO
IN
LAYERS N0T
EBB
THAN
t
0R
OREATER
THAN
~IO'
~N DEPTH.
E~ PROP, APPROX. ~" ASPHALT CONCRETE BABE COURSE, TYPE B28 AB,
AT AN AYEAAOE RATE OF IBS LBB~ PEA BD. YD.
EZ PROP, APPROX~ 61Z" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE CDUABE, TYPE B26~DB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE DF 82T L88~ PER B0. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTX ASPHALT CONCRETE BABE CDUABE, TYPE B26.OB,
E3 AT AN AVERADE RATE OF 11I LBB. PER B0. YD. PER 1" DEPTH, TO
BE PU ED IN UYERB NOT LE88 THAN S" IN DEPTN OR GREATER
THAN 6 " 7N DEPTH.
A SHOULDER BERM DUTTEA.
T EARTH NATEAIAL.
U EXIBTIND PAVEMENT.
IN VARIABLE DEPTN ASPHALT PAVEMENT (BEE WEDOIND DETAIL)
NOTEI PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES ARE 1:1 UNLE88 BROWN OTXERWIBE.
ORIGINAL
GROUND
ORIGINAL
GROUND
p18!T N0.
GRADE TO THIS LINF
TYPICAL SECTION N0.
vAa. ~-L- (SR 1581)
-L- (SR 1561)
I
rtJ
ui
m
~w
,a~
-LL
e
0 0"~
~~
.67' 2 33' '
n n R r
.OZ ~
5" ?7
T U ORIGINAL
Detail Showing Paved Shoulder GROUND
in Relation to Guardrail
USE SHOULDER BERM GUTTER FOR THE FOLLOWING:
-L- STA. 18+50.00 TO -L- STA. 21+62,96 (RT)
-L- STA. 23+76,47 TO -DRIVE 1- STA. 10+28.74 (RT)
-DRNE 1- STA. 10+37.24 TO -L- STA, 28+00.00 (RTI
~ -L-
E, ~
,'
~~j ~ ~ ~,
qq
~ ~ T NIN.I U ~~N MIN. ~ ~
Detail Showing Method of Wedging
ORIGINAL
GROUND
-L- (SR 1581)
I
31.5'
3' 12' ~ 1Z' 4.5"
Lse' I lss'
BADE
0,02 ~ 0.02
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 4
-DRIVE-
L
r0~~ G OUND
`-GRADE TO THIS UNE USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. 1 FOR THE FOLLOWING:
`OVERLAY IXISTING PAVEMENT
- -L- STA. 17+00.00 TO -L- STA,17+50.00
-l- STA. 29+00.00 TO -L- STA, 30+25,00
a
PRELIMIN~}RY PLANS
w uor cse raapp consreccnorv
ORIGINAL
GROUND USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. 2 FOR THE FOLLOWING;
-L- STA. 17+50.00 TO -l- STA. 20+00,00
-L- STA. 28+00,00 TO -L- STA. 29+00.00
oRlclw,L
GROUND
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. 3 FOR THE FOLLOWING,
-L- 51A. zv+oD.DD Tv -L- STA. 21+87.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE(
-L- STA. 23+72.00 (END BRIDGE) TO -L- STA. 28+00.00
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. 4 FOR THE FOLLOWING:
-L- STA. 21+87.00 TO -L- STA. 23+72.00
` USED 4.5' OFFSET ON RIGHT SIDE DUE TO HYDRAULIC SPREAD
ORIGINAL USE TYPICAL SECTION N0. 5 FOR THE FOLLOWING;
-0RIVE1- STA. 11+12,83 TO -DRIVEL- STA. 11+50
-0RIVE2- STA,10+D0.00 TO -DRIVE2- STA,10+96.19
vAR. ~-L- (SR 1581)
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 2
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 3
1~1/ 3 ~~ Q I~ Q ~ ~••~II~I 11 ~~1 ~~i ~,

fRaeer uleuNCE No. sHxr No.
B-4r5~ 2-a
10A0WAY OFSWN FAVFMEIR DFEICN
NGINElR ENOINFER
DITCH DETAILS
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
P W v e
Plea ar Oltm r /~~\7~~~/ ~/ r ~mdro~nrdar~
Oun.r~ L /\ \/~I
~ B= 3.75 f t,
tc ernr~ D= I,0 Ft.
cr e= 40 Ft.
a= o.s Ft.
F0.pM L STA.15+57 TO STAIS+SO lT
TAI
SP ITCH
l xot to Scdsi
fplront
1 ~ \\ t{0f 01
r, D ~o
Mln. D= I,0 Ft.
FROM L STA,17+00 TO STA. 11+i0 RT
FROM L STA.17+50 TO STA 17+50 LT
FROM L STA.19+00 TO STA. 29+50 LT
TI e•/
1 n.~
oarv "'~ a
ltriaw a low r
w e+d~ dm nt.r rmne 5r05
-Ir• STA 11+09 LT
-L- STA 21 +ll LT
~ STA 21+51 LT
INTERSECTION DETAIL
TAI A
FALSE SUMP
1 rvot r $cclal
Neclon Difch
9 ~I2I_
I ee Chori Belowl-~ - 20'-~•) f GI
~-S' etc.
<_m~~n n~~e ~{ Praposea Dlich J
;I
0
STA L 19+00 LT
STA L 20+~0 LT
DETAIL E
SPECIAL-[ATEA3)-'V' DITCH
I Rot to Scabl
FII
t I '~''?OitOt ~~
Grouts v 0
a Nin. D= I.0 Ft.
' Fllter MOX, d= I.0 Ff.
Foorlc
Type of Ltnar= Class B RIp-Rap
FROM L STA t1+50 TO STA 1B+TS RT.
DETAIL B
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
INat to Scdel
r ~_ FII
ou a y D •~ 1, t. SbDe
Mln. D= I.0 Ft,
FnrN Mox. d= I.0 FT.
Fcorlc b= 2,0 Ft.
Type of Liner= Class BAlp-Rap
MATCH EXISTING
-DRNEF- POTSro.10+00.00
-DkNf2- POTSta «+1263•
-C- PoTSTa 25+0700
s srrs'sfrl
~~
~-
DRNEI
-1 --
s
~,
N
9
9/
~,
r?
=o-
^,
DR1VEl
PTS1a «+
DETAIL OF DRIVES
DETAIL C
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
I NOt to Scdel
t r FII
round D '~ pi t, SbDe
d
Mln, D= I.0 Ft.
Ma z. d= I.0 Ft.
b= 2.0 FT,
Type of Liner= PSRN
-ORNE2-
~s
Qo
~~
0
~\
DRNEI- POTSta «+5000
E«D CONSTROCTION
-A4NE1- POT $FO. «+5593
PRELIM[N~RY PLANS
W [:OI' Uafl CON6TRUCnOR
SSIB'OPYIF
ROM L STA 11+Op TO STA 11+21 LT FROM L STA 19+15 TO STA 11+00 LT
DETAIL F
LATERAL BASE DITCH
1 NOt }0 $Cdel
FII
Duna i D Ivct, Sbpe
Flter Nin. D= I.0 Ft.
iobAc
Max, d= I.Q Ft.
b= 2.0 Ft.
Type of Liner= CLA55 B Rip Rap
FROM -IrSTA.1R+75 TO STA.19+25 +~ RT
~~ ~~ ~~ s ~x75rlr
~P T
OS, r~~ -ORNE2-PCSFO.l0+3061
x ~G.
DRNE~ ~ -DRNE2- PTSTa Ipf4;
DETAIL D
LATERAL 'V' DITCH
I NOt to Scabl
_ Flu
rauna y D ~ r/Ft, ~~
Min, 0= I.0 Ft.

t c
B-4157
~~-
PREL[MINAIftY PLANS!
00 !:OC L".iH Cati5TA0Ct19h ~
+' ~'
~_ TI-21 6+72.68-PING // •~ ~ j~ 22 5+00.00-POT I
ELEV=906.48 ~p j¢ /~/ `~ AEAAR95E8T q~
RE9AR SET '~A ,ptOV 0.&AGiEd
+ + '~~' De R'N Po 9t
l.rr.W' L + ~ / ~ y5
sacs ~ V S ~
s: ~~ -BL•5 21*19.9J•PAaC /~ a~ '~
~ -TI 6+40.30-PINC ELEV=915.69 ~
-Bl•4 22+88.04-PING + ~ .c+ L00 p~
•L- STA 19.31.73 t17.95'LTI I TS00'LT -STA 23+64.OS~t1~8.aTs4~AiI fi ~ 10.00' +00 OR2
ssew rn EAUT. ~ / ~ ~' ~ 10.40' lT
wllE dLGEANA K~;SWMER$ _ `"~
oe xst rc Ms r i'I ~ 4 :% "cos t ,
'+85 OA2
,.--'a`te ' ~ ti ~'~' ~ 9.01' RT ~ . +25 DR2
,•..- I y, - ~_ ` s ~ F 11.89' lT
/ ~/~ I------____ ___•.-_...•.._ ~ idv li `~ ~ , ~ ! / m / \ +50.00 ~ ~ rc so2
-BL-J 20+16.91-PING ~ r ~ t RUS EEt
~ r ' LT R d t
Z •L• STA 16+64.16 (16.61' RTI -'- scirsg ~ ~' ~"' -"-~` `1vt~~ •41LO~ / 85.00 ONALO L. OE L
/ ~,
~ _.--.- .,~ _ i y i
yyQ 2p 5• ~ ~~ --"`-„' -. ""`~.. G,- 3 ~^ r~ _ X60 't . _ ?,.~\~~~15
/ 1! s ~
7$.00' li C - ~ ~ ~ s-'o---`"•~'r `~-~ . - Aocc'wa ' ~' ~~ ` t V - W `~..--•, '^-~,•~~~''` ^~4"~. ~ t y i"~
/ .
~ '-. .. I!, y ! r '~T --~. '160 `'~„~, F ^ ~E
r . +.~_
^E.,~7[G ~ ~ tiz i - -^F'd00 ~ /j ~,6U1 htSt v~ iz- ^'^a..r3-..N.!'C~ ~ ~1t0
P
"• DESIGN E1(CEPTION REQUIRED FOR THE DESIGN SPEED FAOM 55 MPH TO 25 MPN
m
-L- STA 24+18b6 LT.
BEGrN 25:rTAPER
1 a ~~ 24' 3 3~ ~ E -E_~. LS.~
r J!5' ~ ~=
315'
` ~4, VARIABLE 4'
WIDTH PS.
5• 217 .~ -
J'
•nrc a-n G/A ArcngA um AfaAjE1(1
DETAlL SHOWING PAVEMENT - BRlCGE RELATIONSHIP DETAlL OF PAVED SHOULDER AND SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
.v
PE /dOPOSEO •~. F - rEE is i, .,
~St'~' SSBY/ TO FJaSt. i t t'~ 3_ _ . " + INV•A101 • ,~ ' ~ ~ ' CS/y
f:;' 48.44' J ~~ Ln ~+.
~t ~ ~.. ~ i ", v v~ ~
~a u , +65.00 ' 4 MOUE Wit 1 ,; ~~ ~ R,Qys,
S r ~~
m "' ~ ~ B4.10'RL~ ///fin"' C•p OB _ ~,~ ~~•: •* ' ,., .
~! '~ ~ ~ 6cCS 87.10; POE-{ / ~ m + .~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ` \
~ , ry 3 EL•s(wrc VOWS I ~ 04'RT rr.". - ~ .s Ta ~ A<
n ~ s' ers~ ~xu~a ~ + 6 ~~ ~ ` + 9' T aver. ~ ~ , n~ ~ ~~ r ' .-~.
- + G ~ - :,:~~ x~usK~c,-6-`';~ +75. ~ +1. A ~ •w ~ a
/1 J ~ ' RT wtv-Aas tm.W 0.00' RT ~'•~... '""., ^:. ' 7 T ,• ` , \~ ~ Fp` .~
i~r ~ \ ; G wLLLO dLOEaxd K. SUMMERS d, ~ ~; ~ ~ ~E 05; R `~, r' ~ ~ ` 1 ~`~•~ ~''~ ~
OB xN PO iU , A, d `/ 4
k
sr a~ voti~;, a ~ arcwro \a-..~ aK ~ ~~... ~ 11 9.3 ' LT' ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~
55e+ + sr i3r sY cat -,~ \\\ 69.28' RT ~ ~ ~c M2 t `I
'`~ + 'C~ ~ P0.Ot0~ eta ~` tt`'"' TO' RIGHT ELEV•905JT ~' `~ \ ,,~ ~'
p~ RY7 ' 25. ssww vo E7(16f a ,~„64 `±t \ ~ t±55 J 5.00' \ e --~.~--x-
i ~` s 1"ti., ~W,y,Q STA 25+16.40 i $ 12 00' ' +3 . r,
s of msr Si'Er~l r ptf~i ~ y ~ ~ .~r ~ nn~ c 'arc t'se•yF~I~~TI+55 DR ~. • 5.7,¢' RT x~~ 8 1 . ~~~` `'--r ___-----
~ rsn~L c 2 ~ 6 ss ,. ~iar sEer 4 04' RT c '"fib
•, -...
sr.a~ ram ~, G ~n ~ ~ `~ `"~>; ,eOF~ ~.-•...~~,ri.~ ''----, _ ,I~
JdMES i, A T6fANY B. MORRISON S i, ~ ~ ~ ~ -+~4Q
'-~~.
OB 5B1 ac 4i02 sr.rt . r etia ~. ~ v 1 ~ "~ - .~ 4.44'RT ,,, E .o-__._:_
-'"'~ ,
t--
~ 1 ~ ra P
~+/. \ A
.~ r tt'Aq+~ ..acs +35.W ~ '~
__ ~ . s l\ • `~•°. 80.26' RT '~~ L\currxx J
r E:/
~ „~ 65.00' RT + 6.78
~ ~a t ~~iA ~ • 79~, p'~ ; -BL•6 32+98.52•PI C ~~• ~
,~ •L- STA 29+53.14 tl 52' RTI
~0j~ I
~ ~ ' ~ •e~ • I ~~ro~s a.~ moans x~
g, ixv-Pl6.C0
-71-20 II+73.62-POT ~ ~ ~ 0 ; "
ELEV=907.85 k
,.~ REBAR SET ~~ I LrN345 PG Z2 6'~
r ~~ ~ 0
~. s'' ~~OT I ~~ ' tROBY760 POR955
URB S RING 0
+ Oe4e5t YiBaG 5 i Lxtkt[x
/ 4 r OB
....•w
FOR L, DRIVEL, & DRIVE2 PROFILES, SEE SHEET N0.5
///// BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS, SEE SHEET S-~ THRU S-~~

t ~
•OPE e-n wR A1C141 uxrr AEmrpEo
DETAIL SHOWING PAVEMENT -BRIDGE RELATIONSHIP
" DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED fOR THE
DETAIL OF PAVED SHOULDER AND SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
/ ,,. ,
' IN RI
`' ~ / / %~ ~ -L- POTSlo.21+87.00 `,
/ / ~ -1-.-PTSta21+7799 ,,~
/.
w
Z
0
YI

/
~
/
'
/~
lH !WPk~ACN S
~APPRON
/
,,
' " ' '
/
/ ~ -
IA,HAl V D[1CH
UiEIAL Y OffCH ~
' ~ II
Esr.a17 cY nGE
Esl n n rsuA ESr: tte cY DDE
•..
~
ar. u lw+s u 1 ar ua
BT. 197 SY flLT FAR , ~
`
SITE
,-
S

~ 'Nl k~ th~ua
SYJ4F'~S f0 EXI
T.
~
yv ~" a o ~
~
~ ` =~'% ~ ao _6 '
-'" - - -
~~'
'`
,
r1 ~ PCSto.18+95b7 ~
, ,~. _
~
-
/ . SWAIE- ~ / 1
~ .. ~ `-~ ~-
/ ~ / ~~/ , i ~ _ x - _ ~-~~

SPEED FROM 55 MPH TO 25 MPH
f
¢~ , ~ 7~ English
~"
- "~ b ~ 50 0 50 100
7
~% -/`~ SIECIAL V.Dhtkl,/ /~~ ;; ~~ , , ., :~ ~ ~ :"'= Ar:EEE,?9ieAO /~ ..,fi '_- -- -5 a'-, ~ "~.3&ti~CY ~E' i ~, i i
„~^t~~-_ rl~
a~RrrNt~~ "''F '.vrROD n -^`;,,.'-; / ~ ~ .~. ~, , ~ 1 PCSta 28+5/73
/ 561 D6AILrG,' ~ / ~ ,r'/ - _ ~ ` _ _
a~. g116IRQi05~ / / / / ~ ~ u -vM ~ i /~~g' fU QONNECTOAS ~"••~ d ~+. ^ '.-3Q~+.._ ~ -Ci
!h~ y~ ~ R //E~/ v ~.~ j ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~:
l' ~t~ ~' ur,~ , 1 ' ~ , ~. _ ~
i ~ ;
f _ / ~~, / : ,~ t, MOIRE COOK" ~'Q\. '~. , ~~ ' ,;~
T
/ ti I ~
"'~ zr it - / ~ ,, i DE ~ , , ~ "+t.~~
.. .~,.4~
" "~? . ~ ~ r ~z ~ ,r 1 ~;~ ' %kc3 ~ , ~' ~I i ~1`IriS~a 198 , ~~^e-,, - ~ ~ . •,r ~, ~.~
',~ $y ., /,- 'o:' ~Y~ L LUG i1y"~~ r` l _~,U, ~w~ cgrf: 1Y,.IC~~ ..~-. A F ~.z-~~. ~ ~ ~aV~$T .7 ' +50.00
/ .,
/ ;. ~r ~ ~, , . „ > i REFORMED I a h ; YHIOWS•~, ~ , ~ ~ ~ .;
"
f ° : ° , ., t ~ ~ G / , z [owffCrou ,.~,1 ~ naF ~~,..~ „. ~„- ._,~,coNr+ccroa~ ~ ~:~ E)<JST RW
~.J
~ qo
E
~ ~`~; ~
^ / '".
-" d- " ~ (/ ~ ~ I , -~ ~ WILLIE :1L6EANa R SuufAEFS ~ 1 -~,~ ~IEC~ ,i, 1
.- ~ ~ Gn`~" ~ >,~
~ r~ r ,~ ~,. `, , ,, srEaK welu w Drtcx; „. /DRNf! POTSlo.10+001J0= \ '~ =~ -._E ~ aG . ~;- `~
-
~lr'- ~ ' SEEDETIJ4E .-. .- uti-.
7 ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
,~ .r71' ~ i / ~ EST M 70175 CE ! UIf.RA!' ~ < - ~ ~ ` N` ' ~ 't ~ ~t ~A... ` .. " "~ _ _
~~~ o ~ ~
;~
'/~~ ,~;vtwv y,,' /~~ / ' f51.,71 r at Fu ~ L . POT5t0.-2 ~ "^"~"«a~~ ~ ~ ~`~.„ ~~ ," tr~G~Erueorrex -
-,
r ./` ~:
.r _
/r' / :. / // J 5Sil4 ;TO DJST.'/, `'~, _ _ -_ ."`~,~ ~' ~~• \ .. ]6ti1CE5 - 95]16 ~"~ 4l
, ,. ,~ ~ // / :, ~ L _
E9XOEOSED ~ tEIIVASa."= ~~ ~ 2-.
11
+*~ ° ~osG~ srtCtu;q,ArtcH ~ / / "ttitrJlAt6/sE orltal --- ~ '\ / .~ k bpROD 1 tU9, ~~~ _ ~,
ssrW, To - / EEE DFTAx c ~ /, ~ DErNt F ~: -- y ,- ~' ~-. ~ rv ~ ''
/ _,
: / / // ~ / ~ ~'~,.,, / . ES~T.~tOfd~C11 7U lu1 ?I „, w,,.:~ c:;, i~+6° ur{Y ~xr. i ~,~ ~ ,-~,~_
/ ~.~/ ~ A ~~
~~ ,. ,. ,~-~ _ y ~ -..a <gv
j ~ I'~~~" ~8 Oy s, ~~ ` ' ~" EsT. d< n mr FAe -- " " - ~ { ;~ #<+~~ ' :F '~ }y,' -~ ~ , ~~~.. _ _ °=r'c;
_.
-~ _
~ '~ ~ ~ _ -~ 1- _ 1 ~ a.4196.7 {.Cn ~~ ~;, ~ +'..NO OffCH ---"
.,_ %~., '~ . eectN rrP PROJECT a=arp ~ ; ~ , ,.. ~~. f . ~-- ~ `_ -SEE ORNEWAY IM'ERSEGTIONDETAIL` , ' ~ .~, ~ , u~ e9:~>, '~; ..~~`' ~ ~' ~ ~--
r
"_
SNEEl`-2-A FOf,, ALIGNMENT INFORMATION ~
r
-1- F~7T STA /7+00.00 ~ ~ ' ~ _ ~ ~; _ ~ ~ev~z7 ~ ~:~ i "„..~+
~.
~, ~ , ~ ~~ ~ : I„
2 TONS CL B pRAI'
Wv x FiL FAB
HY-9!7.00
END TIP PROJECT 8-4157
-1- POC STA 30+25A0
D
v
m
Y
E
Q
U
Z
P
D
r
E
Q~
o~
N'
DO NOT
DISTURB SPRING
RW SxEl7 N0.
ROADWAY OE9GN HYDAAULKS
ENGINEER ENWNEER
SMEEE N0.

FOR L, DRIVEL, & DRIVE2 PROFILES, SEE SHEET N0.5
BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS, SEE SHEET S-~ THRU S-~~
INGOMPLE E PLANS'
0o Nm cy/ I!an i• AworTt~ri .
PREGIMIN RY :PL'ANS
w wrae/ oa mtu~.R+a+:
USE 4.5' SHOULDERS FOR DRAINAGE
CLEAR ROADWAY WlOTH = 33.0'

• r
*A DESIGN IXCEPTION REQUIRED POR THE DESIGN SPEED FROM 55 NPH TO 4S MPH
.,raE a-n sia .rom uur .aEwxEo
DETAIL SHOWING PAVEIJENT -BRIDGE RELATIONSHIP
~!1
L- c
-L- PTS7o.2/+n99
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
-L- 10. l+
urzeu v DIrcN utelu v Drta
fEE oEru~ c
sEE OETAI e
61.717 CY DO! 8T, rz1 CY DDE
EST, el sY FSeM
~. q roNS n 1 uF EAF
-BL•4 22+88.04-PING 6F.171 % FIIT FH
-l- STA 19+31.13 (11.95' LTJ I + '~
nu: ALOEAw
s
u.EaS
3
~ rs+ ~
-L- PCSra.18+95.67 a -
X ~
I '
__--
•Bl-3 20+16.91-PING ~-~~
-L- STD 16+64,18 (16.61' RT1 7 ~ ~ 701

73.
_ ~ ~,i]~y6~
QKUt Y ORp1 ~ ~ ~ 1 T ~1" ^'
k! 0lTALL 0

frzcuE uTEUL v DncN
g ~,~r.~,/,~%~~0e fEA. ~T~o EN! cLewlu
%' '155 65.00' RT EST, to K FnT FAD
,. + E ne noF
DD . RW 2jy ]iDW n
t
nsmw TOF010 E7~OCF. IF~lcDU~l v~D01Tg1 O eb ~
N
JAIES f.A TFfANY B.YOFtNISON ~
oe ne4 fc 1602
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-4157
--- -- n+oooo
m
N
a
o°
+i3 ~
~~
r t
DETAIL OF PAVED SHOULDER AND SHOULDER BERM GUTTER
-L-
.ooos E^
-L- hVESi(
-BL-S 27+19.93-PIN
-TI 6+40.30-PINC Et
_~. cTe ~~+J;A_na
87.10' RT PDE
N0~5
~ KOUA XOIEII
D'lLE AtOEANe N. SuuER$
os NN ~ T 1 ]DRNEI POTSYa
d4.Il~ _T _ JNYrCtn
/ E¢NTS ]~ 4J ~ z "~~ ~Em~
D e 0 } ~ ~'Oa F~~
11~ \
R
~E .05' ~ +
coNC ~~... ~ 9.3 LT
Ovoo7i~ ,
u'"'~ 7d PoGHT~ELSEv=905.17 ,E ~ a g,OD'
"'.Sl'~[ONC .. $P3Y?5~\BI9.38TRT~+518.4tR..k\ L~ ® ~. isi
"' urzeu enu orttN
6T. TO CY DD! BENT \4 00' RT Cq~, '® CMNI ~
m.7s roNS ei a uF eer, ~.. c~i s ,~ I~
6r, e+ sY Fes FAD
SEE ORNEWAY INTERSECTION DETA/ c~~~ i`R~;j
. .Q$ SHEET 2-A FOR ALIGNMENT INFORMATION E~ rr~/
- 11
~~.. ~ ~. ~ D, 11
a~ 181 ~~
11 ,. a
t f
\ \ I I
~ ~
-11-20 11+73.62-POT 1 ~~~ I c I I
ELEV=907.85 1 ~~ 1~ I I 1
(~ AEBAR SET I ~ 1 1 1
I ~ 1 11
I 11 rl
~~ 1 I I / 1 I
5g•S"aYC ! I r 1 r St.
~,~ Sa]„ l1 I I J///1
i ,.
CURVE DATA
-L- -DRNEI- -ORNE2-
PI Sfo ?b+4070 PI Sra 26+56J5 M Slo 29+8863 P! S1a b+49J4 PI SYo 11+2250 Pr S1a b+3722 P1 Sro IO+9420
p • 32'3r0a5rRT1 p = 23'r94r2rRT1 p • 32'09228'1LT1 p = 65'2r35.3'an p • 20'24'380'rcrl p • 2452'4L4rRT1 p • 5408'550'rUl
D • U27' 338' D • 8' P9'!1]' D • 12'03' 442' D • !1435' 296' D •88'08' 50S' D •190'59'094' D = 229'10' 592
L • 282.32' L -21483' L •26659' L = 5784 L • 23J5' L - 13.0.3' L • 2363'
T •14503' T = 139.34 T = 1369r T = 3281' T • alp T •662' T • 12,78'
R = 5008fY R • 675110' R •47580' R • 50' R •6500' R •3080' R = 25.00'
SE = 04 SE • 04 SE • 04
RO.76' AO.7G RO.16'
V = 39 YPH V • 40 MPH V • 35 YPH
r!'~
~-i1-21 6+72.66-PINC
ELEV=906.48
REBaR SET
l
5~
i ~ / p
~
// / -TI-22 5+00.00-POT
6 ~ ELEV=907.87

/. .~~G REBAR SET
h5
S 06
/ /

ORNf2- P01'Sro. a+r283= / /
.

-L- POTSta 25+0700 ~
~
~
+00 DR4 ~
10.00' ~d~O~i ~ +00 DR2
rooDS /!g ;p
.* ~ ~
~
i ' 10.00' LT
\

Q /

/~ \

\
~
tT R4 ~
+45
~
F C ^ 41.59' LT ~ ~
m /~ ~.
~~

3)
~=\
fFlcuE v DFicl1' - -
~ fEE oEruE D
_" `1-=
r -_,
\'~br,°v,'~ 'B026'RT L\ouiE~p ~ ~ ~~ ..
~~ m ~ 65.00' RT + 7B
~' IXIST. RW
p ~ 1980' 0.T -BL-6 32*98.52-PI
1 -L- STa 29+53.14 0 52' RTJ
/) Ws(~ ~ ~ : TONS tt e unw
~i( n . 4d7 fY FIL FAe apppS
m'
: ~
'Q' O o n
LYNN 8. NEL c ~
1315 PG 2 s M
Y s ~; N O END T!P PROJECT B-4157
I ~ N ~ °~ -L- POC STA 30+25.(X1
W N TRACY L. BARFES
SOT °~` ~ De TfD ~ Fn O
RB S~RING ,;~ B
4 QAYA ~ BAPT~ T CNUItCN
FOR L, DRNEI, & DRIVE2 PROFILES, SEE SHEET N0, 5
BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS, SEE SHEET S-$ THRU S-~~

FeOJECf fM![T N0.
B-4157 4
AA1' !MEET N0.
lOADWAY DOION NYDAAIJlICS
ENDINHIt NGp1lEl

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
0o nor usa ro cansraucnox
0
.DqY D.BUDWCf
os ¢91 vc ss
~~
o = "1
+50.OD 7
ro~~~
85.00' LT NaNUO ~.oEU ETwEJSTElI
~o
i
-L- PTSfo.27+9164
~ , ~ -L- PCSto. 28+51J3

157_~dy_.:pLLdg~

%z
's
I
:4
a

W

57_Rdy_xpl_~R[VE1.dg~