20072026 Ver 1_Application_20071205

~'~ v
zz
~~
d
V
S
l.,
G
MICA-IAEL F. EASI.EY
GOVERNOR
~Tyd ~ ~F ~
N ~-~
.:a ~>~
•q~,~•
STATE OF NORTH CEIROLINA
DEPAR'I1V~NT OF'I~;ANSPORTATION
November 30, 2007
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION:
Dear Sir:
Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
1P
~~ ~~~ ~
~~ ~~'
,~ ~. ~
o~,,, ~~
"r'9~~ j F <~Tr
Rg,~C~
LYNDO TrnPETT
SEQtETARY
072~J26
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 33 Application for the replacement of Bridge
No. 86 over Buffalo Shoals Creek on SR 1333 (Eufola Rd.) in
Iredell County. Federal Project No. BRZ-1333(5), State Project No.
8.2822801, WBS Element 32620.1.1, Division 12, T.I.P. No. B-
2146.
Please see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), US Fish and Wildlife
(USFWS) concurrence letter (to be received), permit drawings and design plans for the
above referenced project. A Categorical Exclusion was completed for this project on April
13, 2005 and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 73-
foot, two-span Bridge No. 86 with a new 125-foot, single span, steel girder bridge over
Buffalo Shoals Creek. The existing bridge will be replaced in place and traffic will be
detoured off-site during construction. There will be 0.03 acre of temporary stream impacts
to Buffalo Shoals Creek. There are no jurisdictional wetlands located within the project
area.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description:
The single water resource impacted for project B-2146 is Buffalo Shoals Creek. Buffalo
Shoals Creek is located in the Catawba River Basin (Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]. PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING,
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BLVD.
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBS/TE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

subbasin 03-08-32) and is approximately 30 feet wide and 2.5 feet deep within the project
area. The DWQ Index number for this section of Buffalo Shoals Creek is 11-73-(3) and
the Hydrological Cataloguing Unit is 03050101. The DWQ classifies Buffalo Shoals
Creek as "WS-IV CA". Buffalo Shoals Creek is not listed as a 303(d) water. There are no
303(d) waters within a mile downstream of the project area. No High Quality Waters
(HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WSII), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within one mile of the project study area. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the
project area.
Permanent Impacts:
There will be no permanent impacts to Buffalo Shoals Creek as a result of this project.
Temporary Impacts:
There will be 0.03 acre of temporary impacts to Buffalo Shoals Creek resulting from the
installation of a temporary rock causeway. This causeway is necessary to remove the
existing interior bent.
Utility Impacts:
There will be no jurisdictional impacts associated with relocation of utilities for this
project.
Schedule:
The project schedule calls for a June 17, 2008 Let date and a review date of Apri129, 2008.
The date of availability for construction is on July 29, 2008.
Bridge Demolition:
The superstructure for Bridge No. 86 is composed of a timber deck on I-beams and double
channels. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete posts and beams. There is
potential for concrete to be dropped into Buffalo Shoals Creek during demolition and
removal. The maximum potential temporary fill associated with the removal of the bridge
is approximately 26.7 cubic yards. All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will
be followed in addition to Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of
Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of.
November 5, 2007, the USFWS lists two federally protected species for Iredell County
(Table 1). No habitat exists within the project area for the bog turtle. During a survey on
April 17, 2007 dwarf-flowered heartleaf was found in the project area, previously not
known to exist in Iredell County (officially added to the list with the most recent update
this November). A population of 192 dwarf-flowered heartleaf plants was discovered in
the southwest quadrant of the project area. Approximately 29 of these plants are located
within the right of way for this project. The cut slope in the southwest quadrant was
tightened to a 1.5:1 slope in order to successfully avoid all of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf
2

within the project area. Concurrence from USFWS is currently pending for a May Affect,
Not Likely to Adversely Affect conclusion since NCDOT has modified the design plans
and will avoid impacting the plants. The concurrence letter will be forwarded to USACE
upon receipt.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for iredell County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Survey Notes Biological
Conclusion
Bog turtle Clemmys
muhlenber ii T(S/A) Not Required N/A
Dwarf-flowered Hexasrylis naniflora T Habitat and Unresolved
heartleaf Plants Present
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States." The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable
and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional stages; minimization
measures were incorporated as part of the project design. The use of best management
practices for construction should reduce impacts to plant communities.
• The new bridge will be longer than the existing bridge, spanning Buffalo Shoals Creek.
• Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction. This eliminates the need for a
temporary on-site detour.
• Water will not be directly discharged into Buffalo Shoals Creek via deck drains.
In addition, Best Management Practices will be followed as outlined in "NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities".
Compensator~Miti ation:
NCDOT proposes no mitigation for this project as all impacts to Buffalo Shoals Creek will
be temporary.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit:
It is anticipated that the temporary impacts to Buffalo Shoals Creek will be authorized
under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33.
Section 401 Permit:
We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3688 will apply to this project. Therefore,
in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their records. The NCDOT will adhere to all general
conditions of the Water Quality Certification.
3

Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Erin Cheely at ekcheely(cr~,dot.state.nc.us or (919)
715-5529.
Sincerely,
~'
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M.L. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Vince Rhea, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
0 ~ ' ? ~ 2 6
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
~u any parpcular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
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: NW 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 PhD Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: ekschubertna,dot.state.nc.us
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: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bride No. 86 over Buffalo Shoals Creek on SR 1333 (Eufola RoadZ_
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-2146
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Iredell Nearest Town: Sharon
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
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°43'31.76" °N -81°01'28.83" °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Catawba River
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
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 land uses surrounding and within the project area are
primarily agricultural and woodland with residential homes
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard construction equipment will be used (backhoes bulldozers cranes and/or other
heavy machinery)
Page 2 of 8

11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to replace a
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete structure (sufficiency rating 27 2 out of 100j
to obtain safer and more efficient 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.
N/A
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 sepazately from
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 cleazly 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 aze proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Temporary: 761ineaz feet (0.03 acre)
of impacts due to the installation of a temporary rock causeway Permanent• No permanent
impacts.
Page 3 of 8

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,
se aratel list im acts due to both structure and floodin .
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
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
No Wetlands

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:N/A
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
must be included. To 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
lineaz feet Area of
Impact
acres
1 Buffalo Shoals Creek Temporary Perennial 30 76 0.03

Total Permanent Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0 0
5. 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, excavation, dredging, 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
No open water
impacts

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative im act to all Waters of the U.S. resultin from the ro'ect:
Stream Im act (acres): 0.03 (tem orary)
Wetland Im act (acres): 0
en Water Im act (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.03 (tem orary)
Total Stream Im act: 761inear feet (tem orary)
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:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Expected pond surface area:
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. Traffic will be detoured off-
site duri~construction and the new bridge will scan Buffalo Shoals Creek. No deck drains will
be_used and NCDOT's Best Management Practices will be followed.
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
Page 5 of 8

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/ncwetlands/strmgide html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is proposed for this project as all the impacts to Buffalo Shoals Creek are
temporary.
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): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
Page 6 of 8

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 ^
X.
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 ^
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 multinliers_
Zone* I Impact
Multiplier
3 (2 for Catawba)
1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendic~
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
from the top of the near bank of
Required
Zone 2 extends an
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
Page 7 of 8

demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Impervious surfaces will not significantly
increase as a result of this project. There will be no deck drains installed.
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.
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 a$er-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.em•.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The new bridge will be constructed in the same location as the old bridge
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).
F
Q
A~plicani/Agent's Signature v Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

---- ~ ~
/ .m
SEE IfVSET
~~ SITE -~ ~,
--- - C'
- - ~
- - ~ Z
- _ r
- - - I
I REDELL COUNTY -•.
WETLA11lD A11tD STREAM
IMPACTS
Y
N.~ DBPT.OR TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OR HIGHWAYS
IRBDBLL COUNTY
PRasc~ cs-sl~a
dRIDOB N0.8fi OVBR
sUFRALO SHOAL CRBBK ON SR liii
SHBBT OP _. g/~/p~
Permit Drawing
Sheet ~,_ of .~.

r
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
1
2
3
5
Joseph Neid Williams. Jr
Allen C. and
Jorge R. Johnson
Jimmr Lee Shaver
David Kirk Mise
James E. and
Cherrle T. ValenEine
103 Robinneble Lane
SEaEe~ille, NC 28625
RE.1~,1Bos
SEaEeaville, NC 28625
P.O.Bos 6~2d
SEaEe..ille. NC 28625
RE 3 Bos 199
SEaEes~ille, NC 28677
RE '~ Box 323-G
SEsEesville, NC 28677
Permit Drawing
Sheet 2~ of , ~ ,

VV®RI~~A1~ ~ETAL~IL
(N®T 7C® ~CA1L~~
I
PROPOSED BRIDGE OECK~ j
WSE WITH WORKPAO INSTALLED I
ELEV=767.4 j
I
I
5 I 40 WORKPAO
(TYPICALLY I' -CLASS I RIP RAP)
4'
N.W.S. ELEV=765.4
FLOW -~ `%
ROCK CA~~EWAY
CCLASS II~IE RAP)
~°
~~
~n
QUANTITIES OF ESTIMATES
VOLUME OF CLASS II RIP RAP= 228 yds3
AREA OF CLASS II RIP RAP= 0.031 ac
Estimate 340 Tons Class II Rip Rap
's
\ •.
STREAM BEO

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 17+51/18+76 -L- TEMP. CAUSEWAY 0.03 76

TOTALS: 0.03 76
fA 'V
.-
d
~. m

..
~O
N
I
~Q
U
W
O
H
H
U
O
U
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 1-B For ConuentlanolSymbols

VICINITY MAP
OFF-SITE DETOUR Try-~-r-
N~ ~SL1D
12°°~
Np° g3
S°H°.~TE ~F N~dBT~I CAIS~9_,IN.~
IDYVISI~N ~~ I~IGIIR'.~~5
IREDELL COU11tTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE NO" 86 AND APPROACHES
ON SR 1333 (EUFOLA ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO SHOALS CREEK
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
ern RA]s /lorC1' IIVYNa nY ~ ~n
.C. 8-2146 ~
Ran wotnn r.Amm~o mommi
32620.1.1 BRZ-1333 P.E.
32620.3.1 BRZ-1333 UT1L & RtW
32620.2.3 BRZ-1333 CONST.

I

.;
'
' ;
4
O
2
3` ;
;.
_; ;
r ~
2' '
i
~ ,
I
V j I
, I
1 I
Tp S
~~ ~ON
`~
( BEGIN BRIDGE
;
`\
-
~\
/ -L STA. 17+51.00
END BRIDGE
~
\_\
~~ ;
-L- STA. 18+76.00
EUFp
~
ROAD SR 1333 1 ;
II

~_
~
~, ~
' II
II
%i I I
'
I
1 ~' I I
~
-L- POT 5TA 13+75.00 BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-2146 ~I ', ~
~~
~ ~ I.
it o ~ \ 'i
\
I N \\ t\' II
\ ~ 1
I
\
I ~ I
a W \ \~
LL{y
i I m v \ \
\
\\
p
\
\
\
1
~
-L- POC 5TA 22+SD.00 END TIP PROJECT' B-2146 1\\
\t
0
,
1
1
1
1
~ l
1
'" DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND SAG VERTICAL CURVE REQUIRED.
SllVGATE D9p1 p131P, P.A.
~~~~

-
7 ";
.
J
__. `=.~
Permit Drawing
Sheet ~ olf _~
~>"~ °' ~" ~ ~ HYDRAUL{~„ENGJNIiER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH ,°ti~caaq"ry,, STA22? OF NORTH CAROLINA
RAMEYKEMP '
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2008 = 730 ASSOCIATES, INC. ' 1` SFaL r•;
,,.....•~~~~.. ,..~..... e -
ADT 2028 = 1048 ~~ ° T ~ ~•. ~~ :'~=
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-2146 = .142 mi -; Fri:: ~;
PLANS DHV = 1Z % fR du Na+h Caroluw DepaRmmro(f~muupartmion ~''''„•~~:~;5~`',o P.8
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 6-2146 = .024 mi
50 25 0 50 1D0 D = 60 % ~~~~ ~~~~~ war wII'~'~'
ILLmI P8
ROA, IGN srxrR DRSIGN ENGADiEe
T = 3 % ' TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT B-2146 _ .166 mi ~~T OF WAY DATE: N.C.D.O.T. CONTACT: DEPARTMENT OF T1tANSPORTATION
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) •• V = 60 MPH JUNE 16, 2006 CATHY S. ROUSER, P.E. gA~ ~`; -= FED~Ay HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
5 2.5 0 5 10 PROJECT ENGINEER 2s~i5
LETTING DATE: ROADWAY DESIGN ••;,,~.~icir~~•~:~
TTST 1 % DUAL 2 % MARCH 18, 2008 ""~ ~,°„n,,,~°' PE aPPROVfn
PROFILE (VERTICAL) asscoaClAR$P.6 Dnas~oxADnrWS7Rn70R Dais

~ _ __ _. s..w.r emeni..e u.. ...a. ....
/"'
/i
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
N
DO NOT IMPACT ENDANGERED PLANT
u DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND SAG
VERTICAL CURVE REOWRED
DETAIL I I
LATERAL BASE D(TCN
rNdro smw
i
6
--
1 Sh
~, O ,
r7Fr. e
d
B Faa
• wnn a lr c ea Fvirk
YfnO. 1Ft.
Est. 25 Talc d CL'r Rlp Rap Yac.d= I Fl.
Esf.70 SY FRter Fabric B= 3 Ft.
Esf. Zb CY Orairwpe DNCN fccvrollm b= 5 Ft.
¢~ $~ -C- 57A Z0+00 TO -L- S1A zo+50 LT.
N
c
m
~ ~ \ ~

m
a
~
I~
~ ~+ ~
t_
4.
~ ~
~ ~
~ °j
! o
N BL-4 -B - I +6 PIN =

~ ~
~
! I ~
~ -L- STA. 17+60,00
13.45' LT.
3'LATERAL BASE D7CH
~ ~.

y

;? i

i I i ~ ~ ~"

,

C~P
W
SEE NL 9
EST I TN CL 'B

~
~ ~
I i ~ i J \
~ 3 d X
ELBOWS
ES7, 9~Y FF ~' TfE TO SPE 3' LATERAL
BASE
CH
v ~ ) ~ I
' , I
ESLITN CL 'G'RIP AAP XISTING
CR .
S .•2
V I JIB ~ i V
~
~ EST.5 r FF .fq~g 19375
C ti r
I ~ i
I ~ ~ ~ ~
'~ `
.. E ATE EXISTING
' 5ZU '
REYOVE
~ iii
N i
' it
~ RO FILL (STRIlLTURf
ITEYI sE1T• x'771
r
CC
J
i7~~ , m i
t
O ESr. ~
CC 'B'
74' R1P R S
+55 ..
6 °
~'~-'~
~ , +i
<-( i
i
it 0 i 2LT. r
3
n 7801 -. i:$ , El
-
'
tai 15 ?
Y ~ `
1 ~B ~

/
POT STA13+75.00

BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8- 146 ~. + I Ex. nr
FEaTHERInc E~• ,; ._____

RXl ,
-~3--------'

i c ,---"-
EX.R/W
` ,
~r~~ fiP
...--~"

' ------- fr
+~:i+~i+'4/ti
TO SHNUI!
-~23, ~9 _ E -----
Ed51NC M ~-
-BL- STA 5+38
16 RIGHT
ELEV.=809.45
-L- STAI4+OOmI EX.R/W
BEGIN TAPER -
LT.& RT.
~'~ EST.3 TONS CL'9
/RIP RAP
EST. ll S'
FILTER FABRIC

PI StD 12+5072 P! Sto 16+16.79 PI Sfa 21+6654
4 = 9'15'00.0'fLTJ p = l2'37'228'(LTl 4 = 6T02'30S'rRTJ
' D = 4' 37' 143' D = 6' S3' 29b' D =11'00' 00.0'
L = 200!9' L = 183!7 L = 394.36'
T = (0031' T = 9(.96' T = 223.25'
R = 1.240,00' R = 831.39' R = 337.03'
E=0.06 E=0.06 E =0.06
RUN OFF =SEE PLANS RUN OFF =SEE PLANS RUN OFF =SEE PLANS
-L-
PI StD 23+8080
o = so7' 2os'rRn
D = T 06' 02.7'
t = 8622'
T = 4315'
R = 80690'
E = 0.06
RUN DFF =SEE PLANS
ZDR
•T99A5' 2 -L- JI R.IJr
~9O 2T END TAPER
EX.RM U.& RT.
45' RT.
8L-5
-BL- POT 7+77.50
-BY- PINC .7+35.93 PINC =
-L- STA. 14+76.25
15.55' RT.
4B'RT. ~i~l~l4
CLCL 7r
ro roP of eEAY
rsrRUCTURf PN'
(fEYJ
O
~ '
~~
~~
m xr. \
ct'aRIPRaP
TD roP OF EERY
fSTRUCTUAE PAY lfEYJ
REYOVE EXISTING
BRIDGE (STRUCTURE
PAY REYI
BEGIN BRILGE END APPROMN SCAB
-L- sran+sJm -L- ware+6om
9'UNP/wED 9'UNPAYED
SH1DR. ~ SHLOR.
fr
°

`° ~ rr
Jr 8 :, 8 rr

Y UNPAVED

SHlDR. 0' UNPAVED
SNLC7R.
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB ENO CRIDGE
-L- STA17+37m
-L- ~7AIB+76m
SKETCH SHOWING ROADNAY
!N RELATION TO STRUCTURE
LT.& Rf,
-L- srazz
fN0 TAAfR
LL& RT.
® DENOTES APPROACH SLAB
FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET N0.5
SEE SHEETS S-I TNRU S-
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
GLI
DETAIL 2
SPECIAL LATERAL BASE D(TCH
rNdro sWw
Narad yd
crnwid z' D Wnd s l"Nwe
a
FINx FN.vlc B
Yin.O= I Ft.
Esf. 25 TaLS cf CL'r Rtp Rap Yax.d= I Ft.
Est.70 SY FiNa Fabric B= 3 Ft.
-L- sra zo+5a ra -L- sra ti+DO LT
i
i
i
~~ B-3-L-
~~ L- STA. 2
'. 33.17' LT.
'~
i

~.
11 '.
1 '
~1
,1. ~; ~G
i l', '~ y
~,. ~ I
~' 11 ~~
/ 1 \
i
\\\ ~~
.~ \ ~ .,
+-BL- S 17+28 ~~
49 L T e'S
EV.=B ,76
22+ ODO \ ~\
IECT .-2146
~\~
~ a, . ;
f -f n ~ \ \\\ Ili
0
\~ \
pccermit Drr~awing /
RAMEY KEMP '
SIBIGAtE9E9GNGflOLP~P.I ASSOCIATES, INC.

~ti~,

N 4S23'

rrP Pt
O
GHQ ~ ~~-
~~ x' ~~
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
g19ZQ'E
SGA6 ~ ~
~ CO NOT IMPACT ENDANGERED PLANT' N
~° DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR NOR/ZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND SAG
VERTICAL CURVE REQUIRED
DETAIL I
LATERAL BASE DITCH
rmarosmid i
6
FlII
_
p Y/fl. 5~
d
g FlNer
•Whn B la C 60' Fvlrk
YinO= fFt.
Est. P5 Taas d CL'r Rip Rap Yvx.d= 1 ft.
Est 70 SY Filter FoWk B= 3 F}.
Est. 20 CY Dralnago DNch fxcovylon b= S fi.
-L- STA 20+00 TO -L- STA 20+50 LT.
N
v
m
0
Ul
~ ~ \ +~
J
~ m ~ I
!h 3 ~ \ U
LLbb ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ -L I +60.00 FINC =
I I3 3'IATE
i ~ ~ SEf G
~((\.\ 1E'CSP ESf.I TN CL'
n ~ ~I~ \ \ j ~ ~~ ~ ELMS E 7, ~ FF L/
.SN FFg---~R~ wr .B~I~
qr
TONS
- + ~r -c- azr+z
N7 i ~ ~ ' m xr. 48'RT. Bf TAPER
BEC1N NRlE Rf.
_ WNE
_- - - ~ ~ t ~ 70 TUP OF EERY -L=STA
RUCTURE PAY n YI END TAF
_ LT,& RT.
T '~
& ~ ~ ~
~ m REMOVE EXISTING
`" EDGE !STRUCTURE
_ m rnaP c PAY nEYI
~~-

-L-
Pt Sta 12+50.72
~ = 9' 15' ao.a rv~
D = 4'31' 143'
L = 200J9'
T = 10031'
R = 12aooa
E = 0.06
RUN OFF =SEE PLANS
-L- -L-
P! StG 16+16.79 Pl StD 21+6654
o = 12' 37' 22J3'rLT] a = sr o2' 3DS rRn
D =6'53'296' D = N'00'OOZY
L = 183J7' L = 394.36'
7 = 91.96' T = 22325'
R = 83/39' R = 337.03'
E=0.06 E=0.06
RUN OFF =SEE PLANS RUN OFF =SEE PLANS
-L-
PI StD 23+80.80
~ = 6'07'20.5'lRT1
D = T 06' 02.7'
L = 8622'
T = 43J5'
R = 806.90'
E = 0.06
RUN OFF =SEE PLANS
O
BEGIN BRIDGE

-L- Bran+s}m END APPROACH SCAB
-L- srale+~m
S UNPAVED
SHIDA. 4'UNPAVED
SNLDR
rr
fr '~ ~ Ir
b :, ` 8 Ir

7 UNPAVED ~,
SHLDR. 9' UNPAVED
SHLDR.
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
-L- STAn+.7Tm END BRILGE
-L- STAlg+76m
SKETCH SHOWING ROADWAY
IN RELATION TO STRUCTURE
O
GLI
DETAIL 2
SPECIAL LATERAL BASE DlTCN
rxmro srAr~
aaexd ~~~ sly
Grand 2r D
a
FINer Fdrlc g
M/nD= I F}.
Esi, 25 Tons a` CL'r R/p Rvp Max, d= I F1.
Est ID SY Filter Fa(rlc 8= 3 Ft.
-L- STA 20+50 TO -L- STA 21+00 L7
-tlL- 19+yq, (U PING =
TA. 21+85.06
LT.
Rf.
® DENOTES APPROACH SLAB
fOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET N0.5
SEE SHEETS S-1 7HRU S-
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
5
hermit Drawing
~tihoet ~ of„ q
/ .~

nl
17+28
T76 4~ /
~~
RAMEY KEMP
S
L
OESBNGROUP
P.1.
4I~G-ALTE ASSOCIATES; INC.
..
~
,
,
,
e ~""~C~.'n:

PROIECf RER3~BdCE NO. SHffT NO.
8-2146 5
ROADWAY DEIGN
@lGIN~I
unury HYDAAUBa
HVGm~
U~ y
,vv,
a
'tp CARp2~ ,
y
SH CARpi~
I FORM ION DBE HDWN ON P ANS SEAL
24416 i SEAL
9334 i
De a+~ m qa ..3 .. _cfs . Fr q _ . zs rR _ . . .. n BAI.•2 ELEV.= 78382
RR SPIKE 1N 24'PINE '' F P:' =
~~.,~`••:~INE~::'~1-,, . ~
F ~,~:'~
,y;;•'~'GIN4.,,.:
%,,

qvs

tgppi

:Ola

grpe _

. J

+. _

_c.f.s

. Fr

puenq _ _

_ . _

YR _

e

..

_ .

. 63'RT.OF -BL- STA10+75

5
'
"~,,,,,~„~„n ,,
,,,,, ,,,,,
. 3J4
RT.OF -L- STA (1+62.30

DE OT S TEMP RA Y

wa ER

. \
~
~ L- A! +75
\ e GIN R 1 12 ', S E GI DE

\ E ao r
, C R L 86. 2
~ R SUR AC! 1

-i- STA 2+ 5.00 EN FE HE ING
(INC DE !2 TIE TO XI
~~ STA t5+7 ,00 i
EL
78
b4'
~ I ~
~ K -
VC 64
3 ST 22 0.
u
~ ,°~
~ ~

~ ~p W d 'w rA ! +20
8' - ~
- w

,
-
s
l = +!5 !-X7, 365 .
~ fND SPEC. ER BAS OR

=
4 I CLN
TOP 7P R
BE TO
W fT/
J #1; STA2
ECEV.
TB4
C = 28
ISd
pAI
RyPJ
E
3'
TfRAL
BASE
CN
B GIN 3' PfC. TER BASE DITCH
i t I ~ f ._
BEGIM 3'LA RAI. E CH
STA X00 i .
I ~ I II

I I
I
~ I
EXCAV
TE E (
STING
I I PAY R ID
=
STRUCTURE HYDRAULIC DATA i I ~~ I

DESIGN OJSCHARGE = 3 I I
s E
,400 CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS I t Ot
DESIGN NW ELEVATION =
7749 FT.
BASE DISCHARGE = 5
010 CFS
,
BASE FREOUENCY = f00 YRS
" SIGN EXC EPTIO N FO R H ORIZO NT
BASE NW ELEVATION =777
00 FT DE
AL AIJGNMENT ANO SAG
. VERTICAL CURVE REQUIRED
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 7
3401 CFS
,
OVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 500+ YR.
-L
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION = 785.35 FT
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS,SEE SHEETS S-ITHRU S-
ffOR PIAN.SEE SHEET NQ41

SUNGAIE OFSN9( GNGP, P.A. G RAMEY IMP 6ASSOCIAiES, INC.
,,. .,-~~
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

N
a
w
w
Y
w
Z
w~
0
~.a
waa
aW
~aF
Ewa
~.Z
>w~
~wW
aa~
ww~
www
wwa
awY
Maw
m 0 5 PRDJ. REFERENCE ND. SHEET ND. TOTAL SHEETS
N ~ 8-214 6 X-6
a
1
1
1
1

EN GRID -L- STA.I +76.00

~~~ ~~ W
--- --~

- - - ~' ~
`~ - - TA.18
EL 7 50.00
5.71

D,~ ~, ~

TE P FI L IN SU ACE A R
W

-,
STA.18
EL 7 +00.00
5.35 --- --
BEGIN BRIDG -L- STA.l7 5f.00 P
S mit D
t 9 ing
of
_ --- ~~ O
~ Q Q, qq
(~ DENOT S CRYS7 AUJNE OCK
-- ___ , ~
~ , _/~l=/l
/ =r//=
l/i //i
'
- ~ 2° 2. FOR (ACT LO TIDN S

~

'
~

'
lllsl I -~
/

-lll,llL
s
11=l =
_ = rc = IU
I Ill= rim/ii=
_r// ~
/r- - ,
_//r

=iii

i_ri~
'r/r
_-_

//_///_ /// --- -- --- --
_--
_
_--
~
--
----

-

--

_
SUBSU
FACE P
S

i

.' / ///_ ///_ / =//I_///_ / //_ //l_/ll i//_ //l_ l _ivz
~~~
_
78 .
198 ~ ~-
'---
---
----
---
-_
I
- 1

' ~'~
~ STA I
EL7 +50.00
6.48 ~~
~~~
r v=/i = =lr= _ _ - _
DENOT
TO 8E S EXISTI
EXCAVAT G FILL ~
D

1
1 - -
1
1
5
5 I
I

SEE Sheet 1-A For Index Of Sheets ~ 1L ~ 1l ~ ®JI' 1V ®Y~ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ®~ ~ 1 V ~ vn rr.n rwrr rw~oKS w ' ~T
See Sheet 1-8 For Conventlanal Symbols ~ 1
T
TI' ,(' 8-2146 1
~~
~~
®~ ®~ ~~~~
~~~
9' 1 Y1' rt.n ,w.xa r.4wrw asamn~

32620.1.1 BRZ-1333 5 P.E.
N ~ ~ \ i
w
C 32620.3.1 BRZ-1333 5 UTII. & WW
32620.2.3 BRZ-1333 5 CONST.
•
I .~~ '
~I ~° ~ IREDELL CO U11 DT'I'
~ f .!r'
~
~` I
m ~
V
LOCATTON.r BRIDGE N0.86 AND APPROACI;~S
m~ ~~
~~ ~ ON SR 1333 (EUFOLA ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO SHOALS CREEK
V ~~ ,p 4 '
°
~~
;_ ,~- :..:, TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVI11iG, DRAINAGE, AND STRU CTURE
W _
_
~
~
U
pl
O VICINITY MAP
OFF-SITE DETOUR
/ O
~
s~~
l~
J
/
V
I
TO f / I
~
~ON / ~
1
~ \
BEGIN BRIDGE
~
END BRIDGE
~~ ~ ~ STA.17+51.00 ~
~~
~
'• -L- STA. 18+16.00
~~ ~ ;,
~ ~~ ~s-~
~
EU~u
OA 1
D SR ~ < ,,~ ;:t~
R
1333 a-:=r ,;-~
~.; ran ~;,_ 5,~:~ I
~
~~~
~
~ GR~~
N ~ I ~'~~~~ `~
~ I ~
-L- POT STA 13+75.00 BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-2146
I II
~ .
a3 ~ZOO~ o ~~~~\ ~ ~ I
~ ~
I ~
NPR _ ~ ~- 1
:~ ~~
\I
1 0 \

~ 11
`1
~*
22+50.00 END TIP PROJECT 8-2146
POC STA ;
~
0
~
I
~
I
1
11

SIIIWiE OESNyI IiOP,PA
;~ ~'~
r ,
v "DESIGN EXCEPTION FOR HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND SAG VERTICAL CURVE REQUIRED.
>Ya v ~ ~ ~ "t ENGDI~ER
gyDRA[!l~(~„f, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
RAMEY KEMP ~
ti cats w,,
,•~~,'. CSSrgyo:~:,
~ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2008 = 730 ASSOCIATES,INC.
~......,~.~, ..,...~~ <;
!a
? SEAL
~
ADT 2028 = 1,048 LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-2146 .142 mi ~~ ``~'' ~ ~
~?~'~ _`
+
PLANS i
di
D
7 ,
~~...
,
"5,
,,.
DHV = 12 % raupaw
ar
(ar du xorrlt Car
~o
gaaw~r oj ,
~
,
~
p
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-2146 = .024 mi ~
~~~ pp,n~oM
P.B
~ ~x
, w.~r ~'~
P8
50 25 0 50 100 D = 60 % GN
R ~x~ D
T = 3 % ' -
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 8-2146 .166 mi ~~ OF WAY DATE: N.C.D.O.T. CONTACT: ,,,.,,
~ DEPARTMENT OF TR9NSPO
0 PROPILE HORIZONTAL
( I ..
V
60 MPH JUNE 16.2006 CATHY S. ROUSER, P.E. <•;
=:
- RTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIO

5
2.5 0 5 10 =
LEITTNG DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN i++i6
~`•• ~ F~i~~~~ •I
V ^
'a
~''
" TTST 1 % DUAL 2 % MARCH 18
2008 w„~
rr
~,.
P8 ~,P~~
PROFILE (VERTICAL) . u
Mscorr rs ,
nrvrsrox enn~nrrsrsema Hers

ROADWAY ENGLISH STANDARD DRAWINGS
The following Roadway Standards as appear in "Roadway Standard Drawings" Highway Design Branch -
N. C. Department of Transportation - Raleigh, N. C.. Gated January 18. 2006 are applicable to this project
Ond by reference hereby Ore Cansitl@r@d a Dort Of these plans:
STD. NO. TITLE
DIVISION 2 -EARTHWORK
200.03 Mettwd of Clearing - Method III
225.02 Guide for Grodinq SuDgrade - Secondary and Lacal
225.04 Method of Obtaining Superelevatian -Two Lone Pavement
DIVISION 3 - PIPE CULVERTS
300.01 M@th00 Of Pipe InstallatiIXl - MBthad 'A'
3t 0.10 Driveway Pipe Construction
DIVISION 4 - MAJOR STRUCTURES
422.10 Reinforced Bridge Approach Fills
DIVISION 5 - SUBGRADE. BASES AND SHOULDERS
560.01 MBthOd of Shoulder Construction -High Side of Superelevat@d Curve - M@ihatl 1
DIVISION 6 -ASPHALT BASES AND PAVEMENTS
654.01 Pavement Repairs
DIVISION 8 -INCIDENTALS
840.29 Frames and Narrow Slot Flot Grates
840.35 Traffic Beorinq Grated prop Inlet -for Cast Iran Double Frame antl Grates
862.Ot Guardrail Placement
862.02 Guardrail Installation
861.03 Structure Andtor Units
876.02 Guide for Rip RoD of Pipe Outlets
DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STD. 848.D3
AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
INDEX OF SHEETS
SHEET NUMBER SHEET
1 TITLE SHEET
1-A INDEX OF SHEETS. GENERAL NOTES.
AND LIST OF STANDARD DRAWINGS
1-B CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
t-C THRU t-E SURVEY CONTROL SHEET
2 PAVEMENT SCHEDULE. TYPICAL SECTIONS. AND
STRUCTURE DETAIL
3 SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES
3-A SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE QUANTITIES
SUMMARY OF GUARDRAIL. EARTHWORK
SUMMARY. AND ASPHALT PAVEMENT
REMOVAL SUMMARY
4 PLAN SHEET
5 PROFILE SHEET
TCP-1 THRU TCP-? TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS
EC-t THRU EC-? EROSION CONTROL PLANS
RIGHT-OF-WAY MARKERS:
SIGN-t THRU SIGN-? SIGNING PLANS
X-1 CROSS-SECTION SUMMARY
X-2 THRU X-9 CROSS-SECTIONS
S-1 THRU S-? STRUCTURE PLANS
GENERAL NOTES: 2006 SPECIFICATIONS
EFFECTIVE: T-18-06
GRADING AND SURFACING:
THE GRADE LINES SHOWN DENOTE THE FINISHED ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED
SURFACING AT GRADE POINTS SHOWN ON THE TYPICAL SECTIONS. GRADE LINES NAY BE
ADJUSTED AT THEIR BEGINNING AND ENDING ANO AT STRUCTURES AS DIRECTED BY THE
ENGINEER IN ORDER TO SECURE A PROPER T[E-IN.
CLEARING:
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TD THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY
METHOD III.
ALL CURVES ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE SUPERELEVATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STD.
N0. 225.04 USING THE RATE OF SUPERELEVATION AND RUNOFF SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
SUPERELEVATION IS TD BE REVOLVED ABOUT THE GRADE POINTS SHOWN ON THE TYPICAL
SECTIONS.
SHOULDER CONSTRUCTION:
ASPHALT. EARTH, AND CONCRETE SHOULDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE HIGH SIDE OF
SUPERELEVATED CURVES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STD. ND. 560.01.
STREET TURNOUT:
STREET RETURNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED 1N ACCORDANCE WITH STD. 848.04 USING
THE RADII NOTED ON PLANS.
GUARDRAIL:
THE GUARDRAIL LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS NAY BE ADJUSTED DURING
CONSTRUCTION AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD CONSULT
WITH THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO ORDERING GUARDRAIL MATERIAL.
TEMPORARY SHORING:
SHORING REQUIRED FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC WILL BE PAID FOR AS "EXTRA
WORK" IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 104-T.
END BENTS:
THE ENGINEER SHALL CHECK THE STRUCTURE END BENT PLANS. DETAILS. aND CROSS-
SECTION PRIOR TD SETTING OF THE SLOPE STAKES FOR THE EMBANKMENT OR EXCAVATION
APPROACHING A BRIDGE.
UTILITIES
UTILITY OWNERS ON THIS PROJECT ARE: DUKE POWER.
ANY RELOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES WILL BE ACCOAPLISHED BY OTHERS.
ALL RIGHT--WAY MARKERS ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PLACED BY OTHERS.
`~ RAMEY KEMP
n -------A-------
1 ASSOCIATES, INC.
rr...r. .u.. in u....
rF.wow ria,wrm
w~.x"w..~roa~r
nsnurnraN~nwn~ru.
."u..er.rs,w

S°]l'A'JCE OlF N~R°d°~d C.~Ib~LIN.~
so.~ = s„a,~~e us,.g,~~,:,+g dDIVISION OF IE~IG]HWr~~S
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
WATER:
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.•
State Line -•••~
County Une ---
Township line ---
City Line -
Reservation Une -
Property Une
Existing Iron Pin
Property Comer
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Une -x
Proposed Woven Wire Fence
Proposed Chain Unk Fence
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence
Existing Wetland Boundary - - -
Proposed Weiland Boundary
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
Existing Endangered PIaM Boundary
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Verrt or 11~G Tonk Cap
Si
gn
w
ll
e
Small Mine
Foundation
Area outline C
Cemetery
Building
School
Ch
h
urc
Dam
0
v
RAILROADS.•
Standard Gauge ~t
RR Signal Milepost ~
werosr ss
Switch 0
smcM
RR Abandoned -- -~ -- --
RR Dismantled ------
EXISTING STRUCTURES.•
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - ~ ~ "•
MINOR:
Head and End Wall cac ".
Pipe Cubert
Footbridge )-------~
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB Oce
Paved Ditch Gutter -----
Storm Sewer Manhole
Stone Sewer +

UTILITIES.•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole l
Proposed Power Pole b
Existing Joint Use Pole -~
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Une Tower
Power Transformer 0
1V1; Power Cable Hand Hole p
H-Frome Pole ~--~
Recorded USG Power Une
Designated U+G Power Line (S.U.E.") - - - -•- - - -
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole ~
Proposed Telephone Pole -0~
Telephone Manhole 0
Telephone Booth p
Telephone Pedestal ~
Telephone Cell Tower ~,
Li~G Telephone Cable Hand Hole
Recorded l1G Telephone Cable
Designated USG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.") - - - - -~- - - -
Recorded USG Telephone Conduit x
Designated U~G Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.'j- - - - -+°- - - -
Recorded llG Fiber Optia Cable + --
Water Manhole 0
Water Meter o
Water Valve
Water Hydrant ~
Rewrded l4G Water Une
Designated lLG Water Une (S.U.E."~-- - - - -•- - - -
Above Ground Water Une ~~~ ~a+"~
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Bady of Water
-~
0
-x-x-
e
-~----
W-
~-
0
0
s
0
x
0
*~
C'~
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir r-----~
Jurisdictional Stream ~ ~s_-J
Buffer Zane 1 -~ r
Buffer Zone 2 -~ 2-
Flow Arrow ~...-.._
Disappearing Streom ~_.-...-
Spring per-. ~.
Swamp Marsh ~
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch ~
False Sump __ ~~
;~..
RrGHT of wAY
Baseline Control Point
Existing Right of Way Marker Q
Existing Right of Way Une -
Pro
d Ri
ht
f W
U
- -
pase
g
o
ay
ne -~
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Conuete or Granite Marker
Existing Control of Aaess - ~:.~+_-
Proposed Control of Aaess - ~_
Existing Easemenrt Une - -E--
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - e
Proposed Temporary Droinoge Easement- -mE-
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement - -roE-
Proposed Permanent Utility Easement -roe -
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES.•
Existing Edge of Pavement --
Existing Curb --
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut - - - ~ - - -
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill - - - F - - -
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp Curb Cut -
Curb Cut for future Wheel Chair Ramp - cr
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail ~- '
Existing Cable Guiderail
Proposed Cable Guiderail "
Equality Symbol 0
Pavement Removal
l~EGETATION
Single Tree {~
Single Shrub a
Hedge ^^^~^^,-^^~-
Woods Line ~"`~'"""~-~^u^L
Orchard Q 4 p Q
Vineyard ri^•raru
Designated lLf Fiber Optia Cable (S.U.E.'t
N:
N Satellite Dish p
N Pedestal
N Tower
lLG N Cable Hand Hole
Recorded USG N Cable ~•
Designated U~G N Cable (S.U.E.') - - - -~- - - -
Recorded IJ~G Fiber Optic Cable -+•~"-
Designated UG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E."j-
GAS:
Gas Valve 0
Gas Meter
Recorded lLG Gas Une
Designated USG Gas Une (S.U.E."~ - - - -~- - - -
Above Ground Gas Une "" `°`
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout 0
lLG Sanitary Sewer Line „
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer ~,~ swraY s...r
Recorded SS Forced Main Une m-
Designated SS Forced Main Line (S.U.E.') - - - - -~_ _ _ _
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pale ~
Utility Pole with Base ~
Utility Located Object p
Utility Traffic Signal Box m
Utility Unknown lbG line -„~_
lbG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
AK'i Tank; Water, Gos, Oil
U~G Test Hole (S.U.E.") ~
Abandoned According to Utility Records - AA~R
End of Informs+ion E.0.1.

REV1uoNs
DESIGN EXCEPTION fOR hORlZONTAL ALIGNMENT AND SAG
VERTICAL WAVE REQUIRED
OO NOT IMPACT ENDANGERED PLANT
DETAIL I
LATERAL BASE Q?CH
f MN b Rohl
fY
_
r r.
D
~"
B fNbr
• NNw B b < 6a fa0rk NaD• 1 FL
E9.g Tar d a.'fr80 fA1D Yand• IFL
Eat.10 SY F/Abr iadk B• J Ff.
EAL B) C OrdroON OBM Exaadlon G 5 Fl.
-c- srA 2D+OD To -1- STA 20+5p Lr.
yO
~ GT~xE~4t KYZE~ifB
~.T°s r~o l~
BASE LYTpI~ n i~
t •I
I ~ ~," -
j ~z;
~ ~ ~ ~`~~ -4 , 2.09 PING
* "~' •L- A.1 + 0.00
+ / '~ ~ Jim ~ 13.45' LT.
1 F ~.~ a •g
~ ~ ~ ~ a s.... WEP
r ? t i 1 J ~C ELBOws E5T.5 ST fF I
r= ~ ' 1 , , ,wr ~ vER ~ ESI.f TN a'Brlw BAP I
~ 1,h ~ i i rw em zatx z ,, EST. S ST fF -~ Nfpq

~~~,,:;
~^"'MT CTA Ii17GM ~,
~~;-s,~ 4G ~-'.,_ ._ .. 5.34 ~8
'" TO SH
0
__- _.
.,. L.,+~-,.
. , " -~- - H
~.8~~3 v ~., p Ex.Iw
-BL- STA 5+38 ~~ TAPER
i6 RIGHT va /n. +
ELEV =809 45 '~ ,-u r~~:
~EUa raNS a~e ~

FNTER FA®9C
.pAll IaLSAPS YayBSal /
al !01 R MT / J
J
!
d
//
1
.
~.
;
,

PI SrB 12+5012 P/ Sro J6+,~79 PI S-o 21166.51
O~rLTJ
r
0
~ p ^ 12'3T'228rLTJ O. 6r"02'30SrRTJ
J
^
, 296 ~ ^
~
.
L ZOOfi ~ . ~~ J9
_ •
nD~
R ^ 1210170' R ^ 318318 q R ^ J
E ^ 0.06 E ^ 0.06 E • OD6
AUN OFf ^ SEE PLANS RUN OFF ^ SEE PLANS RUN OFf ^ SEE PLOWS
-L-
P151a 2J+602p
fRTJ
r
06'G21"
D •

1
R ^
87i6SO'
E ^ OQS
RUN OFF ^ SEE PLANS
>~k~'~5 ~
c / ~ ~ /
-.. aW
...-°'""
.-- °
J
~ :~. ~
~~
C
~
`` ~
s., tip; ~
,.
Y
~ t 1
z
i- 57A15+
E~ TAPER 00D0
;
fx.Wll' t1 ~ ,
;1 z
v.o Br. IBRT. S C,
~' w
N -~

?EYf
-BY- PING T+35.93 PING =
-L• STA. 14+76.25
15.55' RT.
O
ALLEM~~.IOIR Sale ditr
anorow
t ~. \
0 TOP ~ BEIW
fST1AA7UAE Pp rrfYl
REMOVE ExrSTaG
BBN,G'E (STRUCTURE
Pp REW
crN aPraoAa+ sLne
i- sran+5rm -L- srarB+9Dm
S'UNPAVED 9UNPAVEO
srRUR. mlpq,
N o ! K
a R ~ v
7UNPNED 4UNPNEO
Sr!(DR. 5~,.
sEC~x APPROACR sue N
-c- sran+lTm -c- sTa~+T6D0
SKETCH SHOWING ROADWAY
IN RELATION TO STRUCTURE
SPECIAL lLATEIW.
s~c~* •z ,,
DETAIL 2
SPECUL LATERAL BASE DITCH
fMbSplY
Npyd ~d
Cr^n a 0 sFNAn,
fw Fpprk e
YInLw rir.
EaL25 Tar d a~rfTlp R~ Yaca• IFr.
EY.TO ST F1aY Fdvk B• ! Ff.
-L- 57A 20+50 TO -L- STA 21+00 v.
~{
1 33.m LT .
•~H taROt~•,
~~y'`E55! "'~~
i4` ~(':
SEAL
24416
SN.CARO(j'~.
+~'4.ssl
SEAL
9334
~,~~' FN FQ`•f'
bz::CINf;,:'c.
~~
,~
~ ~•
Y.
~"
}
l~
rA
3`
"~
orno o~oas ,e+rr
a nB ro i0~
r.1 ~ ~l ~
x ~~~
~
'+50
AEYOVE '
y ~:
~. t ~ ~-, t
tq
fi' yE1i
~'~ ~
fx.Bn ~' ~ `, ~

B ^\
i ~ ~
~
itr
~
~ Y ~ ~
'~
•TTY~ .. r~5c ~ c ~
• ~,,
r
~ G
~~~
f~
" NAB ~
``\ ~~
,
~ Ex.R/r
0
.
i
~
BEGp TAPER 'r ~~
+
y' ~
`' ` ~ -
,
~ LT.ART. IBRI. I ~
.
~, -, c 9M`I
4i ;\BL- STg IT+28
+
R ~
~ ~ ~
~ `~
~ ~ ~~ ~
E.~EY 80$.76
a. :. '

t
® DEMOTES APPROACH SLAB
FOR -1.- PAOFttE SEE SHEET NQ5
SEE SHEETS S-r THRU S-
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
~ \.3 f ; ,
..\ ~\ ,... ~\ ~-S
~ ~ ~ "•~
O ~ ~`. ~
9 .~ ~
~f~
~ ~-<t
.wlESar~EYrrBt {' i~''-~/
OB i% PB tit ~ ~~ ~~.
/~
~~" ~ ~ ,
_ '~
,\o .,
~'~ ~ ~.
~ ~ f ~`
?~ \
J
~~,-' \
.~ ;` RAMEY KEMP
M$~NfAiEDEfIpIGRBPPd ASSOCIATES, INC.
~,,:

. ~ •
1RO1Kf AEF9IBICE NO. SHEEP ND.
e-2146 _
_..~., ` _ _ --.:. -. IIOADWAY DESIGN XYDAAUDCS
~,,
.~ ~` CAR i ~~~ZN CARpli~q
;' ~~ESSipti('w '.; •~ESSIpN9( .
.._ ; Q~
._
i 244A6 c , 9334E
::
BAL•2 ELEV - 78382 :, ~ `FhCINE~Q'? •••'F~CINF-~~`.
RR SPIKE IN 24 PINE ~'s: ~c~;; _.:~P~.~° '~ tiF~...... •'S.
~~~
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~

f

:° ~ ,
_ ,.
IREDELL COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.86 ON SR 1333 (EUFOLA ROAD) ~'~~9'~`%~ ~~ '~
OVER BUFFALO SHOALS CREEK ~~ Q`~~~ry
s,~
~y
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRZ-1333(5)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.2822801
TIP N0. B-2146
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
~-y<~:
~~~~~~
C~~
~:; ~ ~
~`~ ~~ri
072026
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
`~' l~ bC
DA E Gregory J. horpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
~ ~o~ ~
DATE John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

IREDELL COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.86 ON SR 1333 (EUFOLA ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO SHOALS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRZ-1333(5)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.2822801
TIP N0. B-2146
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
4928-A Windy Hill Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
.~``':~t1 CAR -"'~ti
,~`~ moo`; . ° F E S ' S i d~ ~ ~~
Q~'
= SEAL
_ •
• osoass
%y~F.oy ~.NGINE~.~~~~
•..C ...
F ~
Os,,~~~~n1 G 3lie~~s
Step n C. Greene, P.E. ~ Date
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Unce Rhea, ~ Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
IREDELL COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.86 ON SR 1333 (EUFOLA ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO SHOALS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRZ-1333(5)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.2822801
TIP N0. B-2146
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section
404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Categorical Exclusion
March, 2005
Page 1 of 1

r ,
IREDELL COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.86 ON SR 1333 (EUFOLA ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO SHOALS CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT N0. BRZ-1333(5)
STATE PROJECT N0. 8.2822801
T.I.P. N0. B-2146
INTRODUCTION
The replacement of Bridge No. 86 located on SR 1333 (Eufola Road) over Buffalo Shoals Creek is included in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BRZ-1333(5)). The location is shown in Figure 1.
No substantial impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 86 has a sufficiency rating of 27.2 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 86 is located on SR 1333 (Eufola Road) in rural Iredell County. Refer to Figure 1 for the project
location and Figures 2 and 3 for photos of the existing project study area.
Bridge No. 86 was constructed in 1955. The badge is currently posted to restrict weight limits to 11 tons for
single vehicles (SV) and 14 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
The overall length of the 2-span structure is 73 ft. It has a clear roadway width of 19.2 ft that includes two travel
lanes over the bridge. The superstructure consists of a timber deck on I-beams and double channels. The
substructure consists of reinforced concrete posts and beams. The height from crown to streambed is 22 ft.
SR 1333 is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2003 average daily
traffic volume (ADT) is estimated to be 650 vehicles per day (vpd). The percentages of truck traffic are 1 percent
TTST vehicles and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles. The projected 2025 ADT is 1000 vpd.
Thetwo-lane facility measures approximately 18 ft in width and has approximately 8 ft grassed shoulders on each
side of the roadway in the vicinity of the bridge. The horizontal alignment of SR 1333 is poor adjacent to the
bridge with reversing curves on each end of the bridge. The vertical alignment is generally good with slight rises
in grade on each end of the bridge. There is no posted speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Therefore, the statutory speed limit is 55 miles per hour (mph). Existing right-of--way is approximately 60 ft in
width.

There are no utilities in the vicinity of the bridge.
This section of SR 1333 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. There is no indication that an unusual number of
bicyclists use this roadway.
Land use within the project study area is a mixture of undeveloped land, rural residential properties, and forest
land.
According to Iredell County school officials; there are a total of eight bus crossings per day on this bridge.
Crash records maintained by the NCDOT indicate there have been three crashes reported in the vicinity of Bridge
No. 86 during a recent three year period. These included two crashes where vehicles hit a fixed object and one
where the vehicle ran off the road.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based upon the preliminary hydraulic report, the proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 86 will consist of
a 115-foot bridge. The structure will provide two 11 ft travel lanes with 3 ft of lateral clearance on each side of the
bridge.
The length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows, as determined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during the final design phase of
the project.
The roadway approaches will provide two 11 ft travel lanes with 6 ft grassed shoulders. The grade will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway. The design speed is 60 mph
B. Build Alternatives
Two (2) build alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 86 were considered and are described below:
Alternative A
Altemative A consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an off-site detour. The total length of permanent roadway approach work for this altemative is
approximately 900 ft. Refer to Figure 4 for illustration of this altemative.
The off-site detour will be approximately 6.5 miles long utilizing local roads. This detour has been coordinated
with the local EMS and the school district. The detour route is shown in Figure 1.
Alternative B
Altemative B consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an on-site detour north of SR 1333. The total length of permanent roadway approach work for this
altemative is approximately 900 ft. Refer to Figures 5 and 6 for illustration of this altemative.
2

The on-site detour will be located approximately 10 ft east of the proposed bridge. The temporary structure will
be approximately 95-foot in length and will have a clear roadway width of 26 ft including two 10 ft travel lanes and
3 ft of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge. The detour roadway approaches will provide two 10 ft travel
lanes and 4 ft wide shoulders on each side, The length of the temporary detour will be approximately 1620 ft.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
Two (2) alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 86 that were. considered and eliminated from consideration are
described below:
Alternative C
Alternative C consists of replacing the bridge with a new bridge on a new location to the north of the existing
bridge. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The total length of permanent
roadway approach work for this alternative would be approximately 2000 ft. This alternative was eliminated from
consideration due to its higher cost and greater amount of natural impacts.
The "Do-Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1333.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the
existing bridge is not feasible due to its deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative (Alternative A)
Alternative A was selected as the preferred because of the lower cost and the lower quantity of impacts
associated with this altemative.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the Preferred Altemative.
E. Anticipated Design Exception(s)
The speed limit is not posted on SR 1333; therefore, a statutory speed limit of 55 mph applies. Due to the
existing road conditions a design exception will be required for the horizontal alignment for Altemative A.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for each alternative, based on current dollars, are shown in Table 1:
3

Table 1
Estimated Project Costs
Alternative A Alternative B
Structure Removal Existin $14,600 $14,600
Structure Pro osed $276,000 $276,000
Detour Structure and A roaches $0 $106,400
Roadwa A roaches $355,260 $357,456
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $153,460 $172,168
En ineerin and Contin encies $119,900 $150,000
Right-of-Way/Easement and Utilities Not available yet Not available yet
Total Project Cost $919,220 $1,076,624
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program is
$625,000 including $75,000 spent in prior years, $50,000 for right-of-way and $500,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: 1) an assessment of existing
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts
resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Catawba, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle,
1970), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (FWS NWI 1994), and
recent aerial photography. Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names generally follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968), with adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature (Kartesz 1998). Jurisdictional
areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Wetland jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification
scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979) and A Field Guide To Norfh Carolina Wetlands (DEM 1996).
Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were
determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Webster et
al. 1985, Potter of al. 1980, Martof of al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995).
Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 1999, 2003).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Iredell County (January
30, 2003) was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting the
presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
4

Bridge No. 86 was visited on March 17, 2003. The project study area was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. For purposes of field surveys, the project study area has been delineated. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include 1) potential habitat for protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality
protection in Buffalo Shoals Creek.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area occurs within the Inner Piedmont Belt geologic formation within the Inner Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina, and is underlain by metamorphic fine-grained biotite gneiss. Elevations
in the project study area are approximately 780.0 to 840.0 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USGS
Catawba, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle, 1970).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), indicates
that Chewacla soils (Fluvaquentic Dysfrudepfs), Starr loam (Fluventic Dystrudepts), Conagree soils (Oxyaquic
Udifluvents), Cecil soils (Typic Kanhapludulfs), and Louisburg soils (Ruptic-Ultic Dysfrochrepts) occur within the
project study area (SCS 1964).
The Chewacla series consists of very deep, moderately permeable, somewhat poorly drained soils on floodplains.
Chewacla soils in Iredell County are non-hydric but may contain inclusions of the hydric Wehadkee (Fluvaquentic
Endoaquepts) soils at the base of slopes and in depressions (USDA 1996).
The Starr series consists of well drained, moderately permeable, gently sloping soils of upland slopes and
depressions. Starr soils are considered to be non-hydric in Iredell County.
The Congaree series consists of deep, nearly level, well drained soils with moderately rapid permeability found on
first bottoms. Congaree soils are considered to be non-hydric in Iredell County.
The Cecil series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the
Piedmont uplands. Cecil soils are considered to be non-hydric in Iredell County.
The Louisburg series consists of very shallow, well drained, moderately permeable soils on bedrock. Louisburg
soils are considered to be non-hydric in Iredell County.
C. Water Resources
C.1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-08-32 of the Catawba River Basin (DWQ 1999). This area
is part of USGS accounting unit 03050101 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The section of Buffalo
Shoals Creek within the project study area has been assigned Stream Index Number 11-78-(3) by the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (DWQ 2003). Buffalo Shoals Creek is not listed on the DWQ 303d list of
impaired streams in the Catawba River Basin (April 3, 2000 DWQ list).
Within the project study area, Buffalo Shoals Creek is a third-order perennial stream exhibiting moderate
sinuosity, rapid velocity, and awell-developed riffle-pool sequence. The width of the stream is approximately
30.0 ft at the point of the bridge crossing. During the field survey, water depth varied from 6.0 inches in riffles to
4.0 ft in pools, and clarity was fair. The substrate is composed of gravel, cobble, and boulders in riffles and sand
5

and gravel in pools. The stream banks are steep and range from 8.0 to 15.0 ft in height. The right bank is
steeper, with the floodplain existing on the left bank. Bank erosion is evident under the bridge due to a
constrictive design.
There is an unnamed tributary (UT) to Buffalo Shoats Creek within the project study area. This UT is a first-order
perennial stream exhibiting weak sinuosity, low velocity, and weak riffle-pool sequence. The width of the stream
is approximately 3.0 ft within the project study area. The water depth was approximately 3.0 inches and water
clarity was clear. The substrate is composed of sand covered with organic matter (leaf litter). The stream banks
range from 4 to 6 inches. This stream is groundwater fed and most likely has human origins.
A best usage classification of WS-IV CA has been assigned to Buffalo Shoals Creek and its tributaries in the
project study area. WS-IV waters are used as sources of potable water. These waters are also protected for
Class C uses which include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis.
WS-IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas, and involve no
categorical restrictions on discharges. The secondary classification of CA or watershed Critical Area designates
land adjacent to a water supply intake where the risk associated with pollution is greater than from remaining
portions of the watershed. The Critical Area includes land within 0.5 mile upstream and draining to a river intake
or within 0.5 mile and draining to the normal pool elevation of water supply reservoirs.
No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or
Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area (DWQ 1999, DWQ 2003).
Buffalo Shoals Creek and its tributaries does not appear on the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources 303d list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses.
The DWQ (previously known as the Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section) has initiated
a whole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Buffalo Shoals
Creek has a use support rating of Fully Supporting in the vicinity of the project study area and is not designated
as an impaired water body regulated under the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d). No
benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area (DWQ 1999).
The Catawba River subbasin 03-08-32 supports six major and 49 minor point source dischargers. Permitted flow
is 10.53 million gallons per day for the major dischargers and 4.73 million gallons per day for the minor
dischargers. Major non-point sources of pollution within the Catawba River Basin include runoff from construction
activities, agriculture, timber harvesting, hydrologic modification, failing septic systems, straight pipes, roads,
parking lots, and roof tops. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point
source discharges (DWQ 1999).
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has developed a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitat database to enhance planning and impact analysis in areas proposed by WRC as being critical due to the
presence of Endangered or Threatened aquatic species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
occurs within the project study area. The nearest Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat within the
Catawba River Basin occurs approximately 35.0 miles northwest of the project study area.
6

C.2. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area are likely to result from activities associated with project
construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream banks, removal of
riparian canopy, instream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of revegetation operations, and
installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the
aforementioned construction activities:
• Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing associated with
increased erosion potential in the project study area during and immediately following construction.
• Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
• Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface water and
groundwater during construction.
• Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed land
surfaces.
• A short-term increase in the potential. for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum products)
from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Changes in and possible destabilization of water temperature regimes due to removal of vegetation
within or overhanging the watercourse.
• Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project study area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) will be strictly enforced during the
construction phase of the project. Impacts will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable by limiting instream
activities and by revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
C.3. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all
contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines are presented
in three NCDOT documents entitled: Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal, Policy:
Bridge Demolition and Removal in Wafer of the United States, and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal.
The superstructure for Bridge No. 86 is composed of a timber deck on I-beams and double channels. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete posts and beams. There is potential for concrete to be dropped
into Buffalo Shoals Creek during demolition and removal. The maximum potential temporary fill associated with
the removal of the bridge is approximately 26.7 cubic yards.
Because no moratoriums apply and Buffalo Shoals Creek is a Class WS-IV CA water, this project falls under
Case 3 (no special restrictions) of the Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolitions and Removal.
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and animals
observed within the project study area. These descriptions refer to the flora and fauna in each community and
the relationship of these biotic components. Biotic resources assessed as part of this investigation include
7

discernable terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities within the
project study area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities and are classified
in accordance with the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation (Schafale
and Weakley, 1990) where applicable. Representative animal species likely to inhabit or utilize biotic
communities of the project study area (based on published range distributions) are also discussed. Species
observed during field investigation are listed.
D.1. Plant Communities
Five distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area. They are: (1) disturbed/maintained
land, (2) Dry-Mesic Oak Pine Forest, (3) Piedmont Heath Bluff, (4) Piedmont Levee Forest, and (5) pine
plantation. These plant communities are described below.
DisturbedlMaintained Land -Disturbed/maintained land is the dominant community with the project study area,
covering 5.3 acres, and occurs as maintained right-of-ways, crop land, and residential landscape. The
maintained roadside area is approximately 8.0 ft wide. No trees and very few shrubs contribute to the
composition of this community. Plant species on the roadside margins include wild strawberry (Duchesnea
indica), clover (Trifolium spp.), chickweed (Sfellaria media), nightshade (Solanum carolinense), bittercress
(Cardamine hirsuta), wild onion (Allium canadense), violets (Viola spp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), plantain
(Plantago virginica), Chinese privet (Ligusfrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and fescue
(Festuca spp.). The crop land (southeastern quadrant) had been recently tilled and contained no vegetation.
The residential landscape consists of fescue and bare ground with scatterings of trees, such as red maple (Acer
rubrum), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and oaks (Quercus spp.). Disturbed/Maintained land is relatively low in
plant and wildlife diversity. Wildlife species that utilize disturbed/maintained land include American robins (Turdus
migratorius), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and woodchucks (Marmofa monax). American robins
forage for soil invertebrates, white-tailed deer consume many of the herbaceous species, and woodchucks
consume crops and other herbaceous species. Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), eastern screech owls
(Otus asio), and foxes hunt in large areas of disturbed/maintained habitats for rodents and insects that also utilize
the habitat.
Dry-Mesic Oak Pine Forest -Dry-Mesic Oak Pine Forest occurs on upland sites near Buffalo Shoals Creek and
encompasses a total of 1.9 acres. This is a modified natural plant community based upon the Dry-Mesic Oak
Hickory Forest as described by Schafale and Weakly (1990). Canopy trees are approximately 20 years old and
may explain the lack of hickories. Hickories produce large and heavy seeds that do not disperse well without help
from small mammals (Webb 1986). The canopy is dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendron fulip~fera), white oak
(Quercus alba), and Virginia pine. Less dominant canopy trees present are sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
red maple, and black cherry (Prunus serofina). Understory trees/shrubs observed were flowering dogwood
(Comus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), Chinese privet, and many of the canopy species. Vines and
herbaceous vegetation include common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), muscadine grape (V-tis rotundifolia),
Japanese honeysuckle, and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Many wildlife species use this habitat
for food and cover. Eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), blue jays (Cyanocitta cristafa), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), and white-tailed deer consume acorns from the oaks. Virginia pine is an important forage
tree for wintering birds such as golden-crowned kinglets (Regulus satraps) and red-breasted nuthatches (Sitta
canadensis). Some bird species that breed and forage in Dry-Mesic Oak Pine forests include brown-headed
8

nuthatches (Sitta pusilla), blue-gray gnatcatchers (Polioptila caerulea), great crested flycatchers (Myiarchus
crinitus), and pine warblers (Dendroica pines).
Piedmont Levee Forest -Piedmont Levee Forest is most extensive on the left bank and floodplain (northwest
and northeast quadrants) and covers approximately 1.9 acres. Representatives of this plant community within
the project study area range from 20 to 40 years old. The canopy consists of riparian tree species including river
birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Plafanus occidentalis), tulip poplar, loblolly pine (Pines taeda), and red oak
(Quercus rubra). Subcanopy trees and shrubs include flowering dogwood, musclewood, American holly, black
cherry, and eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). A few exotic invasives have colonized this plant
assemblage including Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Vines
present include muscadine grape, greenbriar, and cross vine. Christmas fem, spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila
maculata), and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron) make up the sparse herbaceous species. There are a
few vernal pools in the northeast quadrant of the project study area in which upland chorus frogs (Pseudacris
friseriata) were breeding. These vernal pools are non-jurisdictional and occur at least 100 ft from the centerline of
SR 1333. Woodchuck burrows were observed in the right river bank (looking downstream) of the southeast
quadrant Piedmont Levee forest. Northern parulas (Parula americans), yellow-throated warblers (Dendroica
dominica), and Acadian flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) breed and forage in deciduous trees on banks or on
floodplains of streams and rivers. Belted kingfishers nest in burrows on high banks and feed on fish of streams
and rivers. Barred owls (Sfrix varia) have owlets by late winter and capitilize on the abundance of amphibians
breeding during this time of year.
Piedmont Heath Bluff -- Piedmont Heath Bluff occurs in the southwest quadrant of the project study area and
covers approximately 0.2 acre. Canopy species present include white oak, northern red oak, red maple, river
birch, and American beech (Pages grandifolia). The subcanopy consists of sourwood, muscle wood (Carpinus
caroliniana), and red maple. Mountian Laurel (Kalmia latifolia) and dog-hobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana) are the
dominant shrubs. Cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata), greenbriar, and muscadine grape are common vines.
The herb layer has potential to be diverse due to the diverse microclimates of the north facing slope. However,
the only herbaceous species observed was liverieaf (Hepatica americans), resurrection fem (Polypodium
polypodioides), and Christmas fem. Many of the faunal species found in the Piedmont Levee Forest will occupy
and utilize the same resources of the Piedmont Heath Bluff.
Pine Plantation - A loblolly pine plantation is located in the northwestern quadrant and covers an area of
approximately 0.2 acre within the project study area. The plantation is a monoculture approximately 5-10 years
old. Pine plantations have relatively low plant and wildlife diversity but may be used for cover by white-tailed deer
and foraging by pine warblers.
D.2. Wildlife
During the field survey there were observations or signs of white-tailed deer and woodchuck (Marmots monax).
Characteristic mammals expected to frequent wooded and brushy river corridors in the western Piedmont include
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern eastern gray squirrel, cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaficus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), southern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys volans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and mink (Musfela vision).
9

Bird species identified during the field survey are American robin, American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncos),
Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor, pine warbler, yellow-romped
warbler (Dendroica coronata), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), eastem phoebe (Sayomis phoebe), red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), eastem towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus),
golden-crowned kinglet, and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). The project study area's wooded and
agricultural land habitat is expected to support other species such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
American kestrel (Falco sparverius), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), eastem bluebird (Sialia sialis),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula). Breeding Neotropical
migrants that may inhabit the project study area during the breeding season (April through July) include blue-gray
gnatcatcher, great crested flycatcher, blue-headed vireo (Vireo solitarius), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous),
northern parula, Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), Acadian flycatcher, and hooded warbler (Wilsonia
citrina). These species capitalize on the abundant riparian insects and nesting substrates (canopy trees,
subcanopy trees, undercut banks, and shrubs).
Upland chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) were the only amphibian or reptile observed during the site visit.
Reptile and amphibian species expected in habitats within the project study area are American toad (Bufo
americans), northern cricket frog (Acris gryllus), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), slimy salamander (Plethodon
glufinosus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastem box turtle
(Terrapene Carolina), eastem hognose snake (Heferodon platyrhinos), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and eastem
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
D.3. Aquatic Communities
Upland chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) were the only amphibians observed during the field visit. Typical
amphibian species for these habitat types include southern two-lined salamander (Eurycea cirrigera), spring
peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), and green frog (Rana melanota). No
reptiles were observed during the field visit. Buffalo Shoals Creek provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-
aquatic reptiles including painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), queen snake
(Regina septemvitatta), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). The only benthic invertebrates observed were
Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea).
No sampling was undertaken in Buffalo Shoals Creek to determine fishery potential. No fish were noted during
the field visit. Species which may be present within Buffalo Shoals Creek include fieryblack shiner (Notropis
pyrrhomelas), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), silvery minnow (Hybognafhus regius), creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker (Catosfomus commersorn), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis audtus), and
margined madtom (Nofurus insignis).
D.4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
D.4.a. Terrestrial Communities Impacts
Potential impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the approximate area of each plant community
present within both the proposed right-of--way and the temporary construction limits of any on-site detour or
easement that falls outside the estimated permanent right-of-way limit. A summary of potential plant community
impacts is presented in Table 2. All plant community impacts are based on aerial photograph base mapping. A
10

portion of the permanent plant community impact amount will consist of proposed right-of-way for the road after
the bridge replacement is complete. Impervious surface and open water areas are not included in this analysis.
Table 2
Potential Impacts to Plant Communities
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PLANT acres
COMMUNITY ALT A ALT B
Preferred
Im acts Im acts Tem . Im acts*
Disturbed/Maintained Land 0 0 .03
Dry-Mesic Oak Pine Forest 0 0 .03
Piedmont Levee Forest 0 0 .01
Piedmont Heath Bluff 0 0 0
Pine Plantation 0 0 0
Total (acre) 0 0 .07
TOTAL FOR ALT acre 0 ,07
* Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts that fall outside the estimated
right-of-way limit or impacts of temporary on-site detours.
Permanent community impacts for Altemative A represent the least amount of the two altematives when the
potential temporary impacts are included. The highest amount of permanent plant community impacts result from
Altemative B, which calls for bridge replacement in place with a temporary bridge to the east of the existing bridge
utilized as a detour during construction. The plant community with the largest amount of potential permanent and
temporary impacts for all proposed altematives is the Dry-Mesic Oak Pine Forest.
D.4.b. Aquatic Communities Impacts
The replacement of Bridge No. 86 over Buffalo Shoals Creek will result in certain unavoidable impacts to the
aquatic community. Probable impacts will be associated with the physical disturbance of the benthic habitat and
water column disturbances resulting from changes in water quantity and quality. Significant disturbance of
stream segments can have an adverse effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity
and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following.
impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation that can lead to increased nutrient
loading. Nutrient loading can, in tum, lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of dissolved oxygen
levels.
• Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in tum, lead to clogging of feeding structures of
filter-feeding organisms and the gills offish.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
• Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
• Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.

• Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project study area will be
minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
fhe Protection of Surface Wafers (NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable guidelines pertaining to best management
practices. Means to minimize impacts will include (1) utilizing construction methods that will limit instream
activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the stream bed as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading.
E. Special Topics
E.1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of Buffalo Shoals Creek and the UT to Buffalo Shoals Creek are subject
to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR
328.3). Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by
the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12
inches of the soil surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). No wetlands have been
mapped within the project study area under the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program.
The surface waters within Buffalo Shoals Creek exhibit characteristics of a permanently flooded, upper perennial,
riverine habitat with an unconsolidated bottom (R3UB1H). The surface waters within the UT to Buffalo Shoals
Creek exhibit characteristics of a seasonally flooded, upper perennial, riverine habitat with an unconsolidated
bottom (R3UB3Y). Both are considered jurisdictional surface waters.
E.2. Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Temporary and permanent impacts to surface waters and wetlands are estimated based on the amount of each
jurisdictional area within the project limits. Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from
temporary construction activities outside of permanent right-of-way and/or those associated with temporary on-
site detours. 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 construction limits and/or the proposed right-of-
way of the new structure and approaches. Portions of those areas that are considered temporary impact areas
often end up being within the final right-of-way. Potential wetland and surface water impacts are included in
Table 3.
No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the project study area. The preferred atemative, Altemative A;
which replaces the bridge in-place with an off-site detour, incurs the least amount of jurisdictional impacts with
regard to wetlands and stream channel. Altemative A is not anticipated to impact any Jurisdictional Areas or
Perennial Streams. Altemative B may temporarily impact .02 acres of Jurisdictional Areas and 32 feet of a
Perennial Stream.
12

Table 3
Anticipated Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS ALT A ALT B
Im acts Im acts Tem . Im acts*
R3UB1 H
R3UB3Y 0
0 0
0 .02
0
Total Areas (acres) 0 0 .02
TOTAL FOR ALT (acres): 0 .02
Perennial Stream Channel Impacts (ft) 0 0 32
TOTAL FOR ALT ft 0 32
rc3u~~ n - permanency tloodeo, upper perennial, riverine with an unconsolidated bottom primarily of sand, cobble, and gravel
R3UB3Y -seasonal, upper perennial, riverine with an unconsolidated bottom primarily of mud
Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts not included in the permanent
right-of-way.
E.2. Permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344),
a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredge or fill material in "Waters
of the United States". The USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A general permit may be
issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category, or categories, of activities when: those activities are
substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal individual or cumulative environmental impacts, or when the
general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication of regulatory control exercised by another
Federal, state, or local agency provided that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and
cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular activity, then an individual permit must
be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of a specific project involving the
proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general permit. Nationwide
Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. This permit authorizes any activities, work, and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by another
federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the
environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular
permit. However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, will
also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which
a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ, one condition of the permit is that the appropriate sediment
and erosion control practices must be utilized to prevent exceedences of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard.
13

E.3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands° and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance -Mitigation by avoidance examines appropriate and practicable measures for averting impact to
waters of the United States. A 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the USACE states that in determining appropriate and practicable measures to offset unavoidable
impacts; such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
The project purpose necessitates traversing Buffalo Shoals Creek; therefore, totally avoiding surface water
impacts is impossible.
Minimization -Minimization of adverse impact to waters of the United States includes examination of
appropriate and practicable measures to reduce such impacts. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Adverse impacts are typically minimized by decreasing the
proposed project footprint through reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, andlor fill slopes.
Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to waters of the United States include strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMPs for protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of
clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity;
reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide management;
minimization of instream activity; and litterldebris control.
No measures are proposed for this project because there are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project study
area.
Compensatory Mitigation -Compensatory mitigation, including restoration, creation and enhancement of
waters of the United States, is typically not considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the United States
have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Further, it is recognized that "no net loss
of wetlands" may not be achievable in every permit action. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization measures have
been required.
Compensatory mitigation is not expected to be required for this project. A final determination regarding mitigation
requirements rest with the USACE.
14

F. Protected Species
F.1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). One federal protected species is listed for Iredell
County (USFWS list dated January 30, 2003) and is shown in Table 4:
Table 4
Federally Protected Species Listed for Iredell County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biolo ical Conclusion
Bo Turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii T SIA NIA
i nreatened (spa) - a species carrying the threatened status due to having a similar appearance to another listed species.
Bog Turtle -The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches (8 to 10
centimeters) in carapace length. This otherwise dark-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of
bright orange or yellow blotches on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et al. 1980). The 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). In North Carolina, bog turtles have 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 FWS officially
proposed to list bog turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range in the January 29, 1997 Federal
Register (62 FR 4229). Within the southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is
listed as T (SIA) because of similarity in appearance to individuals of the northern population.
NHP records document the nearest occurrence of the bog turtle in Alexander County as approximately 18 miles
north of the project study area. The project study area has no habitat for bog turtles. T (SIA) species are not
subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not required.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO SURVEY REQUIRED
F.2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of the provisions included in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened
or Endangered. In addition to the federal program, organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concem (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) on its list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 5 lists the Federal Species of Concem for Iredell County, the
state status of these species, and the potential for suitable habitat in the project study area. The NCNHP
database shows no occurrences of FSC within 4.0 miles of the project study area as of July 2001.
15

Table 5
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Iredell County
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status
Alle hen Woodrat eotoma ma ister Yes SC
Heller's Trefoil ofus helleri Yes E-SC
Tall Larks ur el hinium exaltatum Yes SR-T
Endangered (E) -any native oronce-native species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened (T) -any native oronce-native species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Special Concern (SC) -any species which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold under specific regulations.
Significantly Rare(SR) -species which are very rare, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, and generally reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction.
F.3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any threatened or endangered species.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings. This project has been coordinated with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA
procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated March 10, 2003, stated "We have determined that the project as proposed
will not affect any historic structures." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated November 24, 2003, stated "The letter states that one archaeological site,
31 ID329** was discovered in the proposed project area. We concur site 31 ID329** is not eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate bridge will result in
safer traffic operations.
16

The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
Replacement of Bridge No. 86 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment
with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is
expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No
relocatees are expected with implementation of the preferred alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations) the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-
income populations.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle route; therefore,
no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impact to prime farmland for all land acquisition and construction projects. Altemative A
and Altemative B will not impact Prime and Unique Farmland. Altemative A is the preferred altemative and
therefore impacts to prime or locally important farmland are minimized.
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national, state
or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land protected under Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
No adverse effects to air quality are anticipated from this project. This project is an air quality °neutrat" project, so
it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable. If vegetation or wood debris
is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. This evaluation completes. the
assessment requirements for air quality, and no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will be only
temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic volumes after this
project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise levels. Noise receptors in
17

the project study area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are required.
The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit determined that no underground storage tanks or areas of other contamination
were present at or near the project study area.
Iredell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The replacement structure is
proposed as an in-kind replacement and in the absence of historical problems, increased flood impacts
associated with this bridge replacement are not anticipated. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project
study area is shown in Figure 7.
Geotechnical borings for the bridge foundation will be necessary.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impacts will result from
the replacement of Bridge No. 86.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public involvement program was initiated.
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in the project
development with a scoping letter.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
No comments other than standard.
18

' r
FIGURES

~ ~ f
Legend
Proposed Off-Site Detour
.,
~..a...
,_~
" NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
~,
SR 1333
Replace Bridge No.136
over Buffalo Sholes Cn3ek
Iredell County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-2146
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 1
i

,~ r
E._ : ~Ici~® iVc:: across r3~'[ctge ~iio. ~~ I
uth across: Bri+d`g~ ~~~. 86 I
'~ IVf.}RTH CAi~~3~..INA
'~` ~}EPAR ENT C~ T fVSF~CtRTAI~J
:.~

,~ r~
~.. ~-
F ~` NdRTM C~ARdtJNA
_'.. DEPARTMENT dF TRANSPORTAl10N
- - - offer Bridge No. 8& ~
~.ocs~ing Ui-es~ from Bridge iVo. 86

RATE MAP
IREDELL COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(u~vINCO~oRn~n ~s~
PAIEL 150 OF 230
fSEE MAP NOEX FON PANELS NOT PIIRfTEDI
COMNIRNITr~PANEI NICER
37U313 0150 C
MAP REVISED:
JUNE 22,1998
~ __
,.A.M
•~.~ NORTH CAROIJNA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR 1333
Replace Bridge No. 86 over
Buffalo Sholes Creek
Iredell County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-2146
FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 7

APPENDIX

. ~.
.
.
. _, ,

~. .
North Carolina Department. of Cultural
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. ~S. Brook;. Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans; Secretary
Je~iey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
March 10, 2003
MEMORANDUM
:.~ ~ ~ ~'"
~~~>£~ ~
rr ~ ~'~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~;~~
.~
,ry C'> '~{YS ,,
Division of His r~ca e~
David J. Olean, Director
TO: Greg Thorpe,lVlanager
Pmject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ' ~ 1:~~~'~~,_
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 86 on SR 1330 over Buffalo. Shoals Creek, -:~~~i5
Iredell County, ER 03-0249
Thank qou for your memorandum of January 20, 2003, concerning the above project
Numerous archeological sites are located in similar settings. We recommend that a comprehensive
survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of
archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project Potential effects
on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site
forms, should bey forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in
advance of any construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
North. Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists listed, or any
other experienced archaeologist, maybe contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
It is our opinion that any off-site detour would have less impact on archeological sites than an on
site detour.
We have determined that the project as proposed will'not affect any historic structures.
www.hno.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Faz
ADMINISTRATION 807 N. Blount St, Ralcigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] •715801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801

• ~ ~ March 1 ~, 2003
^ ~ _ s ~
r ` „' Page 2
~ ,
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section-106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact.Renee Gledhill-Eatley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.

.. - - ~. .
" ,..-
..~ -
. ~
`C~a ~~~'4C:
motif
"o/®~ 1 I ~ _ ~i r1~/ 7 j 1e
~ w:m ~ G/G ~ ~ r
Tee of A*c~' a
v fl ~G Vii. ~ C:~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour~`~= ~~~`o. `'~'
~~<cy.,.~~.
State Historic Preservation Office rf: ff~ .. , ~~
David L. S. Brook, Admuristrator ~~.. ~ - ' . ~ ~`"
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division ofliigtorical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary .
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
November 24, 2003 .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOTDivision of High'avays "
FROM: ., David Brook (, ~~X~,i11~aC.~~~ ~J~-'
t~~~ -
U
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No: 86 on SR 1330 for Buffalo Shoals Creek, Federal
Aid Project No. BRZ-1333 (5), State Project No. 8.2822801., TIP Number
B-2146, Iredell County, ER 03-0249
Thank you for transmitting the revised archaeological survey report, in. a letter of October 13,
2003.
The letter states that one archaeological site, 31ID329** was discovered in the proposed
project area. The initial report Figure 5 illustrates a large "surface collection area" within. the
southeastern quad of the proposed project area that was changed to "surface survey area".
The boundary is still the same type of boundary that the key illustrates as the site boundary. In
the future, confusion could be avoided by adding a different line type to the key and using. it
to illustrate other areas, such as wetlands, survey limits.
We concur site 31ID329** is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you, have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Eazley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
www.hno.dcrstafe.nc.us
' Location Mailing i~ddmr Tdephane/F'rx
\DMINlSTRATION '~7 N. 131ount tit., Ralcigh NC - 4617 Mail Scrvicc Center, Raleigh NC' 27699-1617 _ (919- 733-1763 • 733-%653
RESfORA'rlON 515 N. L)lount tit., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail 5crvicc Center, Italcigh NC 27h99-1h17 (919) 733-h5d7 • 715-4%01

r
vl /
* ~
u /
c ~'
J / "

i
BEG
~"" -L-
/",
~ ~_ -
~~~
'~~
~-----
i
/",
(ALTERNATIVE A) - ,
,~'
' (IN-PLACE WITH OFF-SITE DETOUR) __ ~""~
'" FIGURE 4 - -~
~'
/" ,'
.".
/~ ~"
~' ,
/'
i I
~"" ~
~~ ~
~ M I
I ~
m ~ ~
~ I ~
0 j V
+ ~
M j o
w
'~^ I~ P! S1o 39+4020
I I ~ ~= 1f36'204fRT1
iI j m D = !3'0/56.3'
~' T = 3!711$
_ \ R = 439b4'
-L ~\ DS = 35 mph
PI S!a 33+40D4
D = 3' 04' 325• END BRIDGE
L ` 33720' \ -L- STA 35+45.00
T = 169A6'
CTION R = 1,86286' ~\
IDp DS = 70 mph --- -~_ END
- --~-~~__ I ~ .r
SR 1333 EUfOLA ROa)
-L- SlA 34+30D0

NI
GR,W[ ~
PgYI
TYPICAL ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
I
7P-p
n ~I
\ -..442. Y~ o•m
TYMCAL BRIDGE CR055 SECTION
Noyes:
/mar ~ ~
,\ \ \
\ ~ ~
\~
~.T
mO
N
~ ~,ZO
\~ n
\ r
\ ~
f
i1
i'
iI
I`
I`
,1
,'
,`
i1
I.ASSUYED 60'R1GM-CF-WAY. ~~
20ES1GNED THRU TOPOGRAPHIC YAPS ~
AS SURVEYS & PLANIYETRICS WERE ~~~
UNAVaL4BiE.
DE516N DATA
•CESIGN SPEfO 60 mpA
POSTED SPEED SS apA
CURRENT YEA+t ADT fPDOPJ i00 vpl
DESIGN YEAR ADT !89251 iECU vpJ
TTST ,X CUALS f/..2X
FUNCTNINAL CfASSN'~CATIdY f~(p6d
TERRAIN Naxtpfrc9m
MAX RADNS f205 (f
NAXIWN GRADE aX YaWdrous
SUPERECEVATpN RATE Se = OD9
• DESIGN EXCEPTIQM REOUNtED
A01[f.7IOU@ICE NQ A@f N0.
9'2!46 4
IIOADWAY COIGN 99TGi111AICS
~~

PRELIMIN RY PLANS
00 Yef UR >a f91m[7{YCf10N
INCOMPLE E PLANS
Ro ~,' us 9x99 r. ,keYSmola
SCALE
50 0 50 100
I
Raaky temp i A6aedoteA7ac
irmiaar9o96n rwlMO t~a9rv6
~6 nler Mtrlw AUMIpry AbrM [o-Nm 7160.9
1l117f-56 ter tymI7FSK

'.
i
//
~'~ (ALTERNATIVE B)
;•~ -~~
,•
(IN-PLACE WITH ON-SITE DETOUR) '~~
---
FIGURE 5 --~-~
/
/ /
/
/
'
/
. ~
O ~'
/
~ ~1
9
Q ~

O ~~' , 1
o
~ /
, x
P o
~ /
~
~ mi

~ N i
w
/
'~ ~
~ ~
a
~

~' w
m
v
/,,
/ BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
~
-DET- STA IO+OO.CYI

_ _ _ _ _ - - ~- - _ _ _ =f r SR 1333 EUFOLA RD_ _ ` __.. _ . - --
~ ` ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ F - ~ ~,-f..r-

/,,
i'
/,,
~ //'
I
~ -DET-
i P1 Sla 21+96.43
~ = 6545' 55.8' (RT1
~\ D = 1~2T 152'
c =60908'
\~~ R = X22'
\~ DS = 45 mph
~~.,,~° END BRIDGE
~'\o -DET- STAfl+84.00
,,~N ~--- --_._
i I ~ ~ \ I~
~ ~' ( p ~ ~ ~\ p QI
. '' p' ~\
~_
---------F--------------'- F

I -~-
PI Slo 15+285!
10•-a e o 0= l3'18ry'IOa'fLTI
W/ GUARGRN~ D - ~DJ ~~
i ~ = 221ar
T =ash'
j R = 95493'
OS = 50 mprr
GRIP[ ~
vaxi
TYPICAL DETOUR ROADWAY CR055 SECnON
I
it-a _
f-o' is-a ~ is-G• r~a
w.G
R
-~ 40t_
TYPICAL DETOUR BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
NOTES:
.
_ _ , 2B 43' 3r of
~,\ l_ F ___ __ ---f ----,,_ __ ~ Jew
1' ~ ~~
' BRIDGE '\ ~
,\
- STAr6+89,00
1
\ l)
~ m
'1 ~
~~ c
` a
J
ti O
I
~+
~,
,`
~~
,,
!.ASSUMED 6O' R1GHT-OF-WAY. ~,
~~ DE70UR DESIGN DATA
2.DESIGNED THRU TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS DESIGN SPEED 50 mpn
AS SURVEYS & PLANIMETRlCS WERE ~ NlN.RAOIIIS 835 ft.
UNAVAILABLE, NAXNNIM GRADE 82
cvocec~NerYlu pert t. - not
r~oxr mmrce ra. aer Ho.
PRELIMIN
~~~ro RY PLANS
INCOMPLE E PLANS
0o Hor os Ron r• ~uousRnl
SCALE
50 0 50 100

R
(ALTERNATIVE 6)
(IN-PLACE WITH ON-SITE DETOUR)
FIGURE 6
-DEr-
P1 Stu 21+96,43
~= 6545'55BrRT1
D = If21'l52'
L = 609A8'
T = 34873'
R =50022'
DS = 40 mph
F
~_~ ~~ _ _ ------' i '---_
i -'y
END CDNST
_~~,•_ ~,

GRdO[ ~
VgNi
TYMCAL DETOUR ROADWAY CROSS SECTION
I
za -a
r~o~ is-rc ~ w-v ra
n !I ~~~r
1 ` ~ ;! a~
i ~
TYPICAL DETOUR BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
.' ~ - _--
// ~~,i
/~ v
~~
ti ~ ~
F ~ ~i
GyF / ~ ~
~ ~
p~ i
~ ~
~ ~
F
t~i~
NOTES:
N
0
i
ti
ti
a
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
0o amr w so aNnxucun
INCOMPLE E PLANS
m nm us vmt it scau~nw+
N
__ F -----
!,ASSUMED 6d RlGH7-OF-WAY.
2DESlGNED THRU TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
AS SURVEYS & PLANlYETRICS WERE
UNAVAILABLE.
F'4C0~ TR~Br/T
S%gj~S Cggy ~~
~ - - ----
_SR r333 EUFOLA RD.
SCALE
50 0 50 100
DETOUR DESIGN DATA
DESIGN SPEED 50 ~
NIN•RADlUS 8,9517.
NAXINUY CRAOE BY.
SUPfRfLEVATI(W RA~f Se • 0.05