20221453 Ver 1_Support Materials for Caldwell Bridge 29 PCN_20221024

Support Materials
for Caldwell
Bridge 29
PCN Summary Letter
PJD
Permit Drawings
Section 106 Material (including Tribes)
MCDC
NCWRC - No trout Moratorium
N RTR
Photos of Project Area
Page 2
Page 5
Page
32
Page
40
Page
57
Page
65
Page
67
Page
81

PCN Summary
Letter for Caldwell
Bridge 29

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
October 24, 2022
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Ms. Lori Beckwith
NCDOT Coordinator
J. ERIC BOYETTE
SECRETARY
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportation Permitting Branch
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
Mr. Dave Wanucha
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Section 404 Regional General Permit 50, and 401 Water Quality
Certification for proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 29 on US Highway 268 over the Yadkin
River, in Caldwell County, North Carolina, Division 11, WBS BPI I.R001— State Funded
Dear Lori and Dave,
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace structurally
deficient bridge number 29 on US HWY 268 in Caldwell County. The proposed bridge is 3@70'
cored slab bridge, and will replace the existing 161' long by 20' wide (timber deck on I -beams) 4-
span bridge. The existing bridge has three bents in the river while the proposed bridge has two.
Impacts to Waters of the US: There are four impact sites associated with this project.
Site 1 (Yadkin River) is the removal of the existing three instream bents and the construction of
the two new instream bents. This replacement will require instream causeways totaling 0.11 acres
/ 115' of temporary impacts.
Site 2 (UT to Yadkin River "SB") is for a rip rap pad to be placed on the west bank of SB to
prevent erosion from the proposed stormwater runoff outlet. The work will result in 10' of
temporary dewatering for the installation of an 8' Class B rip rap pad.
Site 3 (UT of Yadkin River "SB") is for 10' of bank stabilization on both banks of the UT at the
outlet of the proposed 30" RCP. The work will result in 5' of temporary impacts from dewatering
and 5' of new permanent impacts. Although the finished rip rap will be 10' in length, 5' of this
location is already hardened with a concrete wall that the landowner installed.
Site 4 (UT of Yadkin River "SB") is for 12' of temporary dewatering for the replacement of the
existing 24" CMP with the proposed 30" RCP. The length of this new system is the same length
as the existing system, but the new alignment will allow the pipe to outlet at less of an angle to
SB. Right now, the existing pipe system outlets at a 90% angle.
Total Impacts:
Permanent impacts to streams: 13'
Temporary impacts to streams: 142'
Mailing Address:
Telephone: ###-###-#### Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Fax: #040-90W ADDRESS 2
BUSINESS UNIT NAME Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 CITY, NC ZIP
ADDRESS 1
CITY, NC ZIP
Website: ncdot.gov

Protected Species/Section 7
As of 10-17-22, USFWS IPaC lists the following species (no critical habitats in the area):
Gray Bat, Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB), Virginia Big -eared Bat, Tricolored Bat (the
latter is proposed, but not currently listed): Note - a Bat Memo from NCDOT Biological Unit is
being prepared and will be provided soon. The existing structure was surveyed by NCDOT
during the summer of 2022 and no indication of bat usage was observed. A review of the NCNHP
records, updated July 2022, indicates the closest record for any of these species was a NLEB 8
miles to the north (Note - record from 2006, prior to white nose syndrome being observed in NC).
Additional information related to potential effects on bats include:
- project not situated near a "Red HUC" (closest known NLEB hibernacula is > 18 miles).
- No caves are in the area, and the closest mine (a surface mine) is approx. 3 miles to the west.
- the project will involve tree clearing (approx. 0.5 acres of trees > 3" DBH).
- no artificial lighting or night work will occur.
- percussion activities will include the temporary use of mechanized pile drivers and drilling to
build the bridge supports, but no blasting will occur.
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
Habitat for dwarf -flowered heartleaf is present within the mesic mixed hardwood forests within
the study area. A pedestrian survey was performed on May 27, 2021. No individuals were
observed. A review of NHP records, updated July 2022, indicates no known occurrences within
1.0 mile of the study area, with the closest documented occurrence 10 miles to the southwest. Due
to the lack of observed individuals and nearby known occurrences, a biological conclusion of No
Effect is rendered for this species.
Bog turtle
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance and is not afforded
protection under Section 7 of the ESA. Regardless, the wetland within the study area will not be
impacted, and is likely to small to provide habitat for bog turtles. A review of NHP records,
updated July 2022, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
The following documents are also included as part of this permit application package:
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN),
PJD and NRTR (note — protected species list in NRTR has changed
Permit drawings and Stormwater Management Plan,
Archaeology, Historic Architecture, and Tribal Coordination
NEPA Document
NCWRC Comments
NCDOT Bat Memo
Photos of the project area
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Kevin Hining (/
NCDOT Division 11 Environmental Supervisor

PJD for Caldwell
Bridge 29

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: Caldwell Bridge 29, 10-24-22
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
Sage Ecological Services, Inc.
Attn: Kevin Hining, NCDOT Division 11, 801 Statesville Road, North Wilkesboro, NC 28659
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Asheville Regulatory Field Office
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: (USE THE
TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: North Carolina County/parish/borough: Caldwell County City: Lenoir
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.: 36.0369°N, 81.4767°W
Universal Transverse Mercator: Zone 17S 3988146 457056
Name of nearest waterbody: Yadkin River
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):

TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION.
Site Number
Latitude (decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resources
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non -
wetland waters)
Geographic authority to
which the aquatic resource
"may be" subject (i.e.,
Section 404 or Section
10/404)
Yadkin River
36.0368
-81.4772
206 LF
Non -Wetland
Section 404
Stream SB
36.0373
-81.4764
470 LF
Non -Wetland
Section 404
Wetland WA
36.0367
-81.4772
0.01 ac.
Wetland
Section 404

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area,
and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved
JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the various types
of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWT) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non -reporting NAT or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not
requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD fmds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable
waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that
could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below
where indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: PJD Sketch Map — Figure 3
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Grandin, NC Quadrangle
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Web Soil Survey, 2021
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMU Orthoimagerv, 2018
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarilv been verified by the Corps
and should not be relied upon for later Jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of Regulatory staff
member completing PJD
,� Yr"4� 10/24/22
Signature and date of person
requesting PJD (REQUIRED, unless
obtaining the signature is
impracticable)1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary
prior to finalizing an action.

Waters _Name I - State
I Cowardin_Codel
HGM_Codel Meas_Type I Amount units I Waters _ Type I
Latitude I
Longitude I Local_Waterway
Yadkin River NORTH CAROLINA
R3
RIVERINE Linear 206 FOOT DELINEATE
36.03680000
-81.47720000 Yadkin River
SIB NORTH CAROLINA
R2
RIVERINE Linear 470 FOOT DELINEATE
36.03730000
-81.47640000 Yadkin River
WA NORTH CAROLINA
PFO
DEPRESS Area 0.01 ACRE DELINEATE
36.03670000
-81.47720000 Yadkin River

Potential Jurisdictional Features Characteristics
Table 1. Streams in the study area
Stream
Length
Bank
BankfullDepth
Name
Map ID
Classification
(ft.)
Height
width (ft)
(in)
ft
Yadkin
Too deep
Too deep
Yadkin River
River
Perennial
206
to
85
to
evaluate
evaluate
UT to Yadkin
SB
Perennial
470
2
4
3
River
Table 2. Characteristics of wetlands in the study area
NCWAM
NCWAM
Hydrologic
Area (ac.) in
Map ID
Forested
Classification
Rating
Classification
Study Area
WA
Flood lain Pool
Yes
High
Riparian
0.01

Legend
Project Study Area
c
s✓
0 0.25 0.5
■
r
1
i Miles
Soaker
Park
t}on ihc� e,o
_y�51 HWI
a`,6S "S%3ddreth�`
Winkf@ S1a1
1 Bridge #29 1
ESRI World Street Basemap
L -------------
%
i
0FNORTN0..1 VICINITY MAP Date: 05-06-2021
Q� Any NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT WBS # BP11.R001
OF TRANSPORTATION Caldwell Co.
e DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 29 on NC 268
99 DIVISION 11 (Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Hwy) Figure 1
e
a
�M'OF TRANSe over Yadkin River

Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Non -Wetland WOUS - Perennial Stream
Potential Wetland WOUS
o Upland Data Point
o Wetland Data Point
R
Potential Wetland WOUS
Wetland WA +/- 0.01 ac.
Potential Non -wetland WOUS
Stream SIB +/- 470 LF
0
r Potential Non -wetland WOUS
Stream SIB +/- 470 LF
Potential Non -Wetland WOUS
Yadkin River +/- 206 LF
J
f
1
0 100 200 400
Feet
USGS Topo Basemap
Grandin, NC Quadrant, 1:24K
OF NORT/Oq USGS Topographic Map Date: 06-18-2021
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT WBS # BP11.R001
OF TRANSPORTATION Caldwell Co.
e DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 29 on NC 268
99 �Q Figure 2
e
OF TRANSe DIVISION 11 (Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Hwy.)
0
over Yadkin River

��-.• ..{::_ - .,Ih 3. .. . fi r^, �: �4� i•"'.;ti�::- v 17,. ^,k .
tT�7 7-
LegendK
Project Study Area
rr
Potential Non -Wetland WOUS - Perennial Stream
Potential Wetland WOUS v'•�• f__..... s'' �. &; �.`
o�, r
Upland Data Point
o Wetland Data PointIT
U
.• �. '.y Yam' _ - _ _ - } ,�w.- -y.
Potential Wetland WO'
Wetland WA +/- 0.01
Potential Non -wetland WOUS
Stream SB +/- 470 LF
44
.;- �pN 68 2
- s
Hwy T »
TNI
_ _ Potential Non -wetland WOUS, •• ��--
�- __ _ Stream SB +/- 470 LF
Potential Non -Wetland WOUS
Yadkin River +/- 206 LF
i
ce:.. -..
i •f.� t
t
- •t f - 1 •r -
___•`yam �-w _ __
-
- i -
i
0 75 150 300
Feet r
`.F �� !` NC OneMap Orthoimagery, 2018
�OF r10RT/�Oq Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Map Date: 06-18-2021
F A�z NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT WBS # BP11.R001
OF TRANSPORTATION Caldwell Co.
e DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 29 on NC 268
99 �Q Figure 3
e
OF TRANSe DIVISION 11 (Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Hwy.)
0
over Yadkin River

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Caldwell Bridge #29 City/County: Caldwell Sampling Date: 05-27-2021
Applicant/Owner: NC Department of Transportation State: NC Sampling Point: DPA1
Investigator(s): K. Hamlin, P. Beach Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0.1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B Lat: 36.0367 Long:-81.4772 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: DoA—Dan River and Comus soils, 0 to 4 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Drier than Normal Conditions per Antecedent Precipitation Tool
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DPA1
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. Acer negundo 5
2. Ligustrum sinense 5
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover: 5
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Impatiens capensis
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 3
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
1. Toxicodendron radicans
2.
3.
4.
5.
_=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Yes FAC
Yes FACU
10 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 2
5 Yes FACW
5 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 1
5 Yes FAC
5 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 20 (A) 60 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is !2.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DPA1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 5/2 90 7.5YR 5/6 10 C PL Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
6-12 10YR 5/2 80 7.5YR 5/6 20 C PL Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators.
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix(S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions(F8)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Caldwell Bridge #29 City/County: Caldwell Sampling Date: 05-27-2021
Applicant/Owner: NC Department of Transportation State: NC Sampling Point: DPA2
Investigator(s): K. Hamlin, P. Beach Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0.1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR N, MLRA 130B Lat: 36.0366 Long:-81.4774 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: DoA—Dan River and Comus soils, 0 to 4 percent slopes, occasionally flooded NWI classification: PFO
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Drier than Normal Conditions per Antecedent Precipitation Tool
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DPA2
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. Acer negundo
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
10 Yes FAC
10 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. Acer negundo 15 Yes FAC
2. Ligustrum sinense 10 Yes FACU
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
25
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
13
20% of total cover:
5
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' )
1.
Impatiens capensis
30
Yes
FACW
2.
Boehmeria cylindrica
5
No
FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
35
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
18
20% of total cover:
7
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
1.
Toxicodendron radicans
5
Yes
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
5
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover:
1
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 75 (A) 200 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.67
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is !2.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DPA2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-12 10YR 3/3 75 7.5YR 5/6 5 C PL Loamy/Clayey 20% 10YR 5/2 mixed matrix
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators.
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix(S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions(F8)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Caldwell #29
Date of Evaluation
05-27-2021
Applicant/Owner Name
NC Department of Transportation
Wetland Site Name
WA
Wetland Type
Floodplain Pool
Assessor Name/Organization
K. Hamlin, P. Beach
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Yadkin River
River Basin
Yadkin-PeeDee
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040101
County
Caldwell
NCDWR Region
Asheville
I-1 Yes I-1 No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
36.0367.-81.4772
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
® Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
®B ®B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer— assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
®B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ®> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
®A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
®F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
®A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
T
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
CU ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
®B
®B
Moderate density shrub layer
U) ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22
Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WA
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool
Date of Assessment 05-27-2021
Assessor Name/Organization K. Hamlin, P. Beach
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition HIGH
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Caldwell Bridge #29
3. Applicant/owner name: NC Department of Transportation
5. County: Caldwell
7. River basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
Date of evaluation: 05-27-2021
Assessor name/organization: K. Hamlin, P. Beach
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Yadkin River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.0371,-81.4765
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream SIB 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 320
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ®Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B
Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
®C ®C
Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
®G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
®A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
M
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o w
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y r
❑I
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
0 :5
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ®Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12
Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ®Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ®Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/a mph ipod/crayfish/sh ri mp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sala manders/tad poles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
®E ®E ®E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ®A ❑A ❑A Row crops
®B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Caldwell Bridge #29 Date of Assessment 05-27-2021
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization K. Hamlin, P. Beach
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Stream SB
Date: 05-27-2021
Project/Site: Caldwell #29
Latitude: 36.0381
Evaluator:
K. Hamlin, P. Beach
County:
Caldwell
Longitude:-81.4760
Total Points:
Steam is at least intermittent if
��
Stream Determination: Perennial
Other:
e.g. Quad Name: Grandlll,
>19 or perennial if>30
NC
C
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =15 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple- pool
sequence
0
1
2
3
z
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
z
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
z
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
z
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =10.5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
2
14. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology (Subtotal =6_5) 1 Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
1.5
perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Bank Height (feet) z
Bankfull Width (feet) 4
Water Depth (inches) 3
Sketch:

Permit Drawings
for Caldwell
Bridge 29

Hj hwa
�Stormwater
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program x
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN'°"""`
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021)
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: BP11.R001
TIP/Prof No: SF-130029 County(ies): Caldwell Page 1 of 2
General Project Information
WBS Element:
BP11.R001 I TIP Number: SF-130029 I Project Type: I Bridge Replacement I Date: 4/6/2022
NCDOT Contact:
Trent Beaver, PE (Division Construction Engineer)
Contractor / Designer:
TGS Engineers (David B. Petty, PE)
Address:
Highway Division 11
Address:
706 Hillsborough Street
801 Statesville Rd
Suite 200
North Wilkesboro, 28659
Raleigh NC, 27603
Phone:
336-903-9117
Phone:
919-773-8887 ext. 104
Email:
tbeaver(o)ncdot.00y
Email:
[e-mail]
City/Town:
Lenoir
County(ies):
Caldwell
River Basin(s):
Yadkin -Pee Dee
CAMA County?
No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
Yes
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
0.256 miles Surrounding Land Use: 1wooded, farmland, low density residential
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
1.2 lac.
0.7 lac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Two 12' paved travel lanes with 4' paved shoulders (4' to 8'-10" paved shoulder to
Two -8.4' paved travel lanes with 3' grassed shoulders.
guardrail).
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Design/Future] 842 1 Year: 2045
I Existing: 650 1 Year:1 2019
General Project Narrative:
NCDOT SF-130029 involves the replacement of Bridge #130029 on NC 268 (Charles A Suddreth Memorial Hwy) overthe Yadkin River in Caldwell County, NC north of Lenoir.
(Description of Minimization of Water
Proposed 3@70' cored slab bridge (OAL=210', 39' wide), to replace existing 161' long by 20' wide (timber deck on 1-beams) 4-span bridge. The existing bridge has three bents in
Quality Impacts)
the river while the proposed bridge only has two. The proposed grade will be about 1.5-2' above existing ground within the vicinity of the bridge and roughly matching existing
ground within about 200 ft outside of the bridge.
The existing bridge has continuous deck drains discharging directly to the Yadkin River, however, the proposed bridge will have no direct discharge into the river. Stormwater runoff
from the bridge is to flow to a traffic bearing grated inlet located just outside of the northern bridge approach slab on the east side of the roadway, where it will be diffused with a
riprap pad at the proposed pipe outlet in the northeast quadrant. All proposed stormwater runoff is discharged as far away from the stream and at the lowest velocities as
practicable.
Proposed bridge to be constructed and existing bridge to be removed using temporary work pads.

li�;hwtn North Carolina Department of Transportation
bltSCilri�'c3IPY �fNU'X t
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: BPI I.R001 TIP/Pro' No.: SF-130029 Count (ies): Caldwell Page 2 of 2
General Project Information
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1): Yadkin River
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
12-(1)
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Class C
Supplemental Classification:
Trout Waters Jr)
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
No I Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Yadkin River, SB
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
iYes
I Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
INo
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide'ustification in the General Project Narrative) I
Surface Water Body (2): 1
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body (3): 1
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide'ustification in the General Project Narrative) I

See Sheet tFor Index of Sheets
STATE OF NORTH C AROL I N
AL
See Sheet t B For C Conventional Plan Sheet Symbols
N, 13P11,R001
�
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
srwre naa. rvo. P mxnlrtrory
�I-oLmv
.w.nxa.rvA
BP11.R001.1 WA PE
O
�ti 11,S5 268
BP11.R001.2 WA ROW,UTIL.
BP11.R001.3 WA CONST.
au
Ll�u
(32AILDWELL COUNTY
I.U2
268
�lJ
LOCATION. BRIDGE #130029 ON NC 268 OVER YADKIN RIVER
U
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURE
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 5
PROJECT
268 5Fq LOCATION
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
low
V
W
OVICINITY
MAP
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN BRIDGE o �� �� -DR- STA. 11 + 00.00
-L- STA. 17 + 95.56 2 �� BEGIN CONSTRUCTION SITE 4
-Y- STA. 11 + 5 0. 00
WA
s�SB
-- —
TO FERGUsoNC
_
TO US 321
— — — -- — _
— — — — — —� — —
i—
\ NC 268
SITE 1 SB SB
SITE 3
—L— STA. 26 + 5 0. 00
SITE 2
END PROJECT
—L— STA. 13 + 00.00
END CONSTRUCTION END BRIDGE
BEGIN PROJECT
-Y1- STA. 10 + 80.00 -L- STA. 20 + 08.44
BP11. R001
B Pl 1. R001
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
r• •
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO
THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II
r ,
GRAPHIC SCALES
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTH
NCDOT CONTACT: GREG JOHNSTON/TRENT
BEAVER
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
PLANS PREPARED BY:
PLANS PREPARED FOR:
v
50 25 0 50 100
ADT 2019 = 650
ADT 2045 = 842
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT BP11.R001 = 0.216 MILES
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT BP11.R001 = 0.040 MILES
p Ron
TGS ENGINEERS
20 I W. MARION ST STE 200
SHELBY. NC 28150
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORATION
DIVISION I I
K = _ O/O
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT BP11.R001 = 0.256 MILES
PH (TOQ) 476-0003
CORP. LICENSE NO., C-0275
801 S+p+ggyfllg Rp
Nor N Wflkegbpr NC 28659
y®
Ib �$
PLANS
O.
50 25 0 50 100
D = _ %
T 7 %
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
r-i yi
a
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
y
V = 50 MPH
MARCH 1, 2022
JIMMY L. TERRY PE
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
�A
PROJECT FVGINF.FR
PROFILE HORIZONTAL
(HORIZONTAL)
k O O
TTST =3/o DUAL 4/o
�
T 0
O
10 5 0 10 20
I
FUNC CLASS =
LETTING DATE:
AUSTIN R. TURNER, PE
TRk��v
V"A
MAJOR COLLECTOR
MARCH 2O23
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
REGIONAL TIER
PE
SIGNATURE:
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
2078 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS

A7+81.86 JLA6 C U AI'120+2 . ]LAIS IFOR STRUCTURE PLANS, SEE SHEET S-1 THRU S—XX
A 17+81.86 -L- STA 20+22.14
PROP.
)-) VARIES 4'-0"TO 6'-11` FOPS
FDPS
FOR —L— PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
3 ; �� FOR —Y—, —Yl—, AND —DR— PROFILES SEE SHEET 6
PROP. J PROP. _/
FDPS SBG
BRIDGE/ROADWAY RELATIONSHIP SKETCH
EIP
L)I IIV fICVJCI.I —L— rU
BPl l . R001
—L— STA. 13 + 00.00
BEGIN FDPS
—L— STA. 14+2 .84
PROP. 8• BK
LASS 8
Z
ASPHALT
RIP RAP DRIVE
ISBKO
2 TON, /
7 Sr GEO
GRA S
SPECIAL �1T C
GR SS �0
SEE DETAIL 4B
E
.MOVE E
E _
—DR— STA. 11 +
BEGIN BRIDGE
O—L— STA. 17 + 9
DO NOT DISTURB WETLAND -
THOMAS L,STEELE
LINDA P, STEELE -I- PPr 1947R L
- M �-
GRA
TML Rix
R
—
F
G _
24'
h SPECIAL CUT DITCH FC
TYP
0' TAPER
O SEE DETAIL 4A GRASS
I EXIST.
DO NOT
e} DISTURB POLE SPECIAL CUT DITCH
SEE DETAIL 4A
-L- POT 16+77JO =
-Yl- POT 10+00.00
yP
END CONSTRUCTION
C7
—Yl— STA. 10 + 80.00
O
BILLY C. STEELE
GWEN STEELE
s s SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 2 OF 5
CALDWELL COUNTY
BRIDGE #130029
IIIIII!a 16N
�P
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
801/.R001 4
WW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
\ / DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
TEMPORARY Q� - 'j�'U��N LESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
STREAM IMPACT " ■��� TGS ENGINEERS
207 W. MARION ST
OI SH ELBY, NC 28150
PH [phone]
CORP. LICENSE NO.: C-0275
N SITE ONSET \ N
ZG
or
GARY q e GARY T, TEAGUE
L H TEAGUE�\
CHERYa, oF�a WOODS CHERYL H, TEAGUE \ O
9a 20 PROP. ASPHALT DRIVE
\ 'ti9y BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
f / JEFFERY D. TURNMIRE
—Y— STA. 11 + 50.00 KELLY W. TURNMIRE
PROP. ASPHALT DRIVE
—L— PT 20+05J \ \ \ -Y- PRC 11+80B0 SEECIAL CUT DETAIL 4C ITCH \
TIO FROM 2:1 TO 1.5:1 \ PROP. ASPHALT DRIVE O
AIIN N 1.5:1 AROUND
iISl5 RA IUS _--�
o� 2
SITE 1 40o�s i Fn 9F\ �oq o E�C C \\ ( WOODS SITE 4 — MAERTHAN W.DULA
\ W — F F / L PC 25+82.8/
DE PDE P; �T F WOODS \ E \\ GR.,
C
a III TLC 25R B
— ?OR, 1o'R ,nR 4' FDPS
M
/E
FARr WOO
p
y i H OP. E
IBE
NATION
S, 0 TEL
1128' (TYP.)
EXIST. BRIDGE T
MOVED —
BGNTEELEE
/
CLASS I RI
UP TO SH
UR
—Yl�—} P 1/+25.20
TYP)
(TYP
- -
--- tC 268 1
CR\r
T
PEA
F
EL301611' FF e—
24' CMP RET.AN
s SECONDARY
e
EONC HW 15" 4,
\ \
RIV
— 511 —t JS
e W
ttt
s ie 1� T,ROWTII
a
kRl"i71VE +SBI�re
'HOP TYP
\
ctttt
C3 A
tRM
FARM
�3 0 0 Opp FILL 01
Po 21+27 =
REM 7 ti f
' FD 1�O�OfTAPER�'
T �\
I
t
ABG t 0
_ p
DO NQT DISTURB+.FIEA GALL
C3 ES( 2Bk
G�
C3 C3
T.
P
{3 U
0 f
\
WOODSC03D
CLASS B
I-
O+
0
'.
V CJ Q:' {3
'PROP.
R?OVE 4 LF
F`2q4,,,,,,,a
0
�IT .�Qi,j
a
{ Q
Puf,
RIP RAP
10
0 f3 0 0
PROP. ASPHALT DRIVE
G3 0 0 �"3'. 0
,s
0 0 �
f3 f3 C3
0
C3 f3
f3 0 0 0
ON
5 SY GEO
I '.
00
0 TREE 0
{ 0 0 0 CV3', 0
3 C3 /
0 0 0
R N
CONC. HW
0 C3
0
3
JAY RUPPARD
I0
C3 FARM
a 0
.r��
4+
{3 0 0 0 0
BA TTION .
B
a
LELA RUPPARD
I
0
( 0
0 0 0 0 0
/�
0 0 0�
sWkIPR44�TION 0
FAA
C3
a C3 3
C3 �3 3 &3 63 3 �3 3 C3 0
e TONS, Ng GF83 �3 a
CJ
f3 �3 3
Of7
r7 BM-2
0
3_3
10
0 0 0
C30 0 0 0
0 °°
f3 �3 W
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0° 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 C3 0
0 0 0
0°
0 0 0
0 0 C3 C3
0
0 0 0 C3 0 C3
G? Ga e} 0 0° � 0� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/ 0 0 � n 0 0 C 0 0
�
° Zs TEMPORARY II 0 0 0 C 0 C3 C3 C3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / END PROJECT
WORK PADS I 0 0 0 0 BPll.R001
END BRIDGE �—� —L— STA. 20 + 08.44 L— STA. 26+50.00
® TEMPORARY SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
100, 0' 100,
T115"%pMMMMI
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACT
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACT
/ PERMANENT
STREAM IMPACT
F
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACT
PERMANENT
SITE 2 IN 111=40' SITE 3 INSET STREAM IMPACT
1"=40'
DETAIL 4A DETAIL 4B DETAIL 4C DETAIL 4D
SPECIAL CUT DITCH SPECIAL CUT DITCH SPECIAL CUT DITCH BAN I< STABILI—ION
SPEC!
N°I t. Scolcl I N°I I° Scale) I Not t° Scolcl r� (Not t° Scale) — aI
�u^d 1 +"l GieG�u
Ditch °� Ditch DIIchz� e d
�oral h'� flea Slopc Natural R'� �e< Slapc Natural p'� °< MI
�o�nd D D D P° Length=l0 Ft.
Min. D= See Bd— Min. D= (I Ft. Min. D= 2.8 H. CHryV �p ry ANNS a Min. d-3 Ft. onable)ED
FROM —L— STA. 13+00 TO 13+70 RT (Min. D=1.0 Ft.) FROM —L— STA. 16+00 TO 16+50 LT FROM —L— STA. 24+30 TO 24+54 LT —L— STA 24+85 TO 24+96 RT
FROM _I_ STA. 13-70 TO 14+00 RT (Min. D=0.5 Ft.)
FROM —L— STA. 15+00 TO 16+20 RT (Min. D=1.0 Ft.)

PROP
PROP. J PROP. _/
FDPS SBG
BRIDGE/ROADWAY RELATIONSHIP SKETCH
FOR STRUCTURE PLANS, SEE SHEET S-1 THRU S—XX
FOR —L— PROFILE SEE SHEET 5
FOR —Y—, —Yl—, AND —DR— PROFILES SEE SHEET 6
/ CALDWELL COUNTY PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
BRIDGE #130029 801l.R001 4
/ PERMIT DRAWING SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DES DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
SHEET 3 OF 5
oxcp / /v /
/ / DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL / UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
EIP TEMPORARY / 17 GINEERS
STREAM IMPACT 20TW.MARION ST
PH (7 4 N476— 003
CORP. LICENSE NO.: C-0275
-Y- PC 10+00.00 EI
EIP N SITE4 INSET \ N
1 = 40
or
END CONSTRUCTIO 4 GARY
H. TEAGUE � D�AAA\ VAAAA GARY T• TEAGUE
—DR— STA. 11 + 00.00 0� v��v yvvvvy
\��\, WOODS \ O
PROP. ASPHALT DRIVE CHERYL H. TEAGUE
BEGIN PROJECT -t- PC w+7457 BEGIN BRIDGE v vo`� vv��ov�v��v��v BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
VA AA A\� JEFFERY D. TURNMIRE
—L— STA. 17+95.56 v v �� v��yy°yO� vyv ; —Y— STA. 11+50.00 KELLY w.TURNMIRE
BP1I . R00l \ \\\ \ �� �\\ �\ \\F PROP. ASPHALT DRIVE
C p '� '�� \\ \\ �\ �� �� \\ � \\\\\\ EIP
-L- STA. 13 + 00.00 C'S DO NOT DISTURB WETLAND A VAA VAAA VAA\ VAAA SPECIAL CUT DITCH
\ VAA A �v vvv -Y- PRC 11+80B0 \
/ / THOMAS L. STEELE —LlT 2 .Y \ \ iVAA VA AA VAA sEE DETAIL 4c
/ �EGIl� FOPS LINDA P. STEELE TRANSITIO FROM 2:1 ToVAAAA� \ ��A VAAA VAA
\ \ \ \ PROP. ASPHALT DRIVE
—L STA. 14+26.84 I -L- PRC 16-f78✓1 MAIN N 1.5:1 AROUND
THIS RA IUS
8• K
L'/SSS 6 ASBHALT/ FINISHED FLOORBRENT
/ _ / 'S � , \\\ 2 Q\ \ —E SITE 4 MARTH N . UL A
- — RIP RJP DRIVE/ � / / BKO E EVATION=I181.83' �p r \ \ .p \\
TON„ / / T\T FI L T r�lp�I / /�, WOODS MARTHA W. DULA
a S I RAPT h'OIU ' E 1, -v
///� sSv 1 v v v WA !v AVv v� w vvv — / -
- v��
PECiAL L6T DIT
\ pot F. 1.
s / E DEgA'4 I O a' F V
l,� .� P GRASS � PDE
A
-
h— sPEGIALsuEr- Dlr H \ \ c =— � / � , �. P . � M � a J � � �- �€_ � - � • HDP ��� �y�\ \��\
Rlv — — \\ - 1 \ s
Ti'P. \ E].---SEE QETAIL 4A \ GRA S `tip wTR ` E — \\\\ 1 u' J W FARM ------- \� \
\� \\\k \ FARM
JZO�NfOT�' WOO \ J \:+ /TO EXIST. e} ��— DISTURB POLE SSPEOEE'DE IWCILLLTAADTCHH hIPI A��, 1�c1 c• a i^ae\3 c�eaG4/'M^� e� f}':� I i [? �ica Q-E} ie�(�} aCI/? e�f9 ycI�13} '% / .�OITEO0 ,a J ad ' \a�\\\\\. 7s111I aaa 4• �aa .86a y.j / eFEayL
OT
TMd.� 2a C�a FRILL OVE/ fC4 3ALcF /1 �j a j
7i�OO ,1O3 fTTpp—P
3TON�1SY— T i
—L— POT 16-f77✓O = OP.P NATIN DO
28OTYF 26 C 93;
0\
/{� -Yl- POT 10-fOOAO ELPROP. ASPHALT DRIVE �0
TBE MOVED .0 10 a 0 0 d C3 T �R4G2
E PEXISTBRIDsI
ON
END CONSTRUCTION BL TEELE S6EO 19 REVJIIM
Y .TE� fC7fC f3p a IEC
G
C�\ 3
Z FnRnj BAR Q1ZAfTIO—Yl— STA. 10 + 80.00 LELA RUPPARD DIL40a
CLASS I RIPRAP C3 SS A Q
UP TO SHOULDER El TONS
'P� URESITEMa N
Yl- PU11 f252(0 ryBM-2 °ascGE8, S30
Al
C3
s C3 a a a s
\\\\
\\
A�
�\
\\A
s
BILLY C. STEELE?? Q p
GwEN STEELE � f3 f3 f7 Ca �
C' TEMPORARY a e� C3 a / END PROJECT
WORK PADS END BRIDGEp 4 / BPll.R001
—L— STA. 20 + 08.44 — —L— STA. 26 + 50.00
TEMPORARY_ — —
N
m
STREAM IMPACT
--
- a
TEMPORARY mac_
21
STREAM IMPACTPERM
--_
/
/
TEMPORARY
STREAM IMPACT
SITE 2 INSET
1"=40'
SITE 3 INSET
1"=40'
STRA M E MPACT
/
DETAIL 4A
DETAIL 4B
DETAIL 4C
DETAIL 4D
/
PERMANENT
D
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
SPEC!AL CUT
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
IN°,C T b)
SPECIAL CUT DITCH
INo, t° T D
BANI<.f f. SQATION —G
N°tA Scale)
STREAM IMPACT
Bch
tu.ol h'� Slope
°� DBah
Natural R'� Slope
Dmh
Slope
0
100, 0' 100,
c,o.nd ?., D Ew fiec
�e<
G-d �, D Ern
--d ?.2 D EEO
Length=l0 Ft.
.�.v rv=,
/
Min. D= See Below
Min, D= 03 Ft,
Min. D= 2.8 H.
nNNe e D Min. d=3 Ft.
CONo nable)E
v� °
z
GRAPHIC
SCALE
13+00 TO
FROM —L— STA. 13+70 RT Min. D=1.0 Ft.)FROM
—L— STA. 16+00 TO 16+50 LT
FROM —L— STA. 24+30 TO 24+54 LT —L—STA 24+85 TO 24+96 RT
FROM -L- STA. 13-70 TO 14+00 RT Min. D=0.5 Ft.)FROM
-L- STA. 15+OD TO 16+20 RT )Min. D=1.0 Ft.)

WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPA T SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
NRTR
Map ID
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1
-L- 18+37 to 19+75 LT & RT
Temporary Workpads
Yadkin River
0.11
115
2
-L- 20+35 to 20+53 RT
Bank Stabilization (15" RCP)
SB
< 0.01
< 0.01
8
10
3
-L- 24+81 to 24+91 RT
Bank Stabilization (30" RCP)
SB
< 0.01
< 0.01
5
5
4
-L- 24+79 to 24+85 LT
30" Pipe Inlet
SB
< 0.01
12
TOTALS*:
< 0.01
0.11
13
142
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
1. <0.01 acres of Permanent SW impacts for bridge interior bents at -L- 18+66 and 19+36.
2. Approxmately 0.5 acres of trees will be removed, composed primarily of white pine, tulip poplar and sycamore
Revised 2018 Feb

Section 106
Materials for
Caldwell Bridge 29

Project Tracking No.
21-03-0014
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
oay ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project.
Y p p J ,
`. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult ;Q
separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Bridge 29 County: Caldwell
WBS No: BP 11.R001.1 Document: State MCC
F.A. No: na Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 29 on US 268 over the Yakin River in Caldwell County.
The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the project is defined as a 2, 000 foot (609.60 m)
long corridor running 1,000 feet (304.80 m) north and south along US 268 from the center of Bridge No.
29. The corridor is approximately 150 feet (45.72 m) wide extending 75 feet (22.86 m) on either side of the
road from its present center. The APE also extends approximately 300 feet (91.44 m) along SR 1505
(Riverside Road) from US 268 and is 150 feet wide. In all, the APE encompasses approximately 7.5 acres.
Although this project is state funded, federal permits are anticipated. Therefore, this archaeological review
was conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Team has reviewed
the subject project and determined:
® There are no National Register listed ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES within the project's area
of potential effects. (Attach any notes or documents as needed.)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
® All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and all
compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
NCDOT has conducted an archaeological reconnaissance and field investigation for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 29 on US 268 over the Yakin River in Caldwell County, North Carolina. The Bridge 29
replacement project is located north of Lenoir in Caldwell County, North Carolina. The project area is plotted
in the southwestern section of the Grandin USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
1of15

Project Tracking No.
21-03-0014
Background Research
A site files search was conducted using data from the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on April 8, 2021
(HPOWEB 2021). Within a mile of the APE, no known archaeological sites are reported and only one former
survey for a cell tower has been carried out (Salter and West 2008). This previous archaeological
investigation did not yield any positive results. However, other investigations slightly further afield in the
Yadkin Valley led by Cyrus Thomas in 1891, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the 1960s
and 70s, Appalachian State University in the 1990s (Kimball et al. 1996; Shumate et al. 1999), and Cultural
Resource Management projects over the last 20 years have produced numerous sites (Robinson and Terrell
2003, 2006; Robinson et al. 2003). Overall, site density within the region is considered high with absence of
know sites in the immediate vicinity due to a lack of investigations. As a result, an archaeological subsurface
testing was recommended for level dry landforms within the project corridor.
According to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office online data base (HPOWEB 2021), there
are no known historic architectural resources within the APE that may yield intact archaeological deposits.
An examination of historic maps concerning this project failed to find any significant features within APE.
An anonymous circa 1868 map of Caldwell County is one of the first historic resource to provide an
approximate location for the project (Figure 2). This map shows a road and cross at or near the current bridge.
The exact location is not known, but it should be in the vicinity based upon on the map's scale. Other
identifiable features include Fort Defiance, which is well to the south and outside of the APE. The 1891
USGS Wilkesboro topographic map illustrates a similar picture, but no features other than roads are depicted
(Figure 3). Later maps continue to display the road and crossing until the publication of the 1938 Highway
map for the county, which adds structures (NCSHPWC 1938) (Figure 4). Several structures are plotted, but
all appear to be outside of the APE. Regardless, any historic resources that might be within the project limits
are likely to be 20th century in origin and typical for the regions. They would not be considered significant.
The USDA soil survey shows the APE composed of five soil types (USDA NRCS 2021). The floodplain
south of the river consists of Codorus loam (CnA), while the floodplain to the north is made up of Dan River
and Comus soils (DoA). The Codorus soil has a slope of 2 percent or less and is subject to frequent flooding.
It is also somewhat poorly drained. Due to persistent wetness, it is not expected this series will yield
significant results. The Dan River and Comus soils, however, are well drained with a slope of 4 percent or
less and only occasional flood. These soils are well suited for early occupations due to being dry and fairly
level. The stream terraces consist of Danripple sandy clay loam (TsC). This well drained soil has a slope of
8 to 15 percent, but soil erosion is moderate. It too is appropriate for early habituation and may yield intact
deposits if disturbance is low. Lastly, the hillsides to the northwest are composed of Fairview sandy clay
loam (FaD2) and Rhodhiss sandy loam (RhE). Although well drained, slope is between 15 and 45 percent.
The Fairview series is also moderately eroded. No significant archaeological sites are expected on landforms
with a slope of 15 percent or more. Subsurface tests were not required on soils that are wet or steeply sloped,
but testing was recommended for well drained and level soils.
Fieldwork Results
The archaeological field reconnaissance and survey for the proposed Bridge No. 29 on US 268 over the Yakin
River in Caldwell County replacement project was conducted on April 28 and 29, 2021. This included a
visual inspection of the surface and the excavation of 26 shovel tests (STs) at 15- and 30-meter intervals
(Figure 5). Twelve (91-12) were placed on the floodplain north of the river with ten (91-10) in the northeast
quadrant and two (911 and 12) in the northwest. Another 14 (913-26) were dug south of the river with nine
(913-21) in the southeast quadrant and five (922-26) in the southwest. Most of these south of the river were
located on the stream terraces, but ST 922 is in the floodplain. No STs in any of the four quadrants were
excavated in obviously disturbed locations, on wet soils, or along steep slope of 15 percent or more.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
2of15

Project Tracking No.
21-03-0014
The project area running from the northeast to the southwest is situated in the Yadkin Valley (see Figure 5).
The Yadkin River flows to the east and is part of the Yadkin-PeeDee drainage basin. Floodplains are located
on either side of the river with the northeast quadrant covered entirely by this landform (Figure 6). Steep
hillside slopes encompass most of the northwest quadrant with a narrow stretch of floodplain between
Riverside Road and the river (Figures 7 and 8). The floodplain south of the river encompasses a smaller area
within the project limits and has a steep rise onto the stream terraces (Figures 9 and 10). The floodplain
stretches for approximately 50 meters (ca. 164 feet) alongside US 268 before the terrace is encountered in
both quadrants (Figures 11 and 12), but the landform slope back down onto the floodplain in the southwest
quadrant. The floodplain runs for approximately 100 meters (ca. 328 feet) in this quadrant before rising again
onto a terrace near an unnamed tributary (Figure 13).
Soil disturbance within the APE is very high. The northeast quadrant is covered in a thick layer of fill and is
currently used as a nursey for shrubs (see Figure6). A stream that once ran across the floodplain has been
diverted and now flows adjacent to US 268 acting as a drainage ditch. The floodplain is also pot -marked with
larger pits from the removal of shrubs (Figure 14). These pits measure 70 cm (ca. 28 in) in diameter and
extend to a depth of 50 cm (ca. 20 in) below the surface. The ten excavated STs (91-10) in this quadrant
were first placed at 15-m interval but quickly enlarged to 30-m interval due to disturbance. All STs shows
fill being anywhere from 80 to 45 cm (ca. 31 to 18 in) thick with the thickest areas being near the river (Figure
15). This may be followed by a 25 cm (ca. 10 in) layer of brown (1 OYR 4/3) sandy loam, but this may be fill
as well since bottle glass and plastic were found within it. Occasionally, this layer is missing. A strong brown
(7.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam is next, which extends to at least 90 cm (ca. 35 in) below the surface in some
areas. Subsoil was encountered in STs 96-10 at around 40 to 45 cm (ca. 16 to 18 in) below the surface.
Subsoil is either a yellowish red (5YR 4/6) or red (2.5YR 4/8) clay. All STs were negative for cultural
material.
The floodplain in the northwest quadrant has been subjected to vehicle activities with a large wash -out at its
center (see Figure 8). Two STs (911-12) were placed at 15-m apart near the slope base where disturbance
was minimal. The stratigraphy consisted of three layers. The surface layer is a 20 cm (ca. 8 in) thick very
dark grayish brown loam. Beneath this is a strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) sandy clay loam that is 40 cm (ca. 16
in) thick. Lastly, subsoil is a reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4) clay. The hillside slope in this quadrant is also cut
or heavily eroded allowing for the road, private drives, and houses. No STs were dug on the hillsides since
they exceeded 15 percent.
In the southeast quadrant, the floodplain was in the process of being cleared of trees and vegetation, and a
drainage ditch was being dug near US 268 (see Figure 9). All work was done by the current property owner
in preparation of using the floodplain as a plant nursery. Tree stumps were mechanically removed, and debris
along with soils were pushed against the riverbank to help alleviate flooding. Due to the recent disturbance,
no shovel tests were excavated in this section of the floodplain, but the area was surface inspected with
negative results. The edge of the stream terrace in the southeast quadrants runs for approximately 10 meters
(33 feet) before residential lawns are encountered. The terrace edge is planted in maple trees, but soils in this
location appeared to be intact between the tree rows (Figure 16). Two STs (913 and 14) were placed parallel
to each other at 15-m apart with ST 914 falling outside of the APE. The surface layer consists of a dark
brown (IOYR 3/3) loam that extends to 25 to 30 cm (ca. 10 to 12 in) below the surface. Next is a yellowish
red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay subsoil. Both were negative. Shovel tests were then placed at 30-m interval on the
residential lawns (see Figure 11). This section is severely eroded or graded with the surface soils pushed
towards the road (Figure 17). If a surface layer is present, it is a strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) sandy clay loam
about 10 to 20 cm (ca. 4 to 8 in) thick. This is followed by subsoil, which is also found at the surface in some
tests. It is a yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay. The seven STs (915-21) excavated on the lawns were all
negative.
In the southwest quadrant in ST 922, the floodplain near the bridge consists of fill material covering loosely
compacted sand (see Figure 10). It is suspected that this area may be part of the septic system for the nearby
house, or the sand is recently deposited by flooding. The stream terrace extends for approximately 75 meters
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
3of15

Project Tracking No.
21-03-0014
(246 feet) before dropping back into the floodplain (see Figure 12). This terrace is severally eroded like the
terrace east of the road. As a result, three STs (#23-25) were placed at 30-m intervals. Generally, yellowish
red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay subsoil was encountered at the surface. However, ST 923 did contain a 10 cm (ca.
4 in) thick layer of brown (IOYR 4/3) loam at the surface. As the landform dropped into a cow pasture, no
shovel tests were dug in this section of floodplain due to the poorly drained nature of the soils. Several
property owners reported that this area floods very often after heavy rains. The last shovel test (926) was
placed at the edge of the APE as the terrace rises out of the floodplain after crossing a tributary (see Figure
13). The soils in this shovel test displays a 30 cm (ca. 12 in) surface layer of dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam
followed by yellowish red (5YR 5/8) sandy clay subsoil. All STs in this quadrant were negative as well.
Discussions with property owners and workers at the nursey provided no useful information on potential
archaeological sites within the APE. No artifacts have been collected to their knowledge in the vicinity of
the bridge. Furthermore, flooding is common with the area with south of river being more frequent.
Recommendations
The archeological investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 29 in Caldwell County identified
no archaeological sites. All STs were negative for cultural material. Ground disturbance is heavy, and the
possibility of intact and significant archaeological deposits is very unlikely. No further archaeological work
is recommended for this project. However, if design plans for the road change to impact areas outside of the
archaeological APE, then further consultation might be necessary.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the Catawba Indian Nation, the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians have expressed
an interest. We recommend that you ensure that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the
process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ® Photos ❑ Correspondence
Other: historic map images
Signed:
5/5/21
C. Damon Jones Date
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT" FORM
4of15

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
21-03-0014
---.r------
t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
LZ NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
' This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
County:
Caldwell
WBSNo.:
BP11.R001.1
Document
Type:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e s :
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 29 on NC 268 (Charles A Suddreth Memorial
Highway) over the Yadkin River.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on April 1, 2021. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS
properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is defined on the following maps. All
properties were visually surveyed through Google Street view and GIS information. There are no
properties over fifty years of age that warrant further evaluation. Bridge No. 29 is not eligible
for National Register listing based on the NCDOT Historic Bridge Inventory. There are no
National Register listed or eligible properties and no survey is required. If design plans change,
additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the
Caldwell County survey, Caldwell County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are
considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being
present. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no
survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
❑Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 4

Legend
Bodge M130029
EMI County Boundary
/iunalw MraY
t "Skin Valley
vww
411,� fir* �
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTIAENT VICINITY MAP o-ak- : 2 -=o2
t i OF TRANSPORTATION was No. e P 1 1-PMI - t
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS Caldwrli Co.
+ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT d, ftgAaw Srkhp No.13W29 on NC 269 Figure 1
EN'YIROtdAENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT ovw Yadkin Rivar
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 4

Legend -
Bndge #13042s
Protect Study Area
1 ,
tin
• K
. Bridge #130029
r _ _
0 1.0D0 2 OOO 4.040
•'•• NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT LISGS Topo Map Dare- 3-25-2021
! y OF TRANSPORTATION wss NO. BP11.FM1.1
' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS caid"I Co.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & RepLkr Bndge No.130029 on NC 268 Figure 3
w , ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT over Yidlun PJv*r
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 4

State Historic Preservation Office GIS.
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 4 of 4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
Dr. Wenonah Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Catawba Indian Nation
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Dear Dr. Haire,
J. ERic BOYETTE
SECRETARY
November 1, 2021
Mailed November 1st, included NCDOT
Archaeology review
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is starting the project development, environmental, and
engineering studies for replacement of Bridge No. 29 over the Yadkin River on N.C. 268 (Charles A. Suddreth
Memorial Highway) in Caldwell County, NC. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is the lead federal agency
for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and a Permit is anticipated under the Section 404 Process with the USAGE. A project
vicinity map is attached. The coordinates of this project are approximately 36.037002,-81.476851.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential environmental
impacts of the project including recommendation of alternates to be studied. Your comments may be used in the
preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Document.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, we also request that you inform us of any historic properties of
traditional religious or cultural importance that you are aware of that may be affected by the proposed project. Be
assured that, in accordance with confidentiality and disclosure stipulations in Section 304 of the NHPA, we will
maintain strict confidentiality about certain types of information regarding historic properties.
Please respond by December 6th so that your comments can be used in the scoping of this project. If you have any
questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact me at
[e-mail] or [phone].
Thank you,
l �(iYi1i �Gli�
Kevin Hining
NCDOT Highway Division 11 — Division Environmental Officer
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NCDOT Highway Div. 11 801 Statesville Rd
801 Statesville Road Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
North Wilkesboro NC 28659 North Wilkesboro, NC
Website: www.ncdot.gov

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
Russell Townsend
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
2077 Governors Island Road
Bryson City, NC 28713
Dear Mr. Townsend,
J. ERic BOYETTE
SECRETARY
November 1, 2021
Sent November 1st, included NCDOT
Archaeology review
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is starting the project development, environmental, and
engineering studies for replacement of Bridge No. 29 over the Yadkin River on N.C. 268 (Charles A. Suddreth
Memorial Highway) in Caldwell County, NC. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is the lead federal agency
for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and a Permit is anticipated under the Section 404 Process with the USAGE. A project
vicinity map is attached. The coordinates of this project are approximately 36.037002,-81.476851.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential environmental
impacts of the project including recommendation of alternates to be studied. Your comments may be used in the
preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Document.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, we also request that you inform us of any historic properties of
traditional religious or cultural importance that you are aware of that may be affected by the proposed project. Be
assured that, in accordance with confidentiality and disclosure stipulations in Section 304 of the NHPA, we will
maintain strict confidentiality about certain types of information regarding historic properties.
Please respond by December 6th so that your comments can be used in the scoping of this project. If you have any
questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact me at
[e-mail] or [phone].
Thank you,
Kevin Hitting
NCDOT Highway Division 11 — Division Environmental Officer
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NCDOT Highway Div. 11 801 Statesville Rd
801 Statesville Road Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
North Wilkesboro NC 28659 North Wilkesboro, NC
Website: www.ncdot.gov

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
Elizabeth Toombs
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
PO Box 948
Tahlequah OK, 74465
Dear Ms. Toombs,
J. ERic BOYETTE
SECRETARY
November 1, 2021
Sent November 1st, included NCDOT
Archaeology review
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is starting the project development, environmental, and
engineering studies for replacement of Bridge No. 29 over the Yadkin River on N.C. 268 (Charles A. Suddreth
Memorial Highway) in Caldwell County, NC. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is the lead federal agency
for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and a Permit is anticipated under the Section 404 Process with the USAGE. A project
vicinity map is attached. The coordinates of this project are approximately 36.037002,-81.476851.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential environmental
impacts of the project including recommendation of alternates to be studied. Your comments may be used in the
preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Document.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, we also request that you inform us of any historic properties of
traditional religious or cultural importance that you are aware of that may be affected by the proposed project. Be
assured that, in accordance with confidentiality and disclosure stipulations in Section 304 of the NHPA, we will
maintain strict confidentiality about certain types of information regarding historic properties.
Please respond by December 6th so that your comments can be used in the scoping of this project. If you have any
questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact me at
[e-mail] or [phone].
Thank you,
Kevin Hining
NCDOT Highway Division 11 — Division Environmental Officer
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NCDOT Highway Div. 11 801 Statesville Rd
801 Statesville Road Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
North Wilkesboro NC 28659 North Wilkesboro, NC
Website: www.ncdot.gov

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
Whitney Warrior
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians
PO BOX 1245
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Dear Ms. Warrior,
J. ERic BOYETTE
SECRETARY
November 1, 2021
Sent November 1st, included NCDOT
Archaeology review
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is starting the project development, environmental, and
engineering studies for replacement of Bridge No. 29 over the Yadkin River on N.C. 268 (Charles A. Suddreth
Memorial Highway) in Caldwell County, NC. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is the lead federal agency
for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) and a Permit is anticipated under the Section 404 Process with the USAGE. A project
vicinity map is attached. The coordinates of this project are approximately 36.037002,-81.476851.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential environmental
impacts of the project including recommendation of alternates to be studied. Your comments may be used in the
preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Document.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, we also request that you inform us of any historic properties of
traditional religious or cultural importance that you are aware of that may be affected by the proposed project. Be
assured that, in accordance with confidentiality and disclosure stipulations in Section 304 of the NHPA, we will
maintain strict confidentiality about certain types of information regarding historic properties.
Please respond by December 6th so that your comments can be used in the scoping of this project. If you have any
questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact me at
[e-mail] or [phone].
Thank you,
Kevin Hining
NCDOT Highway Division 11 — Division Environmental Officer
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NCDOT Highway Div. 11 801 Statesville Rd
801 Statesville Road Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
North Wilkesboro NC 28659 North Wilkesboro, NC
Website: www.ncdot.gov

Legend
C Bridge #130029
= County Boundary
NUbb;�7 �ycekRp
c
a
n
0 0.125 0.25
0.5
Miles
yymkle� Way
IASI
Yadkin Valley
r
ESRI World Street Basemap
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT VICINITY MAP Date: 3-25-2021
OF TRANSPORTATION WBS No. BP11.R001.1
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Caldwell Co.
�pQ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & Replace Bridge No.130029 on NC 268 Figure 1
"�=A• ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT over Yadkin River

l�
Legend
C Bridge #130029
Project Study Area
2.
-
is � r � ,•C
�-2 s L
(L--) Bridae #1 0029
p�
l .,a dkin
'/'--
J.
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Source:.UtiA-Topo Maps Web Map Service
Feet (USG Quadrang/e. Grandin)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT USGS Topo Map Date: 3-25-2021
OF TRANSPORTATION WBS No. BP11.R001.1
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Caldwell Co.
�pQ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & Replace Bridge No.130029 on NC 268 Figure 3
"�=A• ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT over Yadkin River

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
December 8, 2021
Received one reply, from
Catawba Nation
Attention: Kevin Hining
NC Department of Transportation
801 Statesville Road
North Wilkesboro, NC 28659
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
2022-193-29 Replacement of Bridge No. 29 over the Yadkin River on NC 268 in Caldwell Co., NC
Dear Mr. Hining,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

MCDC for
Caldwell Bridge
29

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 D3E33A8-2431-41 EC-8814-OC12305C71372
NCDOT MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
State Proiect No.: BP11.R001
Project Location: The proposed project involves replacing Bridge No. 29 over the Yadkin River on NC
268 (Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Highway) in Caldwell County.
Project Description: The purpose of this project is to replace Caldwell County Bridge No. 29 on NC
268 over the Yadkin River (see Figure 1). Bridge No. 29 is 161 feet long. The replacement structure
will be a bridge approximately 213 feet long providing a minimum 36-feet 10-inch clear roadway
width. The proposed bridge will be staged constructed on new alignment to the west and include
two 12-foot lanes with 4-feet to 8-feet 10-inch variable offsets. The bridge length is based on
preliminary design information and is set by minimum hydraulic design requirements.
Project construction will extend approximately 496-feet from the southern end and 642-feet from
the northern end of the bridge. The roadway will include two 12-foot lanes and 8-foot shoulders of
which 4-feet will be paved (11-feet with guardrail). The project will be approximately 0.256 miles
long.
NC 268 has a functional classification of a Major Collector and will be designed using Regional Tier
Guidelines with a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Approximately 95-feet SR 1505 (Riverside Drive) will be realigned at NC 268 to improve the
intersection skew and sight distance.
Traffic will be maintained on -site utilizing staged construction techniques. During Phase I, traffic will
remain on the existing bridge during construction of the first stage of the new bridge to the west. In
Phase II, traffic will be shifted to the first section of the new bridge where traffic will be maintained in
a one-lane/two-way pattern controlled with signals while the existing bridge is demolished and
removed. The remainder of the new bridge will be constructed in Phase III.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: A Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from NC Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) will likely be required. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit
will be required to authorize project construction.
Special Project Information:
Environmental Commitments:
The project is within a trout watershed. The NCWRC indicated that the area is not suitable for
trout, and they would not request a trout moratorium.
The list of project commitments (green sheets) is located at the end of the checklist.
MCDC November 2021 Bridge 130029
BP11.R001

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 D3E33A8-2431-41 EC-8814-OC12305C71372
NCDOT MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Structures Management Unit records indicates No. 29
has a sufficiency rating of 55.24 out of a possible 100 for a
new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete
due to a deck geometry rating of 4 out of 9 according to
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards.
Bridge No. 29 was built in 1950 and reconstructed in 1980.
The superstructure of Bridge No. 29 has timber elements that
are over 41 years old. Timber components have a typical life
expectancy between 40 to 50 years due to the natural deterioration rate of wood. The steel
components have heavy corrosion with delamination and section loss to some flanges.
Concrete has spalls with heavy leeching and/or exposed rebar with section loss in areas. Due to
the increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by reasonable
maintenance activities, Bridge No. 29 is approaching the end of its useful life. The posted
weight limit on the bridge is down to 34 tons for SV and 39 tons for TTST. Replacement of the
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 29 is constructed of timber, concrete and steel and should be possible to remove
with no resulting debris in the water based on standard demolition practices.
Threatened and Endangered Species:
As of November 16, 2021, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation program (IPaC)
lists seven species as federally endangered or threatened.
Gray bat, northern long-eared bat, and Virginia big -eared bat — A review of NHP records,
updated October 2021, indicates no known occurrences of these species within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. Surveys for these species will be conducted during the appropriate survey
window. For now, the biological conclusion for the gray bat, northern long-eared bat, and
Virginia big -eared bat is Unresolved.
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf — Habitat for dwarf -flowered heartleaf is present within the mesic
mixed hardwood forests in the study area. No individuals were observed during a pedestrian
survey was performed on May 27, 2021. A review of NHP records, updated October 2021,
indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of observed
individuals and nearby known occurrences, a biological conclusion of No Effect is rendered for
this species.
Heller's blazing star - Habitat for Heller's blazing star is not present in the study area. The study
area elevation is approximately 1,000-1,200 feet above mean sea level and no high elevation
rocky summits are present. A review of NHP records, updated October 2021, indicates no
MCDC November 2021 Bridge 130029
BP11.R001

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 D3E33A8-2431-41 EC-8814-OC12305C71372
NCDOT MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of habitat and nearby
known occurrences, a biological conclusion of No Effect is rendered for this species.
Bog Turtle — The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity if Appearance and is not
afforded protection under Section 7 of the ESA. Poor habitat for the bog turtle is present in the
study area within the wetland areas. A review of NHP records, updated October 2021, indicates
no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Furthermore, a biological conclusion
for the bog turtle is Not Required by the USFWS.
Monarch Butterfly —The monarch butterfly is listed as a Candidate species and is not currently
afforded protection under Section 7 of the ESA. Habitat for monarch butterfly is present in the
study area within the open fields and roadsides. A review of NHP records, updated October
2021, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Furthermore, a
biological conclusion for the monarch butterfly is Not Required by the USFWS.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA):
Bald Eagle — A desktop GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a
1.0-mile radius of the project limits, was performed on May 3, 2021, using 2018 color aerials.
The Yadkin River may be sufficiently open enough to be considered a potential feeding source
within 1.0 mile of the study area. Since there is a potential foraging habitat within the review
area, a survey of the of the project area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was
conducted on May 27, 2021. No individuals or nests were observed. A review of the NHP
database, updated October 2021, revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0
mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of observed individuals, known occurrences, and
minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not
affect this species.
The project will involve the construction of a new bridge on new alignment to the west. Prior to
removing the existing bridge, NCDOT staff will have additional opportunities to survey for these
species. If any of these species are observed, appropriate action will be taken.
Tribal Coordination
There are four federally recognized tribes with interests in Caldwell County
(Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
Indians, and Catawba Indian Nation). The tribes will be notified of the project and any concerns
raised by them will be provided during the 404 permit process.
Archaeological Survey
An archaeological field reconnaissance and survey was conducted on April 28-29, 2021. The
survey identified no archaeological sites. It was determined that there are no National Register
listed archaeological sites within the project's area of potential effects.
MCDC November 2021 Bridge 130029
BP11.R001

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 D3E33A8-2431-41 EC-8814-OC12305C71372
NCDOT MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
Architectural Survey
An architectural review of the project area was undertaken on April 1, 2021. It was determined
that no National Register listed, or eligible properties are located within the area of potential
effect and no survey was required.
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed ® ❑
under the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental
documentation is not required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a minimum criteria project. A
state Environmental Assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? 9
If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
YES
NO
2.
Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3.
Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
❑
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?
4.
Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the
❑
proposed activity have such widespread implications, that an
uncommon concern for its environmental effects has been expressed
to the Department?
5.
Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on
❑
wetlands; surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries;
parklands; prime or unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized
scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical value?
6.
Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the
❑
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality
or ground water impacts?
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on ❑
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats?
MCDC November 2021 Bridge 130029
B1311.R001

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 D3E33A8-2431-41 EC-8814-OC12305C71372
NCDOT MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
If any questions 2 through 8 are answered "yes". the proposed project may not qualify as a
Minimum Criteria project. A state Environmental Assessment (EA) may be required. For assistance,
contact the Environmental Policy Unit at [phone] or [e-mail].
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
YES
NO
9.
Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10.
Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
®
❑
fill in waters of the United States?
11.
Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
❑
❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12.
Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
❑
❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
13.
Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
❑
❑
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the ❑
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of ❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
Questions in Part "C" are designed to assist the Project Manager and the Division Environmental
Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource agency may
be required. If any questions in Part "C" are answered "yes". follow the appropriate permitting
procedures prior to beginning project construction.
MCDC November 2021 Bridge 130029
BP11.R001

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 D3E33A8-2431-41 EC-8814-OC12305C71372
NCDOT MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
PART D: (To be completed when either category #8, 120) or #15 of the rules are used.)
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Project completion date:
N/A
N/A
N/A
19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground surface: N/A
20. Total acres of wetland impacts: N/A
21. Total linear feet of stream impacts: N/A
22. Project purpose: N/A
Signed by:
Reviewed by: F��t& tiUAt
,viBk7'lra�r�ggoEi44.sion Environmental Officer
NCDOT, Division 11
DocuSigned by: p
, i,- .4—o-, Pv`7
e a,LAws0,P 4cRivision Bridge Project Manager
NCDOT, Division 11
DocuSigned by:
S ^, EBE&5,-.I4atmen, PE, CPM
TGS Engineers
MCDC November 2021
BP11.R001
Date: 11/18/2021 1 6:50 AM PST
Date: 11/18/2021 1 10:02 AM EST
Date: 11/17/2021 1 11:24 AM EST
Bridge 130029

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 D3E33A8-2431-41 EC-8814-OC12305C71372
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 29 over the Yadkin River on NC 268
Project No. BP11.R001
NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit, Biological Surveys —Threatened and Endangered Species
Surveys for the gray bat, northern long-eared bat, and Virginia big -eared bat are scheduled for early
summer 2022. Biological conclusions will be rendered for all three species.
Prior to removing the existing bridge NCDOT staff will have opportunities to survey for these species. If
any of these species are observed, appropriate action will be taken.
NCDOT Hydraulic Design Unit — FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) to determine the
status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of
a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Division Construction - FEMA
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s). Therefore, the
Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project
construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within
the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
MCDC November 2021 Green Sheet
BP11.R001 Bridge 130029

NCWRC Trout
Information for
Caldwell bridge 29

From: Chambers, Marla J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 10:08 AM
To: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Caldwell 29 bridge replacement over the Yadkin River
I believe what happened was that I missed the field scoping meeting and we spoke by phone a couple of
times. I had you relay to the group that there would be no trout moratorium for this project.
Marla
PS: If It helps, I can send a separate email to that effect.
Marla Chambers // NCDOT Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
12275 Swift Road
Oakboro, NC28129
mobile: [phone]
Marla.chambersamwildlife.org
ncwildlife.org
From: Hining, Kevin J <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 2:05 PM
To: Chambers, Marla J <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Caldwell 29 bridge replacement over the Yadkin River
Hey Marla,
My apologies, but I can't find your response to my question about a moratorium at Caldwell 29. 1 know
you emailed me back and said no moratorium needed, but I can't find the email, even in my archives.
Absolutely no rush, but could you resend me your email regarding that moratorium (would have been
around late January)? I was hoping to save in my files for permitting purposes.
Thanks!
Kevin

NRTR for Caldwell
Bridge 29

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replace Bridge #29 on NC 268 (Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Highway) over
Yadkin River
Caldwell County, North Carolina
WBS Element No. BP11.R001
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Division 11
November 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report WBS Element No. BPI 1.001, Caldwell County, N. C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridge
929 on Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Highway (NC 268) over the Yadkin River (WBS
Element No. BPI 1.R001) in Caldwell County (Figures 1 and 2). The following Natural
Resources Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of the
appropriate environmental documentation.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental Coordination and
Permitting's Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and the latest
NRTR Template (September 2021). Field work was conducted on May 27, 2021. As of the
date of this report, water resources identified in the study area have not been verified by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR). The principal personnel contributing to the field work and document
are provided in the appendix.
3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Four terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 3 shows the location
and extent of these terrestrial communities. Terrestrial community data are presented in the
context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 1).
Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community
Dominant Species (scientific name)
Coverage
ac.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)
Forest
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
0.9
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tuli i era
Low Mountain Alluvial
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Forest
Boxelder (Acer negundo)
0.3
Giant cane Arundinaria i antea
Floodplain Pool
Boxelder (Acer negundo)
Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
0.1
Jewelweed (Impatiens ca ensis
Maintained/Disairbed
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
5.5
Japanese stiltgrass Microste ium vimineum
Total
6.8
November 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report WBS Element No. BPI 1.001, Caldwell County, N. C.
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list the following federally
protected species within the study area, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (Table
2). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below
along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area.
Table 2. ESA federally protected species within the Study Areal
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Status
Present
Conclusion
Myotis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
Unresolved
Myotis septentrionalis
Northernblotng-eared
T
Yes
Unresolved
Corynorhinus townsendii
Virginia big -eared bat
E
Yes
Unresolved
vir inianus
Hexastylis naniflora
Dwarf -flowered
T
Yes
No Effect
heartleaf
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Bog turtle
T (S/A)
No
Not Required
Danaus plexippus
Monarch butterfly
C
Yes
Not Required
' IPaC data checked on September 1, 2021 I
E - Endangered
T - Threatened No longer listed for
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
C - Candidate this location on I PaC,
checked on 10-17-22
Gray bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15 — August 15
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
This information will be provided by the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group
(BSG). A review of NHP records, updated October 2021, indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15 — August 15
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
This information will be provided by the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group
(BSG). A review of NHP records, updated October 2021, indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
2 November 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report WBS Element No. BPI 1.001, Caldwell County, N. C.
Virginia big -eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15 —August 15
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
This information will be provided by the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group
(BSG). A review of NHP records, updated October 2021, indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
USFWS optimal survey window: March — May
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for dwarf -flowered heartleaf is present within the mesic mixed hardwood
forests within the study area. A pedestrian survey was performed on May 27, 2021.
No individuals were observed. A review of NHP records, updated October 2021,
indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack
of observed individuals and nearby known occurrences, a biological conclusion of
No Effect is rendered for this species.
's blazing star
USFWS o al survey window: July - September
Biological Conclusion: No t
Habitat for Heller's blazing is not prese e study area. The study area
elevation is approximately 1,000-1 et above mean sea level and no high
elevation rocky summits a esent. A revie HP records, updated October
2021, indicates n wn occurrences within 1.0 mile o study area. Due to the
lack of at and nearby known occurrences, a biological conc of No Effect
endered for this species.
Bog turtle
USFWS optimal survey window: April 1 — October 1 (visual surveys)
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance and is not
afforded protection under Section 7 of the ESA. Poor habitat for the bog turtle is
present in the study area within the wetland areas. A review of NHP records,
updated October 2021, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study
area.
Monarch butterfly
USFWS optimal survey window: May — July, mid -September — October
Biological Conclusion: Not required
The monarch butterfly is listed as a Candidate species and is not currently afforded
protection under Section 7 of the ESA. Habitat for monarch butterfly is present in
3 November 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report WBS Element No. BPI 1.001, Caldwell County, N. C.
the study area within the open fields and roadsides. A review of NHP records,
updated October 2021, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study
area.
4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do
not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests
in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized
for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile
radius of the project limits, was performed on May 3, 2021, using 2018 color aerials. The
Yadkin River may be sufficiently open enough to be considered a potential feeding source
within 1.0 mile of the study area. Since there is potential foraging habitat within the review
area, a survey of the project study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits
was conducted on May 27, 2021. No individuals or nests were observed. Additionally, a
review of the NHP database, updated October 2021, revealed no known occurrences of this
species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of observed individuals,
known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined
that this project will not affect this species.
5.0 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the study area are part of the Yadkin Pee Dee River basin [U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03040101]. Two streams were identified in
the study area (Table 3). The location of each stream is shown in Figure 4.
Table 3. Streams in the study area
Stream
NCDWR
Best Usage
Bank
Bankfull
Depth
Name
Map ID
Index
Classification
Height
width
(in)
Number
(ft)
(ft
Yadkin
Yadkin
Too
Too
River
River
12-(1)
C;Tr
Deep to
85
Deep to
Evaluate
Evaluate
UT to
Yadkin
SB
12-(1)
C;Tr
2
4
3
River
There are no designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
(HQW), or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within, or within 1.0 mile
downstream of the study area. A benthos monitoring site (QB056) is located at the bridge
and received a bioclassification of "Good" in 2006. The North Carolina 2020 Final 303(d)
list of impaired waters does not identify any streams within or within 1.0 mile of the study
area as an impaired water.
4 November 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report WBS Element No. BPI 1.001, Caldwell County, N. C.
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Two streams were identified in the study area (Table 4). The location of these streams is
shown on Figure 4. NCDWR stream identification forms and NCSAM forms are included
in a separate Jurisdictional Determination (JD) Package. All streams in the study area have
been designated as cool water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 4. Status of streams in the study area
Map ID
Length
ft.
Classification
Compensatory
Miti ation Required
River Basin
Buffer
Yadkin River
206
Perennial
Undetermined
Not Subject
SB*
470
Perennial
Undetermined
Not Subject
Total
676
*NCSAM form included in separate PJD package
One wetland was identified within the study area (Table 5). The location of the wetland is
shown on Figure 4. The wetland in the study area is located within the Yadkin- Pee Dee
River basin [USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040101]. USACE wetland determination forms and
NCWAM forms for each site are included in a separate Jurisdictional Determination
Package.
Table 5. Characteristics of wetlands in the study area
Area
Map
NCWAM
NCWAM
Hydrologic
404/401
(ac.) in
Forested
ID
Classification
Rating
Classification
or 401
Study
Area
WA
Flood lain Pool
Yes
High
Riparian
404/401
0.01
Total
0.01
6.2 Construction Moratoria
The study area is within a designated trout watershed within Caldwell County; however,
in a letter dated March 29, 2021, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission confirmed no
trout moratorium is requested.
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
The project study area is in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River basin where no NC River Basin
Buffer Rules apply.
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No streams in the project study area have been designated by the USACE as a Navigable
Water under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
5 November 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report WBS Element No. BPI 1.001, Caldwell County, N. C.
7.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Harrar, E.S. and J.G. Harrar. 1962. Guide to Southern Trees. New York: Dover
Publications. 2nd ed. 709 pp.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
Surface Water Classifications. Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
https://deq.nc.gov/aboutldivi sions/water-resources/water-planning/classification-
standards/river-basin-classification
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2021.
NC 2020 303(d) List — Category 5. Approved June 23, 2021.
https: //files.nc.gov/ncdeq/W ater%20Quality/Pl anning/TMDL/3 03 d/2020/NC_2020
_Category5_303dli st.pdf
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
2021. Geographic Information System (GIS) data. NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC.
Updated October 2021. https://www.ncnhp.org
N.C. Department of Transportation. 2019. T&E Plant Habitat Descriptions. NCDOT,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis. Natural Environment Section.
N.C. Department of Transportation. 2019. TE Animal Habitat Descriptions. NCDOT,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis. Natural Environment Section.
N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2016. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC
WAM) User Manual. Version 5, February 2016. N.C. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
490 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
6 November 2021

Natural Resources Technical Report WBS Element No. BPI 1.001, Caldwell County, N. C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version
2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, ERDC/EL TR-10-20.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2018. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.4.
http://wetland-plants.usace.anny.mil/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1989.
Soil Survey of Caldwell County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018.
Hydrologic Units -North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Caldwell County, North
Carolina. Accessed September 1, 2021.
United States Geological Survey. 2020. Grandin, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle
(7.5-minute series).
7 November 2021

Legend
Project Study Area
c
u
rr
n
04
6
emar;
s
0 0.25 0.5
0.
A
1
i Miles
Roo ke i
Fart[
t}onihyep
�0% H WI
,Soddreth�
,gs
i
Wirr fie -NI
1 Bridge #29 1
(7�
ESRI World Street Basemap
L -------------
%
i
�,{ORT"C� VICINITY MAP Date: 05-06-2021
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT WBS # BP11.R001
OF TRANSPORTATION Caldwell Co.
g DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 29 on NC 268
DIVISION 11 (Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Hwy) Figure 1
°�°" over Yadkin River

Legend
=1 Project Study Area
Bridge #29
1,000 2,000 4,000
N
Feet USGSTopo Basemap
Grandin, NC Quadrants, 1:24K
Or,�flR=K� USGS Topo Map Date: 05-07-2021
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT WBS # BP11.R001
OF TRANSPORTATION Caldwell Co.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 29 on NC 268
�.�a DIVISION 11 (Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Hwy) Figure 2
over Yadkin River

Legend7 --" , ; ! '` ►f " r, `ram
Project Study Area
Perennial Stream
001Wetland
o Upland Data Point �-. % ., •am r;' ,
o Wetland Data Point
Wetland WA ,a►.•' . M►
x4'
'?� r .L. �: ,y► �'� Stream SIB �► o
_ �F.-�. r � . F � � +-� � • � y ,� may.
•��. y�r�. Hwy 268 7
•"'�" s- SIB
��. Yadkin River W.-N Stream Ss.
p '�� �''1,.;' 'rY � ` <F • l _'/ ✓' ��� n SUM• ��l�
���• t}, '�Y fir, : � �� ow'AV
y.t w 1 r
Jr
0 125 250 500 , • i .
Feet
` R s, 7 NG, nneMan nrthnimaneru 16 A
KaRry� Environmental Features Map Date: 06-18-2021
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT WBS # BP11.R001
OF TRANSPORTATION Caldwell Co.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Replace Bridge No. 29 on NC 268
�' 4oQp DIVISION 11 (Charles A. Suddreth Memorial Hwy.) Figure 4
'� OF TRhMF'
over Yadkin River

Qualifications of Contributors
Principal
Investigator:
Kim Hamlin, PWS
Education:
M.S. Natural Resources, 2011
Experience:
Environmental Scientist, Sage Ecological Services, 2021-present
Environmental Consultant, Independent Contractor, 2019-2021
Environmental Scientist, TGS Engineers, 2016-2019
Environmental Project Scientist, SEPI Engineering, 2012-2016
Responsibilities:
Wetland and stream delineation, natural communities assessment,
T/E species assessment, GIS surveys and mapping, NRTR
document preparation
Investigator:
Philip Beach, PWS
Education:
B.S. Natural Resources, 2006
Experience:
Environmental Scientist, Sage Ecological Services, 2021-present
Environmental Consultant, Independent Contractor, 2017-2021
Environmental Scientist / Project Manager, SEPI Engineering,
2006-2017
Responsibilities:
Wetland and stream delineation, natural communities assessment,
T/E species assessment, GIS surveys and mapping, NRTR
document review
Investigator: Sean Clark, PWS
Education: B.S. Natural Resources, 1998
Experience: Owner, Sage Ecological Services, 2016-present
Project Scientist/Manager, SEPI Engineering, 2012-2016
Project Scientist/Manager, Falcon Engineering, 2010-2012
Project Scientist/Manager, S&EC, 1998-2010
Responsibilities: NRTR document review

Photos of Caldwell
Bridge 29

�K
f
o
sx
{
1-7--
Yadkin • •
• • '
_