20200226 Ver 1_BR-0126 Final CE_20200211

1 Updated 9/26/2019

Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form

Project No. BR-0126
WBS Element 48835.1.1
Federal Project No. N/A

A. Project Description:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
960667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks Creek in Wilkes County (Refer to
Figure 1).

Bridge No. 960667, built in1953, is a reinforced concrete deck girder bridge with two 11-foot
travel lanes and is approximately 90 feet long. Bridge No. 960667 has a posted single vehicle
weight limit of 25 tons and a truck tractor semitrailer weight limit of 37 tons. The existing right
of way (ROW) along SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) is 40 feet. The project is scheduled for
ROW in September 2019 and Let in May 2020. Minor ROW acquisition is anticipated.

The project proposes to replace the existing structure with an approximately 39-foot wide two-
span cored slab bridge with two 11-foot travel lanes and a shoulder width from three to 11 feet.
The proposed bridge would be approximately 102 feet in length. Guardrail will be installed at
the bridge approaches. The proposed bridge will be realigned slightly to the north of the
existing bridge, requiring minor realignment of SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) and a roadway
tie in to Hincher Lane. The project also crosses Cheatwood Branch west of Bridge No. 960667;
however, there will be no improvements made to the two 72” RCPs which it travels through.
The total length of the project is approximately 952 feet. Minimal right of way acquisition is
anticipated, with a proposed right of way width of up to 94 feet. The proposed bridge will not be
posted with a weight restriction and will be designed to meet the legal load rating. An onsite
detour will be utilized due to the staged construction of the proposed bridge; traffic will remain
on the existing bridge and shift to the new alignment upon its completion. The roadway is
classified as a Minor Rural Collector with a 55-mile per hour design and posted speed limit.

B. Description of Need and Purpose:

The replacement of Bridge No. 960667 is part of the Growing Rural Economy and Agriculture
through Transportation and Technology Enhancement or Replacement in North Carolina
(GREATTER-NC) Project under the United States Department of Transportation’s 2018 Better
Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant program. The purpose of the
grant and this bridge replacement project is to provide transportation infrastructure to support
economic development and improve physical and digital connectivity in rural communities in
North Carolina. The posted weight restriction on Bridge No. 960667 prohibits large or heavy
vehicles, typically used in transporting agricultural and manufactured products, from using the
bridge. Vehicles above the posted weight must detour 7 miles to avoid the bridge. Replacing
the existing bridge will eliminate posted weight limits by providing a safe crossing for all legal
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E

2 Updated 9/26/2019

loads and will make accommodations for broadband installation in order to support economic
competitiveness.

C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:

☒ TYPE I A

D. Proposed Improvements:

28. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings, if the actions meet the
constraints in 23 CFR 771.117(e)(1-6).

E. Special Project Information:

Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: A Nationwide Permit (NWP) will likely be
applicable. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) holds the final discretion as to what
permit(s) will be required to authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required,
a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the North Carolina Department of Water
Resources (NCDWR) will also be needed.

Floodplain: Sparks Creek, which crosses under Bridge No. 960667, and a portion of
Cheatwood Branch are in a FEMA Zone AE Floodplain. The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with
the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to determine status of the project regarding
applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). See Section I,
Project Commitments.

Historic and Archaeological Resources: In compliance with NCDOT’s Programmatic
Agreement with the State Historic Preservation office, NCDOT Human Environment Section
completed a No Historic Properties Present or Affected form for Historic Architecture and
Landscapes on 03/11/2019; a Survey Required form was provided on 2/14/2019, and a No
NRHP-Eligible or Listed Sites Present form was provided on 08/15/2019 for Archaeological
Resources.

Agricultural Land Use: Active agricultural fields including hay, corn, beef, cattle, poultry and
tobacco were identified surrounding the project area using aerial imagery and confirmed by
both the local planner and April 2019 site visit. Minor right of way acquisition will be required
for the project. Impacts to farming operations have been minimized by use of an on-site detour.
Continued coordination should occur through right of way with the owners of the agricultural
lands to ensure that access is maintained for farm equipment and impacts to agricultural
operations are minimized during construction. See Section I, Project Commitments.

Environmental Commitments: Project commitments are located at the end of the checklist in
Section I.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E

3 Updated 9/26/2019

Estimated Costs (FY 2020): The estimated costs are as follows:
Utility* 64,000
R/W** 57,562
Const.*** 1,700,000
Total $1,821,562
Source: * Connect GREATTER Rural Bridge Program- Bridges Budget Sources and Uses, Accessed July 23, 2019.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/GREATTER-Rural-Bridge-Program/Documents/05%20NCDOT%20Bridges%20Budget%20Sources%20and%20Uses.xlsx
** NCDOT Right of Way Appraisal Unit, September 2019
*** NCDOT Contracts Standards and Development Unit, July 2019

Estimated Traffic:

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: There are no existing bike or pedestrian facilities
on Bridge No. 960667 along SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road). However, SR 1749 is identified
as part of the Tobacco Road Bicycle Loop, a feature in Wilkes County’s bicycle network. A
Start of Study letter was sent to NCDOT Bicycle & Pedestrian Division; no comments were
received.

Design Exceptions: A design exception is not required for this project.
Alternative Analysis:
No Build – The no build alternative would not meet the requirements of the GREATTER-NC
Project, and thus is not a viable option.

Rehabilitation – Rehabilitation would not meet the requirements of the GREATTER-NC Project,
and thus is not a viable option.

North Alignment (Selected Alternative) – The proposed structure will have a new alignment
north of the existing bridge to avoid impacts to Cheatwood Branch, improve design speed and
sight distance, and facilitate a staged construction of the proposed bridge.

Replace Bridge in Place with Offsite Detour – An offsite detour is not proposed as part of this
project due to length of detour route; traffic will remain on the existing structure and shift to the
new alignment upon completion of the new bridge due to the proposed staged construction.
The new alignment minimizes impacts to the stream south of the existing bridge and allows for
use of the existing bridge as an on-site detour.

Agency Comments: Input forms were sent to the Wilkes County EMS Director, Wilkes County
Planning Director, and the Wilkes County Schools Director of Transportation in February 2019.

According to the Wilkes County School Transportation Director, 9 trips per day travel within the
project study area, including accessing Bridge 960667, during the school year. School bus
traffic occurs twice daily: 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM. The County Transportation Director indicated
that an offsite detour would have a high impact; however, an onsite detour is anticipated. A low
level of impact was noted from the Wilkes County Planning Director if the bridge was closed for
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2016* 710 vehicles per day (vpd)
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2040 1,100 vpd
Source: * NCDOT Traffic Review Sheet, 2018
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E

4 Updated 9/26/2019

up to a year. The Wilkes County EMS Director indicated low level impact on emergency services
if SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) were closed or at a reduced capacity for up to a year. The
EMS Director notes concern for potential long detour routes that may affect response time, if an
off-site detour is considered; however, an offsite detour is not anticipated.

Response: The existing bridge will serve as an onsite detour during construction. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction and shift to the new alignment upon
completion of the new bridge. Continued coordination with County EMS and Schools will take
place prior to construction; see Section I, Project Commitments.

Agency Start of Study notifications were sent to the USACE, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), NC Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Water Resources (NC
DEQ- DWR), and NC Division of Parks and Recreation (NC DPR) in May 2019, and to the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and United
Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in July of 2019. Start of Study notifications were sent
to NCDOT Division 11 and NCDOT Preconstruction contacts in May 2019.

Comments provided by USFWS regarding the project include the following: recommendations
for erosion and sediment control, Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), migratory birds, and replacing
structures that cross rivers and streams. No project-specific comments were provided.

Response: The NLEB has been assessed by the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group, and the
nearest NLEB hibernacula record is 42 miles west of the project and no known NLEB roost trees
occur within 150 feet of the project area.

NC DWR provided general project comments regarding 401 Water Quality Certification, erosion
and sediment control BMPs, and mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S.

NC WRC provided standard bridge replacement comments regarding Section 404 permitting,
endangered species, erosion and sediment control, and anadromous fish; project-specific
comments note that significant trout resources are not expected and there is no request for a
trout moratorium.

USACE and NC DPR had no specific comments regarding the proposed actions. No response
was received from FHWA, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

Public Involvement: A landowner notification letter was sent on 2/7/2019 to property owners
adjacent to the bridge to inform them of representatives being present on their property for
surveys. No comments have been received to date.

Prior to ROW, newsletters will be sent out by STV on behalf of NCDOT to the properties
affected by the project to inform them of the project; see Section I, Project Commitments.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E

5 Updated 9/26/2019

F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists:

Type I & II - Ground Disturbing Actions
FHWA APPROVAL ACTIVITIES THRESHOLD CRITERIA
If any of questions 1-7 are marked “yes” then the CE will require FHWA approval. Yes No
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)? ☐ ☒
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA)? ☐ ☒
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any
reason, following appropriate public involvement? ☐ ☒
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to
low-income and/or minority populations? ☐ ☒
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a
substantial amount of right of way acquisition? ☐ ☒
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ☐ ☒
7
Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic
Landmark (NHL)?
☐ ☒
If any of questions 8 through 31 are marked “yes” then additional information will be required for those
questions in Section G.
Other Considerations Yes No
8
Does the project result in a finding of “may affect not likely to adversely affect”
for listed species, or designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)? ☐ ☒
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? ☐ ☒
10
Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water
(ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas,
303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV)?
☐ ☒
11 Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout streams? ☐ ☒
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual
Section 404 Permit? ☐ ☒
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) licensed facility? ☐ ☒
14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination
other than a no effect, including archaeological remains? ☐ ☒
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E

6 Updated 9/26/2019

Other Considerations (continued) Yes No
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills? ☐ ☒
16
Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a
regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood)
elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
☒ ☐
17
Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and
substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC)?
☐ ☒
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ☐ ☒
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a
designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? ☐ ☒
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ☐ ☒
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS),
USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands? ☐ ☒
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control? ☐ ☒
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness? ☐ ☐
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ☐ ☒
25
Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (where
applicable)?
Not Applicable
☐ ☒
26
Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in
fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or
covenants on the property?
☐ ☒
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? ☐ ☒
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ☐ ☐
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy? ☐ ☒
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by
the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? ☒ ☐
31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that
affected the project decision? ☐ ☒

DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E

7 Updated 9/26/2019

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F

Response to Question 16 – Floodplain Impacts
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of 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).

Response to Question 30 - Prime and Important Farmland Soils:
Prime and Important Farmland Soils as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
are located within the project study area. A project footprint for the Prime and Important
Farmland Soils assessment was created to include a 25-foot buffer from the slope stakes. The
Prime and Important Farmland Soil found within the footprint are designated as all areas are
Farmland of Statewide Importance and Prime Farmland if drained and either protected from
flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season.

A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Farmland Conversion Impact Rating has
been completed for this project and a total score of 50 out of 160 points was calculated for the
BR-0126 project site. Since the total of the points assigned in part VI of the NRCS Farmlands
Conversion Form AD-1006 for BR-0126 is less than 60 and therefore the total points of the
NRCS Farmlands Conversion Form AD-1006 is less than 160, no mitigation for farmland loss
is required for the project in accordance with FPPA.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E

8 Updated 9/26/2019

H. Categorical Exclusion Approval

Project No. BR-0126
WBS Element 48835.1.1
Federal Project No. N/A

Prepared By:

Date Elizabeth Scott, EI, STV Engineers Inc.

Prepared For:

Reviewed By:

Date Philip S. Harris, III, PE, Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation

☒ Approved
If all of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered “no,” NCDOT approves this
Categorical Exclusion.

☐ Certified
If any of the threshold questions (1 through 7) of
Section F are answered “yes,” NCDOT certifies this
Categorical Exclusion.

Date Kevin Fischer, PE, Structures Management Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation

FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature
required.

N/A
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

North Carolina Department of Transportation
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
9/26/2019
9/27/2019
9/27/2019

9 Updated 9/26/2019

I. Project Commitments

Wilkes County
Bridge No. 960667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks Creek
WBS No. 48835.1.1
Project No. BR-0126

NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of 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).

NCDOT Division 11 Construction
FEMA Floodplains and Floodways
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.

NCDOT Structures Management Unit
Public Involvement Newsletter
Prior to ROW, newsletters will be sent out by STV on behalf of NCDOT to the properties
affected by the project to inform them of the project.

NCDOT –Division 11
Agricultural Land Use
Continued coordination should occur through right of way with the owners of the
agricultural lands that are temporarily impacted by construction.

NCDOT Division 11
Continued Coordination for Schools and Emergency Services
NCDOT should coordinate construction activities with Wilkes County Schools (Eric
Barker, 336-667-1126) and Wilkes County Emergency Services (Timothy Pennington,
336-651-7363) at least one month prior to construction.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
CreekCr.SparksSPARKS CREEKSPARKS CREEK SPARKS CREEK(SR 1917)TRAPHILL UNION RD.(SR 1764)TIDLINE RD.(SR 1751)TRAPHILL RIDGE RD.(SR 1002)
TRAPHILL RD.(SR 1784)JOHN P FRANK RD.(SR 1749)
A
USTIN TR
AP
HILL R
D.(SR 1939)BILLINGS HILL CHURCH RD.(SR 1749)AUSTI
N TRAPHI
LL RD.
(SR 1935)
KING BILLINGS RD.
(SR 1752)S
WARINGER RD.
(SR 1924)
CHURCH RD.
ROARING GAP
(SR 1918)WI
LEY ROYAL RD.
(
S
R
1
7
5
2)
S
WARI
NGER RD.
(SR 1002)
TRAPHILL RD.
(S
R 2078)HANKS ST.
PROJECT
END
PROJECT
BEGIN
END BRIDGEBEGIN BRIDGE
-L
-SP
AR
KS C
REE
K
-L- STA. 12+43.00
-L- STA. 21+95.00
BEGIN TIP PROJECT BR-0126
END TIP PROJECT BR-0126
4
-L- STA. 16+06 +/--L- STA. 17+08 +/-
B
R
A
N
C
H
C
H
E
A
TW
O
O
DBRANCHCHEATWOODTO TRAPHI
LL RD.
TO SWARINGER RD.
).DR LLIHPART NI
TSUA( 9
4
7
1 RS
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STATE PROJ. NO.F. A. PROJ. NO.DESCRIPTION
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
PROJECT ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES
PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)DEPARTMEN
T
O
F TRA N S PORTATIONSTATEOFNORT
H
CAR
O
LI
NA0
0
PLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY:
NC License Number F-0991
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:
NCDOT CONTACT:
PROJECT LENGTH
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
P.E.
SIGNATURE:
PROJECT DESIGNER
900 West Trade St., Ste. 715, Charlotte NC, 28202
ENGINEER
DESIGN
ROADWAY
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
See Sheet 1B For Standard Symbology Sheet
See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
DHV
D
T
V
=
=
=
=
=
ADT
N/A
DESIGN DATA
55
N/AN/A
MPH
STV ENGINEERS, INC.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.wrightepR:\Roadway\Proj\PSH\BR-0126_RDY_TSH.dgn9/5/2019N/A
GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, AND STRUCTURE
ETHAN P. WRIGHT, PE
-----------
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
-----------TIP PROJECT: BR-0126CONTRACT:BR-0126
48835.1.1 P.E.
THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD ___.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.
KEVIN G. BAILEY, PE
WILKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 960667 OVER SPARKS CREEK
ON SR 1749 (AUSTIN TRAPHILL ROAD)
Scale : 60
50 100
50 1002550
2550
5 102.55
2016 710
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT UNIT
TIERRE PETERSON, PE
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT BR-0126 = 0.180 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT BR-0126 = 0.019 MILES
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT BR-0126 = 0.161 MILESSUBMITTED 09-04-19PRELIMINARY PLANSSUB-REGIONAL TIER
MINOR RURAL COLLECTOR
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
=ADT 2040 1100 NAD 83NA 2011 DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
BST
15"RCP
4' BW
4' BW
4' BW
BSTGR
12" CMP
BST7
2
" RCP
7
2
" RCP
G
RGRGR
8" CLAY
T
H
H
HH
AUSTIN TRAPHILL RD. (SR 1749)AUSTI
N TRAPHI
LL RD. (SR 1749)
TO SWARINGER RD. (SR 1752)
S
P
AR
KS
C
R
E
E
KSPARKS CREEKCHEATWOOD BRANCHCONCCONCCONCCONCHI
NCHE
R
L
N.CHEATWOOD BRANCHEIPEIP
EIP
E
IP
E
IP
E
IPN 04°09'08" E149.85'N
2
4°4
5'4
3" W12
3.7
7'
5.4
0'
S
2
4°13'18"
E
115.0
5'N 19°40'42" E464.71'N 08°00'38" W9.78'13.44'S04°58'09" EN
2
0
°
2
2'
0
8
" W13
3.
7
5'N 21°47'40" E202.23'N 40°26'35" E94.65'N 12°35'04" E170.82'N 09°06'27" E14.99'N 35°30'26" WS 05°28'28" E23.29'S 16°53'19" W108.77'EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EX
IST
ING
R
/W
EXISTING
R
/WEXISTING R/
W 40.00'40.00'
SHERRY BECK MCBRIDE
AND WIFE
MICHAEL BARNETTE MCBRIDE
DB 1211 PG 181
DB 1068 PG 452
REBECCA R. WINEBARGER
DB 1068 PG 452
DB 1085 PG 53
WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER JESSE
DB 1243 PG 334
SHAWN P. CARROLL
DB 1182 PG 16
TREES
TREES
TREES
ELEV=1194.81'
E=1406669.9725
N=946795.4301
BR-0126 GPS-1
TREES
RIP RAP
CONC HW
CONC
CONC WW
33JLH 1963
GRASS
LISA B. CARROLL
AND WIFE
RICKY C. CARROLL
DB 859 PG 207
ELEV=1198.82'
E=1407329.9708
N=946817.9557
BR-0126 GPS-2
PASTURE
TREES
WTMWTM
BM#1
TREES
13.56'
BM#2
ELEV=1203.11'
E=1406306.3600
N=946943.8930
BR-0126 BL-3
WINEBARGER
REBECCA R.
VANNOY, JR.
JOHN LUKE
VANNOY AND
CHRISTOPHER LEE
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/999/4/2019R:\Roadway\Proj\PSH\BR-0126_RDY_PSH_04.dgnwrightepNC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
4
NAD 83NA 201114+0013+0012+0011+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00
1195
1205
1185
1175
1165
1215
1225
1235
1245
1195
1205
1185
1175
1165
1215
1225
1235
1245
BR-0126
PI Sta 11+58.17
D
L = 144.51'
T = 72.28'
R = 2,500.00'
PI Sta 13+77.05
D
L = 291.44'
T = 146.65'
R = 1,060.00'
PI Sta 17+20.70
D
L = 397.04'
T = 198.85'
R = 2,810.00'
PI Sta 20+27.61
D
L = 216.69'
T = 108.72'
R = 1,060.00'
-L-
e = EXIST
DS = EXIST
e = 4%
DS = 55 MPHDS = 55 MPH
e = 6%e = 6%
DS = 55 MPH
RO = 144'RO = 96'RO = 144'
BRIDGE #960667
05505060504030280605040405060605040302403804050611'11'8:1
8:18:1
8:1 11'11'GREU, TL-3
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
GREU, TL-3
GREU, TL-3
-L-
AUSTIN TRAPHILL RD.
24'
TYP.
24'
TYP.+55.00-L- POT Sta. 10+00.00
-L- PC Sta. 10+85.89
-L- PCC Sta. 12+30.41
-L- PCC Sta. 15+21.8515+00-L- PCC Sta. 19+18.88 20+00-L- PT Sta. 21+35.57
-L- POT Sta. 23+92.20
+98.00+08.60+42.20+40.00TY
P.24'+71.80+31.42+89.13+24.87
+82.58
+38.96
50' R15' R
PROJECT BR-0126
BEGIN TIP
-L- STA. 12+43.00
PROJECT BR-0126
END TIP
-L- STA. 21+95.00 06TL-3
GREU
1
1
2
3
4
5
+18.88
+95.00
EX. R/W
45.00' LT,
+18.87
70.00' LT
+21.85
55.00' LT
+35.57
45.00' LT
+35.57
50.00' RT
+95.00
+18.88
50.00' RT
EX. R/W,
+45.00
50.00' RT
EX. R/W,
+64.03
56.55' LT
50.00' RT
45.00' LT
+71.69
55.00' LT
EX. R/W,
(-
)3
.2003%(-)0.3069%
(-)0.3069%(+)3.4017%
-L- STA. 12+43.00
ELEV. = 1200.53'
EXISTING GROUND
-L- STA. 21+95.00
ELEV. = 1199.53'
LOW POINT
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
EX
IST
. (-
)3
.3398%EXIST. (+)3.6856%
ELEV = 1194.38'
STA 18+92.30
PI = 13+88.00
EL = 1,195.89'
VC = 290'
K = 100
DS = 51 MPH
PI = 20+30.00
EL = 1,193.92'
VC = 330'
K = 89
DS = 48 MPH
18.5" DIA. POPLAR
RR SPIKE SET IN
ELEV. 1196.80'
19.62' LT
-L- STA 15+62.16
BM 1
IN 17.5" DIA. OAK
RR SPIKE SET
ELEV. 1200.36'
51.70' LT
-L- STA 13+20.67
BM 2
BRIDGE
CLASS II RIP RAP
CLASS II RIP RAP1.5:11.5:1PROJECT BR-0126
BEGIN TIP
PROJECT BR-0126
END TIPFFF
F
C
F
C
F
C
F
C
F
C
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
"î
"î
^_
Austin Traphill Rd
R C Rd Lyon RidgeCook-Lyon RdBillings Hill Church RdState Rd 1939 State Rd 1749
York CreekCheatwood Br
anc
hS p a r k s C r e e k
July 2019
Fig ure 1
Legend
^_Br. 960667 overSparks CreekProject StudyDirect CommunityImpact Area(DCIA)
StreamWater BodyFloodplainParcel
¯
^_
Sources: Wilkes County GIS Department, NC One Map & Google Earth
0 940 1,880470Feet
Bridge No. 960667Replacementover Sparks CreekWilkes CountyNCDOT Division 11
Wilkes County, NC
£¤421
¬«16
WilkesboroHincher Ln£¤421 ¬«18
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 12

NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: BR-0126 County: Wilkes
WBS No: 67126 Document: Federal Categorical Exclusion
F.A. No: Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description: Replace Bridge 667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphil Rd.) over Sparks Creek in
Wilkes County. The Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.) is approximately 436 meters (1,431 ft.)
long and 60 meters (198 ft.) wide. The project is State-funded and will require Federal permits.
Easements will be required.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group 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:
See attached report
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Other:
Signed:

CALEB SMITH 8/15/2019

NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating  July 2019  page 1

NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating:
Bridge No. 960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) over East Prong of Roaring River
in Wilkes County, NC
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS – POINT PROJECT

1. Area in non-urban use. Points awarded = 12 out of 15
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 80% of the land within the 1-mile buffer is non-urban.

2. Perimeter in non-urban use. Points awarded = 8 out of 10
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 80% borders on land in non -urban use.

3. Percent of site being farmed. Points awarded = 10 out of 20
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 50% of the site is being farmed.

4. Protection provided by state and local government. Points awarded = 0 out of 20
The site is not designated as a Voluntary Agriculture District (VAD) or Enhanced Voluntary Agriculture
District (EVAD).

5. Distance from urban built-up area. Points awarded = 5 out of 15
Determined using aerial photography; community of Traphill is less than one-mile from, but not adjacent
to the site.

6. Distance to urban support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 15
Services exist within ½ mile of the project site.

7. Size of present farm unit compared to average. Points awarded = 5 out of 10
The majority of the farm units are more than 50% below the average size farm unit in Wilkes County (114
acres)

8. Creation of non-farmable farmland. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
This project will have no implications on remaining farmable land.

9. Availability of farm support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 5
No farm support services were identified within the site.

10. On-farm investments. Points awarded = 10 out of 20
Some on-farm investments including barns and storage buildings were identified using aerial imagery.

11. Effects of conversion on farm support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
No significant reduction in demand for farm support services would occur as a result from the project.

12. Compatibility with existing agricultural use. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
The project is compatible with existing agricultural use.

Conclusion: Total Points = 50 out of 160
NCDOT has completed a screening of farmland in the project area and calculated the total number of points for
the site per Part VI of the NRCS AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating  July 2019  page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: E94D6315-EB5E-43DD-ACD5-9A62232EF73E

Appendix A

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 10/08/2019

TO: File FILE NUMBER: 4019918

FROM: STV Engineers Inc. PROJECT/PROP. NO.: BR-0126

SUBJECT: BR-0126 CE Documentation CLIENT: NCDOT Structures Management Unit

The following documents were used in the preparation of the Categorical Exclusion for BR-0126.

- Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Historic Properties Present or Affected Form
(03/11/2019)
- Archaeological Survey Required Form (02/14/2019)
- No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Present Form
(08/15/2019)
- Local EMS Input (03/18/2019)
- Local School Input (02/22/2019)
- Local Planner Input (02/22/2019)
- Natural Resources Technical Report (05/2019)
- Section 7 Survey Results for the Northern Long -eared Bat (03/28/2019)
- Landowner Notification (02/07/2019)
- Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package (PJD) (05/06/2019)
- Community Impact Assessment (CIA) (July 2019)
- Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (07/2019)
- Certification of Financial Contribution BUILD Grant Application (07/19/2018)
- Field Scoping Meeting Worksheet (04/17/2019)
- EIS Relocation Report (09/03/2019)
- Right of Way Cost Estimate (09/02/2019)
- NCDOT Bridges Budget and Sources Used (2018)
- NCDOT Bridge Crash Count (2018)
- Bridge Traffic Review Sheet (10/02/2018)
- GeoEnvironmental Pre-Scoping Comments (06/07/2019)
- Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Comments (06/01/2019)
- NCDOT Hydraulics Pre -Scoping Comments (03/25/2019)
- Structure Safety Report (01/18/2017)

MEMORANDUM

PAGE 2 OF 2

- FEMA Flood Insurance Study (12/03/2009)
- NCDOT Rail Pre-Scoping Comments (05/10/2019)
- North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Pre -Scoping Comments (05/10/2019)
- North Carolina Division of Water Resources Pre -Scoping Comments (05/14/2019)
- North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Pre-Scoping Comments (08/22/2019)
- US Fish and Wildlife Pre-Scoping Comments (05/23/2019)
- Screening Checklist (accessed 08/2019)
- Pre-Screening Worksheet (05/21/2018)
- Pre-Screening Summary (08/30/2018)
- Division Resource Map (accessed 07/09/2019)

Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 10

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: BR-0126 County: Wilkes
WBS No: 67126 Document: Federal Categorical Exclusion
F.A. No: Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description: Replace Bridge 667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphil Rd.) over Sparks Creek in
Wilkes County. The Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.) is approximately 536 meters (1,759 ft.)
long and 122 meters (400 ft.) wide. The project is State-funded and will require Federal permits.
Easements will be required.

SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES REVIEW: SURVEY REQUIRED
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The review included an examination of a topographic map, the Wilkes County web soil survey, an
aerial photograph, and records about previously recorded sites, previous archaeological surveys,
and previous envrionmental reviews at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh. Also, a reconnaissance of the project was conducted on 1/8/2019. The bridge is oriented
approximately east-west.

The topographic map (Traphill) shows the A.P.E. is located in a wide stream valley. The landforms
in the A.P.E. appear to be floodplain in all four quadrants. The floodplain is depicted as cleared,
indicating it may be well-drained. Well-drained floodplains have a moderate to high potential for
prehistoric archaeological sites. In the southwest quadrant, Cheatwood Branch runs along the
south side of SR 1749 and joins Sparks Creek a short distance south of the bridge. An unnamed
stream joins Cheatwood Branch near the west end of the A.P.E. An abandoned structure is shown
at the west end of the southwest quadrant. Road join SR 1749 in the northwest and southeast
quadrants.

The Wilkes County soil survey shows several soil types in the A.P.E. On the west side of the
bridge the soils include Dan River and Comus soils (0-4% slopes), occasionally-flooded, Codurus
loam (0-2% slopoes), frequently-flooded, Danripple sandy clay loam (8-15% slopes), moderately-
eroded, and Rhodhiss fine sandy loam (25-60% slopes). The soils on the east side of the bridge
include Dan River and Comus soils, Pfafftown fine sandy loam (1-6% slopes), rarely-flooded, and
Rhodhiss fine sandy loam. Dan River and Comus soils is a well-drained soil found on floodplains
and toeslopes. Codorus loam is a somewhat poorly-drained soils found on floodplains. Danripple
sandy clay loam is a well-drained soil found on slopes on stream terraces. Rhodhiss fine sandy
loam is a well-drained soil found on ridge side-slopes. Pfafftown fine sandy loam is a well-drained
soil found on stream terraces.

Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 10
The aerial photograph shows the land use in the A.P.E. is a mix of wooded and cleared. The
northwest quadrant is wooded, and there is a driveway near the middle. The southwest quadrant
is mostly wooded, although there is a small section of cleared land (pasture?) on the south side of
Cheatwood Creek. The southeast quadrant is cleared land (pasture?) in the west half. There is a
driveway near the middle, and a house yard at the east end. The northeast quadrant is cleared land
(pasture?) except for the east end which is occupied by a house and driveway.

A reconnaissance of the A.P.E. was conducted by NCDOT archaeologist Caleb Smith on 1/8/2019.
The reconnaissance found that three of the four quadrants include landforms with a moderate to
high potential for archaeological sites. The northeast and southeast quadrants have the largest
sections of high potential landforms. there is one small landform in the northwest quadrant that
has some archaeological potential. No survey is recommended in the southwest quadrant.

The landform in the northwest quadrant is a ridge toe from the bridge west for approximately 60
meters (200 ft.), then Hincher Lane (driveway), then the Cheatwood Branch valley, then another
sloped ridge. There is a level part of the ridge toe overlooking the creek that may be the former
location of a structure. Survey is recommended for the ridge toe, only.

The landform in the southwest quadrant is a narrow strip of poorly-drained land between the road
and Cheatwood Branch from the bridge west for approximately 120 meters (394 ft.). An unnamed
stream joins Cheatwood Branch at this point. The land at the west end of the A.P.E. is a wider
landform between the road and the stream. The soil survey shows the soil in the western half of
the A.P.E. is poorly-drained Codorus loam. No survey is recommended for this quadrant.

The landform in the southeast quadrant is a level floodplain/terrace from the bridge east for
approximately 180 meters (591 ft.), and then a driveway, and then a ridge. The floodplain/terrace
is currently used as pasture or a hay field. The soil survey shows the soils on the floodplain are
Dan River and Comus soils, an occasionally-flooded yet well-drained soil, and Pfafftown fine
sandy loam, a well-drained soil. The landform has a moderate to high potential for archaeological
sites.

The landform in the northeast quadrant is a level floodplain/terrace from the bridge east for 180
meters (591 ft.). A driveway leading to a farm complex is at the east end of the A.P.E. The
floodplain/terrace is currently used as a pasture or hay field. The soils on the floodplain are the
same as in the southeast quadrant. It has a moderate to high potential for archaeological sites.

Recommend survey of the floodplain/terrace landforms in the northeast and southeast quadrants.
Recommend survey of the ridge toe next to the bridge in the northwest quadrant. No survey is
recommended in the southwest quadrant.

We can complete these investigations using one of the Archaeology Team’s on-call firms, or if
Division 11 would like to manage and complete the survey they can use a NCDOT prequalified
archaeologist under contract with one of Division’s on-call firms. We can provide a scope of
work for the Division to use, but we do need to know within seven days which path the Division
plans to follow. All products produced by the Division’s consultant will need to be submitted to
the Archaeology Team for review, acceptance, and submittal to the Office of State Archaeology
as per the Programmatic Agreement. We would be happy to discuss this approach with you.

Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 10

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST – SURVEY REQUIRED
Caleb Smith 2/14/2019
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
5/9/2019

Proposed fieldwork completion date
Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 10

Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 10

Project
Area
Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 10

Area of
Potential
Effects
Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 10

Area of
Potential
Effects
Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 10

Figure 1: East view of Cheatwood Branch in the northwest quadrant.
Figure 2: East view of the ridge toe in the northwest quadrant.
Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 10

Figure 3: Southeast view of the southwest quadrant.
Figure 4: West view of the southwest quadrant.
Project Tracking No.:
18-09-0088
“ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
10 of 10

Figure 5: West view of the southeast quadrant.
Figure 6: East view of the northeast quadrant.
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 12

NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: BR-0126 County: Wilkes
WBS No: 67126 Document: Federal Categorical Exclusion
F.A. No: Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description: Replace Bridge 667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphil Rd.) over Sparks Creek in
Wilkes County. The Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.) is approximately 436 meters (1,431 ft.)
long and 60 meters (198 ft.) wide. The project is State-funded and will require Federal permits.
Easements will be required.
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Archaeology Group 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:
See attached report
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Other:
Signed:

CALEB SMITH 8/15/2019

NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 12

Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 12

Study
Area
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 12
Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Replacement of Bridge 667
on SR 1749 (Austin-Traphill Rd.) over Sparks Creek,
Wilkes County, North Carolina
(Programmatic Agreement # 18-09-0088)
Caleb Smith (8/15/2019)

The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) conducted an archaeological survey for the
replacement of Bridge 667 on SR 1749 (Austin-Traphill Rd.) over Sparks Creek. The Area of
Potential Effects (A.P.E.) of the proposed bridge replacement is approximately 436 meters (1,431
ft.) long and 60 meters (198 ft.) wide. The bridge is oriented approximately east-west.

The initial cultural resources review included the examination of a topographic map, the Wilkes
County web soil survey, an aerial photograph, and records about previously recorded sites,
previous archaeological surveys, and previous environmental reviews at the North Carolina Office
of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. Also, a reconnaissance of the project area was conducted
on 1/8/2019. The study area at that time was much larger than the current A.P.E. (536 meters
[1,759 ft.] long and 122 meters [400 ft.] wide).

The topographic map (Traphill) shows the A.P.E. is located in a wide stream valley (Figure 1).
The landforms in the A.P.E. appeared to be floodplain in all four quadrants. The Wilkes County
soil survey shows several soil types in the A.P.E. On the west side of the bridge the soil types
consisted of poorly-drained, eroded, and/or sloped soils. On the east side of the bridge the soil
types consisted of well-drained soils. The aerial photograph showed the land use in the A.P.E. is
a mix of wooded and cleared. Much of the A.P.E. on the east side of the bridge was shown as
cleared pasture or grass field. The reconnaissance found that three of the four quadrants include
landforms with a moderate to high potential for archaeological sites. The northeast and southeast
quadrants had the largest sections of high potential landforms. There was one small landform in
the northwest quadrant that had some archaeological potential. On 2/14/2019, a survey was
recommended for the floodplain/terrace landforms in the northeast and southeast quadrants, and
the ridge toe next to the bridge in the northwest quadrant. No survey was recommended in the
southwest quadrant.

A reduced A.P.E. for the project was submitted in June 2019 (Figure 2). The A.P.E. still included
the floodplain landforms in the southeast and northeast quadrants, but less of them. It did not
include the ridge toe in the northwest quadrant. The A.P.E. includes the land along the south side
of the road within approximately 19 meters (62 ft.) of the centerline, and within 40 meters (131
ft.) of centerline on the north side. The archaeological survey was conducted by NCDOT
archaeologists Brian Overton and Caleb Smith on 7/10-7/11/2019. The survey was conducted on
the floodplain in the southeast and northeast quadrants. The locations of the shovel tests (STs) are
shown on the aerial photograph in Figure 3, and each ST is described in Table 1.

The archaeological survey began in the southeast quadrant. One line of STs was excavated at a
30-meter (100-ft.) interval along the south side of the road (Figure 4). The land use in this area
was a grass field or pasture. ST 1 was placed approximately 15 meters (50 ft.) east of the creek
and 10 meters (32 ft.) south of the base of the roadbed. The roadbed is elevated approximately 2
meters (7 ft.) above the ground elevation at this location.
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 12

Area of
Potential
Effects
Figure 1: Topographic map of the Area of Potential Effects.
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 12

Figure 2: Aerial photograph of the 2018 (yellow) study area and the 2019 (red) Area
of Potential Effects (courtesy of STV).
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 12

Area of Potential
Effects
Bridge 667
Site
31WK294
Figure 3: Aerial photograph of the Area of Potential Effects showing shovel test locations.
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 12

Table 1: Description of Shovel Tests.
Shovel
Test
Description Artifacts
Southeast Quadrant
1 0-20 cm 10YR 4/4 (dark yellowish brown) silty loam; 20-
37 cm 5YR 4/4 (reddish brown) silty loam; 37-60 cm
10YR 4/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty clay
-
2 0-36 cm 5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) silty loam; 36-60 cm 7.5
YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam
-
3 0-50 cm 10YR 3/6 (dark yellowish brown) silty loam -
4 0-28 cm 5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) silty loam; 28-42 cm
5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) clay loam; 42-55 cm 10YR 4/6
(dark yellowish brown) silty loam (buried A?); 55-70 cm
5 YR 4/6 (yellowish red) silty loam
2 gray chert lithic reduction
flakes (tertiary); 1 prehistoric
ceramic (stamped? Quartz
temper?). Site 31WK294
5 0-38 cm 5YR 4/4 (reddish brown) silty loam; 38-60 cm
7.5 YR 5/6 (strong brown) silty loam
-
6 0-31 cm 5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) silty clay w/ gravel; 31-
60 cm 5YR ¾ (dark reddish brown) silty clay
-
7 0-35 cm 5YR 4/4 (reddish brown) silty loam; 35-41 cm
5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) clay loam; 41-48 cm 5YR 3/3
(dark reddish brown) silty loam (buried A?); 48-60 cm
5YR 4/4 (reddish brown) silty loam
3 gray chert lithic reduction
flakes (2 tertiary; 1 secondary?);
1 historic ceramic (stoneware).
Site 31WK294
8 0-32 cm 5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) silty loam; 32-47 cm
5YR 4/2 (dark reddish gray) with charcoal, mottled; 47-
62 cm 7.5YR 4/6 (strong brown) clay loam
-
9 0-60 cm 5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) silty clay -
Northeast Quadrant
10 0-45 cm 5YR 3/3 (dark reddish brown) silty loam; 45-60
cm 7.5 YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam
-
11 0-40 cm 7.5YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam; 40-55 cm
7.5YR 5/8 (strong brown) silty loam
-
12 0-40 cm 7.5 YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam with gravel;
stopped at gravel layer
1 gray chert lithic reduction flake
(tertiary). Site 31WK294
13 0-33 cm 7.5YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam; 32-60 cm
5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) clay loam
-
14 0-36 cm 7.5YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam; 36-60 cm
5YR 4/6 (yellowish red) silty clay
-
15 0-37 cm 7.5YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam; 37-60 cm
5YR 5/8 (yellowish red) silty loam
1 gray chert lithic reduction
flake/ shatter. Site 31WK294
16 0-60 cm 7.5YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam 1 light brown chert lithic
reduction flake (tertiary). Site
31WK294
17 0-37 cm 7.5YR 4/6 (strong brown) silty loam; 37-55 cm
7.5 YR 4/8 (strong brown) silty loam
-

Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 12

The difference between the roadbed and ground elevation gradually declines to the east. There is
a small drainage ditch located along the south side of the road in this quadrant. STs were placed
as close to the roadbed as possible while avoiding the disturbed roadside (Figure 5). STs 2-6 were
placed at a 30-meter (100-ft.) interval along the south side of the road. ST 4 contained three
prehistoric artifacts (2 lithic reduction flakes and one ceramic). STs 7-9 were placed to the east
and west of ST 4 at a 15-meter (50-ft.) interval. No STs were excavated to the south because of
the limits of the A.P.E. in that direction. ST 7, located 15 meters (50 ft.) west of ST 4, contained
three prehistoric artifacts (3 lithic reduction flakes). Along with positive STs on the north side of
the road, these are part of site 31WK294. STs 8-9 did not contain any artifacts.

Across the road in the northeast quadrant, one line of STs was excavated at a 30-meter (100-ft.)
interval along the north side of the road (Figure 6). The land use in this area was a grass field or
pasture. ST 10 was placed approximately 30 meters (100 ft.) east of the creek and 20 meters (66
ft.) south of the base of the roadbed. Like the southeast quadrant, the roadbed is elevated above
the ground elevation, and the difference gradually declines to the east. STs were placed a little
farther away from the roadbed in this quadrant because the A.P.E. is slightly wider. STs 11-14
were placed at a 30-meters (100-ft.) interval along the north side of the road. ST 12 contained one
prehistoric artifact (one lithic reduction flake). STs 15-17 were placed to the east and west of ST
12 at a 15-meter (50-ft.) interval (Figure 7).

Figure 4: West view of the southeast quadrant.
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
10 of 12

Figure 5: East view of the southeast quadrant.
Figure 6: West view of the northeast quadrant.
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
11 of 12

No STs were excavated to the north because of the limits of the A.P.E. in that direction. ST 15,
located 15 meters (50 ft.) west of ST 12, contained 1 lithic reduction flake. ST 16, located 15
meters (50 ft.) west of ST 11, also contained 1 lithic reduction flake. Along with the positive STs
on the south side of the road, these are part of 31WK294. ST 17 did not contain any artifacts.

Site 31WK294

Site 31WK294 is a scatter of prehistoric artifacts located in the southeast and northeast quadrants.
The site is located on both the north and south sides of SR 1749, on a floodplain/terrace along the
east side of Sparks Creek. The site boundaries are formed by negative STs to the east and west,
and by the limits of the A.P.E. to the north and south.

The site was identified by five positive STs excavated at a 15-meter (50-ft.) interval. Two positive
STs were located on the south side of the road, and three were on the north side. The east and west
boundaries of the site were established by the excavation of two negative STs at a 15-meter (50-
ft.) interval in each direction. No STs were excavated to the north or south due to the boundaries
of the project A.P.E.

On the south side of the road, ST 4 is located approximately 105 meters (345 ft.) east of Sparks
Creek. It contained two lithic reduction flakes and one prehistoric ceramic (stamped?). ST 7,
located 15 meters (50 ft.) west of ST 4, contained three lithic reduction flakes. Across the road in
Figure 7: Southeast view of the northeast quadrant.
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0088
“NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT OR AFFECTED
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
12 of 12
the northeast quadrant, ST 12 contained one lithic reduction flake. ST 15, located 15 meters (50
ft.) west of ST 12, contained 1 lithic reduction flake. ST 16, located 15 meters (50 ft.) west of ST
11, also contained one lithic reduction flake.

The soil in the A.P.E. consisted of around 60 centimeters (24 in.) of brown silty loam and silty
clay. Three STs on the south side of the road (4, 7 and 8) did reveal a layer of darker soil between
40-50 centimeters (16-20 in.) below surface. Artifacts were recovered from two of those STs. The
artifacts from ST 7 were recovered from the soil above the darker soil. The artifacts from ST 4
were recovered from the dark layer. Probing and STs around STs 4, 7 and 8 found that the darker
soil layer did not extend outside of that general area. Only one artifact was recovered from the
soil layer. It was interpreted as a non-cultural feature like a root or rodent burrow.

The STs recovered a total of eight artifacts, one prehistoric ceramic and seven lithic reduction
flakes. The ceramic sherd is very small, the surface treatment is eroded, and its age cannot be
speculated upon. None of the artifacts are diagnostic a specific period in prehistory. Eight artifacts
from five STs is considered a low artifact density.

Site 31WK294 is recommended ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
due to a lack of research potential. The conditions at the site indicate that additional work would
not produce any “important information” about the prehistory of this region. The STs excavated
at the site did not have any evidence of preserved cultural features (fire pits, storage pits, structural
remains, etc.). The artifacts recovered from the STs are commonly found at sites in the region and
are not diagnostic of a specific period in prehistory. No further work is recommended at this
location.

NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local EMS Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0126 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Contact Information
Interviewee Name: Timothy Pennington
Title/Position: Director
Organization/Agency: Wilkes County EMS
Email: [e-mail]
Date: March 18, 2019
Phone Number: [phone]

Completed Via: Email Phone
Interview Information/Instructions
If completed by phone:
Interviewed By (Name/Organization):

If completed by email:
Using the project information and map below, please respond to the following questions by typing your
answers in the space provided. Then save (using the Save As command) this file with a new file name for your
records and e-mail the new file back to the original sender. If you would prefer to complete a hard copy of this
form, please send all sheets to the address or fax number below:

Elizabeth Scott
STV Incorporated
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 225
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
[e-mail]
Fax: [phone]

Project Information
Replacement of Bridge 960667
on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill
Road) over Sparks Creek.

For all applicable questions, please provide a detailed explanation of your response in the
field provided.
Check if item
is applicable
1. Are there any concerns related to EMS services for this project? Please be as specific as possible
(e.g. location in a high call volume area, closure could affect response to schools, weight
restrictions, expected new development in the area, coordination with partner agency required
to facilitate service).

2. Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with the
condition/capacity of potential detour routes, or the location of resources along these routes?

3. Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where bridge or road closure or
reduction in number of lanes for construction would be of particular concern?

4. Rate the overall impact on emergency services if the bridge or roadway were closed or at reduced capacity for up
to a year:
No Impact Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact
5. Are road names referenced by the names locals would use?

6. Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or
stakeholders)?

7. Do you have any other concerns regarding the potential impact of this project on EMS services,
or any additional comments? Please be as specific as possible.
SOME RESPONSES MY BE DELAYED DUE TO DETOURS

NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local Schools Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0126 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Contact Information
Interviewee Name: Eric Barker
Title/Position: Transportation Director
Organization/Agency: Wilkes County Schools
Email: [e-mail]
Date: February 22, 2019
Phone Number: [phone]

Completed Via: Email Phone
Interview Information/Instructions
If completed by phone:
Interviewed By (Name/Organization):

If completed by email:
Using the project information and map below, please respond to the following questions by typing your answers in
the space provided. Then save (using the Save As command) this file with a new file name for your records and e-
mail the new file back to the original sender. If you would prefer to complete a hard copy of this form, please send all
sheets to the following address or fax number:

Elizabeth Scott
STV Incorporated
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 225
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
[e-mail]
Fax: [phone]

Project Information
Replacement of Bridge 960667 on SR 1749
(Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks Creek.

Check all questions that apply and provide a detailed explanation of your response in the
field provided.
Check if item
is applicable
1. How many school buses [cross the bridge/pass through the corridor] per day (total # of daily
buses, total # daily of trips)?
3 Buses. 9 Trips.
X
2. Is the corridor used by carpool traffic or pedestrians to access local schools? If yes, please describe
the location and time(s) of day.
Yes. Estimated 7:00am and 3:00pm
X
3. [Applicable if schools are located in or near the project area] Are there any Safe Routes to School
plans in place at schools in the vicinity of the project?
No.
X
4. Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with the
condition/capacity of potential detour routes or the location of resources along these routes with
respect to school traffic?
Yes. Bus Turnaround for stops from Billings Hill Ch Rd and Swaringen Rd.
X
5. Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where bridge or road closure or
reduction in number of lanes for construction would be of particular concern?
No.
X
6. Rate the overall impact on school transportation if the bridge or roadway were closed or at reduced capacity for
up to a year:
No Impact Low Impact Moderate Impact X High Impact
7. Are road names referenced by the names locals would use?
Yes. X
8. Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or
stakeholders)?
Yes. Wilkes Transportation Authority (WTA). Stone Mountain State Park.
X
9. Are there any other concerns you have regarding the potential impact of this project on school
transportation services or any additional comments? Please be as specific as possible.

NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local Planner Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0126 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Contact Information
Interviewee Name: Eddie Barnes
Title/Position: Director
Organization/Agency: Wilkes County Planning Department
Email: [e-mail]
Date: February 22, 2019
Phone Number: [phone]

Completed Via: Email Phone
Interview Information/Instructions
If completed by phone:
Interviewed By (Name/Organization):

If completed by email:
Using the project information and map below, please respond to the following questions by typing your answers in the
space provided. Then save (using the Save As command) this file with a new file name for your records and e-mail the
new file back to the original sender. If you would prefer to complete a hard copy of this form, please send all sheets to
the address or fax number below:

Elizabeth Scott
STV Incorporated
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 225
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
[e-mail]
Fax: [phone]

Project Information
Replacement of Bridge 960667 on SR
1749 (Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks
Creek.

Check those questions that apply and provide a detailed explanation of your response
in the field provided.
Check if item is
applicable
Growth and Development
1. Are there any known plans for development in the vicinity of the project?
NO
2. Are there any adopted plans for growth or economic development that could directly affect or
be affected by this project?
NO

3. Are there plans to extend water/sewer lines or to build any new facilities, such as fire stations,
schools, or other facilities, in the vicinity of the project?
NO

4. Are there any specific business and/or economic resources present in the project area, such as
business parks, distribution centers, manufacturing facilities, etc.?
NO

Special Populations
5. Are you aware of any minority, low-income or limited English proficiency (LEP) populations/
communities in the vicinity of the project? If so, please provide the locations of these
populations in the area. [If yes, proceed to Question 6. If no, skip to Question 7.]
NO

6. Are there specific community resources or services that are used by minority, low-income or
LEP populations in the vicinity of the project? How is the project likely to affect minority and
low-income populations?
NO

7. Are there any tribal groups connected with land, religious, ethnic or other special populations
with different mobility needs or outreach needs in the project area?
NO

8. Who should we contact to discuss outreach needs for any special populations? Please provide
input on community leader contacts, media sources or other ways to reach these populations.
WILKES COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES

Access, Accessibility, and Mobility
9. Is there pedestrian or bicycle activity/traffic or transit use along the project? If so, please
describe multimodal activity in the project area.
YES, LIMITED RECREATIONAL RIDERS

10. Are there any existing access, accessibility, or mobility concerns or any barriers to non-auto
travel in the area? Please consider all modes.
NARROW SHOULDERS, POOR VISIBILITY IN SOME AREAS

11. Are there any adopted plans for pedestrian, greenway, bicycle, or transit facilities in the area?
For each plan, please provide a description of how the plan applies to the project area, the
title of the plan, its year of adoption, and the current status of its implementation.
YES, ELKIN VALLEY TRAILS / MOUNTAIN TO SEA TRAIL

Agricultural Operations
12. Are you aware of any active agricultural operations in the vicinity of the project? If so, please
describe these operations (e.g. size, ownership, crops, years farmed, suppliers, customers,
value to the community). [If yes, answer Question 12. If no, skip to Question 13.]
YES THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF HAY, CORN, BEEF CATTLE, POULTRY, TOBACCO

13. Are farm support services—such as farm suppliers, equipment dealers, processing and storage
facilities, and farmer’s markets—located in the vicinity of the project? If so, please describe
these services (e.g. type, location).
NO

14. Does the project lie within a VAD or EVAD district, or are you aware of any land with other
farmland protections (plans, tax districts or credits, trust, agricultural zoning, deed
restrictions)? If so, please describe the nature and location of these areas and properties.
YES, WILKES COUNTY VOLUNTARY AG DISTRICT

Other Notable Features
15. Are there any recreational properties within the project area that were purchased or
improved with Land and Water Conservation Act funds?
STONE MOUNTAIN STATE PARK

16. Are there any other specific notable community resources or issues in the project area? (e.g.
socio-economic resources, recreational resources, community safety concerns, cohesive
neighborhoods, areas in decline) If so, please describe.

Detours and Closures
17. Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where road or bridge closure or
reduction in number of lanes for construction would be of particular concern?
DEPENDS ON DETOUR ROUTE BUT POSSIBLE

18. [If applicable] Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with
the condition/capacity of potential detour routes, or the location of resources along these
routes?

19. Rate the overall impact on local planning objectives if the bridge or roadway were closed or at reduced capacity
for up to a year:
Positive Impact No Impact X Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact
Closing Questions
20. Are road names referenced by the names locals would use?
YES
21. Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or
stakeholders)?
STONE MOUNTAIN STATE PARK SUPERINTENDENT, WILKES COUNTY SCHOOL
SUPERINTENDENT

22. Do you have any additional comments about this project?

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Replacement of Bridge No. 960667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks
Creek
Wilkes County, North Carolina

STIP No. BR-0126
WBS Element No. 67126.3.1

THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting

May 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................1
3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ...........................................................................1
4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................................2
4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species .......................................................... 2
4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................. 3
5.0 WATER RESOURCES ..............................................................................................3
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................4
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. ..................................................................... 4
6.2 Construction Moratoria ......................................................................................... 5
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ............................................................................... 5
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ....................................... 5
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................6
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 4. Terrestrial Communities Map
Appendix B Qualifications of Contributors
Appendix C Protected Species Survey Reports

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area .................................. 1
Table 2. ESA federally protected species listed for Wilkes County ............................ 2
Table 3. Potential streams in the study area .................................................................. 3
Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area ........... 4
Table 5. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area ......... 5

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0126, Wilkes County, N.C.

1 May 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 960667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks Creek in Wilkes County,
North Carolina (STIP No. BR-0126; Figures 1-2). The following Natural Resources
Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a federally-
funded Categorical Exclusion (CE), which will be prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

2.0 METHODOLOGY

All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental Coordination
and Permitting’s (ECAP) Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and
the latest NRTR Template (November 2017). Field work was conducted on January 9,
2019. Potential jurisdictional areas identified in the study area have not been verified by
the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR). It is anticipated that the USACE will cover the potential
features associated with this project under a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
(PJD). The principal personnel contributing to the field work and document are provided
in Appendix B.

3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES

Three terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 4 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.)
Maintained/Disturbed
Fescue (Festuca spp.)
Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
10.8
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Southern red oak (Quercus falcata)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides)
2.8
Floodplain Forest
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana var.
virginiana)
Soft rush (Juncus effusus)
2.6
Total 16.2

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0126, Wilkes County, N.C.

2 May 2019

4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES

4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species

As of June 27, 2018, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists three federally
protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Wilkes County (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 listed for Wilkes County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T (S/A) No Not Required
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Yes Meets 4(d)
rule
Bombus affinis* Rusty-patched bumble
bee (RPBB) E ---$ N/A$
Note: E – Endangered; T – Threatened; T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
* - Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)
$ The USFWS does not and will not require surveys for RPBB in North Carolina because USFWS assumes
the state is unoccupied by RPBB.

Bog turtle
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: April 1 – October 1 (visual surveys); April 1-
June 15 (optimal for breeding/nesting); May 1-June 30 (trapping surveys)

Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance do not require Section
7 consultation with the USFWS. Moreover, suitable habitat (open, spring-fed,
emergent wetlands) is not present within the study area. A review of the April
2019 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates no
known bog turtle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat (NLEB)
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June 1 – August 15
Biological Conclusion: Meets 4(d) rule
This species has been assessed by the NCDOT – Biological Surveys Group
(BSG). NCDOT has determined that the proposed action does not require
separate consultation on the grounds that the proposed action is consistent with
the final Section 4(d) rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(o) and effective February
16, 2016. NCDOT may presume its determination is informed by best available
information and consider Section 7 responsibilities fulfilled for NLEB.
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0126, Wilkes County, N.C.

3 May 2019

Rusty-patched bumble bee (RPBB)
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: early-June – mid-August
Biological Conclusion: N/A
The USFWS lists RPBB as a historic record for Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Additionally, the USFWS does not and will not require surveys for RPBB in
North Carolina because USFWS assumes the state is unoccupied by RPBB.
Therefore, surveys for this species are not needed. A review of the April 2019
NCNHP database indicates no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile
of the study area.

4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and enforced
by the USFWS. 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 study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius
of the project limits, was performed on January 5, 2019 using the most currently-
available orthoimagery. Water bodies large and sufficiently open enough to be
considered potential feeding sources were not identified. Since foraging habitat was not
present within the review area, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of
the project limits was not required. A review of the April 2019 NCNHP database
revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to
the lack of habitat, 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

The study area is part of the Yadkin – Pee Dee River Basin (U.S. Geological Survey
[USGS] Hydrologic Unit [HUC] 03040101). Four potential streams were identified in
the study area (Table 3). The locations of each stream are shown on Figures 3 and 4.

Table 3. Potential streams in the study area (continued)
Stream Name Map ID NCDWR Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Bank
Height
(ft.)
Bankfull
width
(ft.)
Depth
(in.)
Sparks Creek Sparks
Creek 12-46-4-10-1 C 4-6 25-30 6-18
Cheatwood Branch Cheatwood
Branch 12-46-4-10-1-2 C 3-6 15-20 4-12
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0126, Wilkes County, N.C.

4 May 2019

Table 3. Potential streams in the study area (continued)
Stream Name Map ID NCDWR Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Bank
Height
(ft.)
Bankfull
width
(ft.)
Depth
(in.)
Unnamed Tributary
(UT) to Cheatwood
Branch
SA 12-46-4-10-1-2 C 1-5 3-6 2-6
UT to Cheatwood
Branch SB 12-46-4-10-1-2 C 1-3 2-4 1-4

There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or
water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area.
The project is located within a USACE-designated trout watershed; however, the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) does not identify any trout waters
within the study area or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The North
Carolina 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies no impaired waters within
the study area or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area.

No potential surface waters (i.e., ponds, tributaries, or basins) were identified within the
study area .

6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.

Four potential jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 4). The
locations of these streams are shown on Figures 3 and 4. NCDWR stream identification
forms for Streams SA and SB are included in a separate PJD Package. No North
Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) forms were completed due to a lack of
degraded conditions on any of the streams. All potential jurisdictional streams in the
study area have been designated as cool water streams for the purposes of stream
mitigation.

Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID Length (ft.) Classification Compensatory
Mitigation Required
River Basin
Buffer
Sparks Creek 428 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Cheatwood
Branch 846 Perennial Yes Not Subject
SA 510 Perennial Yes Not Subject
SB 75 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Total 1,859
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0126, Wilkes County, N.C.

5 May 2019

One potential jurisdictional wetland was identified within the study area (Table 5). The
location of this wetland is shown on Figures 3 and 4. This wetland is located within the
Yadkin – Pee Dee River Basin (USGS HUC 03040101). USACE wetland determination
forms and a North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) form are included
in a separate PJD Package.

Table 5. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area
Map
ID
NCWAM
Classification
NCWAM
Rating
Hydrologic
Classification Area (ac.)
WA Non-tidal Freshwater
Marsh Low Riparian <0.01
Total <0.01

6.2 Construction Moratoria

The project is within a USACE-designated trout watershed; however, the NCWRC does
not identify any trout waters within or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The
potential for trout-related in-water moratoria will be determined when comments from
USACE and NCWRC are received. No bat-related moratoria are anticipated for this
project.

6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules

This project is located in the Yadkin – Pee Dee River Basin (USGS HUC 03040101).
Potential jurisdictional features within the study area are not subject to streamside
riparian zones protected under provisions administered by the North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ).

6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters

The USACE has not designated any waters in the study area as Navigable Waters under
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0126, Wilkes County, N.C.

6 May 2019

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.

Environmental Laboratory. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual,
memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) -
Division of Water Resources. 2018. Final 2016 North Carolina 303(d) List.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2016/2016_NC_Category_5_3
03d_list.pdf
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2018. Natural Heritage Data
Explorer [Web Application]. NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC.
http://ncnhde.natureserve.org. (Accessed: April 30, 2019).

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NCWAM) User Manual [Version 5]. 2016. PDF
Document. (Accessed: Accessed: January 7, 2019).

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. (NCWRC) Bog Turtle Fact Sheet.
2018. https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Reptiles/Bog-Turtle

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Raleigh, North Carolina. 208
pp.

United States 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. F. Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). 1997. Soil Survey of Wilkes County, North Carolina.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States,
Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS,
in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS) 2018. Bog Turtle. https://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/bogturtle.htm
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0126, Wilkes County, N.C.

7 May 2019

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS) 2016. Northern long-eared bat – what
it means for your project.
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2017. Northern long-eared bat – what
it means for your project. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/NLEB_RFO.html.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS) Northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A0JE.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Threatened and Endangered Species
in North Carolina: Wilkes County. Updated June 27, 2018.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/wilkes.html.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. Traphill, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).

Weakley, Alan S. (Working Draft of May 21, 2015). Flora of the Southern and Mid-
Atlantic States. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina
Botanical Garden. Chapel Hill, NC. 1,320 pp.

Appendix A
Figures

1FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 667on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Rd.)over Sparks CreekSTIP No. BR-0126Project Vicinity MapWilkes County, North CarolinaSparksCreekCheatwoo
d
Bra
n
c
h
S R -1 7 4 9
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus D S, USDA, USGS, AeroGR ID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:APRIL 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 400200 Feet
¯
^_
© OpenStreetMap (and)contributors, C C-BY-SA
Legend
Project Study Area
NHD Stream
2FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 667on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Rd.)over Sparks CreekSTIP No. BR-0126Topographic MapWilkes County, North Carolina
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEPElevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, NationalHydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, NationalStructures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS GlobalEcosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data;Natural Earth D ata; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian InformationUnit; and N OAA N ational Centers for Environmental Information, U.S.Coastal Relief Model. Data refreshed October 2018.
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:APRIL 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 400200 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
3FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 667on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Rd.)over Sparks CreekSTIP No. BR-0126Jurisdictional Features MapWilkes County, North Carolina
SR-1749
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:APRIL 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 250125 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Culvert
CheatwoodBranch
CheatwoodBranch
SASB
Sparks Creek
WA
WA
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS,
4FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 667on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Rd.)over Sparks CreekSTIP No. BR-0126Terrestrial Communities MapWilkes County, North Carolina
SR-1749
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:APRIL 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 250125 Feet
¯
Legend
Culvert
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Terrestrial Communities
Floodplain Forest
Maintained/Disturbed
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
CheatwoodBranch
CheatwoodBranch
SA
SB
Sparks Creek
WA

Appendix B
Qualifications of Contributors

Principal
Investigator: Evan Morgan
Education: B.S. Environmental Science, Virginia Tech, 2014
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, T&E assessments, document
review

Investigator James Mason
Education: B.A. Biology, Colby College, 2000
M.S. Biology/Ecology, UNC-Charlotte, 2004
Experience: Environmental Senior Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, April
2018-Present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2006-2018
Responsibilities: Document preparation/review

Investigator: Lizzy Stokes-Cawley
Education: B.S. Conservation Biology, St. Lawrence University, 2011
M.E.M. Water Resources, Duke University, 2016
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, April 2017-
Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, T&E Assessments, GPS,
document review

Investigator: Cary Rowells
Education: Coursework, Civil Engineering, Wake technical Community
College
Coursework, Geology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Experience: GIS Analyst, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-Present
GIS analyst, Michael Baker Engineering, 2002-2015
Analytical Surveys, Inc., CADD Technician/GIS Technician/GIS
Project Coordinator, 1989-2002
Responsibilities: GIS Mapping, Microstation

Appendix C
Protected Species Survey Reports

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

WEBSITE:NCDOT.GOV
Location:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610

March 28, 2019 TO: Heaven Manning Environmental Coordination & Permitting Group Western, EAU FROM: Melissa Miller, Environmental Program Consultant Biological Surveys Group, EAU SUBJECT: Section 7 survey results for the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 667 over Sparks Creek on SR 1749 in Wilkes County, TIP No. BR-0126. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT, Division 11) proposes to replace Bridge No. 667 over Sparks Creek on SR 1749 in Wilkes County, TIP No. BR-0126. The existing bridge is a three span structure with concrete deck, beams, end walls and guard rails. The overall length of the structure is 90 feet. Northern long-eared bat The project to replace Bridge No. 667 has been reviewed for effects on the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). As of May 4, 2015, NLEB is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. As of March 28, 2019, NLEB is listed by USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html) as “current” in Wilkes County. USFWS also established a final rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act that provides measures for the conservation of NLEB. The USFWS has tailored the final 4(d) rule to prohibit the take of NLEB from certain activities within areas where they are in decline. This incidental take protection applies only to known NLEB occupied maternity roost trees and known NLEB hibernacula. Effective February 16, 2016, incidental take resulting from tree removal is prohibited if it 1) occurs within a ¼ mile radius of known NLEB hibernacula; or 2) cuts or destroys known occupied maternity roost trees or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the known maternity tree during the pup season (June 1-July 31).

According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Biotics Database, most recently updated January 2019, the nearest NLEB hibernacula record is 47 miles west of
the project and no known NLEB roost trees occur within 150 feet of the project area. NCDOT has also reviewed the USFWS Asheville Field office website (http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html) for consistency with NHP records. This project is located entirely outside of the red highlighted areas (12-digit HUC) that the USFWS Asheville Field Office has determined to be representative of an area that may require consultation. For the proposed action, NCDOT has committed to the conservation measures listed below: 1) No alterations of a known hibernacula entrance or interior environment if it impairs an essential behavioral pattern, including sheltering northern long-eared bats (January 1 through December 31); 2) No tree removal within a 0.25 mile radius of a known hibernacula (January 1 through December 31); and 3) No cutting or destroying a known, occupied maternity roost tree, or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the known, occupied maternity tree during the period from June 1 through and including July 31.
NCDOT has determined that the proposed action does not require separate
consultation on the grounds that the proposed action is consistent with the final
Section 4(d) rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(o) and effective February 16, 2016. NCDOT may presume its determination is informed by best available information and consider Section 7 responsibilities fulfilled for NLEB. If you need any additional information, please contact Melissa Miller at 919-707-6127.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968

Website: www.ncdot.gov
Physical Address:
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
NCDOT CENTURY CENTER
BUILDING A
RALEIGH NC 27610

February 7, 2019

Dear Landowner:

The N.C. Department of Transportation (Department) is constantly working to provide -better and
safer transportation facilities for public uses in North Carolina. The effects that these proposed
facilities have on the human and natural environment are of great concern to the Department and
must be adequately described in environmental documents. As part of this process, the Department
is obligated to identify and document environmental resources so that they can be avoided or impacts
reduced. Streams and wetlands are two of the resources that must be identified during the review
process. The Department has begun planning studies for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 667
on Austin Traphill Road (S.R. 1749) over Sparks Creek in Wilkes County as TIP Project BR-0126.

Over the next several months, representatives of the Department including engineers, surveyors,
geologists, and biologists as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
Regulatory Division, may be present on your property. They will be collecting data that will be used
to design the project and conducting or verifying the limits of streams and wetlands pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. These
representatives will be wearing highly reflective safety vests, have picture ID badges, and will be
hanging various colors of flagging, or ribbons, on trees and shrubs to identify the limits of streams
and wetlands, if present, on the property. This flagging does not indicate the final location of a
proposed transportation project, but it is very important in our environmental r eview process. Please
do not disturb this flagging.

Please note that if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has already issued a Jurisdictional
Determination on your property confirming the presence of streams and/or wetlands, or if you have
general questions or comments about the project, contact David Stutts at [e-mail] or (919)
707-6442.

If you call, please mention NCDOT project number BR-0126.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Philip S. Harris III, P.E., C.P.M.
Environmental Analysis Unit Head

ESTADO DE CAROLINA DEL NORTE
DEPARTMENTO DE TRANSPORTE
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOBERNADOR SECRETARIO

Dirección de correo:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
Teléfono: [phone]
Servicio a clientes: 1-877-368-4968

Sitio web: www.ncdot.gov
Direccion fiscia:
1000 BIRCH RIDGE ROAD
NCDOT CENTURY CENTER
BUILDING A
RALEIGH NC 27610

7 de febrero de 2019

Estimado propietario:

El Departamento de Transporte de Carolina del Norte (Departamento) trabaja constantemente para
ofrecer mejores y más seguras instalaciones de transporte para el uso público en Carolina del Norte.
Los efectos que estas instalaciones propuestas tienen sobre el medio ambiente r epresentan una gran
preocupación para el Departamento y deben ser descritas adecuadamente en documentos ambientales .
Como parte de este proceso, el Departamento está obligado a identificar y documentar recursos
ambientales con el fin de evitar o reducir los impactos. Los arroyos y los humedales son dos de los
recursos que deben ser identificados durante el proceso de revisión. El Departamento ha comenzado
los estudios de planeación relacionados con su propuesta de puente No. 667 en Austin Traphill Road
(S.R. 1749) sobre Sparks Creek en el Condado de Wilkes como Proyecto TIP Project BR -0126.
identificado como Proyecto TIP BR-0126.

Durante los próximos meses, es posible que representantes del Departamento, así como del Cuerpo
de Ingenieros del Ejército de los Estados Unidos del Distrito de Wilmington, pertenecientes a la
División Regulatoria, se presenten en su propiedad con el propósito de conducir o verificar los límites
de cuerpos de agua y humedales de conformidad con la Sección 404 del Acta de Agua Limpia y/o la
Sección 10 del Acta de Ríos y Puertos de 1899. Estos representantes vestirán chalecos de seguridad
altamente brillantes, llevarán credenciales de identificación con fotografía y estarán colgando
banderines o listones de varios colores en árboles y arbustos para identificar los límites de arroyos y
humedales que existan en la propiedad. Este mapeo no significa que en la zona se contemple un
posible proyecto de transporte, pero es muy importante en nuestro proceso de análisis ambiental. Por
favor no retire dichos banderines o listones.

Por favor tome en cuenta que si el Cuerpo de Ingenieros del Ejército de los EE.UU. ha emitido una
Determinación Jurisdiccional en su propiedad confirmando la presencia de arroyos y/o humedales, o
si tiene preguntas o comentarios relacionados con el proyecto, por favor llame a la Línea Directa en
Español del NCDOT al 1-800-481-6494 o contacte al gerente del proyecto del NCDOT David Stutts
at [e-mail] or [phone].

Cuando llame, por favor mencione el Proyecto TIP BR-0126 del NCDOT.

Gracias por su cooperación.

Atentament e,

Philip S. Harris III, P.E., C.P.M.
Titular de la Unidad de Análisis Ambiental

bcc: Division Engineer
Jamille Robbins
Division ROW Agent
County Sheriff / City Police (if in municipality)
USACE Representative
Primary Project Contact (from letter)
L&S Area Locating Engineer
File

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATION AND
PERMITTING
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1598

Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968

Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH, NC 27610

May 6, 2019

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Steven Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006

SUBJECT: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package for the following Natural
Resources Technical Report: STIP No. BR-0126: Replace Bridge No. 960667 on SR
1749 (Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks Creek in Wilkes County, North Carolina.

Mr. Kichefski,

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of Bridge No.
960667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks Creek in Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Below and attached are a brief description of the project, figures depicting all features, and appropriate
forms.

On January 9, 2019, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) staff members Evan Morgan and Lizzy
Stokes-Cawley conducted a site investigation (Figure 1). Five potential jurisdictional features (four
streams and one wetland) were identified within the study area (Tables 1-3; Figures 2-3). No potential
jurisdictional surface waters (i.e. ponds, basins, or tributaries) were identified.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Stream Identification forms are included for
each potential stream where jurisdictionality was in question. North Carolina Stream Assessment
Method (NCSAM) forms were not completed since no streams exhibited degraded conditions. United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland determination forms and North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NCWAM) forms are included for the wetland. Please see the following PJD
Package:

Table 1. Potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Stream Name Map ID
NCDWR
Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Sparks Creek Sparks Creek 12-46-4-10-1 C
Cheatwood Branch Cheatwood Branch 12-46-4-10-1-2 C
Unnamed Tributary (UT) to
Cheatwood Branch SA 12-46-4-10-1-2 C
UT to Cheatwood Branch SB 12-46-4-10-1-2 C

Table 2. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID Length
(ft.) Classification NCSAM Rating
Compensatory
Mitigation
Required
River Basin
Buffer
Sparks Creek 428 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
Cheatwood
Branch 846 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
SA 510 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
SB 75 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
Total 1,859
Note: NCSAM forms were not completed due to a lack of degraded conditions that would result in lower mitigation ratios.

Table 3. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area
Map ID NCWAM Classification NCWAM
Rating
Hydrologic
Classification Area (ac.)
WA Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh Low Riparian <0.01
Total <0.01

If you have any questions, require additional information, or would like to schedule a site visit, please
contact me at [phone] or by email at [e-mail]. This is a request for concurrence
with our assessment. We appreciate your assistance on this project.

Sincerely,

Carla Dagnino
Environmental Coordination and Permitting Group Leader
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Environmental Analysis Unit

Cc: Dave Wanucha, NCDWR

Appendix A

Figures
1FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 667on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Rd.)over Sparks CreekSTIP No. BR-0126Project Vicinity MapWilkes County, North CarolinaSparksCreekCheatwoo
d
Bra
n
c
h
S R -1 7 4 9
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus D S, USDA, USGS, AeroGR ID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:APRIL 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 400200 Feet
¯
^_
© OpenStreetMap (and)contributors, C C-BY-SA
Legend
Project Study Area
NHD Stream
2FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 667on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Rd.)over Sparks CreekSTIP No. BR-0126Topographic MapWilkes County, North Carolina
SR-1749
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEPElevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, NationalHydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, NationalStructures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS GlobalEcosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data;Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian InformationUnit; and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S.Coastal Relief Model. Data refreshed October 2018.
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:APRIL 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 250125 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Culvert
CheatwoodBranch
CheatwoodBranch
SA
SB
Sparks Creek
WA
3FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 667on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Rd.)over Sparks CreekSTIP No. BR-0126Jurisdictional Features MapWilkes County, North Carolina
SR-1749
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity
Prepared For:Date:
Checked By:
Job No.:
Drawn By:
Scale:APRIL 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 250125 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Culvert
CheatwoodBranch
CheatwoodBranch
SASB
Sparks Creek
WA

Appendix B

Stream and Wetland Data Forms

Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
4
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:BR-0126 -Br. 667 on SR 1749 over Sparks Creek Wilkes
WA WET
01/09/2019
NCDOT NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:---E. Morgan, L. Stokes-Cawley - Three Oaks
0-2concavefloodplain
Datum:NAD 83-81.01526236.334828LRR P, MLRA 136
PEMNWI classification:Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (CoA)
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)Within Wetland
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
Multiply by:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
(A)
(B)
(A)
25
Within Wetland
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Within Wetland )
Absent
10
Yes5Carex lurida
Juncus effusus 5
Absent
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Absent
Within Wetland )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
WA WET
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 5/2
10YR 6/2
7.5YR 5/64-12
0-4
WA WETSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%
M10
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
16
16
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:BR-0126 -Br. 667 on SR 1749 over Sparks Creek Wilkes
WA UPL
01/09/2019
NCDOT NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:---E. Morgan, L. Stokes-Cawley - Three Oaks
2-4nonehillslope
Datum:NAD 83-81.01527136.334929LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (CoA)
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X5
=Total Cover10
10 Yes FAC
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)Within Wetland
=Total Cover
2
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
23 9
10
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
Multiply by:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACU
Yes FAC
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACU
Total % Cover of:
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
513
Within Wetland
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Within Wetland )
Toxicodendron radicans
10
Liquidambar styraciflua
Absent
25
Liriodendron tulipifera
Acer rubrum
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Within Wetland )
45
Indicator
Status
20
15
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
10
5
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
71.4%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
WA UPL
5
7
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 4/4
10YR 4/3
6-12
0-6
WA UPLSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches)Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
USACE AID#:NCDWR #:
Yes No
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
•
•
•
•
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)Lu 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 of an effect.
GS
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)
2.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
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).
3.Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. 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 foot 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
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name NCDOT
BR-0126 Bridge Replacement
03040101
Winston-SalemNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Wilkes
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
Sparks Creek
Evan Morgan - Three Oaks Engineering
WA
1/9/2019Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Level III Ecoregion
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
Sub
VS
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
36.334828, -81.015262
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 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). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
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 dainage and/or overbank flow from affectio 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.
7b.How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? (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 tributary 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
Check a box in each column. 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
Forest only)
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 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 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
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric 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, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
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 directiions? If the assessment area is clear-cut,
select option "C."
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
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.
Well
WC
Loosely
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.
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent
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
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent
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 A
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 A
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.
AA WT
Notes CanopyMid-StoryShrubHerb
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention Condition
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Particulate Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Soluble Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Physical Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Pollution Change Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Physical Structure Condition
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
Vegetation Composition Condition
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes
Hydrology Condition
Water Quality Condition
Condition/Opportunity
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
Habitat Condition
Overall Wetland Rating
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
Rating
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
YES
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WA
Morgan - Three Oaks EnginNon-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
1/9/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
NA
NA
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO

Appendix C

JD Request Form
PJD Form

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 1

This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELDOFFICES
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina28801-5006
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGHREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina27587
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina27889
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
GeneralNumber:910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Propertyowner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: _______________________________________________
City, State: _______________________________________________
County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B. REQUESTORINFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Multiple Parcels
Traphill, NC
Wilkes
Multiple PIN's
Carla Dagnino
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
[phone]
[e-mail]
Multiple Property Owners
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 3

D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION
3,4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District,U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Print Name
Capacity: Owner Authorized Agent5
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST:(Check as many as applicable)
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources underCorpsauthority.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcelwhich may
require authorization from the Corps, andthe JDwould beusedto avoid and minimize
impacts tojurisdictional aquatic resources and as aninitialstep in a future permitting
process.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcelwhich may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
I intendto construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
Other:___________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
4 If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
5 Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 4

F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of
the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
“preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United
States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected
party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
Size of Property or Review Area acres.
The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
16.2
✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 5

H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________
Longitude: ______________________
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
ƒNorth Arrow
ƒGraphical Scale
ƒBoundary of Review Area
ƒDate
ƒLocation of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
ƒJurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
ƒJurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
ƒIsolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e.
“Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
ƒWetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
____________________________________________________________________________
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards.http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
36.334831
-81.013977✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 6

Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
x PJDs,please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
x AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
8
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
_____________________________________________________________________________
7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose:The information thatyouprovide will beusedinevaluating your request to determine
whether thereareany aquatic resources within the project areasubjecttofederaljurisdictionunder the regulatory
authorities referencedabove.
RoutineUses:Thisinformation maybeshared with theDepartmentof Justice andotherfederal, state,and local
government agencies, and the public,andmaybe made available aspartof a public notice as required byfederal
law. Your nameandproperty location wherefederal jurisdiction is to bedetermined will beincluded in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD),which will bemade available tothe public on the District's website
andontheHeadquartersUSAGEwebsite.
Disclosure:Submission ofrequested information is voluntary; however, ifinformation is notprovided, the
requestforanAJD cannot beevaluatednorcananAJD be issued.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (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)
Sparks Cr 36.334926 -81.013970 428 ft
Non-wetland - Perennial Stream Section 404
Cheatwood Br 36.334566 -81.014676 846 ft
Non-wetland - Perennial Stream Section 404
SA 36.334857 -81.016009 510 ft
Non-wetland - Perennial Stream Section 404
SB 36.334870 -81.016390 75 ft
Non-wetland - Perennial Stream Section 404
WA 36.334828 -81.015262 0.003 ac Wetland Section 404
05/06/2019
Carla Dagnino, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
NC Wilkes Traphill
36.334831 -81.013977
17
Sparks Creek
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 (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP 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 termsand
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 toprovideanofficial
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 finds
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: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
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: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:__________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor 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.
Vicinity Map, Topo Map, Jurisdictional Features Map
1:24,000 2016 Traphill, NC
1997 Wilkes County Soil Survey

STIP BR-0126 Wilkes County
SHORT FORM COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLANNER, FIRM: Marissa Lenoce, STV
Engineers Inc DIVISION: 11 Existing No. of Lanes: 2 Existing Median: No
NCDOT/LOCAL
PROJECT MANAGER: Tierre Peterson, PE WBS: 67126.1.1 Proposed No. of Lanes: 2 Addition of Median(s): No
DOCUMENT TYPE:
NEPA
SEPA

PROJECT TYPE:
DIVISION
CENTRAL
LOCALLY-ADMIN.
PROGRAM PROJECT
(LAPP)
Existing control of access:
No Control
Partial Control
Limited Control
Full Control
Proposed control of access:
No Control
Partial Control
Limited Control
Full Control CS PROJECT
REVIEWER (IF
APPLICABLE):
Herman Huang
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Structures Management Unit plans to replace Bridge
No. 960667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) over Sparks Creek in Wilkes County (STIP BR-0126). The project
proposes to replace the existing bridge with a similar structure on a new alignment to the north. The proposed
structure will have two 11-foot lanes; the bridge shoulder width will be between three feet, nine inches and eleven
feet. Tie-ins of existing pavement at Hincher Lane and gravel driveways to SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) will also
be required. Traffic will stay on the existing bridge during construction and shift to the new bridge upon completion.
Existing right of way is approximately 30 feet wide. Minor right of way acquisition is anticipated. The ROW and LET
dates for this project are Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and 2020, respectively.
Community Context
The Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) is located in northern Wilkes County. The DCIA is approximately 1 mile
from the community of Traphill and 2 miles from the community of Austin. The town of Elkin is approximately 10
miles from the DCIA and can be accessed using SR 1749 and SR 2026. The land use in the DCIA is primarily
farmland, undeveloped forested lands, and residential. There are no planned commercial or residential
developments within the DCIA. According to the US Census data, from 2000-2010 the population in the
Demographic Study Area has grown 6.6% and Wilkes County has grown 5.7%, which is lower than the state
average of 18.5%.
Within the project vicinity, SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) is classified as a Minor Collector road. The project site is
located near the community of Traphill and Stone Mountain State Park. Interstate 77 is approximately 20 miles east
of the DCIA and can be accessed via NC 21. The current (2016) average annual daily traffic (AADT) is 710 vehicles
per day (vpd) and traffic is projected to increase to 1,100 vpd by 2040.

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 2

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 3

Notable Characteristics
 Farmland Soils: Farmland soils eligible for protection under FPPA are present within the project footprint. If a
new location alternative is considered that is outside of the project footprint, then NCDOT must reassess the
impacts to farmlands.
 Agricultural Resources and Activity: Active agricultural fields including hay, corn, beef, cattle, poultry and
tobacco are present within the DCIA on either side of SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road), east of Sparks Creek.
Active agricultural operations exist in the vicinity of the bridge, but no farm support services were observed in
the DCIA during the 4/16/19 site visit nor were any indicated by the local planner.
 Bicycle, Pedestrian and/or Greenway Facilities and Active Transportation: SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) is
part of the Wilkes County Tobacco Road Loop Bicycle Route.
 Bicycle/Pedestrian Activity: The local planner indicated recreational bicycle use on this corridor. No pedestrian
or bicycle use was observed in the project study area during the site visit.
 Driveways and Cross Streets: Hincher Lane, located west of Bridge 960667, is the only cross street in the
project study area. Two driveways are present east of the bridge within the project study area.
 Emergency Management Services (EMS) Operations: There are no EMS facilities within the DCIA; however,
the Traphill Volunteer Fire Department is located approximately 2.0 miles north on SR 1002 (Traphill Road).
 School Bus Routes: Nine (9) bus trips per day travel within the project study area and utilize Bridge 960667
during the school year. School bus traffic occurs twice daily: 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
 Environmental Justice (EJ) and Title VI Populations: Census data indicates a notable presence of populations
meeting the criteria for Environmental Justice within the Demographic Study Area (DSA), but no low-income
communities were observed within the Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA) during the site visit or were noted
by local planners.
 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) or Language Assistance (LA) Populations: Census data does not indicate
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations meeting the US Department of Justice LEP Safe Harbor
threshold or a notable presence within the Demographic Study Area (DSA).
Potential Project Impacts
 Farmland Soils: A preliminary screening of farmland conversion impacts in the project area has been
completed and a total score of 50 out of 160 points was calculated for the project site (see Appendix D). Since
the total site assessment score does not exceed the 60-point threshold established by NRCS, farmland
conversion impacts may be anticipated, but are not considered notable.
 Agricultural Resources and Activity: Land actively being used for agricultural purpose may be temporarily
impacted during construction, as well as partial right of way takes required for the project. No total takes are
anticipated.
 Bicycle, Pedestrian and/or Greenway Facilities and Active Transportation and Bicycle/Pedestrian Activity:
Access to the Wilkes County Tobacco Road Loop Bicycle Route may be temporarily impacted during
construction.
 Access Driveways and Cross Streets: Access to driveways and Hincher Lane are likely to be temporarily
impacted to tie-in existing pavement and gravel to SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) but access will be
maintained during construction.
 Emergency Management Services (EMS) Operations: The Wilkes County EMS Director indicated low level
impact on emergency services if SR 1749 were closed or at a reduced capacity for up to a year. The Wilkes
County EMS Director notes concern for potential long detour routes that may affect response time, if an off-site
detour is considered, however an offsite detour is not anticipated.
 School Bus Routes: The Wilkes County School Transportation Director indicated that detouring school bus
traffic around the bridge closure would have a high impact. The project area acts as a bus turnaround for stops
along Billings Hill Church Road and Swaringen Road. An offsite detour is not anticipated.
 Environmental Justice (EJ) and Title VI Populations: While low-income populations are present in the DCIA, no
notably adverse community impacts are anticipated with this project; thus, impacts to low-income populations
do not appear to be disproportionately high and adverse. Benefits and burdens resulting from the project are
anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the community. No disparate impacts are anticipated under
Title VI and related statutes.

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 4

Recommendations
 Agricultural Resources and Activity: The NCDOT Project Manager should ensure that access is maintained for
farm equipment and impacts to agricultural operations are minimized during construction.
 Bicycle, Pedestrian and/or Greenway Facilities and Active Transportation and Bicycle/Pedestrian Activity:
NCDOT Structures Management Unit should coordinate with NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control to evaluate the
necessary level of bicycle/pedestrian access accommodation during construction.
 Driveways and Cross Streets: Continued coordination with the affected property owners should occur through
design. NCDOT Structure Management Unit should ensure that access to properties is maintained and that
impacts to the driveways and Hincher Lane are minimized during construction.
 Emergency Management Services (EMS) Operations: The Project Manager should ensure that access to EMS
locations is maintained and that impacts during construction are minimized. Continued coordination with the
local EMS should occur throughout design and construction.
 School Bus Routes: The Project Manager should ensure that access to school bus frequented locations is
maintained and that impacts during construction are minimized. Continued coordination with Wilkes County
Schools should occur throughout design and construction.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Statement
 The project will not alter travel patterns, reduce travel time, affect access to properties in the area, or open
areas for development or redevelopment. Due to its minimal transportation impact-causing activities, this
project will neither influence nearby land uses nor stimulate growth. Therefore, a detailed indirect and
cumulative effects study will not be necessary.

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 5

COMMUNITY CONTEXT MAP

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 6

COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS, IMPACTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Community Resource Presence
RECREATIONAL RESOURCE(S) OR ACTIVITY
Presence
Are there any recreational resources, areas, or observed activities in the Direct Community Impact
Area? If Federally-funded, are these potential 4(f) resources?
YES, SEPA Parks & Recreation
YES, NEPA potential 4(f);
adjacent to/accessed from the
project corridor
YES, NEPA potential 4(f);
present in DCIA but not adjacent to
or accessed from the project corridor
NO
Impacts YES, SEPA
Impact
YES,
potential NEPA
impact
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
SECTION 6(F) LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND RESOURCES
Presence
Are there any areas protected under Section 6(f) in the Direct Community Impact Area?
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to impact identified Section 6(f) Land & Water Conservation Fund Resources?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
FARMLAND SOILS
Presence
Are there any farmland soils within the project footprint?
Farmland soils eligible for protection under FPPA are present within the project
footprint. If a new location alternative is considered that is outside of the project
footprint, then NCDOT must reassess the impacts to farmlands.
YES, SEPA
YES, NEPA (FPPA)
NO, not present
Not applicable - urbanized
area
Impacts
Is the project likely to have a notable impact on identified Farmland Protection Policy Act soils?
A preliminary screening of farmland conversion impacts in the project area has
been completed and a total score of 50 out of 160 points was calculated for the
project site (see Appendix D). Since the total site assessment score does not
exceed the 60-point threshold established by NRCS, farmland conversion
impacts may be anticipated, but are not considered notable.
YES, SEPA conversion
YES, NEPA does not exceed
FPPA threshold
YES, NEPA exceeds FPPA
threshold
NO
Recommendation YES
NO
VOLUNTARY & ENHANCED VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS [VAD/EVAD]
Presence
Is there a Voluntary Agricultural District or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District in the project footprint?
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to impact designated Voluntary Agricultural Districts or Enhanced Voluntary
Agricultural Districts?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 7

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AND ACTIVITY
Presence
Are there any active agricultural operations located in the Direct Community Impact Area? Is there any documented activity
related to goods movement in the Direct Community Impact Area (e.g. farm or logging trucks, tractors, or other agricultural
equipment)?
Active agricultural fields including hay, corn, beef, cattle, poultry and tobacco are present within
the DCIA on either side of SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road), east of Sparks Creek. Active
agricultural operations exist, but no farm support services were observed in the DCIA during the
04/16/19 site visit nor were any indicated by the local planner.
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to impact identified agricultural operations?
Land actively being used for agricultural purpose may be temporarily impacted
by construction activities. Partial right of way takes of agricultural land is
required for the project; no total takes are anticipated. Minimal impacts to
agricultural activities are anticipated as traffic will stay in existing pattern during
construction, and shift to new alignment upon completion.
YES
NO

Recommendation
The NCDOT Project Manager should ensure that access is maintained for farm equipment and
impacts to agricultural operations are minimized during construction.
YES
NO
BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND/OR GREENWAY FACILITIES AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Presence
Are there existing bicycle, pedestrian, greenway or other active transport facilities located in the Direct Community Impact
Area? Are there future plans for bicycle, pedestrian, greenway or active transport facilities to be located in the Direct
Community Impact Area?
No existing bicycle lanes, sidewalks, or greenways are located within the DCIA. SR 1749
(Austin Traphill Road) is part of the Wilkes County Tobacco Road Loop Bicycle Route. The bike
route includes two short sections of Traphill Road. No signs were observed in the field indicating
that it is a local route.
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to result in impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and/or greenway facilities?
Bicycle access to the Wilkes County Tobacco Road Loop may be temporarily
impacted during construction.
YES
NO

Recommendation
NCDOT Structures Management Unit should coordinate with NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control
to evaluate the necessary level of bicycle/pedestrian access accommodation during
construction.
YES
NO
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY
Presence
Were bicyclists, pedestrians or worn paths observed in the Direct Community Impact Area?
The local planner indicated recreational bicycle use on this corridor. No pedestrian or bicycle
use was observed in the project study area during the site visit.
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to result in impacts to bicycle or pedestrian activity?
Bicycle access to the Wilkes County Tobacco Road Loop Bicycle Route may be
temporarily impacted during construction.
YES
NO

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 8

Recommendation
NCDOT Structures Management Unit should coordinate with NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control
to evaluate the necessary level of bicycle/pedestrian access accommodation during
construction.
YES
NO
TRANSIT ROUTES, FACILITIES, AND/OR ACTIVITY
Presence
Are transit routes present in the Direct Community Impact Area? Were buses, transit stops or route signs observed on the
site visit? Were any riders observed using or known to use these facilities? Were any of these riders special users?
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to result in impacts to transit routes, facilities, and/or activity?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
LOCAL AREA PLANS, GOALS, AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Presence
Are there any local area plans, goals, or zoning initiatives specifically affecting the Direct Community Impact Area (e.g.
comprehensive plan; corridor or thoroughfare plan; small area plan; long-range growth plan; health impact assessment;
etc.)? Has recent development activity occurred in the Direct Community Impact Area and/or are there known plans for
public or private development activity in the Direct Community Impact Area?
The 2017 Wilkes County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) identifies transportation
needs within the County through 2040, including proposed highway, public transit, pedestrian
and bicycle and rail infrastructure and improvements. No recommendations were made for SR
1752 (Austin Traphill Road) within the DCIA.
The High Country Regional Bike Plan (2014) identifies SR 1752 (Austin Traphill Road) as part of
Wilkes County Tobacco Road Loop Bicycle Route, however no recommendations were made.
The Wilkes County Growth Management Plan (2014) does not specify recommendations for
SR 1752 (Austin Traphill Road).
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project consistent or not consistent with existing plans, regulations, and policies at the local,
regional, or state level?

CONSISTENT
NOT
CONSISTENT

Recommendation YES
NO
DRIVEWAYS AND CROSS STREETS
Presence
Are there any driveways or intersections located along the project corridor?
Hincher Lane, located west of Bridge 960667, is the only cross street in the project study area.
Two driveways are present east of the bridge within the project study area.
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to result in access or accessibility impacts to driveways and cross streets?
Access to driveways and Hincher Lane are likely to be temporarily impacted to
tie-in existing pavement and gravel to SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) but
access will be maintained during construction.
YES
NO

Recommendation
Continued coordination with the affected property owners should occur through design. NCDOT
Structure Management Unit should ensure that access to properties is maintained and that
impacts to the driveways and Hincher Lane are minimized during construction.
YES
NO
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 9

BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITY
Presence
Are any specific business and/or economic resources present in the Direct Community Impact Area (e.g. business parks or
districts, distribution centers, manufacturing facilities, etc.)? Is there any documented activity related to goods movement in
the Direct Community Impact Area (e.g. tractor- trailers, or industrial traffic)?
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to result in impacts to business and economic resources?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (EMS) OPERATIONS
Presence
Did the EMS local official note any emergency services operations within the Direct Community Impact Area that may be
affected by the project, such as stations or corridors that are primary response routes?
There are no EMS facilities within the DCIA; however, the Traphill Volunteer Fire Department is
located approximately 2.0 miles north on SR 1002 (Traphill Road).
YES
NO
NO
RESPONSE
Impacts
As checked on Local EMS Input Form
The Wilkes County EMS Director indicated low level impact on emergency
services if SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road) were closed or at a reduced capacity
for up to a year. The Wilkes County EMS Director notes concern for potential
long detour routes that may affect response time, if an off-site detour is
considered; however an offsite detour is not anticipated.
YES
NO
NO
RESPONSE

Recommendation
The Project Manager should ensure that access to EMS locations is maintained and that
impacts during construction are minimized. Continued coordination with the local EMS should
occur throughout design and construction.
YES
NO
SCHOOL BUS ROUTES
Presence
Did the local school transportation official note any school bus routes within the Direct Community Impact Area that may be
affected by the project?
According to Wilkes County School Transportation Director, 9 trips per day travel within the
project study area, including accessing Bridge 960667, during the school year. School bus traffic
occurs twice daily: 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
YES
NO
NO
RESPONSE
Impacts
As checked on Local Schools Input Form
The Wilkes County School Transportation Director indicated that an offsite
detour would have a high impact; however, an onsite detour is anticipated.
YES
NO
NO
RESPONSE

Recommendation
The Project Manager should ensure that access to school bus frequented locations is
maintained and that impacts during construction are minimized. Continued coordination with
Wilkes County Schools should occur throughout design and construction.
YES
NO

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 10

COMMUNITY RESOURCES
Presence
Are there any notable community resources located in the Direct Community Impact Area, including places of worship;
private and/or public schools; adult education and/or training facilities; daycares; cemeteries; private or public social service
agencies; government facilities; other important destinations or resources for local residents?
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to impact identified community resources, either directly or by affecting user access?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
COMMUNITY COHESION
Presence
Were any specific signs or indicators of community cohesion observed / found within the Direct Community Impact Area?
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to alter the overall functioning of an identifiable district (e.g. interactions between, or
isolation of, persons and groups; or change in the physical makeup of the community)? Is the project
likely to disrupt connections between neighborhoods and commercial, recreational, institutional and
employment facilities and/or areas?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Presence
Are there any existing or perceived crime or safety issues in the Direct Community Impact Area, including unsafe bicycle or
pedestrian facilities, inadequate lighting and/or isolated or poorly connected areas?
YES
NO

Impact
Is the project likely to change any existing or perceived crime or safety issues?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
AREA/COMMUNITY CONCERNS
Presence
Are there any known community concerns or controversy relative to the project? If concerns were voiced during Public
Involvement activities, please attach the relevant comment sheets or meeting comment summary in the Appendix.
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to be incompatible with or not address community concerns?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
OTHER IMPACTS
Are there any other potential impacts associated with the project?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
RECURRING EFFECTS
Impacts
Is the project likely to result in recurring effects on any populations and communities within the Direct
Community Impact Area?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 11

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) AND TITLE VI POPULATIONS
Presence
Are there any populations living in the Demographic Study Area that meet the criteria for Environmental
Justice and/or Title VI? If so, note which groups are present (check all that apply):
Minority Low-Income Title VI (non-EJ)
Census data indicates a notable presence of populations meeting the criteria for
Environmental Justice within the Demographic Study Area (DSA), but no low-
income communities were observed within the Direct Community Impact Area
(DCIA) during the field visit or were noted by local planners. Some
manufactured homes were identified during the field visit within a close proximity
to the project, but not within the DCIA.
Not present according to Census
data and observation/local input
Present; Census data indicates
presence but there is no
observation/local input to confirm
Present; Census data does not
indicate presence but communities
were observed
Present according to Census
and communities were observed
Impacts
Is the project likely to have a disproportionately high and adverse impact, including denial of benefits, on
identified Environmental Justice and/or Title VI populations in the Direct Community Impact Area?
While low-income populations are present in the DCIA, no notably adverse
community impacts are anticipated with this project; thus, impacts to minority
and low-income populations do not appear to be disproportionately high and
adverse. Benefits and burdens resulting from the project are anticipated to be
equitably distributed throughout the community. No disparate impacts are
anticipated under Title VI and related statutes.
No impacts; no EJ or Title VI
population present
No impacts; EJ and/or Title VI
population present
Community Impacts; no EJ or
Title VI population present
Impacts; EJ and/or Title VI
population present; “No” finding
Impacts; EJ and/or Title VI
population present; “Yes” finding
Recommendation YES
NO
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY [LEP] OR LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE [LA]
POPULATIONS
Presence
Are there any populations living in the Demographic Study Area that meet the criteria for Limited English
Proficiency? Are there any populations within the Demographic Study Area that do not meet the LEP
threshold but do meet the criteria for Language Assistance?
Census data does not indicate Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations
meeting the US Department of Justice LEP Safe Harbor threshold or a notable
presence within the Demographic Study Area (DSA).
No LEP or LA
No LEP, but LA population is
present
LEP population present
[and LA population present]
Recommendation YES
NO

ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTIC (Central only; skip if Division or LAPP)
STIP PROJECTS
Presence
Are there any reasonably foreseeable STIP projects within 3 miles of this project and/or that have the potential to affect or
be affected by this project?
YES
NO

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE(S) THAT UTILIZE A TEMPORARY ON-SITE DETOUR
Traffic will stay in existing pattern during construction, and shift to new alignment upon
completion.
YES
NO

EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION WORK SCHEDULES YES
NO
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS YES
NO
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 12

Indirect and Cumulative Effects [Transportation Impact-Causing Activities (TICAs)]
TRAVEL TIMES
Will the project result in travel time savings of more than one minute?
YES
NO
NEW NETWORK CONNECTIONS
Will the project permanently add to the existing road network (i.e. new connections, intersection-to-interchange
conversions or service roads)?
YES
NO
PROPERTY ACCESS
Will the project provide new or expanded access to properties?
YES
NO
CREATION OF ACTIVITY CENTERS
Will the project open areas for concentrated, moderate to high intensity land development or redevelopment?
YES
NO
TICA SUMMARY
Will the project result in one or more transportation impact-causing activities?
The project will not alter travel patterns, reduce travel time, affect access to properties in
the area, or open areas for development or redevelopment. Due to its minimal
transportation impact-causing activities, this project will neither influence nearby land
uses nor stimulate growth. Therefore, a detailed indirect and cumulative effects study will
not be necessary.
Absence of TICAs
Presence of TICAs

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS STATEMENT
Will the project require completion of the ICE screening tool?
YES
NO

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 13

SOURCES
1) Site visit conducted on April 16, 2019
2) NCDOT Demographic Excel Tool (2019), data from American Community Survey five-year estimates (2013-2017)
3) NCDOT AADT
http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5f6fe58c1d90482ab9107ccc03026280
4) NCSHPO GIS Server
http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/
5) NC One Map Geospatial Portal
http://data.nconemap.com/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page
6) NCDOT Local Schools Input Form, completed by Timothy Pennington, Wilkes County Schools, 03/18/2019
7) NCDOT Local EMS Input Form, completed by Eric Barker, Wilkes County EMS, 02/22/2019
8) NCDOT Local Planner Input Form, completed by Eddie Barnes, Wilkes County Planning, 02/22/2019
9) Wilkes County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), 2017
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Wilkes%20County/Wilkes%20County%20CTP%20Final%20R
eport.pdf
10) High Country Regional Bike Plan, 2014
http://www.regiond.org/Bike-Plan-2014-final.pdf
11) The Wilkes County Growth Management Plan, 2014
https://wilkescounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/126/Growth-Management-Plan-PDF?bidId=

APPENDIX ITEMS
A. Summary of Demographics Used in Tabular Form
B. Site Photographs
C. Local Official Input Forms
D. Preliminary Screening of Farmland Conversion Impacts

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 14

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS USED IN TABULAR FORM

Minority

Geography Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic Minority Population* Meets Thresholds
# % # % 50% 10% over
County
CT 9602, BG 2 1,304 1,123 86.1% 181 13.9% No No
DSA 1,304 1,123 86.1% 181 13.9% No N/A
Wilkes County 68,525 60,214 87.9% 8,311 12.1%
* Minority population includes all races that are Non-White and Hispanic populations that are also White.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2013-2017), Table B03002,
"Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race."

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 15

Poverty

Geography
Population for whom
Poverty Status is
Determined
Below Poverty Level Under 50% of Poverty
Level
Between 100% and
149% of Poverty Level Meets Thresholds
# % # % # % 25% 5% over
County
CT 9602, BG 2 1,304 456 35.0% - 0.0% 115 8.8% Yes Yes
DSA 1,304 456 35.0% - 0.0% 115 8.8% Yes N/A
Wilkes County 67,318 14,040 20.9% 4,830 7.2% 8,984 13.3%
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2013-2017), Table C17002, "Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in
the Past 12 Months."

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 16

Limited English Proficiency

Geography
Total Adult
Population,
18 years
and older
Primary Language Group of Persons Who Speak English Less than Very Well Meets Thresholds Spanish Other Indo-Euro Asian/Pacific Other
# % # % # % # % LEP LA
CT 9602, BG 2 1,133 9 0.8% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% N/A No
DSA 1,133 9 0.8% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% No N/A
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2013-2017), Table B16004, "Age by Language Spoken at
Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over."

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 17

APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure 1: Agricultural Fields Northeast of DCIA Figure 2: Agricultural Fields and Structures Immediately
East of Bridge 960667 on SR1749

Figure 3: Sparks Creek Figure 4: Bridge 960667 Approach Northbound
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 18

Figure 5: Bridge 960667 Approach Southbound Figure 6: Active Agricultural Fields in the Northeast
Portion of the DCIA

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 19

APPENDIX C: LOCAL OFFICIAL INPUT FORMS

Complete the tables below to document the results of local official contacts – EMS, planner, schools. If more
than one EMS official, planner, or school official is contacted (for example, multiple jurisdictions), then include a
table for each.

First Contact Date: Enter the date of the first contact attempt.
Method(s): Check the applicable box(es).
Form returned on: Check this box if the form is returned via email, fax, or snail mail. Include the date.
Interview on: Check this box if you interviewed the contact person by phone or in-person. Include the
date.
No response: Check this box if you do not receive a response or are unable to reach the person by the
time that you submit the report to Community Studies.
Comments: Examples of comments include date of last contact attempt (only if no response), returned
blank or incomplete form.
Attach completed Local Official Input Forms on the Local EMS Input Form, Local Planner Input Form, and Local
Schools Input Form pages. If there is no response, insert the text “No response received.”

LOCAL EMS
Name:
Title:
Agency:
Phone:
Email:
Timothy Pennington
Director
Wilkes County EMS
[phone]
[e-mail]
FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD(S) RESULT
2/22/2019

☒ Email
☐ Phone
☐ In-person
☒ Form returned on (3/18/2018)
☐ Interview on (date)
☐ No response
Comments:

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 20

LOCAL PLANNER
Name:
Title:
Agency:
Phone:
Email:
Edward Barnes
Director
Wilkes County Planning Department
[phone]
[e-mail]
FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD(S) RESULT
2/22/2019

☒ Email
☐ Phone
☐ In-person
☒ Form returned on (2/22/2019)
☐ Interview on (date)
☐ No response
Comments:

LOCAL SCHOOLS
Name:
Title:
Agency:
Phone:
Email:
Eric Barker
Transportation Director
Wilkes County Schools
[phone]
[e-mail]
FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD(S) RESULT
2/22/2019

☒ Email
☐ Phone
☐ In-person
☒ Form returned on (2/22/2019)
☐ Interview on (date)
☐ No response
Comments:
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 21

Local EMS Input Form

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 22

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 23

Local Planner Input Form

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 24

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 25

Local Schools Input Form

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 26

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 27

APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July 2019  page 28

PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS – POINT PROJECT

1. Area in non-urban use. Points awarded = 12 out of 15
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 80% of the land within the 1-mile buffer is non-urban.

2. Perimeter in non-urban use. Points awarded = 8 out of 10
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 80% borders on land in non-urban use.

3. Percent of site being farmed. Points awarded = 10 out of 20
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 50% of the site is being farmed.

4. Protection provided by state and local government. Points awarded = 0 out of 20
The site is not designated as a Voluntary Agriculture District (VAD) or Enhanced Voluntary Agriculture
District (EVAD).

5. Distance from urban built-up area. Points awarded = 5 out of 15
Determined using aerial photography; community of Traphill is less than one-mile from, but not adjacent
to the site.

6. Distance to urban support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 15
Services exist within ½ mile of the project site.

7. Size of present farm unit compared to average. Points awarded = 5 out of 10
The majority of the farm units are more than 50% below the average size farm unit in Wilkes County (114
acres)

8. Creation of non-farmable farmland. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
This project will have no implications on remaining farmable land.

9. Availability of farm support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 5
No farm support services were identified within the site.

10. On-farm investments. Points awarded = 10 out of 20
Some on-farm investments including barns and storage buildings were identified using aerial imagery.

11. Effects of conversion on farm support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
No significant reduction in demand for farm support services would occur as a result from the project.

12. Compatibility with existing agricultural use. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
The project is compatible with existing agricultural use.

Conclusion: Total Points = 50 out of 160
NCDOT has completed a screening of farmland in the project area and calculated the total number of points for
the site per Part VI of the NRCS AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form.

STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating  July 2019  page 1

NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating:
Bridge No. 960667 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) over East Prong of Roaring River
in Wilkes County, NC
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS – POINT PROJECT

1. Area in non-urban use. Points awarded = 12 out of 15
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 80% of the land within the 1-mile buffer is non-urban.

2. Perimeter in non-urban use. Points awarded = 8 out of 10
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 80% borders on land in non -urban use.

3. Percent of site being farmed. Points awarded = 10 out of 20
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 50% of the site is being farmed.

4. Protection provided by state and local government. Points awarded = 0 out of 20
The site is not designated as a Voluntary Agriculture District (VAD) or Enhanced Voluntary Agriculture
District (EVAD).

5. Distance from urban built-up area. Points awarded = 5 out of 15
Determined using aerial photography; community of Traphill is less than one-mile from, but not adjacent
to the site.

6. Distance to urban support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 15
Services exist within ½ mile of the project site.

7. Size of present farm unit compared to average. Points awarded = 5 out of 10
The majority of the farm units are more than 50% below the average size farm unit in Wilkes County (114
acres)

8. Creation of non-farmable farmland. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
This project will have no implications on remaining farmable land.

9. Availability of farm support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 5
No farm support services were identified within the site.

10. On-farm investments. Points awarded = 10 out of 20
Some on-farm investments including barns and storage buildings were identified using aerial imagery.

11. Effects of conversion on farm support services. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
No significant reduction in demand for farm support services would occur as a result from the project.

12. Compatibility with existing agricultural use. Points awarded = 0 out of 10
The project is compatible with existing agricultural use.

Conclusion: Total Points = 50 out of 160
NCDOT has completed a screening of farmland in the project area and calculated the total number of points for
the site per Part VI of the NRCS AD-1006 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form.
STIP BR-0126  Wilkes County  NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating  July 2019  page 2

5/11/12
1

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FIELD SCOPING MEETING WORKSHEET

Return with Comments to Division by (Two weeks prior to FSM)
TIP No.: BR-0126 FIELD REVIEW MEETING DATE: 04/17/2019
DIVISION: 11 LOCATION: 36.33478, -81.01397
COUNTY: Wilkes
ROUTE (US / NC / SR): SR 1749
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 960667 over Sparks Creek
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Local
TIER: Sub- Regional
MPO / RPO AREA:
MUNICIPALITY:

ATTENDEES

NAME (PRINT)

PHONE No

E-MAIL
DIVISION CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
AREA BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEER
David Wayne
DIVISION BRIDGE PROGRAM
MANAGER
Joe Laws
DIVISION UTILITY COORDINATOR Sunil Singh
DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER Kevin Hining / Heath
Slaughter

DIVISION RIGHT OF WAY
REPRESENTATIVE

HYDRAULICS REPRESENTATIVE
PDEA REPRESENTATIVE
NEU REPRESENTATIVE
GEOTECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE Shiping Yang
STRUCTURE DESIGN
REPRESENTATIVE

ROADWAY DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION AND SURVEYS
REPRESENTATIVE

WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL
REPRESENTATIVE

STV Attendees: Kevin Bailey, Shirshant Sharma, Brandon Phillips, Laura Braunfeld, Michelle Lopez

5/11/12
2

DIVISION (COMPLETED BY DIVISION STAFF AND SENT WITH THE FSM LETTER)
EXISTING FEATURES
FEATURE BRIDGED: Sparks Creek
(BRIDGE / CULVERT) LENGTH 90 (FT.) DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT) 26.417 (FT.)
WATER DEPTH: 1.6 (FT.) HEIGHT BED-TO-CROWN: 16.0 (FT.)
PRIOR SURVEY DATE: POSTED: SV TTST:
STRUCTURE TYPE: RC deck on Girders
SPAN TYPE: RC deck
SUFFICIENCY RATING: 68.58
POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN PROJECT VICINITY: 55 (MPH / STATUTORY 55MPH)
DETOUR: OFF-SITE NO ON-SITE YES STAGE CONSTRUCTION NO
IF DETOUR IS OFF-SITE, PROVIDE DESCRIPTION OF DETOUR ROUTE N/A
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF DETOUR? N/A ( MILES )
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ROAD ON DETOUR? N/A
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO BRIDGES ON DETOUR? N/A
ARE BRIDGES ON DETOUR CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED ON TIP? N/A COMMENTS:
ARE THERE EMS, SCHOOL , OR BUSINESS ACCESS ISSUES? YES COMMENTS: School has high impact
ARE THERE ANY RAILROAD CROSSINGS ON DETOUR? N/A COMMENTS:
SHOULD WORK ZONE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION? NO
REASONS:

IMPACT RATING TO UTILITIES LOW
OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES YES IN CONFLICT YES
POWER TRANSMISSION LINES YES IN CONFLICT YES
TELEPHONE / CABLE LINES YES IN CONFLICT YES
FIBER OPTIC YES IN CONFLICT YES
WATER NO IN CONFLICT NO
SEWER NO IN CONFLCIT NO
NATURAL GAS NO IN CONFLICT NO
OTHER N/A IN CONFLICT N/A
BASED ON THE PAST HISTORY NEAR THIS PROJECT SITE, WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TIME REQUIRED TO
COMPLETE UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS 4-5 MONTHS

IS THERE ANY FUTURE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION ANTICIPATED IN THE PROJECT AREA Future Fiber
IS A FEMA BUY-OUT PROPERTY BEING IMPACTED NO

5/11/12
3
HYDRAULICS UNIT (COMPLETED BY HYDRAULICS UNIT STAFF PRIOR TO THE FSM)
WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE A FEMA PERMIT? YES
IS THERE UNUSUAL SCOUR POTENTIAL? NO IS PROTECTION NEEDED? YES
ARE BANKS STABLE? No IS PROTECTION NEEDED? Yes
DOES STREAM CARRY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF LARGE DEBRIS? No
WILL THE PLACEMENT OF BENTS IN THE WATER BE ALLOWED N/A COMMENTS
WERE HYDRAULIC ALTERNATIVES BESIDES A BRIDGE CONSIDERED No COMMENTS
POSSIBLE SPAN LAYOUT: 60 FT/40 FT or 70 FT/ 30 FT (100 FT TOTAL)

GEOTECHNICAL UNIT (COMPLETED BY GEOTECHNICAL UNIT PRIOR TO THE FSM)
EXISTING FOUNDATION REPORTS? No IF SO, ATTACH.
KNOWN GEOLOGICAL FEATURES IN AREA WHICH MAY AFFECT DESIGN No
ARE PERMITS NEEDED FOR INVESTIGATIVE WORK AT SITE No COMMENTS:
ARE THERE ANY HISTORICAL AND / OR VIBRATION SENSITIVE STRUCTURES NEAR BY No COMMENTS:
ARE THERE ANY KNOWN LANDFILLS AND / OR GEOENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD SITES AT OR WITHIN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT SITE No COMMENTS: verify with Cyrus Parker
DEPTH OF WEATHERED ROCK OR ROCK BELOW STREAMBED TBD ( FT. )
ARE ANY IMPACTS ANTCIPATED TO NATURAL SPRINGS OR ARTESIAN WELLS No COMMENTS:
POSSIBLE FOUNDATION TYPE: EB Piles, Int. Bent Drilled Shafts

5/11/12
4
PD & EA AND NEU UNIT (COMPLETED BY PDEA STAFF PRIOR TO THE FSM)
TRAFFIC FORECAST (AS PREPARED BY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH AND PROVIDED BY PDEA)
Accident History:
-L- BASE YEAR (2016)

ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 710

% TRUCKS/DUALS
-L- DESIGN YEAR (2040) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1100 % TRUCKS/DUALS
SHOW -Y-LINE TRAFFIC IF APPLICABLE FOR BRIDGES OVER / UNDER.
-Y- BASE YEAR (20 ) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC % TRUCKS/DUALS
-Y- DESIGN YEAR (20 ) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC % TRUCKS/DUALS
TRAFFIC SAFETY (AS PREPARED BY THE TRAFFIC SAFETY UNIT AND PROVIDED BY PDEA)
OPERATING SPEED: 55 MPH
CRASH RATE:
WETLANDS AT SITE Yes COMMENTS: One wetland identified during field work within the project stusdy area.
KNOWN ENDANGERED SPECIES POPULATIONS IN AREA No COMMENTS:
TROUT OR TVA COUNTY Yes COMMENTS: Within USACE Trout Watershed; No WRC Trout Waters within 1 mile
downstream.
CAMA COUNTY No PRIMARY NURSERY AREA No
MORATORIA No IF YES-DURATION
COMMENTS:
IS WATER FEATURE CLASSIFIED AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER No COMMENTS:
WHAT IS THE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT: Class C, Sparks Creek and Cheatwood Branch
WILL A COAST GUARD PERMIT BE REQUIRED No COMMENTS:
IS THE PROJECT SITE IN OR NEAR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
NATIONAL FOREST No
WILDLIFE REFUGE No
STATE, COUNTY, OR LOCAL PARK No
AIRPORT No
A LAKE FOR RECREATION OR POWER GENERATION No
WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIR No
NUTRIENT SENSITIVE WATERS No
PUBLIC USE BOAT RAMP No
CEMETARIES No
WILL A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMIS SION PERMIT BE REQUIRED No
IS THE PROJECT AREA KNOWN FOR POTENTIAL INDIAN, COLONIAL, OR OTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Yes, tribal coordination required
KNOWN OR POTENTIAL HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE AREA No
IS THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE ITSELF, OR ANY PART THEREOF, CONSIDERED HISTORIC No
WILL THE PROJECT IMPACT A CHURCH, COMMUNITY CENTER, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITY No
IS THIS PROJECT ON A STATEWIDE BICYCLE ROUTE OR A LOCAL NON-MARKED BICYCLE ROUTE Local , verify
ANY CLARIFICATION OR COMMENTS ON ITEMS ABOVE: Archaeology Survey Required

5/11/12
5

ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT (COMPLETED BY ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT PRIOR TO FSM)
ALIGNMENT: EXISTING HORIZONTAL Fair
EXISTING VERTICAL Fair
POSSIBLE DESIGN STANDARDS Subregional Tier
POSSIBLE DESIGN SPEED 55 (MPH)
POSSIBLE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS Possibly COMMENT
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LENGTH 1200 (FT) NUMBER AND WIDTH OF LANES 2/ 11 ft
SHOULD THIS PROJECT HAVE CURB AND GUTTER OR SHOULDER APPROACHES Shoulders
COMMENT
TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH 3 (FT) PAVED SHOULDER WIDTH 0 (FT)
CLEAR ROADWAY ON STRUCTURE 30 (FT)
WILL EXISTING DRIVEWAYS, BUSINESS ACCESS, -Y- LINES OR RAMPS NEED TO BE RELOCATED Possibly
COMMENTS: Possible Re-alignment of Y line
IS THERE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY / PERMANENT EASEMENTS / TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ANTICIPATED FOR
CONSTRUCTION Yes COMMENT
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED No, but verify during design
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF RELOCATEES No IF SO, DESCRIBE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: southern alignment preferred

STRUCTURE DESIGN UNIT (COMPLETED BY THE STRUCTURE DESIGN UNIT PRIOR TO THE FSM)
POSSIBLE SUPERSTRUCTURE:
TYPE: 21” or 24” Cored Slabs
NUMBER OF SPANS 2 LENGTH OF SPANS 70/30 or 60/40 (FT)
WILL RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT BE REQUIRED No
WILL STRUCTURE REQUIRE DESIGN FOR VESSEL IMPACT OR FENDER SYSTEM No
DESCRIPTION:
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED Possibly

5/11/12
6

CONSTRUCTABILITY AND ACCESS (DISCUSSED AT THE FSM BY DIVISION BRIDGE MANAGER)
METHOD OF ACCESS: New alignment
TOP-DOWN Yes
(WORK BRIDGE / CAUSEWAY) PROPOSED LOCATION RELATIVE TO EXISTING STRUCTURE: N/A
PROPOSED LENGTH (FT) WIDTH (FT)
MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT ACCESS TO SITE:
TRACTOR-TRAILER ACCESS Yes BARGE ACCESS No HEAVY EQUIPMENT ACCESS Yes
POSTED ROADS AND POSTED BRIDGES IN VICINITY THAT MAY AFFECT ACCESS Yes
ARE CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS AVAILABLE NEAR SITE Yes
ANY ANTICIPATED AREAS OF TEMPORARY SHORING REQUIRED Possibly
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: maintain 5 FT separation from existing bridge
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED / RESOLVED AT FSM BY ATTENDEES
LIST ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED BY ROADWAY DESIGN:
1) prefer new alignment to the south
2) prefer 60/40 FT span arrangement
3) re-establish bank behind existing piers

DESCRIBE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DECIDED UPON, WHY CERTAIN
ALTERANTIVES WERE REJECTED, AND IF AN ALTERNATIVE WAS SELECTED, WHY.
Northern re-alignment conflicts with hillside and the Y-Line/driveway and utility
Can’t stage construct existing bridge.

CHECK ONE
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (CHECK ONE)
CATIGORICAL EXCLUSION (CE)
PROGRAMMATIC CATIGORICAL EXCLUSION (PCE)
THE OPTIMUM LET DATE FOR THIS PROJECT IS: Spring/Summer 2020
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND/OR UNRESOLVED ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:

Page 1 of 1

REQUEST FOR R/W COST ESTIMATE / RELOCATION EIS
COST ESTIMATE REQUEST RELOCATION EIS REPORT

NEW REQUEST: UPDATE REQUEST: REVISION REQUEST: Update to Estimate Revision to Estimate
Revision No.:
DATE RECEIVED: 07/30/19 DATE ASSIGNED: 08/22/19 # of Alternates Requested: 1
DATE DUE: 08/27/19
TIP No.: BR-0126
DESCRIPTION: Replace bridge # 960667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Rd) over Sparks Creek
WBS ELEMENT: 67126.1.1 COUNTY: Wilkes DIV: 11 APPRAISAL OFFICE: 3
REQUESTOR: Marissa Lenoce & Tierre Peterson DEPT: STV & Structures Mgmt Unit
TYPE OF PLANS: HEARING MAPS | LOCATION MAP | AERIAL | VICINITY | PRELIMINARY | CONCEPTUAL
** Based on past project historical data, the land and damage figures have been adjusted to include condemnation
and administrative increases that occur during settlement of all parcels.**
APPRAISER: Peter Kapetanakis COMPLETED: 09/02/19 # of Alternates Completed: 1
Alt 1

TYPE OF ACCESS:

NONE: LIMITED:
PARTIAL: FULL:
ESTIMATED NO. OF PARCELS: 5
RESIDENTIAL RELOCATEES: - $ -
BUSINESS RELOCATEES: - $ -
GRAVES: - $ -
CHURCH / NON – PROFIT: - $ -
MISC: - $ -
SIGNS: - $ -
LAND, IMPROVEMENTS, & DAMAGES: $ 45,062
ACQUISTION: $ 12,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED R/W COST: $ 57,562

** THIS IS A COST ESTIMATE AND NOT TO BE USED AS AN APPRAISAL **

NOTES:
Sources and Uses of Funds for the GREATTER-NC ProgramSummaryDesignROWUtilitiesConstruction TotalNon-federal sources28,038$ 11,215$ 11,215$ 280,385$ 330,853$ 1,888,000$ BUILD131,962$ 52,785$ 52,785$ 1,319,615$ 1,557,147$ Other federal-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 160,000$ 64,000$ 64,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,888,000$ 960667
STR_No TotalTotal Injury Fatal A_Inj B_Inj C_Inj PDO UnkAADT (2016) Truck%Crash Reduction - Total CrashesCrash Reduction - Total Injury Crashes (K,A,B,C)960667000000001906%00
Bridge Traffic Review Sheet
TIP:BR‐0126
County: Wilkes
Bridge Number and Location: BRIDGE 960667 ON SR1749 OVER SPARKS CREEK
Reviewer: Keith Dixon
Date: 10/2/2018
Base Year:2016
Base Year AADT Estimate 710
Is the bridge location modeled with an approved model?Yes
MPO Name:N/A
Model Name and Version:Wilkes County 2040 Model
Model Base Year:2014
Model Future Year:2040
Model 2014 Output 603
Model 2040 Output 922
Wilkes County 2040 Model CAGR:1.6%
2040 AADT Projection:1100
Class Data N/A
Result: Assume Minimum Design Standards

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT
1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1589
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968

Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
ENTRANCE B-2
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC

MEMORANDUM TO: Marissa Lenoce
Planner STV Inc.

FROM: Gordon Box, PG
GeoEnvironmental Project Manager
GeoEnvironmental Section
Geotechnical Engineering Unit

TIP NO: BR-0126
WBS: 67126.1.1
COUNTY: WILKES
DIVISION 11
DESCRIPTION: Bridge Number 960667 on SR1749 over Sparks Creek

SUBJECT: Pre-Scoping Comments

The GeoEnvironmental Section performed a records search of readily available information for the given
project study area to identify known and potential sites of concern. No sites of concern were identified within
the project area. If the project limit changes, please let us know, so we can reevaluate the study area.

cc:
Kevin Fischer, PE, Assistant State Structures Engineer - PEF Coordination, Program Management & Field
Ops.
John Pilipchuk, LG, PE, State Geotechnical Engineer
Brian Hanks, PE, State Structures Engineer
Dale Burton, PE, PLS, State Locations and Surveys Engineer
Carl Barclay, PE, State Utilities Manager
Trent Beaver, PE, Division Construction Engineer
Daneil Miles, Division Right of Way Agent
Eric Williams, PE, Geotechnical Regional Manager
Kevin Miller, PG, Regional Geological Engineer
Heather Fulghum, State Negotiator
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
File

6/7/2019

GeoEnvironmental Pre-Scoping Comments
T.I.P.#: BR-0126
Page 2 of 2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT
1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1589
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968

Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH, NC 27610

June 1, 2019

MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Laws, PE
Division 11 Bridge Program Manager

FROM: John Pilipchuk, L.G., P.E.
State Geotechnical Engineer

STATE PROJECT: 67126.1.1 (BR-0126)
COUNTY: Wilkes
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge 667 on SR 1749 over Sparks Creek

SUBJECT: Geotechnical Report – Project Scoping Comments

The Geotechnical Engineering Unit makes the following recommendations based on literature
and field review.

Geotechnical Description and Recommendations

The alignment traverses rolling to flat terrain with the existing structure located at the edge of the
alluvial floodplain of Sparks Creek. Embankment is currently at 12-15’ with silty sand, gravel
and cobbles. The alluvium consists of sand, cobbles and boulders. No rock or residual material is
present in the area streambed. The streambed is aggrading at this point with the interior bents
generating minor contraction scour downstream.

The structure is likely to be replaced just to the North of the existing with low slope cuts along
the NW realignment. These will be in silty sand soils derived from the gneissic rock units and
will be recommended at 2:1.

The structure is anticipated to be multi-span with abutments supported on drilled in piles installed
with pile tips due to boulders and potentially shallow rock present. Interior bent foundations will
be drilled shafts .

If there are questions regarding the geotechnical issues, please contact Jody Kuhne, PG, PE,
Regional Geological Engineer, at 828-298-3874. Or [e-mail]

Cc: Eric Williams, Asst. State Geotechnical Engineer.
6/4/2019
Prepared By
Division:
Stream:
Road #:Road Name:
Latitude:Longitude:
Structure #:
Structure #:
Yr Built:
OAL (ft):
Clear Roadway (ft):Bed to Crown (ft):
Span Arrangement:
Water Depth (ft)
Number of Barrels:@ Span (ft):x Rise (ft):
Survey Date:
Notes
ADT:Year ADT:
Drainage Area:
Panel #:Panel Date:Type of FIS:Date of FIS:
Stream Gage Number(if applicable):
Q10 (cfs):Q25 (cfs):Q50 (cfs):Q100 (cfs):
Structure in Flood Hazard Zone
Roadway Overtops at Q100:
Year Built:
OAL (ft):
Bed to Crown (ft):
Span Arrangement:
Number of Barrels:@ Span (ft):x Rise (ft):Route:
Latitude:Longitude:
Prior Survey Completed:Survey Date:
Year Built:
OAL (ft):
Bed to Crown (ft)
Span Arrangement:
Number of Barrels:@ Span (ft):x Rise (ft):
Route:
Latitude:Longitude:
Prior Survey Completed:Survey Date:
Prior Survey Completed:
Up/Down Stream Features
Preliminary Structure Estimate [Office Estimate]
Skew:
Dimensions/Spans:
County:Assigned to:
River Basin:
Hydro Reviewer:
Quad Map:
Primary Stream Classification
Class B Class C SA SB
SC SWL WL WS I
WS II WS III WS IV WS V
Supplemental Stream Classification
w/in 0.5mi. of CA
FWS HQW NSW ORW
Sw Tr UWL
Anadromous Fish Area of Envronmental Concern
CAMA County
Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters
Designated Shellfish Harvesting Area
Federal Wild & Scenic Rivers
HSB Requried
Impaired [303d]
NC Natural & Scenic Rivers
Primary Nursery Area
TVA
Other Stream Classification
Buffer Rule:
Drainage Area Source:
Discharge Method:USGS Region:
Scour Code (item113):
Existing Structure
Enviromental
Abutment Type:
Upstream Feature:Structure Type:
Downstream Feature:
Structure Type:
Structure Type:
Location:
Decimal degrees, a min of 5 decimal points
Skew:
Superstructure Depth:
Location:
Location:
Structure Type
QBFE (cfs):
Project Type:
Hydraulics Unit Pre-Design Report (Pre-Scoping) for Structure #:Date:
Cover
Page
rev. 20160922
Creek1786
1943
2078
1784
2078
1749
1936
1752
1764
1751
1749
1784
1749
1737
1940
1941
1781
1938
1943
1934
1749
1002
1002
1941
1002
1002
1752
1937
1939
1935
1939
1943
Combs Knob
Elevation 1906
Traphill
1.25.55.67.42.49.66.38.43
.25 .60
.30.15.65.801.02.56
.87.06
.06
1.56.37.65.561.
7
0
.16 1.06
.30
.77.861.08
.85
.12.63.60
2.38
.8
1
.20
2.16.901.06Lo
n
g
bott
o
m Rd
Traphill Estates RdTraphill Rd
Roundhill Church RdTraphill Mill RdTraphill RdJohn P Frank PkyTraphill Rd
Billings Hill Church RdR C RdAustin Traphill Rd
Austi
n Tr
aphill RdS
waringer Rd
Traphill Rd Traphill Ridge RdTidline RdSwaringer RdTra p h ill Rd
Swaringer RdTraphill R
Traphill-Benge Rd
K
i
ng B
il
King Billings RdHanks St
Ki
n
g Billi
n
g
s Rd
N Lomax Rd
Baugess Mill RdBillings Hill Church RdBil
l
i
ngs Hil
l
Church RdBrewer Mill Rd
Sa
n
d
y Cr
e
e
k Rd Alleghany Spur RdAlleghany Spur RdJohn P FrMosswood Rd Elem.
Traphill
LittleSandyCr.SparksCreek
ARING
BR 0126
Bridge Location (960667)
SCALE: 1"= 2000'
0'2000'2000'
2/25/2019 StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/1/4
StreamStats Report

Basin Characteristics
P a r a m e t e r C o d e P a r a m e t e r D e s c r i p t i o n V a l u e U n i t
R e g i o n I D :N C
W o r k s p a c e I D :N C 2 0 1 9 0 2 2 5 1 7 1 2 2 7 9 0 1 0 0 0
C l i c k e d P o i n t (L a t i t u d e , L o n g i t u d e ):3 6 .3 3 4 7 3 , -8 1 .0 1 3 9 8
T i m e :2 0 1 9 -0 2 -2 5 1 2 :1 2 :4 2 -0 5 0 0
2/25/2019 StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/2/4
P a r a m e t e r C o d e P a r a m e t e r D e s c r i p t i o n V a l u e U n i t
D R N A R E A A r e a t h a t d r a i n s t o a p o i n t o n a s t r e a m 7 .7 2 s q u a r e m i l e s
P C T R E G 1 P e r c e n t a g e o f d r a i n a g e a r e a l o c a t e d i n R e g i o n 1 7 1 .9 4 5 p e r c e n t
P C T R E G 2 P e r c e n t a g e o f d r a i n a g e a r e a l o c a t e d i n R e g i o n 2 2 8 .0 5 5 p e r c e n t
P C T R E G 3 P e r c e n t a g e o f d r a i n a g e a r e a l o c a t e d i n R e g i o n 3 0 p e r c e n t
P C T R E G 4 P e r c e n t a g e o f d r a i n a g e a r e a l o c a t e d i n R e g i o n 4 0 p e r c e n t
P C T R E G 5 P e r c e n t a g e o f d r a i n a g e a r e a l o c a t e d i n R e g i o n 5 0 p e r c e n t
L C 0 6 I M P P e r c e n t a g e o f i m p e r v i o u s a r e a d e t e r m i n e d f r o m N L C D 2 0 0 6 i m p e r v i o u s d a t a s e t 0 .4 3 p e r c e n t
Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [28 Percent (2.17 square miles) Peak Southeast US over 1 sqmi 2009 5158]
P a r a m e t e r C o d e P a r a m e t e r N a m e V a l u e U n i t s M i n L i m i t M a x L i m i t
D R N A R E A D r a i n a g e A r e a 7 .7 2 s q u a r e m i l e s 1 9 0 0 0
P C T R E G 1 P e r c e n t A r e a i n R e g i o n 1 7 1 .9 4 5 p e r c e n t 0 1 0 0
P C T R E G 2 P e r c e n t A r e a i n R e g i o n 2 2 8 .0 5 5 p e r c e n t 0 1 0 0
P C T R E G 3 P e r c e n t A r e a i n R e g i o n 3 0 p e r c e n t 0 1 0 0
P C T R E G 4 P e r c e n t A r e a i n R e g i o n 4 0 p e r c e n t 0 1 0 0
P C T R E G 5 P e r c e n t A r e a i n R e g i o n 5 0 p e r c e n t 0 1 0 0
Peak-Flow Statistics Disclaimers [28 Percent (2.17 square miles) Peak Southeast US over 1 sqmi 2009 5158]
W e i g h t e d
2/25/2019 StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/3/4
P I l : P r e d i c t i o n I n t e r v a l -L o w e r, P I u : P r e d i c t i o n I n t e r v a l -U p p e r, S E p : S t a n d a r d E r r o r o f P r e d i c t i o n , S E : S t a n d a r d E r r o r (o t h e r -- s e e r e p o r t )
S t a t i s t i c V a l u e U n i t P I l P I u S E p
2 Ye a r P e a k F l o o d 5 8 0 f t ^3 /s 3 3 4 1 0 1 0 3 4 .5
5 Ye a r P e a k F l o o d 1 0 3 0 f t ^3 /s 6 0 0 1 7 8 0 3 4
1 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 1 3 7 0 f t ^3 /s 7 8 4 2 4 1 0 3 5 .1
2 5 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 1 8 2 0 f t ^3 /s 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 3 7 .5
5 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 2 2 0 0 f t ^3 /s 1 1 8 0 4 1 2 0 3 9 .6
1 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 2 5 7 0 f t ^3 /s 1 3 3 0 4 9 8 0 4 1 .9
2 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 2 9 3 0 f t ^3 /s 1 4 6 0 5 8 7 0 4 4 .3
5 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 3 4 8 0 f t ^3 /s 1 6 5 0 7 3 2 0 4 7 .7
Peak-Flow Statistics Citations
W e a v e r, J .C ., F e a s t e r, T.D., a n d G o t v a l d , A .J .,2 0 0 9 , M a g n i t u d e a n d f r e q u e n c y o f r u r a l
2/25/2019 StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/4/4
.7 MI SE JCT SR1939
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT UNIT
ATTENTION:CHANGE IN STRUCTURE DATA.
Structure Safety Report
Routine Element Inspection - Contract
COUNTY:WILKES STRUCTURE NUMBER:960667 FREQUENCY:24 MONTHS
FACILITY CARRIED:SR1749 MILE POST:
LOCATION:
FEATURE INTERSECTED:SPARKS CREEK
LATITUDE:36° 20' 5.2"LONGITUDE:81° 0' 50.19"
INSPECTED BY
Raghuveer Surapaneni
ASSISTED BY Aaron StroudSIGNATURE
LOOKING EAST.
REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK GIRDERSSUPERSTRUCTURE:
E.BTS:RC CAPS/TIM.PILES;INT.BTS:RC POST&BEAMSUBSTRUCTURE:
3 @ 30'SPANS:
POSTED SV:25 POSTED TTST:37
PRESENT CONDITION:Fair INSPECTION DATE:01/18/2017
OTHER SIGNS PRESENT:(4) DELINEATORS, (2) WEIGHT LIMIT
FRACTURE CRITICAL TEMPORARY SHORING SCOUR CRITICAL SCOUR PLAN OF ACTION
Sign noticed
issued for
Number
Required
NO WEIGHT LIMIT 0
NO DELINEATORS 0
NO NARROW BRIDGE 0
NO ONE LANE BRIDGE 0
NO LOW CLEARANCE 0
DIRECTION OF
INSPECTION W-E
DIRECTION
MATCHES PLANS YES
Structure Element Scoring
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Quantity
Level 1
Quantity
Level 2
Quantity
Level 3
Quantity
Level 4
Quantity
Parent
Number Location
12 0 Reinforced Concrete Deck Deck 2379 5 2374 0 0
110 0 Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam Beam 360 360 0 0 0
205 0 Reinforced Concrete Column Piles and Columns 4 4 0 0 0
215 0 Reinforced Concrete Abutment Abutments 52 49 0 3 0
234 0 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Caps 48 42 6 0 0
316 0 Other Bearings Bearing Device 24 24 0 0 0
331 0 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing Bridge Rail 180 174 6 0 0
510 0 Wearing Surface Wearing Surfaces 0 0 0 0 0
Structure Number:960667 Inspection Date 1/18/2017
Summary of Maintenance Needs
Maintenance By Defect
MMS
Code Element Name Defect Name Recommended Quantity
3326 Reinforced Concrete Deck Cracking (RC and Other)Square Feet1
3326 Reinforced Concrete Deck Delamination/Spall Square Feet550
3326 Reinforced Concrete Deck Abrasion/Wear (PSC/RC)Square Feet2126
3350 Reinforced Concrete Abutment Scour Feet3
3348 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Delamination/Spall Feet6
3318 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing Patched Area Square Feet1
Structure Number:960667 Inspection Date:01/18/2017
Element Structure Maintenance Quantities
Location
MMS
Code Description
Total
Quantity
Severe
Quantity
Poor
Quantity
Fair
Quantity
Good
Quantity
Maint
Quantity
Abutments 3350 Maintenance of Concrete Wings and Wall 3 4952030
Beam 3306 Maintenance Concrete Superstructure Components 0 360360000
Bearing Device 3334 Bridge Bearing 0 2424000
Bridge Rail 3318 Maintenance of Concrete Bridge Rail 1 174180600
Caps 3348 Maintenance of Concrete Substructure 6 4248600
Deck 3326 Maintenance of Concrete Deck 2677 52379237400
Piles and Columns 3348 Maintenance of Concrete Substructure 0 44000
Wearing Surfaces 2816 Asphalt Surface Repair 0 00000
Structure Number:960667 Inspection Date 01/18/2017
Element Condition and Maintenance Data
Span 1 Deck
Reinforced Concrete Deck
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
12 Reinforced Concrete Deck 793 2 00791 Square Feet
Abrasion/Wear
(PSC/RC)
ABRASION AND WEAR WITH EXPOSED AGGREGATE
THROUGHOUT TOP OF ENTIRE DECK.
2 59012 Square Feet590
Cracking (RC and
Other)
6 IN HORIZONTAL HAIRLINE CRACK IN WEST FACE OF
BAY 2 DIAPHRAGM.
2 112 Square Feet1
Delamination/Spall AREAS OF SURFACE SPALLS, SOME WITH EXPOSED
REINFORCEMENT, UP TO 6 IN DIAMETER X 1 IN DEEP
ACROSS BOTH LANES AT END BENT 1 AND END BENT 2.
2 20012 Square Feet200
General Comments
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail
Concrete Railing
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
331 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 30 29 001 Feet
Patched Area UNSOUND, SPALLING, AND DELAMINATED PATCH IN
THIRD RAILPOST FROM END BENT 1.
2 1331 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 2 Deck
Reinforced Concrete Deck
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
12 Reinforced Concrete Deck 793 3 00790 Square Feet
Abrasion/Wear
(PSC/RC)
ABRASION AND WEAR WITH EXPOSED AGGREGATE
THROUGHOUT TOP OF ENTIRE DECK.
2 79312 Square Feet490
Delamination/Spall SURFACE SPALLS UP TO 6 IN DIAMETER X 1 IN DEEP
THROUGHOUT SPAN.
2 30012 Square Feet300
General Comments
Span 2 Left Bridge Rail
Concrete Railing
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
331 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 30 25 005 Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
HAIRLINE MAP CRACKING IN TOP OF CURB AT MIDSPAN.2331 Feet5
General Comments
Structure Number:960667 Inspection Date:01/18/2017
Span 3 Deck
Reinforced Concrete Deck
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
12 Reinforced Concrete Deck 793 0 00793 Square Feet
Abrasion/Wear
(PSC/RC)
ABRASION AND WEAR WITH EXPOSED AGGREGATE
THROUGHOUT TOP OF ENTIRE DECK.
2 74312 Square Feet743
Delamination/Spall AREAS OF SURFACE SPALLING UP TO 6 IN DIAMETER X 1
IN DEEP THROUGHOUT SPAN.
2 5012 Square Feet50
General Comments
End Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Abutment 1
Reinforced Concrete Abutment
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
215 Reinforced Concrete Abutment 26 23 030 Feet
Scour EROSION OF END BENT 2 CAP BELOW BEAM 1. VOID
MEASURES 3 FT LONG X 2 FT 6 IN WIDE X 1 FT 6 IN DEEP.
TIMBER PILE EXPOSED FOR 9 IN, VERTICAL CHECKS IN
EXPOSED PILE.
3 3215 Feet3
General Comments
Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 1
Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
234 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 24 18 006 Feet
Delamination/Spall (6) SPALLS WITH EXPOSED REINFORCEMENT UP TO 4 IN
DIAMETER X 1 IN DEEP ON UNDERSIDE OF CAP.
2 6234 Feet6
General Comments
Structure Number:960667 Inspection Date:01/18/2017
Span 1 Beam 1 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 1 Beam 2 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 1 Beam 3 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 1 Beam 4 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 30
Span 1 Right Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 30
Span 1 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 2 Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck 793
Span 2 Beam 1 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 2 Beam 2 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 2 Beam 3 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 2 Beam 4 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 2 Left Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 30
Span 2 Right Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 30
Span 2 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 2 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 2 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 2 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 2 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 2 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 2 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 2 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck 793
Span 3 Beam 1 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 3 Beam 2 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 3 Beam 3 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 3 Beam 4 Reinforced Concrete Girder Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam 30
Span 3 Left Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 30
Span 3 Right Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 30
Span 3 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Bent 1 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 24
Elements Verfied
Location Name Component Element Name Amount
Bent 1 Reinforced Concrete Column Reinforced Concrete Column 1
Bent 1 Reinforced Concrete Column Reinforced Concrete Column 1
End Bent 1 Reinforced Concrete Abutment Reinforced Concrete Abutment 26
Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 24
Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Column Reinforced Concrete Column 1
Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Column Reinforced Concrete Column 1
End Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Abutment Reinforced Concrete Abutment 26
Elements Verfied
Location Name Component Element Name Amount
National Bridge and NC Inspection Items
National Bridge Inventory Items
Item 58: Deck
Item 59: Superstructure
Item 60: Substructure
Item 61: Channel and Channel Protection
Item 62: Culvert
Item 71: Waterway Adequacy
Item 72: Approach Roadway Alignment
0 - 9 , N
Item Grade Scale
0 - 9 , N
0 - 9 , N
0 - 9 , N
0 - 9 , N
0 - 9 , N
0 - 9 , N
Grade
5
7
7
5
N
7
8
NC SMU Inspection Items
Deck Debris
Drainage System
Utilities
Slope Protection
Wingwall
Scour
Drift
Item Grade Scale
Fender System
Response to Live Load
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G
Grade
G
F
G
F
G
21
Inspection Information
Regulatory Sign Noticed Issued
Priority Maintenance Request Submitted
Inspection Time
Traffic Control Time
Snooper Time
Ladder Used
Bucket Truck Used
Item Grade Scale
Boat Used
Other Equipment Used
YES/NO
YES/NO
Hours
Hours
YES/NO
Hours
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
Grade
N
N
6
0
0
N
N
N
N
Note: If NBI Inspection Item is not present, code NBI item with "N"
Note: If NC SMU Insepction Item is not present, leave NC SMU item blank
Estimated Remaining Life 0 - 100 Years
G
Maint. Qty.Maint. Code
0 3376
0 3332
160 3352
0 3366
0 3364
0 3350
G, F, P, or C
Field Scour Evaluation G
Movable Span Machinery G, F, P, or C
Superstructure Paint Code
960667Structure Number:Inspection Date:01/18/2017
National Bridge and NC SMU Inspection Item Details
Item Channel and Channel Protection - Item 61 Grade 5
Details EROSION IN DOWNSTREAM EAST BANK, UP TO 15 FT WIDE X 5 FT HIGH.
Maint Code Qty.0
Item Slope Protection Grade F
Details 20 FT LONG X 8 FT WIDE X 3 FT DEEP EROSION IN SLOPE AT BENT 2 NORTH COLUMN.
Maint Code 3352 Qty.160
Item Scour Grade F
Details EROSION OF END BENT 2 CAP, BELOW BEAM 1. VOID MEASURES 3 FT LONG X 2 FT 6 IN WIDE X 1 FT 6 IN DEEP.
Maint Code Qty.0
960667Structure Number:Inspection Date:01/18/2017
Span 1 Deck: FULL WIDTH X 8 FT AREA OF SURFACE SPALLS UP TO 6 IN DIAMETER X 1 IN DEEP ACROSS
BOTH LANES AT END BENT 1.
LONGITUDINAL CRACKING UP TO 1/8 IN AND SETTLEMENT OF WEST APPROACH UP TO 1 IN ACROSS FULL
WIDTH OF ROADWAY.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail: UNSOUND, SPALLING, AND DELAMINATED PATCH IN THIRD RAILPOST FROM END
BENT 1.
Span 2 Left Bridge Rail: HAIRLINE MAP CRACKING IN TOP OF CURB AT MIDSPAN.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Condition Photos
RANDOM CRACKING AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST APPROACH.
20 FT LONG X 8 FT WIDE X 3 FT DEEP EROSION AT BENT 1, NORTH COLUMN.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Condition Photos
EROSION IN DOWNSTREAM EAST BANK, UP TO 15 FT WIDE X 5 FT HIGH.
End Bent 2 Abutment/Backwall : EROSION OF END BENT 2 CAP, BELOW BEAM 1. VOID MEASURES 3 FT LONG X
2 FT 6 IN WIDE X 1 FT 6 IN DEEP. TIMBER PILE EXPOSED FOR 9 IN, VERTICAL CHECKS IN EXPOSED PILE.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Condition Photos
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Condition Photos
End Bent 2 Abutment/Backwall : EROSION OF END BENT 2 CAP, BELOW BEAM 1. VOID MEASURES 3 FT LONG X
2 FT 6 IN WIDE X 1 FT 6 IN DEEP. TIMBER PILE EXPOSED FOR 9 IN, VERTICAL CHECKS IN EXPOSED PILE.
LOOKING EAST.
LEFT BRIDGE RAIL.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
RIGHT BRIDGE RAIL.
LOAD POSTING SIGN AT SOUTHWEST CORNER.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
JOINT AT END BENT 1, LOOKING NORTH.
TOP OF DECK, SPAN 1, LOOKING EAST.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
DECK DRAINS ALONG LEFT BRIDGE RAIL, TYPICAL.
BRIDGE INFORMATION PLATE, NORTHWEST CORNER.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
JOINT AT BENT 1, NOTE SURFACE SPALLS IN SPANS 1 AND 2.
LOOKING UPSTREAM/NORTH FROM SPAN 2.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM/SOUTH FROM SPAN 2.
JOINT AT BENT 2, LOOKING NORTH, NOTE SURFACE SPALLS IN SPANS 2 AND 3.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
JOINT AT END BENT 2. NOTE SETTLEMENT OF EAST APPROACH UP TO 3/4 IN.
LOOKING WEST.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
LOAD POSTING SIGN AT NORTHEAST CORNER.
DOWNSTREAM/SOUTH PROFILE, LOOKING WEST.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
UPSTREAM/NORTH PROFILE, LOOKING EAST.
NORTHWEST WINGWALL.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
END BENT 1.
SLOPE PROTECTION AT END BENT 1.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
BACK WALL AT END BENT 1, BAY 1.
SOUTHWEST WINGWALL.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
BENT 1 PROFILE.
END DIAPHRAGM AT BENT 1, BAY 2.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
SUPERSTRUCTURE UNDERSIDE, SPAN 2, LOOKING EAST.
BENT 2 PROFILE.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
LOOKING UPSTREAM/NORTH FROM BELOW BRIDGE.
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM/SOUTH FROM BELOW BRIDGE.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
SLOPE PROTECTION AT END BENT 2.
SOUTHEAST WINGWALL.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
END BENT 2.
NORTHEAST WINGWALL.
Structure:960667 County:WILKES Date:01/18/2017 Structure Photos
(1) STATE NAME -NORTH CAROLINA
(8) STRUCTURE NUMBER(FEDERAL)
(5) INVENTORY ROUTE (ON/UNDER) - ON
(2) STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT DISTRICT
(4) PLACE CODE
(6) FEATURE INTERSECTED -
(11)MILEPOINT
(16)LAT
(98)BORDER BRIDGE STATE CODE
(99)BORDER BRIDGE STRUCTURE NO
(43) STRUCTURE TYPE MAIN:
(44) STRUCTURE TYPE APPR :
(45) NUMBER OF SPANS IN MAIN UNIT
(46) NUMBER OF APPROACH SPANS
(107)DECK STRUCTURE TYPE -
TYPE -
(108)WEARING SURFACE / PROTECTIVE SYSTEM :
(A) TYPE OF WEARING SURFACE -
(B) TYPE OF MEMBRANE -
(C) TYPE OF DECK PROTECTION -
(27) YEAR BUILT
(28) LANES: ON STRUCTURE UNDER STRUCTURE
(29) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(30) YEAR OF ADT (109) TRUCK ADT PCT
(19) BYPASS OR DETOUR LENGTH
UNDER -
(42) TYPE OF SERVICE : ON -
(106)YEAR RECONSTRUCTED
(3) COUNTY CODE
(9) LOCATION
(17)LONG
(7) FACILITY CARRIED
(48) LENGTH OF MAXIMUM SPAN
(49) STRUCTURE LENGTH
(50)CURB OR SIDEWALK: LEFT
(51) BRIDGE ROADWAY WIDTH CURB TO CURB
(52) DECK WIDTH OUT TO OUT
(32) APPROACH ROADWAY WIDTH (W/SHOULDERS)
(33) BRIDGE MEDIAN -
(34) SKEW (35) STRUCTURE FLARED
(10) INVENTORY ROUTE MIN VERT CLEAR
(47) INVENTORY ROUTE TOTAL HORIZ CLEAR
(53) MIN VERT CLEAR OVER BRIDGE RDWY
(54) MIN VERT UNDERCLEAR REF
(55) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR RT REF
(56) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR LT REF -
(38) NAVIGATION CONTROL -
(111)PIER PROTECTION -
(39) NAVIGATION VERTICAL CLEARANCE
(116)VERT - LIFT BRIDGE NAV MIN VERT CLEAR
(40) NAVIGATION HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE
SUFFICIENCY RATING =
STATUS =
(112)NBIS BRIDGE SYSTEM -
(104)HIGHWAY SYSTEM
(26) FUNCTIONAL CLASS -
(100)STRAHNET HIGHWAY -
(101)PARALLEL STRUCTURE -
(102)DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC -
(103)TEMPORARY STRUCTURE -
(110)DESIGNATED NATIONAL NETWORK -
(20) TOLL
(31) MAINTAIN -
(22) OWNER -
(37) HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE -
(58) DECK
(59) SUPERSTRUCTURE
(60) SUBSTRUCTURE
(61) CHANNEL & CHANNEL PROTECTION
(62) CULVERTS
(31) DESIGN LOAD
(64) OPERATING RATING -
(66) INVENTORY RATING -
(70) BRIDGE POSTING -
(41) STRUCTURE OPEN, POSTED ,OR CLOSED
DESCRIPTION -
(67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
(68) DECK GEOMETRY
(69) UNDERCLEARANCES,VERTI & HORIZ
(71) WATERWAY ADEQUACY
(72) APPROACH ROADWAY ALIGNMENT
(36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES
(113)SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES
(75) TYPE OF WORK -
(76) LENGTH OF STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
(94) BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT COST
(95) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST
(96) TOTAL PROJECT COST
(97) YEAR OF IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
(114)FUTURE ADT (115) YEAR FUTURE ADT
(90) INSPECTION DATE
(92) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION :(93) CFI DATE
A) FRACTURE CRIT DETAIL -
B) UNDERWATER INSP -
C) OTHER SPECIAL INSP
SCOUR
A)
B)
C)
BRIDGE
31017490
0
SPARKS CREEK
SR1749
.7 MI SE JCT SR1939
0
81° 0' 50.19"36° 20' 5.20"
TYPE - CODE
CODE
CODE
IDENTIFICATION
STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIAL
AGE AND SERVICE
GEOMETRIC DATA
RIGHT
NAVIGATION DATA
CODE
CODE
CLASSIFICATION CODE
CODECONDITION
CODELOAD RATING AND POSTING
CODEAPPRAISAL
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
INSPECTIONS
Concrete
Tee Beam 104
000
3
1 CODE
CODE
CODE
CODE
1953
Highway
Waterway 15
2 0
760
2012 6%
7 MI
29 FT
90 FT
1.1 FT 1.1 FT
24.167 FT
26.417 FT
22 FT
0No Median
00°
999.9 FT
24.167 FT
999.9 FT
0 FT
CODE
Not a Highway or Railroad
000 FT
000 FT
0 FT
FT
0
No Navigational Control 0
Not a Highway or Railroad
68.58
Not Deficient
YES
0Is not on NHS
08Minor Collector
0Not a STRAHNET Route
No Parallel Structure N
2-way Traffic 2
Not on the National Network 0
On Free Road 3
State Highway Agency 01
State Highway Agency 01
Not Eligible 5
5
7
7
5
N
H 15 2
HS-23 41
HS-14 25
Posting Required 3
P
Posted for Load
6
4
N
7
8
0000
8
CODE
1520 2025
01/18/2017
NO
NO
NO
PCT SHARE
960667
3
000000001930667
193
(63) OPERATING RATING METHOD -Load Factor 1
(65) INVENTORY RATING METHOD -Load Factor 1
NATIONAL BRIDGE INVENTORY-------- STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL Run Date: 09/11/2017
COUNTY : DIVISION :DISTRICT:STRUCTURE NUMBER :LENGTH :
ROUTE CARRIED :FEATURE INTERSECTED :
LOCATED :BRIDGE NAME :
FUNC. CLASS :SYST.ON :SYST.UNDER :ADT & YR :RAIL TYPE :
BUILT :BY :PROJ :FED.AID PROJ :DESIGN LOAD :
REHAB :BY :PROJ :ALIGNMENT :SKEW :LANES :
NAVIGATION :HT. CRN. TO BED : WATER DEPTH :
SUPERSTRUCTURE :
1953 SHPWC 8-505 S-208(3)H 15
LT 90 2
08 NFA NFA 760 141
.7 MI SE JCT SR1939
SR1749 SPARKS CREEK
90
0 17 10FTVCHCFT FT
REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK GIRDERS
0ONUNDER
141LTRT2012
FEET
FT
CITY :
SUBSTRUCTURE :
SPANS :
BEAMS OR GIRDERS :
FLOOR :ENCROACHMENT :DECK (OUT TO OUT) :
CLEAR ROADWAY :BETWEEN RAILS :SIDEWALK OR CURB :
VERT.CL.OVER :
INV.RTG. :OPE.RTG. :CONTR.MEMBER :POSTED :
SYSTEM :GREEN LINE ROUTE :
E.BTS:RC CAPS/TIM.PILES;INT.BTS:RC POST&BEAM
3 @ 30'
4 LINES REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK GIRDERS @ 7'CENTERS
6.5 RC/NO AWS 26.417 FT
24.167 FT 26.167 FT 1.1 FT
999.9 FT
HS-14 HS-23 Int.RCDG 25
Secondary S.R. Route N
LT RT 1.1 FT
SV TTST 37 DATE 03/19/2015
UNDER ROUTES AND CLEARANCES
WILKES 11 3 960667
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT UNIT
DATA ON EXISTING STRUCTURE Run Date: 09/11/2017
REMARKS :
Structure Data Worksheet Spans
County:WILKES Structure No:960667 Date:01/18/2017 Inspected By:RS
1 30'NBIS LENGTH = 90'-0"28'-3"
2 30'28'-9"
3 30'28'-3"
Span No
Span
Length
Bearing to
Bearing Comments
Stream Bed Soundings
(See next sheet for profile sketch)
Bridge No:County:Date:By:
Record sounding from top of rail. Other location if needed:
Distance from Highwater Mark to top of rail:Location of Highwater Mark:
960667 WILKES 01/18/2017 RS
NOT CLEAR
0 2.7 TOP OF WINGWALL
1 5 Top of Cap
1.01 6.7 FACE OF CAP 1.01 6.5 FACE OF CAP
7 8.5
14 11.1
30 12.4 BENT 1
30 14.2 BENT 1
40 15.5
45 18.4 WSWE
50 19.1
60 19.2 BENT 2 60 17 BENT 2
63 18.6 WSWE
74 16.6
80 10
88 6.8 FACE OF CAP 88 6.4 FACE OF CAP
88.5 5 Top of Cap
90 2.7 TOP OF WINGWALL
DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM
Distance
(Station) (ft)
Sounding
(ft)
Description Distance
(Station) (ft)
Sounding
(ft)
Description
Top of Rail = 0 FT (Sounding)
STREAMBED PROFILE (Downstream)
01/18/2017960667CountyWILKESDate:Bridge:
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
A Report of Flood Hazards in
WILKES COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
Community Name Community
Number
TOWN OF ELKIN 370225
TOWN OF NORTH WILKESBORO 370257
TOWN OF RONDA 370258
TOWN OF WILKESBORO 370259
WILKES COUNTY 370256
EFFECTIVE: 3/2/2009
REVISED: 12/3/2009
Federal Emergency Management Agency
State of North Carolina
Flood Insurance Study Number
37193CV000
www.fema.gov and www.ncfloodmaps.com
Table 13 - Summary of Discharges
Flooding Source Discharges (cfs)
Location Drainage Area
(square miles)
10% Annual
Chance
2% Annual
Chance
1% Annual
Chance
0.2% Annual
Chance
Approximately 25 feet upstream of the confluence of Fletcher Creek 12.91 **7747 *
Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of US Highway 421 12.47 **7580 *
Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of US Highway 421 12.24 **7494 *
Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of US Highway 421 4.75 **4148 *
South Prong Lewis Fork Tributary 1
At the confluence with South Prong Lewis Fork 2.32 **2650 *
Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of the confluence with South Prong Lewis Fork 1.92 **2354 *
Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of the confluence with South Prong Lewis Fork 1.42 **1950 *
Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of the confluence with South Prong Lewis Fork 0.99 **1559 *
Sparks Creek
At the confluence with Little Sandy Creek 11.24 **7105 *
Approximately 350 feet upstream of Billings Hill Church Road (SR 1939)11.09 **7044 *
Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Billings Hill Church Road (SR 1939)10.91 **6974 *
Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Billings Hill Church Road (SR 1939)10.74 **6904 *
Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Billings Hill Church Road (SR 1939)10.57 **6835 *
Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of Billings Hill Church Road (SR 1939)10.36 **6750 *
Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Billings Hill Church Road (SR 1939)9.91 **6566 *
Approximately 0.9 mile downstream of Austin Traphill Road (SR 1749)9.65 **6460 *
Approximately 0.8 mile downstream of Austin Traphill Road (SR 1749)8.59 **6004 *
Approximately 1,440 feet downstream of Austin Traphill Road (SR 1749)8.31 **5884 *
Approximately 100 feet downstream of Austin Traphill Road (SR 1749)7.72 **5618 *
Stony Fork
At the confluence with Yadkin River 37.83 **15169 *
Approximately 1,120 feet downstream of the confluence of Gladys Fork 36.53 **14841 *
Approximately 25 feet upstream of the confluence of Gladys Fork 33.85 **14151 *
Approximately 1,670 feet upstream of Mount Pleasant Road (SR 1135)33.61 **14087 *
Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Mount Pleasant Road (SR 1135)33.20 **13980 *
Approximately 1.3 miles downstream of the confluence of Shell Creek 30.85 **13353 *
Approximately 1.1 miles downstream of the confluence of Shell Creek 29.66 **13029 *
Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of the confluence of Shell Creek 29.37 **12950 *
Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of the confluence of Shell Creek 28.93 **12827 *
Approximately 100 feet downstream of State Road 1170 26.05 **12013 *
Approximately 1,380 feet downstream of Avery Anderson Road (SR 1168)24.35 **11517 *
Approximately 940 feet upstream of Avery Anderson Road (SR 1168)23.91 **11387 *
Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Avery Anderson Road (SR 1168)22.81 **11056 *
Approximately 1.0 mile downstream of the confluence of Left Prong Stony Fork 21.89 **10775 *
Approximately 0.9 mile downstream of the confluence of Left Prong Stony Fork 20.11 **10220 *
Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of the confluence of Left Prong Stony Fork 19.89 **10149 *
Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of the confluence of Left Prong Stony Fork 19.40 **9991 *
Approximately 1,150 feet downstream of the confluence of Left Prong Stony Fork 18.99 **9861 *
Approximately 580 feet upstream of the confluence of Left Prong Stony Fork 10.00 **6605 *
Approximately 960 feet upstream of Mount Zion Road (SR 1155)9.92 **6572 *
Approximately 1,710 feet upstream of Mount Zion Road (SR 1155)9.42 **6364 *
Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Mount Zion Road (SR 1155)9.24 **6286 *
Flood Insurance Study Report: WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Effective Date: March 2, 2009 Page 29 of 167
Table 17 - Limited Detailed Flood Hazard Data
Cross Section Stream Station Flood Discharge (cfs)1% Annual Chance Water-
Surface Elevation (feet NAVD
88)
Non-Encroachment Width (feet)
Left/Right from Stream
Centerline
068 6824.0 2354.0 1302.0 102.0 / 7.0
071 7105.0 2354.0 1308.2 31.0 / 50.0
075 7495.0 2354.0 1317.6 15.0 / 90.0
078 7815.0 2354.0 1325.9 50.0 / 20.0
079 7945.0 2354.0 1328.7 50.0 / 30.0
080 8041.0 2354.0 1330.8 40.0 / 40.0
082 8177.0 2354.0 1334.2 30.0 / 25.0
085 8522.0 1950.0 1345.4 25.0 / 25.0
087 8737.0 1950.0 1352.7 12.0 / 45.0
090 8949.0 1950.0 1357.8 28.0 / 27.0
092 9166.0 1950.0 1363.6 28.0 / 12.0
094 9357.0 1950.0 1370.3 15.0 / 56.0
095 9513.0 1950.0 1375.5 25.0 / 65.0
098 9821.0 1950.0 1382.5 60.0 / 25.0
100 9969.0 1950.0 1390.4 54.0 / 100.0
102 10199.0 1559.0 1396.0 18.0 / 100.0
104 10367.0 1559.0 1401.6 22.0 / 60.0
106 10592.0 1559.0 1409.0 160.0 / 4.0
108 10839.0 1559.0 1414.3 79.0 / 5.0
110 11010.0 1559.0 1423.2 38.0 / 20.0
112 11229.0 1559.0 1428.6 43.0 / 7.0
114 11408.0 1559.0 1437.5 62.0 / 7.0
115 11520.0 1559.0 1444.1 110.0 / 7.0
117 11651.0 1559.0 1452.4 160.0 / 4.0
118 11804.0 1559.0 1468.1 75.0 / 10.0
119 11924.0 1559.0 1477.3 22.0 / 22.0
120 12026.0 1559.0 1486.1 13.0 / 25.0
121 12132.0 1559.0 1497.2 46.0 / 7.0
122 12235.0 1559.0 1509.1 26.0 / 7.0
123 12321.0 1559.0 1517.2 19.0 / 12.0
124 12407.0 1559.0 1529.3 18.0 / 25.0
125 12468.0 1559.0 1536.4 18.0 / 16.0
Sparks Creek
000 6.0 7105.0 1108.31 41.0 / 26.0
003 303.0 7105.0 1108.31 50.0 / 28.0
007 692.0 7105.0 1108.31 17.0 / 126.0
013 1305.0 7105.0 1112.4 74.0 / 16.0
019 1923.0 7105.0 1114.5 85.0 / 30.0
022 2190.0 7105.0 1115.7 70.0 / 20.0
024 2401.0 7105.0 1118.7 32.0 / 32.0
025 2463.0 7105.0 1119.0 32.0 / 32.0
028 2770.0 7105.0 1119.2 17.0 / 154.0
031 3091.0 7044.0 1121.3 40.0 / 46.0
035 3479.0 7044.0 1121.9 16.0 / 48.0
038 3794.0 7044.0 1123.6 123.0 / 37.0
Flood Insurance Study Report: WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Effective Date: March 2, 2009 Page 135 of 167
Table 17 - Limited Detailed Flood Hazard Data
Cross Section Stream Station Flood Discharge (cfs)1% Annual Chance Water-
Surface Elevation (feet NAVD
88)
Non-Encroachment Width (feet)
Left/Right from Stream
Centerline
042 4175.0 7044.0 1123.7 26.0 / 27.0
044 4433.0 7044.0 1124.9 16.0 / 26.0
048 4775.0 6974.0 1127.7 70.0 / 19.0
050 5004.0 6974.0 1128.7 43.0 / 16.0
053 5250.0 6974.0 1130.4 25.0 / 47.0
057 5659.0 6974.0 1131.6 59.0 / 17.0
059 5913.0 6974.0 1131.9 64.0 / 16.0
063 6281.0 6974.0 1132.7 33.0 / 64.0
065 6533.0 6904.0 1134.4 86.0 / 26.0
071 7130.0 6835.0 1136.3 14.0 / 175.0
074 7389.0 6835.0 1136.7 62.0 / 34.0
077 7733.0 6835.0 1137.7 36.0 / 30.0
084 8381.0 6835.0 1140.4 52.0 / 17.0
088 8830.0 6835.0 1143.4 60.0 / 26.0
091 9054.0 6835.0 1144.3 22.0 / 49.0
093 9329.0 6835.0 1144.9 17.0 / 45.0
095 9546.0 6835.0 1146.0 15.0 / 64.0
098 9772.0 6750.0 1147.6 12.0 / 156.0
101 10148.0 6750.0 1148.0 193.0 / 19.0
104 10383.0 6750.0 1148.2 86.0 / 104.0
110 10974.0 6566.0 1149.0 61.0 / 333.0
117 11710.0 6566.0 1150.3 78.0 / 18.0
122 12237.0 6566.0 1153.7 177.0 / 39.0
126 12584.0 6566.0 1154.8 15.0 / 384.0
129 12853.0 6566.0 1155.0 150.0 / 124.0
131 13145.0 6566.0 1155.7 155.0 / 251.0
135 13456.0 6566.0 1156.0 95.0 / 126.0
137 13743.0 6460.0 1157.7 15.0 / 381.0
142 14191.0 6460.0 1158.8 15.0 / 311.0
147 14658.0 6004.0 1160.9 14.0 / 211.0
150 14973.0 6004.0 1162.9 37.0 / 18.0
152 15238.0 6004.0 1166.0 108.0 / 156.0
156 15587.0 6004.0 1167.1 28.0 / 111.0
161 16071.0 6004.0 1171.7 23.0 / 212.0
163 16316.0 6004.0 1173.7 32.0 / 251.0
168 16776.0 6004.0 1176.8 239.0 / 14.0
171 17055.0 6004.0 1178.6 107.0 / 14.0
175 17470.0 5884.0 1182.9 168.0 / 145.0
179 17938.0 5884.0 1184.9 49.0 / 71.0
183 18261.0 5618.0 1187.5 60.0 / 40.0
185 18501.0 5618.0 1189.1 67.0 / 50.0
186 18584.0 5618.0 1193.6 76.0 / 54.0
189 18937.0 5618.0 1194.4 300.0 / 27.0
194 19374.0 5618.0 1195.0 275.0 / 66.0
198 19829.0 5618.0 1196.6 269.0 / 104.0
Flood Insurance Study Report: WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Effective Date: March 2, 2009 Page 136 of 167
FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS
OTHER AREAS OFFLOOD HAZARD
OTHERAREAS
GENERALSTRUCTURES
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
With BFE or Depth
Regulatory Floodway
Areas Determined to be Outside the 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain
Non-accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Zone A,V, A99 Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Zone X
HTTP://FRIS.NC.GOV/FRIS
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTINGDOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPNORTH CAROLINA
PANEL
MAP NUMBER
MAP REVISED
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
Cross Sections with 1% Annual ChanceWater Surface Elevation (BFE)
Coastal Transect
OTHERFEATURES
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Limit of Study
Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA)
Jurisdiction Boundary
Accredited or Provisionally AccreditedLevee, Dike, or Floodwall
Coastal Transect Baseline
SCALE
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Map Projection:
North Carolina State Plane Projection Feet (Zone 3200)
Datum: NAD 1983 (Horizontal), NAVD 1988 (Vertical)
PANEL LOCATOR
LOGO LOGO
NOTES TO USERS
For information and questions about this map, available products associated with this FIRM including
historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or the National Flood Insurance Program in general,
please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map
Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. An accompanying Flood Insurance Study report, Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) revising portions of this panel, and digital versions of this
FIRM may be available. Visit the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program website at http://www.ncfloodmaps.com,
or contact the FEMA Map Service Center.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Map Service Center at the number listed above.
For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction.
To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
Base map information shown on this FIRM was provided in digital format by the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program (NCFMP). The source of this information can be determined from the metadata available in the
digital FLOOD database and in the Technical Support Data Notebook (TSDN).
ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If an accredited levee note appears on this panel check with your local
community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of protection provided (which may exceed the
1-percent-annual-chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the levee system(s) shown as providing protection.
To mitigate flood risk in residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood
insurance and floodproofing or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested
parties should visit the FEMA Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
PROVISIONALLY ACCREDITED LEVEE NOTES TO USERS: If a Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) note
appears on this panel, check with your local community to obtain more information, such as the estimated level of
protection provided (which may exceed the 1-percent-annual-chance level) and Emergency Action Plan, on the
levee system(s) shown as providing protection. To maintain accreditation, the levee owner or community is
required to submit the data and documentation necessary to comply with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations.
If the community or owner does not provide the necessary data and documentation or if the data and documentation
provided indicates the levee system does not comply with Section 65.10 requirements, FEMA will revise the flood
hazard and risk information for this area to reflect de-accreditation of the levee system. To mitigate flood risk in
residual risk areas, property owners and residents are encouraged to consider flood insurance and floodproofing
or other protective measures. For more information on flood insurance, interested parties should visit the FEMA
Website at http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/index.shtm.
LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION NOTES TO USERS: For some coastal flooding zones the AE Zone
category has been divided by a Limit of Moderate Wave Action (LiMWA). The LiMWA represents the approximate
landward limit of the 1.5-foot breaking wave. The effects of wave hazards between the VE Zone and the LiMWA
(or between the shoreline and the LiMWA for areas where VE Zones are not identified) will be similar to, but less
severe than those in the VE Zone.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) NOTE
This map may include approximate boundaries of the CBRS for informational purposes only. Flood insurance is not
available within CBRS areas for structures that are newly built or substantially improved on or after the date(s)
indicated on the map. For more information see http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html, the
FIS Report, or call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Customer Service Center at 1-800-344-WILD.
CBRS Area Otherwise Protected Area
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% Annual Chance Flood with Average Depth Less Than One Foot or With Drainage Areas of Less Than One Square MileFuture Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardArea with Reduced Flood Risk due to LeveeSee Notes
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X

49041:12,000
%,012 18.2
!(8
1400000 FEET
940000 FEET
1400000 FEET
960000 FEET
1420000 FEET
960000 FEET
1420000 FEET
940000 FEET
This digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) was produced through a unique
cooperative partnership between the State of North Carolina and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The State of North Carolina has
implemented a long term approach to floodplain management to decrease the
costs associated with flooding. This is demonstrated by the State's commitment
to map flood hazard areas at the local level. As a part of this effort, the State of
North Carolina has joined in a Cooperating Technical State agreement with
FEMA to produce and maintain this digital FIRM.
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE Lovette DrLo
ngbottomRdTraphill-Union RdTraphill-Benge RdTripleCreekDr Colbert Rd
ColbertPlCarolina DrBauguessLnTilley s RdNC-1785
NC-1317
Link
R
d
Wa l t Brown RdBryanLn
Traphill Mill R d
Casey
D
r
Holcomb Rd
Walter
SparksR
d
Wah Brown Rd
Trail
Rc
R
dHarveysLn WileyRoyalRdMountainValleyDr
Hanks StLyonRidgeRd SwaringerRdJohnPFrankPky
Aust
i
nLittleMountainRdKing Billings RdTraphillUnionRdUni
onCommu
nity
R
d
AlleghanySpurRdSwaringenRdHavenRidgeLnCook-LyonRdMosswoodRdTraphill-RidgeRdSwaringer RdTidlineRdTraphillR dAustin T
r
a
p
h
i
l
l

R
d
i114i173i098i199i124
i122i152i155i27
3
i145
i13
4
i182i208
i17
5
i16
3
i110 i202i189
i142
WILKES COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
370256
1137.7
1122.51115.3
1279.5
1182.7
1
1
3
2
.
7
1160.9
1133.9
1244.3
1153.71166.01154.9
12
7
0
.
6
1147.7
1139.9
1167.5
1252.3
1214.91182.9
1173.7
1149.0
1263.0
1200.01194.4
11
5
5
.
7
1158.8
ZZ5571
ZZ5574
ZZ5642
ZZ5644
ZZ5584
i217
i105i077
i095
i282
i232
i191
i063i242
i254
i265
i1
3
1
LittleSandyCreek
LittleSandy Creek
SparksCreek
SparksCreek
80°58'30"W
80°58'30"W
80°59'0"W
80°59'0"W
80°59'30"W
80°59'30"W
81°0'0"W
81°0'0"W
81°0'30"W
81°0'30"W
81°1'0"W
81°1'0"W
81°1'30"W
81°1'30"W
81°2'0"W
81°2'0"W
36°22'0"N
36°22'0"N
36°21'30"N
36°21'30"N
36°21'0"N
36°21'0"N
36°20'30"N
36°20'30"N
36°20'0"N
36°20'0"N
36°19'30"N
36°19'30"N
36°19'0"N
ASHE COUNTY
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
SURRY COUNTY
CALDWELL COUNTY
IREDELL COUNTYALEXANDER COUNTY
3968 3978 3988
2961 2971
3957 3966 3986 4906 4926390639163926393639463956
3904 3924
2982 39022972
2970
2868
2846 2866
2864 2885 2895 3884 480428943804
3802 3823 3833 3843 3853 3862 38823822
3869 3879 3889 3899 4809 4819 4829 4839 4848
3944 3964 3984 4904 4924 4944
3922 3942 3962 3982 4902 4922 4943
4942
2980 3900 3920 3940 3960 3980 4901 4911 4921 4931 4941
4900 4910 4920 4930 4940
2888 3808 3828 3849 3859
3848 3858 3868 3878 3888 3898 4808 4818 4828 4838
2886 3807 3817 3827 3837 3847 3857 3867 3877 3886 4806 4826 484638063816382638363846385638663876
3805 3815 3824 3844 3864 4824 48443814
I
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
0 300 600150
Meters
BM5510 D North Carolina Geodetic Survey bench mark
BM5510 ?
BM5510z
National Geodetic Survey bench markContractor Est. NCFMP Survey bench mark
Panel Contains:
COMMUNITY CID PANEL SUFFIX
4904WILKES COUNTY 370256 J
3710490400J
3/2/2009
420044004600480050005200540011701180119012001210122012301240Sparks Creek Limited Detail Study Plan: Floodway Run 2/25/2019 Austin Traphill Rd (SC) torStructure ID: LDS_SC_03Approximate Station (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendWS 100-yearWS 100-FWGroundIneffBank StaEncroachment.1.07.045.07.13
1
Cashmore, Blake A.
From:Harris, James B <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 2:39 PM
To:Lenoce, Marissa A.
Subject:RE: [External] Start of Study Notification: Bridge No. 960667 in Wilkes County.
**This e-mail is from outside STV**
Marissa –
Rail Division does not have any comments since no rail is involved on this project. Thank you. - - Jim

James B. Harris, PE
State Railroad Coordination Engineer
Rail Division
North Carolina Department of Transportation

919 707 4707 office
[e-mail]

1 South Wilmington Street
1553 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1553

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Lenoce, Marissa A. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 1:54 PM
Cc: 4019918 <[e-mail]>; Scott, Elizabeth S. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Start of Study Notification: Bridge No. 960667 in Wilkes County.

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]

Good afternoon,

STV Inc., under contract with the Structures Management Unit, is starting the project development,
environmental and engineering studies for the replacement of the following:

Bridge No. 960667 in Wilkes County.

The current project schedule is for right of way in 2019 and construction in 2020.

2
NCDOT is starting the project development, environmental and engineering studies for the replacement of
Bridge No. 960667 on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road), over Sparks Creek in Wilkes County. The project
vicinity map is attached.

A Field Scoping Meeting took place on April 17, 2019.

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 an environmental document, in accordance with the State or National
Environmental Policy Act.

Please respond by June 3rd so that your input can be used in the scoping of this project. If you have no
comment at this time, then a response is not required.

If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact me at [e-mail].

Thank you,
Marissa Lenoce

Marissa Lenoce
Planner
STV | 7125 Ambassador Road, Suite 200, Baltimore, Maryland 21244
(p) 410-281-2859
(cell) 410-404-0426
[e-mail]
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it | www.stvinc.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Redesigned and rebuilt: visit our new website at www.stvinc.com
The linked
image cannot
be displayed.
The file may
have been
mov ed,
renamed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.

The linked
image cannot
be displayed.
The file may
have been
mov ed,
renamed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.
The linked
image cannot
be displayed.
The file may
have been
mov ed,
renamed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.
The linked
image cannot
be displayed.
The file may
have been
mov ed,
renamed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.
The information contained in this electronic message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are informed that any
dissemination, copying or disclosure of the material contained herein, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify STV and purge this message.

Division of Parks and Recreation
NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources

Governor Roy Cooper Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
Dwayne Patterson, Director
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 MSC - Raleigh, NC 27699-1615
919.707.9300 / ncparks.gov

May 10, 2019

Marissa Lenoce
Planner
STV
7125 Ambassador Road, Suite 200
Baltimore, Maryland 21244

Ms. Lenoce,

I have reviewed NCDOT project B-960667 Bridge Replacement in Wilkes County. Based on the
proposed project the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has no objections or
comments.

Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Michael Peveler
Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation
[phone] / [e-mail]

May 14, 2019
MEMORANDUM___________________________________________________

To: Marissa Lenoce, Planner STV on behalf of NCDOT ([e-mail])

From: Dave Wanucha, NC Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office

Subject: Scoping comments on proposed Bridge replacements in Wilkes County (Numbers 189, 667, 663, 166)

Reference your correspondence dated May 3, 2019 for the above referenced projects. Preliminary analysis of the
projects reveals the potential for multiple impacts to streams and jurisdictional wetlands within the Yadkin River
Basin. More specifically, impacts to:

Bridge Number Stream Stream Classification(s) Stream Index Number 303(d)
Listing
189 UT to S. Deep Creek Water Supply (WS)-III 12-84-2-(1) No
667 Sparks Creek C 12-46-4-10-1 No
663 E. Prong Roaring River C; Trout 12-46-4-(7) No
166 W. Prong Roaring River C 12-46-1(5) No

Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams and/or
jurisdictional wetlands in the area. If any jurisdictional areas are identified, the Division of Water Resources
requests that the applicant consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:

1. East Prong Roaring River is classified as a Trout waters of the State. The NCDWR recommends that the most
protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of turbidity violations in trout
waters. In addition, all disturbances within trout buffers should be conducted in accordance with NC Division
of Land Resources and NC Wildlife Resources Commission requirements. Post-construction stormwater BMPs
should, to the maximum extent practicable, be selected and designed to reduce Total Suspended Solids and
avoid a sustained increase in the receiving water temperature.
General Project Comments:

1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation pla n with the environmental
documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification.

2. Environmental impact statement alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams
and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that allow for treatment
of the storm water runoff through BMPs as detailed in the most recent version of the North Carolina
5/14/2019
Department of Transportation Stormwater Best Management Practices Tool box manual, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.

3. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission’s Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506[h]),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 300 linear feet to any perennial stream. If mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services may be available for assistance with stream mitigation.

4. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, shall continue to include an
itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.

5. The NCDWR is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The
NCDOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.

6. The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation
and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the
final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise,
also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.

7. Where streams must be crossed, the NCDWR prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize
that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas where high
quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, the NCDOT
should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.

8. Whenever possible, the NCDWR prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment. The
horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges shall allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the
structure. Fish passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall not be blocked. Bridge supports (bents)
should not be placed in the stream when possible.

9. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across the bridge
and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.)
before entering the stream. To meet the requirements of NCDOT’s NPDES permit NCS000250 please refer to
the most recent version of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Stormwater Best Management
Practices Toolbox manual for approved measures.

10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.

11. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate
compensatory mitigation.

12. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to discharge directly into
streams or surface waters. To meet the requirements of NCDOT’s NPDES permit NCS000250, please refer
to the most recent version of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Stormwater Best Management
Practices Toolbox manual for approved measures.

13. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may
require an application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please
be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure
that water quality standards are met, and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will
require the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWR.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.

14. If concrete is used during construction, a dry wo rk area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between
curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged
to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. Concrete shall
be handled in accordance with the NPDES Construction Activities General Permit NCG010000.

15. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours
and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody
species shall be planted. When using temporary structures, the area shall be cleared but not grubbed.
Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the
stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.

16. Unless otherwise authorized, placement of culverts and other structures in waters and streams shall be place d
below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary
erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis -equilibrium of wetlands or
streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and downstream of the above st ructures. The applicant is
required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by the NCDWR.
If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction,
please contact the NCDWR for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit
modification will be required.

17. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as
closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation, floodplain benches, and/or sills may be
required where appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water ve locity causing sediment deposition that requires
increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.

18. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved
under General 401 Certification Number 4085/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.

19. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.

20. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP measures
from the most current version of the NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities ma nual such as
sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in
flowing water.

21. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland
Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies require
that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.

22. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment shall be
inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.

23. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes
aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed, sized and installed.

24. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Riparian
vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season
following completion of construction.

Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The NCDOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met, and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
Dave Wanucha at [phone] or [e-mail].

Electronic copy only distribution:
Steve Kichefsky, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
File Copy

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

August 22, 2019

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Heaven Manning
Environmental Analysis Unit, NC Department of Transportation

FROM: Marla Chambers, Western NCDOT Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC

SUBJECT: Scoping review of 6 proposed NCDOT bridge replacement projects in Surry,
Wilkes, and Yadkin Counties.

North Carolina Department of Transportation has requested comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission regarding impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the information provided. The following
preliminary comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the state and federal
Environmental Policy Acts (G.S. 113A-1through 113-10; 1 NCAC 25 and 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c),
respectively), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), as applicable.

Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as follows:

1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.

2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.

3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.

6 BRIDGE PROJECTS
SURRY, WILKES & YADKIN CO.’S PAGE 2 AUGUST 22, 2019
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be
planted with a spacing of not more than 10’x10’. If possible, when using temporary
structures, the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws,
mowers, Bush Hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat
intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.

6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the stream
underneath the bridge.

7. In trout waters, the Commission reviews all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nationwide
and general ‘404’ permits. We have the option of requesting additional measures to
protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the project require an
individual ‘404’ permit.

8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, Mr. Logan Williams with the
NCDOT - ONE should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species
may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.

9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled “Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage” (May 12, 1997) should be followed.

10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.

11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained
regularly, especially following rainfall events.

12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.

13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags,
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to
prevent excavation in flowing water.

14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into
streams.

6 BRIDGE PROJECTS
SURRY, WILKES & YADKIN CO.’S PAGE 3 AUGUST 22, 2019
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should be
removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when construction is
completed.

16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials.

17. If culvert installation is being considered, conduct subsurface investigations prior to structure
design to determine design options and constraints and to ensure that wildlife passage issues
are addressed.

If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used:

1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other
than the base flow barrel should be placed on or near stream bankfull or flood plain bench
elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to flood plain
benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream end
to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel. Silled barrels should be filled with
sediment so as not to cause noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water
depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to accommodate fish
movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles
should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel
depth and flow regimes and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other aquatic
organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel should provide a continuum of water depth
and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.

2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain
dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.

3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water
velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts
aquatic life passage.

4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a
manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should
be professionally designed, sized, and installed.

In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road
closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to
avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks.
6 BRIDGE PROJECTS
SURRY, WILKES & YADKIN CO.’S PAGE 4 AUGUST 22, 2019
If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach
fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the
natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree
species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was
previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be
used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.

Project specific comments:

1. BR-0123 Surry County, Bridge No. 318 over an unnamed tributary of South Fork Mitchell River
on SR 1319 (Abe Mayes Road). Significant trout resources are not expected; therefore, we are
not requesting a trout moratorium for this project. Brook Floaters (Alasmidonta varicosa),
Federal Species of Concern and State Endangered, occur downstream in the Mitchell River.
Stringent sedimentation and erosion control measures and standard recommendations should
apply.

2. BR-0124 Wilkes County, Bridge No. 166 over West Prong Roaring River on SR 1745 (Shumate
Mountain Road). Significant trout resources are not expected; therefore, we are not requesting a
trout moratorium for this project. Brook Floaters (Alasmidonta varicosa), Federal Species of
Concern and State Endangered, occur just downstream in Middle Prong Roaring River. Sediment
and erosion control measures should adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.

3. BR-0125 Wilkes County, Bridge No. 663 over East Prong Roaring River on SR 1002 (Traphill
Road). Significant trout resources are not expected; therefore, we are not requesting a trout
moratorium for this project. Brook Floaters (Alasmidonta varicosa), Federal Species of Concern
and State Endangered, occur in the project vicinity. Sediment and erosion control measures
should adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.

4. BR-0126 Wilkes County, Bridge No. 667 over Sparks Creek on SR 1749 (Austin Traphill Road).
Significant trout resources are not expected; therefore, we are not requesting a trout moratorium.
Standard recommendations should apply.

5. BR-0127 Yadkin County, Bridge No. 189 over an unnamed tributary of South Deep Creek on SR
1325 (Mountain View Church Road) Significant trout resources are not expected; therefore, we
are not requesting a trout moratorium. Standard recommendations should apply.

6. BR-0108 Wilkes County, Bridge No. 4 over Little Hunting Creek on SR 2418 (Windy Gap
Road). Significant trout resources are not expected; therefore, we are not requesting a trout
moratorium. Standard recommendations should apply.

We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control
measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or
entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as
opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow
6 BRIDGE PROJECTS
SURRY, WILKES & YADKIN CO.’S PAGE 5 AUGUST 22, 2019
wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality
at highway crossings.

If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [e-mail] or [phone]. Thank
you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project.

Cc:
Carla Dagnino, NCDOT
Marissa Lenoce, STV Inc.
Kevin Hining, NCDOT

NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960667
SCREENING CHECKLIST
BRIDGE ID:960667 FACILITY:SR1749 OVER SPARKS CREEK DIVISION:11
YEAR BUILT:1953 COUNTY:WILKES POSTED (SV/TTST):25/37
COST ESTIMATE: $2,000,000
INSTRUCTIONS:The following questions are based on the CE Checklists for TYPE I and II projects.Answer each question in the space
provided based on available data. Include qualitative discussion as appropriate.
1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS)?
A Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) must be prepared during project development before this question can be fully answered.
Review the current USFWS Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina and note
species or designated critical habitat listed in the county(s).
AS OF JUNE 27, 2018, THE USFWS LISTS THE RUSTY-PATCHED BUMBLE BEE AS ENDANGERED
AND THE NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT AS THREATENED WITHIN WILKES COUNTY.
THE BOG TURTLE IS LISTED AS THREATENED DUE TO SI MILARITY OF APPEARANCE WITH
ANOTHER LISTED SPECI ES AND IS LISTED FOR ITS PROTECTION.HOWEVER, THE BOG TURTLE IS
NOT BIOLOGICALLY ENDANGERED OR THREATENED AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO SECTI ON 7
CONSULTATION.
A CHECK OF THE CURRENT NC NHP DATABASE S HOWED NO OCCURRENCES OF FEDERALLY
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGPA)?
A NRTR must be prepared during project development before this question can be fully answered.Review the current USFWS
Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina and note if BGPA species are listed in the
county(s).
THE USFWS LIST FOR WILKES COUNTY DOES NOT INCLUDE THE BALD EAGLE. THE NCNHP
DATABASE DOES NOT SHOW ANY OCCURRENCES W ITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any reason, following appropriate
public involvement?
Review the appropriate CTP for documentation of public involvement in the CTP development and any comments related to the project.
NO
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-income and/or minority
populations?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development.Using the NCDOT Demographic Tool , note the total
population, as well as minority and low -income populations for the county and each Census Block Group in which the project is located.
Also note any observations based on review of aerial photography.
THE PROJECT DEMOGRAP HIC STUDY AREA (DSA) CONTAINS PORTIONS OF 1 BLOCK GROUP.
THE MINORITY POPULATION OF THE DSA IS 3.9%. THIS COMPARES TO A MINORITY POPULATION
OF 11.7% FOR WILKES COUNTY. THE POVERTY RATE FOR THE DSA IS 11.4%.WILKES COUNTY’S
POVERTY RATE IS 14.3%.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF LOW INCOME HOUSING I N THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT VISIBLE ON
AERIAL IMAGERY.
92
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960667
5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial amount of right of way
acquisition?
Provide a count of potential residential and commercial displacements.
THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL S TRUCTURES WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY
AREA.
6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development. At this time , note the presence of properties that may be
subject to Section 4(f), including historic resources, parks, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges. Note those within the proposed right of way, as
well as within 1,000’ of the project.
ACCORDING TO THE NC SHPO GIS DATABASE, THERE ARE NO NC SHPO RESOURCES WITHIN
1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
THERE ARE NO PARKS OR WILDLIFE REFUGES WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROPOSED ROW.
7 Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National
Historic Landmark (NHL)?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development.Review NC State Historic Preservation Office GIS data and
note the presence of historic properties within the proposed right of way, as well as within 1,000’ of the project.Note :this site does not
include archaeological resources.
ACCORDING TO THE NC SHPO GIS DATABASE, THERE ARE NO NC SHPO RESOURCES WI THIN
1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
8 Does the project result in a finding of “may affect not likely to adversely affect” for listed species, or
designated critical habitat under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?
A NRTR must be prepared during project development before this question can be fully answered.Refer to Question #1 above.
SEE #1 ABOVE
9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters?
Review the anadromous fish spawning areas maps to determine if the project is within 1,000’of these areas.
THERE ARE NO ANADROMOUS FISH SPAWNING WATERS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
10 Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), High Quality Water
(HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed impaired water bodies,buffer rules, or
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)?
Determine the NCDEQ Surface Water Classification of any waters within 1,000’ of the project, and note if any have a “WS” (Water
Supply) classification or supplemental classification of ORW or HQW. Check the current 303(d) list for 303(d) listed waters within 1,000
feet of the project.Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project is within a watershed subject to buffer rules.
NONE OF THE WATERS W ITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT ARE W ITHIN WATER SUPPLY
WATERSHEDS OR CLASSIFIED AS ORW, HQW, OR LISTED ON THE FINAL 2014 303(D) LIST.
STATE BUFFER RULES DO NOT APPLY WITHIN THE YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN, WHERE THE
PROJECT IS LOCATED.
THERE IS NO MAPPED S AV WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
11 Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated mountain trout streams?
Trout counties are identified on the PDEA Agency Merger Contact Map, and trout waters are identified by “Tr” classification i n their
NCDEQ Surface Water Classification (see Question #10 above).Determine if project is within 1000’ of a trout stream.
THERE ARE NO NCDEQ CLASSIFIED TROUT STREAMS OR DESIGNATED PUBLIC MOUNTAIN
TROUT WATERS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)Individual Section 404 Permit?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development.Using express conceptual design right of way limits and
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, calculate potential impacts to waters of the U.S.Note impacts to wetlands to the nearest 0.1
acre and to streams to the nearest 10 feet.
93
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960667
THERE ARE NO MAPPED NWI WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS.
BASED ON NHD FLOWLINES, THE PROJECT WOULD IMPACT APPROXIMATELY 1,010 FEET OF
FRESHWATER STREAMS.
13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed facility?
Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project is within 1,000’of a FERC licensed facility.
THERE ARE NO FERC LI CENSED FACILITIES WI THIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the NHPA effects determination other than a no effect, including
archaeological remains?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development. Refer to Question #7 above.
SEE #7 ABOVE
15 Does the project involve hazardous materials and/or landfills?
Note any potential hazardous properties based on review of aerial photography or from NC OneMap data .
THERE ARE NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR LANDFILLS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
16 Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory floodway or work affecting the
base floodplain (100-year flood)elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and
23 CFR 650 subpart A?
Review NC Floodmaps data to determine whether the project may encroach on any base (100-year) floodplain and/or regulatory
floodway.
THE PROJECT ROW LIMITS OCCUR WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.
17 Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially affects the coastal zone
and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
A NRTR must be prepared during project development before this question can be fully answered.Review the Division Resource Map to
determine if the project is within a CAMA county.
WILKES COUNTY IS NOT A CAMA COUNTY.
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
Review NCDOT’s USCG Stream Coordination Map to determine if the project impacts a navigable waterway that may require
coordination and permitting with the USCG.
THERE ARE NO NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a designated Wild and Scenic River
present within the project area?
Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project is within 1,000’of a Wild and Scenic River.
THERE ARE NO WILD AND SCENIC RIVIRS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project is within a CBRA area .
THERE ARE NO CBRA AREAS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands?
Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project is within federal lands.
THERE ARE NO FEDERAL LANDS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control?
Note if the project is proposing a change in control of access.
NO
94
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960667
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development. At this time, note changes in traffic patterns a nd any
reduction in access to community resources.
NO
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
Note if an offsite detour is recommended.
ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE COMPLETED IN A MANNER TO
MINIMIZE DETOURS AND IMPACTS TO TRAFFIC.AN OFFSITE DETOUR COULD BE USED WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTING TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND ACCESS.
25 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) (where applicable)?
This question will be evaluated during project development.
N/A
26 Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), or other unique areas or special l ands that were acquired in fee or
easement with public -use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property?
A l ist of resources using funds provide through Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)is available at http://waso-
lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm.Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project crosses a TVA area .If parcel data is
available,use best available information to determine if any of these situations exist.
THERE ARE NO UNIQUE AREAS OR SPECIAL LANDS THAT W ERE ACQUIRED IN FEE OR
EASEMENT WITH PUBLIC USE MONEY WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout properties under the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development. Refer to Question #16 above, and if the project is within a
flood zone, review property data for locally-owned property (county or municipality)within the flood zone and note.If parcel data is
available,determine if any property in the flood zone is government owned.
THE PROJECT ROW LIMITS OCCUR WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.THERE ARE NO FEMA
BUYOUT PROPERTIES WI THIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development. Refer to Question #6 above.
SEE #6 ABOVE
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?
Review NCDOT’s Traffic Noise Policy (pages 2 -3) to determine the level of noise analysis that may be required. Provide respo nses for
each funding scenario noting the level of environmental documentation.
IF THE PROJECT IS FEDERALLY FUNDED
Is the project a Type I project?
NO
IF THE PROJECT IS STATE FUNDED
Is the project on an interstate or full control of access US route and does it involve adding additional through lanes? Will the project
require a state EA or EIS?
THE PROJECT IS NOT ON AN INTERSTATE OR FULL CONTROL OF ACCES S US ROUTE.
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA)?
This question will be evaluated during project development.
N/A
95
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960667
31 Are there other issues that may affect project decisions?
Note any other issues that should be considered during project development.
NO
INSTRUCTIONS: The following questions are based on the CE Checklist for TYPE III projects. Answer each question in the space provided
based on available data. Include qualitative discussion as appropriate.
32 Is a project -level analysis for direct,indirect, or cumulative effects required based on the NCDOT community
studies screening tool?
This question will be evaluated during project development.
N/A
33 Is a project level air quality Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) analysis required?
Note if existing or projected traffic volumes on the project are greater than 140,000 vpd.
NO
96
!!
G
G
TRAPHILLHISTORICDISTRICT
C
h
e
at
w
o
o
d
B
ra
n
c
h
York
Creek
S
p
arks Cre
e
k
T r a p hillMillRd
A u s t in T r a p h i ll Rd HavenRdgTraphill Rd
Rc Rd
Hincher Ln
H a nksSt
L y onR id g eRdCookLyo n R d
Billings
HillChRd 960667
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
0 800 1,600400 Feet
¯
97
5/21/18

2023 SMU Bridge Program – Pre-Screening Worksheet
Bridge #: 960667 BUILD Grant County: Wilkes Division: 11
Project Description: Bridge on SR 1749 over Sparks Creek
1. Is an off-site detour available? No
a. Describe Route: None
b. Approximate Length: Exceeds 10 miles
c. Off-Site Detour Improvement Required:
d. Other Considerations (seasonal, special events, etc):

2. What project alternates are to be considered?
a. Replace in place only: No
b. Realignment: Yes
c. Widening: No
d. Phased construction: Yes
e. Accelerated bridge construction: No

3. Does the project warrant detailed traffic forecasting and analysis due to the following?
a. Current ADT: 800
b. Current or anticipated peak hour delays: No
c. Future traffic increases due to growth or land use changes: No

4. Describe existing or anticipated utility conflicts within or around the project area and
the potential impacts to project construction:
a. Water & Sewer: No
b. Power: Yes
c. Telecommunication: Yes
d. Gas: No
e. Cable TV: No
f. Other:

5. Do significant environmental or cultural resources exist in the project area: No

6. Are there unique constructability concerns with the project(s), such as access, staging,
phasing, etc.? No

7. Other project constraints or special considerations: None

8/30/2018 
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT UNIT – 5 YEAR BRIDGE PROGRAM
PRE-SCREENING SUMMARY
2023 SMU Bridge Program – Pre-Screening Worksheet
STIP #: BR-0126 Bridge #: 960667 BUILD Grant Div./County: 11/Wilkes
Project Description: Bridge on SR 1749 over Sparks Creek

PRE-SCREENING DETERMINATION
Anticipated Project Development Duration: Potential 2-year project delivery to Letting.
Specific constraints/issues affecting duration: Off-site detour is not feasible (exceeds 10
miles). In lieu of replace-in-place, project should be design for realignment, likely to the
north. UG telecom with aerial stream crossing located on both sides of road/bridge; will
require relocation. ECBI County.

General Project Context: (see attached preliminary Study Area Map)
Existing typical section: Two Lane Shoulder Facility classification: Minor Collector,
Rural
Posted speed: 55 mph Existing right-of-way (est.): 30’ via GIS
Adjacent properties: Woods and agricultural fields in all four quadrants.
Existing improvements proximate to project: Nothing observable via Google maps.
Surrounding community: Rural residential / agricultural
Topography: Flat plain between mountains
Current ADT / Source: 710 / 2016 NCDOT AADT Web Map
Utilities observed: Large transmission lines cross SR 1749 1250 feet NW of the bridge.
Underground phone and cable run aerial on poles at the bridge along the South side of
the road.
Power – Surry-Yadkin Electric Membership Corp., Phone – Wilkes Communications,
Cable – Time Warner Cable
Other concerns: This bridge is posted at 25 tons for single vehicles and 37 tons for TTST
and has a structural sufficiency rating of 68.58.

8/30/2018 
NEPA /SEPA Planning: (see Environmental Pre-Screening Checklist)
Cultural Resource: ECBI County. ETRACS request submitted: Responses pending
Natural Resource: No known occurrence of T&E species in study area. T&E species listed
for Wilkes County include Bog turtle, Northern long-eared bat, Rusty-patched bumble
bee
FERC Permit: No Coast Guard Permit: No
Community Impacts: In Progress

Other Concerns: None

Hydrologic / Hydraulic Assessment:
River/Stream Crossing: Yes Name: Sparks Creek FEMA Regulated: Yes
FEMA Model Type: Limited Detail - Available
River Basin: Yadkin Pee-Dee Buffers: None
WATER QUALITY (DWR Surface Water Classification Map): indicate all that apply
HQW: No ORW: No Trout: No
WSWS: No Name: 12-46-4-10-1 Critical Area: No
Other Concerns:

Division Consultation: (see attached worksheet)
General Summary: Off-site detour is not feasible, exceeds 10 miles. Division recommends
realignment as the preferred alternate. Low ADT; traffic forecast/analysis not required.
Specific Utilities Considerations: Aerial power located south of bridge and will not be in
conflicts with a northern realignment. UG telecom with aerial stream crossing located on
both sides of project; will require relocation. Standard utility coordination and
relocation effort anticipated.
Other Concerns:

Utility Section Consultation:
Major Utilities Considerations: None
Other Concerns:

Tuesday, July 09, 2019 1:20 PM
Division Resource Map Page 1