20200233 Ver 1_MCDC Br 15 Stokes_20200212

Bridge No 15 over Vade Mecum Creek
Stokes County, NC
17BP.9.R.98
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
TIP Project No.:
W.B.S. Project No.: 17BP.9.R.98
Project Location: Bridge #15 over Vade Mecum Creek on NC 66 in Stokes County.
Project Description: This project proposes to replace Stokes County Bridge No. 15 on
NC 66 over Vade Mecum Creek. Bridge No. 15 is a reinforced concrete, luten arch
bridge constructed in 1935. It has a 19-foot long span and is located at the head of a
hairpin turn on NC 66. The roadway is a minor arterial and a designated bike route
The replacement structure will be a 60-foot long, double -barrel, reinforced concrete, box
culvert with each barrel at 10 feet by 8 feet. The new culvert will be buried 1 foot. The
approach roadway will extend 340 feet to the south and 290 feet to the north. The
approaches will include two 12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot shoulders. Six feet of the
shoulders will be paved. It will be designed as a Rural NC Route using Sub -Regional
Tier Guidelines with a 55 mile per hour design speed. Design standard for sensitive
watersheds will be utilized during construction.
Traffic will be detoured off -site during construction utilizing Taylor Road for
approximately 2.5 miles (see Figure 1).
Purpose and Need: NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 15
has a sufficiency rating of 49.96 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered structurally deficient due to advanced scour and undermining at near and far
footings. Components of this 80+ year -old structure have experienced increasing
deterioration that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities. The bridge is
approaching the end of its useful life and needs replacement.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements:
Figure 2 (attached) illustrates the study area for the project.
The proposed project will replace the arch bridge with a 60-foot long, double barrel box
culvert. In addition, 50 feet of riprap will be used to stabilize the banks up and
downstream of the new culvert. A Nationwide Permit 14 will likely be required for
impacts to Vade Mecum Creek. A corresponding NCDWQ Section 401 Water Quality
General Certificate may be required prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit. The
USACE holds final discretion as to what permit(s) will be required to authorize project
construction.
According to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Surface Water Classification
Program the Vade Mecum Creek is Class B.
Special Project Information:
07/09/19

Bridge No 15 over Vade Mecum Creek
Stokes County, NC
17BP.9.R.98
Protected Species:
As of June 27, 2018, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five federally
protected species for Stokes County.
Federally protected species listed for Stokes County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Survey Date
Biological
Conclusion
Percina rex
Roanoke logperch
E
Yes
4/16/2019
No Effect
Parvas ina collina
James s in mussel
E
Yes
4/16/2019
No Effect
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
8/28/2018
May Affect
Cardamine micranthera
Small-anthered bittercress
E
Yes
4/30/2018
No Effect
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
T
Yes
Bridge only-
6/29/2017
May Affect
E — Endangered, T — threatened
Surveys have been conducted for the Small-anthered bittercress and Schweinitz's
sunflower in the project area. For the Small-anthered bittercress, the surveys did not find
any populations within its respective, appropriate habitat. Therefore, a Biological
Conclusion of "No Effect" has been made for this species. A survey was conducted for
Schweinitz's sunflower with the available habitat in the project area. The survey did not
find specimens within the study area, however a known occurrence with low accuracy is
located with 1 mile per NCNHP records dated in July 2018. Therefore, a Biological
Conclusion of "May Affect — Not Likely to Adversely Affect" has been made for
Schweinitz's sunflower.
Surveys for James spineymussel and the Roanoke logperch, and additionally green floater
(Lasmigona subviridis), were completed on April 16, 2019 in a 500-meter reach of Vade
Mecum Creek. No individuals of any mussel species were found. No Roanoke logperch
were identified. Additional information regarding this survey is included in the Aquatic
Species Report completed for the project (RKK, May 22, 2019). A Biological Conclusion
of "No Effect" was made for each of the three target aquatic species.
A review of the USFWS Asheville Ecological Field Office website was conducted to
identify locations of known hibernation and maternity site in western North Carolina for
northern long-eared bat. According to the information reviewed, Stokes County does not
have any known northern long-eared bat hibernation sites or maternity colonies. The
biological conclusion for northern long-eared bat is "May Affect." Surveys were
conducted of the existing bridge for the presence of bats, and no bats or evidence of bats
was found. NCDOT has determined that Section 7 responsibilities have been fulfilled for
the northern long-eared bat and the proposed action does not require separate consultation
on the grounds that the action is consistent with the 4(d) rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. §
17.40(o) and effective February 16, 2016.
For the proposed action, NCDOT has committed to the conservation measure listed
below:
07/09/19

Bridge No 15 over Vade Mecum Creek
Stokes County, NC
17BP.9.R.98
1) No alterations of a known hibernaculum's entrance or interior environment if it
impairs an essential behavior 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 hibemaculum (January 1
through December 31); and
3) No cutting or destroying a known, occupied maternity roost tree or any other tree
within a 150-foot radius from the known, occupied maternity roost tree during the
period from June 1 through and including July 31.
Estimated Traffic:
Current 260 ADT
Year 2025 580 ADT
Design Exceptions: There are two design exceptions expected for this project. They
include minimum horizontal curve radius and horizontal stopping sight distance (ssd).
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: This portion of NC 66 is on statewide
bicycle route NC4/North Line Trace. Paved shoulders are included in the bridge
replacement design to accommodate bicycle traffic.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 15 is constructed of concrete and steel and should be
possible to remove with no resulting debris in the water based on standard demolition
practices.
Historic Resources: NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed the project study area for
the presence of National Register eligible structures and archeology sites. No effect
determinations were reached on both Historic Architecture (June 7, 2017) and
Archeology (February 23, 2018).
Environmental Commitment: Project commitments have been made for this project. A
Green Sheet is attached.
07/09/19

Bridge No 15 over Vade Mecum Creek
Stokes County, NC
17BP.9.R.98
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
YES NO
Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under ® ❑
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? Category #9
If either category #8, # 12(i) or # 15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
YES NO
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative ❑
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact -to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed ❑
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; ❑
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the ❑
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
"Pending outcome of stream survey to be completed for James
spineymussel. See attached Green Sheet.
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
07/09/19

Bridge No 15 over Vade Mecum Creek
Stokes County, NC
17BP.9.R.98
YES NO
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on ❑
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
If any questions 2 through 8 are answered "yes", the proposed project may not qualify as a
Minimum Criteria project. A state environmental assessment (EA) may be required. For
assistance, contact:
Manager, Environmental Analysis Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
(919) 707 — 6000
Fax: [phone]
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
YES NO
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its ® ❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent ® ❑
fill in waters of the United States?
11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of ❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental ❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes? ❑
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the ❑
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of ❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
07/09/19

Bridge No 15 over Vade Mecum Creek
Stokes County, NC
17BP.9.R.98
Questions in Part "C" are designed to assist the Engineer and the Division Environmental
Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource
agency may be required. If any questions in Part "C" are answered "yes", follow the
appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project construction.
PART D:( To be completed when either category #8, 120) or #15 of the rules are
used,
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Project completion date:
19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
20. Total acres of wetland impacts:
21. Total linear feet of stream impacts:
22. Project purpose:
Reviewed by:
Date Amy Euliss
Division 9 Environmental Officer
Date Daniel Dagenhart
Division 9 Bridge Project Manager
Date Martha Register
Simpson Engineers & Associates
07/09/19

Bridge No 15 over Vade Mecum Creek
Stokes County, NC
17BP.9.R.98
07/09/19

Bridge No 15 over Vade Mecum Creek
Stokes County, NC
l 7BP.9.R.98
Questions in Part "C" are designed to assist the Engineer and the Division Environmental
Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource
agency may be required. If any questions in Part "C" are answered "yes", follow the
appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project construction.
PART D:( To be comBleted when either category #8,12{i) or #15 of the rules are
used.
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Project completion date:
19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
20. Total acres of wetland impacts:
21. Total linear feet of stream impacts:
22. Project purpose:
Reviewed bv:
Date Amy Euliss
Division 9 Environmental Officer
Date Daniel Dagenhart
Division 9 Bridge Project Manager
Da a Marta Register
Simpson Engineers & Associates
07/09/ 19

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Stokes County
Bridge No. 15 on NC 66
Over Vade Mecum Creek
W.B.S. No. 17BP.9.R.98
Coordination with Stokes County Schools
In order to have time to adequately reroute school buses, Stokes County Schools will be
contacted at least one month prior to road closure by NCDOT Division 9.
Coordination with Stokes County Emergency Services
Stokes County Emergency Services will be contacted by NCDOT Division 9 at least one month
prior to road closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary response units.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Division 9 will complete any required consultations for Schweinitz's sunflower. The Division
will adhere with the conditions agreed upon with the USFWS through the consultation process.
Design Standards
Design standards for sensitive watersheds will be utilized during project construction.

Figure 1: Vicinity Map & Detour Route
State Project No. 17.BP.9.R.98
Replace Bridge 15 on NC 66 over Vade Mecum Creek
Detour Route N
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
STOKES
:ZOW
� OF
T I
0
o�nta�n �
ago
Sa
4?
Project Location
NC Floodplain M
Analysis (NCCG
Program, NC Center for Geographic Information &

PY,

rrolecr a racKingivo. pntemax vse�
17-05-0062
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
County:
Stokes
WES No.:
17BP.9. R.98
Document
T e:
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
X State Federal
Federal
Permits :
X Yes No
Permit
I T e s :
USACE
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 15 on NC 66 over Vade Mecum Creek (no off -
site detour specified in review request).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
DESCRIPTION OF REVIEWACTIVITIES, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS: HPOWeb reviewed on 7 June 2017
and yielded no NR, SL, SS, LD, or DE properties in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Stokes County
current GIs mapping, aerial photography, and tax information indicated a mostly wooded APE with
above -ground resources dating to the 1960s and 1990s (viewed 7 July 2017). The circa-1960
commercial building, standing approximately 450 feet east of the existing bridge, is an unexceptional
example of its type. Built in 1935, Bridge No. 15 is not eligible for the National Register according to the
NCDOT Historic Bridge Inventory as it is not architecturally, historically, or technologically significant.
Google Maps "Street View" confirmed the absence of critical architectural and landscape resources in the
APE (viewed 7 June 2017).
No architectural survey is required for the project as currently defined.
WHY THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION PROVIDES A RELIABLE BASIS FOR REASONABLY PREDICTING THAT
THERE ARE NO UNIDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL OR LANDSCAPE RESOURCES IN
THEPRO.IECTAREA: APE extends 400 feet from either end of the existing bridge (NW -SE) and 150 feet
to either side of the NC 66 centerline (NE -SW) to encompass proposed construction activities. The
comprehensive county architectural survey (1988-9) and later investigations recorded no properties in the
APE. County GIS/tax materials and other visuals support the absence of significant architectural and
landscape resources. No National Register -listed properties are located within the APE.
Should the design of the project change, please notify NCDOT Historic Architecture
as additional review may be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Date
Haslorrc Archileclrar mid landscapes NO SURVEY REQ(1IRL'O f rm for Minor T ransporlalion hojrcls as Qualrfierl in lire 2007 Pobgraminafic Agreement.

Vats
00 a to
Old Orchard lio
-� a�ject Area a f=f16
SJd9
Uy
q.
(;'"�' }G t;llar !I�
STOKES
A 4fUi
u�
7..
�b
Gap
Bridge No. 15 Replacement
WBS No. 17BP.9.R.98
NCDOT — Historic Architecture
June 2017
Tracking No. 17-05-0062
Mickey Rd
Stokes County
Base map: H PQWeb, nts

Project Tracking No.:
17-05-0062
oa NO 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:
WBS No
WIMMO
Bridge No. 15 County: Stokes
17BP.9.R.98 Document: M C C
Federal Permit Required?
Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: tbd
Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace the circa 1935 Bridge No. 15 on NC 66 over Vade
Mecum Creek in Stokes County, west of Hanging Rock State Park. The project length provided is listed
as 0.10 miles (528 feet). The new proposed ROW is noted as 100-120 feet. No further information was
provided to inform this review regarding if the undertaking would be a replace -in -place project, a
realignment to one side or the other of the existing bridge, or would involve either a temporary onsite detour
or offsite (driving route) detour. There is little project information available on the NCDOT
SharePoint/Connect site, nor on the ProjectStore. General road mapping shows that a potential detour under
five miles using nearby Taylor Road (SR 1188) does potentially exist allowing for a simple replace -in -place
construction, but that is only an observation by this reviewing archaeologist. The crossing is at a tight bend
in the road which may also be a factor in proposed designs. For purposes of this investigation, there is an
assumption that a conceptual bridge design could be located adjacent to the existing bridge on either side,
allowing for a number of alternative options. Therefore, the Area of Potential Effects for the bridge project
is defined as the stated length of the project, 528 feet, with a total width of 200 feet, all centered on the
existing bridge.
This is federally permitted project, therefore, the undertaking falls under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act for purposes of archaeological review.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
This undertaking involves constructing a new bridge with guardrails along NC 66, replacing the present
1930s bridge structure. The new bridge, for which a proposed cross section was provided, would widen
from the current 18 feet with 4 feet of unpaved shoulders to 22 feet with 7 feet shoulders, about seven feet
wider, and would include a gaurdrail. Much of the APE is already majorly altered by the construction of
the existing NC 66 roadway and the bridge.
USGS mapping (Hanging Rock) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). The project
area along NC 66 is wooded with some agriculture fields adjacent on the south side. A small pond is visible
on certain aerials immediately southeast of the bridge, and becoming more visible in late 2008 when it may
have been under construction.
Soil types include Dan River and Comus soils (DaA, 0-4 percent slopes, occasionally flooded and well
drained) on the eastern half of the APE and Sauratown channery fine sandy loam (SaD, 15-25 percent
slopes) on the western half. The Dan River soils, being fairly level and well drained, are suitable for some
past human activities, though are subject to flooding. The Sauratown channery fine sandy loam soils are
generally considered too hilly for occupation.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
17-05-0062
Virtual drive -by was available on Google Maps, but not Bing. This examination confirmed conditions that
were expected from topographic and aerial mapping, showing a short, narrow bridge over a ditch -sized
stream. However, the street -view does not show the presence of a pond at the APE in 2007, which further
suggests apparent earthmoving in seen in late 2008 aerial photography using Google Earth. The constructed
pond would have majorly altered the soils on the southeast quadrant.
Historic maps of Stokes County were examined. The 1934 soils map of Stokes County is detailed and
accurate, reliably showing road configurations, streams as they existed at the time, and structures.
Interestingly, the map shows a road present on the map, but shows the existing bridge as constructed in
1935, a year later. Apparently the map was not published until 1940. The 1940s Rural Delivery Routes
map (US Post Office Department Cm912-85 1943u) shows the same configuration and crossing of NC 66,
and importantly notes no structures nearby.
Little changed in road configuration and mapping from the midcentury. The 1964 USGS quadrangle
(Hanging Rock) shows the subject road, NC 66, with the nearby garage or shop a short distance to the east.
A small number of environmental reviews for archaeology are recorded with the NC Office of State
Archaeology near the project (ER 03-0430, others). Several archaeological sites are identified nearby on
varying landforms and included 31 Skl02, 31 Skl03, 31 Skl60, 31 Sk 161 and 31 Skl76, though they are
some distance away from the APE.
No indication of a cemetery at the project location was suggested from USGS mapping, historic soils
mapping, aerials, or driveby. Further, a GIS-based inventory of cemeteries does not show the presence of
a cemetery.
There are no known archaeological sites present at the APE. Recent construction of a pond has diminished
probability of intact, significant archaeological sites. As a result of this review, we conclude that the
likelihood of encountering intact, NRHP-eligible resources are low based on the nature (replacement of
existing facility) and scale of undertaking within a largely disturbed context. The project should be
considered compliant with Section 106. No archaeological survey is recommended for this undertaking as
currently proposed.
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The construction of an existing road, NC 66, the 1930s bridge, and a new retaining pond has disturbed
much of the APE's archaeological integrity. While realignment or an onsite temporary detour is possible,
the scale of the bridge and creek is fairly small. Expectations of impacts to any intact, significant
archaeological sites is low. Therefore, this federally permitted undertaking should be considered compliant
with Section 106.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
Y
LOGIST
❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
2/23/2018
Date
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEY REQUIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
17-05-0062
a v
y. q
SR 1481
SR
SR 7779 s s
�r�6S SR�207I
°Q g0
A
a
H
a � a
`..
y L`�fe'��ad3C ICcco -':.bra,C—g
Figure 1. Vicinity of PA 17-05-0062, proposed Bridge No. 15 replacement on NC 66 over Vade Mecum. The APE is overlaid on
an excerpt of USGS mapping (Banging Rock) and shown in yellow, circled black.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEY REQUIRED"faro+for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects" Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
17-05-0062
Figure 2. Aerial map of the PA 17-05-0062 Bridge No. 15 project area. The APE is shown in yellow. Contour lines, shown at 2-
ft intervals, show the terrain. This APE covers several possible designs. Note the pond southeast of the bridge.
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SUR VEY REQUIRED" form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Quaked in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
4of4