20200259 Ver 1_BR-0125 CE_20200218

1 Updated 9/3/2019

Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form

Project No. BR-0125
WBS Element 48834.1.1
Federal Project No. N/A

A. Project Description:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) over East Prong Roaring River in Wilkes County (Refer to
Figure 1).

Bridge No. 960663, built in 1950, is a steel girder bridge with two 11-foot travel lanes and is
approximately 151 feet long. Bridge No. 960663 has a posted single vehicle weight limit of 24
tons and a truck tractor semitrailer weight limit of 31 tons. The existing right of way along
SR 1002 (Traphill Road) is 36 feet. The project is scheduled for Right of Way (ROW) in
September 2019 and Let in June 2020. Minor ROW acquisition is anticipated.

The project proposes to replace the existing structure with an approximately 33-foot wide
three-span cored slab bridge with a minimum of two 11-foot travel lanes and four-foot five-inch
paved shoulders. The approach roadways will have two 11 -foot travel lanes and four foot
shoulders (two-feet paved), with guardrail will be installed at the bridge approaches. The
proposed bridge would be approximately 163 feet in length and with a proposed right of way
ranging from 45-130 feet. New pavement on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) will be required for the
new roadway alignment. Improvements to Twin Locust Road include re-alignment to tie into
SR 1002 (Traphill Road). The total length of the project is approximately 1,193 feet. The
proposed bridge will not be posted with a weight restriction and will be designed to meet the
legal load rating. The bridge replacement would be constructed on a new alignment east of the
existing bridge. The existing bridge will serve as an onsite detour during construction. The
roadway is classified as a Major Collector with a 55-mile per hour design speed and 55-mile
per hour posted speed limit.

B. Description of Need and Purpose:

The replacement of Bridge No. 960663 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 sup port
economic development and improve physical and digital connectivity in rural communities in
North Carolina. The posted weight restriction on Bridge No. 960663 prohibits large or heavy
vehicles, typically used in transporting agricultural and manufactured products, from using the
bridge. Vehicles above the posted weight must detour 4.4 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: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

2 Updated 9/3/2019

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)
No. 3- Maintenance, NWP No.14- Linear Transportation Projects, and/or NWP No. 23-
Approved Categorical Exclusion will likely be applicable. The US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
construction. A Section 404 permit is required and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
(WQC) from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) is needed.

Floodplain: East Prong of Roaring River, which crosses under Bridge No. 960663, is in a
FEMA Zone AE Floodplain. The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping
Program (FMP), to determine status of 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 Survey Required Form for Historic Architecture and Landscapes on
10/28/2018, and for Archaeological Resources on 02/26/2019.

Agricultural Land Use: Agricultural land use including large commercial poultry farms, cattle,
crop including hay, and dairy farms was identified surrounding the project area using aerial
imagery and confirmed during the April 2019 site visit. Impacts to farming operations have
been minimized by use of an on-site detour; however, minor right of way acquisition will be
required for the project. 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: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

3 Updated 9/3/2019

Estimated Costs (FY 2020): The estimated costs are as follows:
Utility* 106,400
R/W** 23,213
Const.*** 2,550,000
Total $2,679,613
Sources: * Connect GREATTER Rural Bridge Program- Bridges Budget Sources and Uses, Accessed June 11, 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, July 2019
*** NCDOT Contracts Standards and Development Unit, August 2019

Estimated Traffic:

Crashes: A NCDOT Traffic Safety Unit crash report indicates six (6) crashes occurred from
05/01/2014 to 04/30/2019 within 800 feet east and west of Bridge No. 960663 on SR 1002
(Traphill Road). Of the six crashes, three (3) were fixed object, and two (2) were collisions with
an animal, one (1) of which occurred on Bridge No. 960663. Two (2) crashes had Type-B
injuries; there were no Type-A injuries or fatalities. The proposed work will include the
installation of guardrail at the bridge approaches and include the addition of two -foot shoulders
on the bridge.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: There are no existing bike or pedestrian facilities
on Bridge No. 960166 along SR 1002 (Traphill Road). However, a local citizen identified that
the corridor may be used for bicycling events and the local planner noted recreational bicycle
use in the project area.

The 2017 Wilkes County Transportation Plan (CTP) indicates that SR 1002 has been identified
as a proposed bicycle route in the High County Bike Plan (2014). Recommendations for
roadways identified as proposed bicycle facilities include; 5 foot bike lanes or 14 foot outside
lanes, 4 foot paved shoulders, and 54 inch railings on bridges. The project proposes suitable
shoulder width on the bridge, however, current roadway design proposes two-foot paved
shoulders, which is inconsistent with the recommendations provided in the CTP.
A Start of Study letter was sent to NCDOT Bicycle & Pedestrian Division; no comments were
received.

Design Exceptions: A design exception for the horizontal curve radius is required to minimize
Waters of the U.S. impacts, and vertical k-value is needed to avoid a sag curve on the bridge and
to limit tie-ins. This will result in a speed limit reduction (40 miles per hour) at the bridge
approaches.
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.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2016 1,500 vehicles per day (vpd)
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2040 2,000 vpd
Source: NCDOT Traffic Review Sheet, 2018
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

4 Updated 9/3/2019

New Alignment (Preferred Alternative) – The proposed structure will have a new
alignment east of the existing bridge, to avoid impacts to the stream north of the existing
bridge and to allow for the utilization of existing bridge as an onsite detour.

Replace Bridge in Place with Offsite Detour – An offsite detour is not proposed as
part of this project, as an onsite detour allows for better flow of traffic than an offsite
detour; an offsite detour may be difficult for school buses that utilize the brid ge as noted
by the Wilkes County Schools Transportation Director, as well as increase emergency
services response times as noted by the Wilkes County EMS Director. Additionally, the
onsite detour protects minor roads with low traffic that may have been used for an
offsite detour from pavement deterioration, and eliminates the need for a longer offsite
detour if only major roads are used.

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 and
April of 2019.

The Schools Transportation Director indicated that three school busses make a total of nine
daily trips across the bridge (approximately 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM) and there would be a high
impact to the Wilkes School System if the bridge was closed for up to a year, as the detour route
would likely be difficult for the bus to navigate. A low level of impact was noted from the Wilkes
County Planning Director if the bridge was closed for up to a year but indicated the presence of
the Traphill Elementary School and the Traphill Branch of the Appalachian Regional Library in
the project vicinity. Wilkes County EMS noted a yearlong bridge closure would have a moderate
impact on emergency services due to the potential for long detour routes.

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.

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 also
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. Project-specific comments regarding the potential for
the Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) to occur in the study area 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. The requested preliminary plans were provided to
USFWS on 7/24/19. NCDOT Environmental Analysis Unit (NCDOT EAU) confirmed that no
action regarding the Brook Floater is required at this time.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

5 Updated 9/3/2019

NC DWR noted that the East Prong of Roaring River is classified as a Trout waters of the State,
and recommended that sediment and erosion control BMPs are implemented to reduce the risk
of turbidity violations in trout waters. General project comments regarding 401 Water Quality
Certification, erosion and sediment control BMPs, and mitigation for impacts to waters of the
U.S. are also included in the response.

Response: The Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) completed in June 2019 for this
project identifies the East Prong Roaring River as a Hatchery Supported Trout Water. NC WRC
notified NCDOT on 08/14/19 that a construction moratorium is not required for this project,
however, the project will adhere to Design standards for sensitive watersheds (DSSW). See
Section I, Project Commitments.

NC WRC provided comments regarding trout moratorium; a trout moratorium is not required for
this project.

Response: Comment noted.

USACE and NC DPR had no specific comments regarding the proposed actions. No response
was received by 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.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

6 Updated 9/3/2019

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: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

7 Updated 9/3/2019

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: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

8 Updated 9/3/2019

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F

Response to Question 1 – Formal Consultation with USFWS or NMFS
Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) - NCDOT has determined that the proposed action will 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.

Response to Question 11 – Trout Waters
The NRTR indicates that the NC WRC identifies the East Prong Roaring River within the study
area as a Hatchery Supported Trout Water, beginning at the SR 1002 (Traphill Road) crossing
and continuing upstream. NC WRC notified NCDOT on 08/14/19 that a construction
moratorium is not required for this project, however, since the Best Usage Classification for
this portion of East Prong Roaring River is C;Tr, the project will adhere to Design standards for
sensitive watersheds (DSSW). See Section I, Project Commitments.

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 29 out of 160 points was calculated for the
BR-0125 project site. Since the total of the points assigned in part VI of the NRCS Farmlands
Conversion Form AD-1006 for BR-0125 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: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

9 Updated 9/3/2019

H. Categorical Exclusion Approval

Project No. BR-0125
WBS Element 48834.1.1
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: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
9/3/2019
9/4/2019
9/4/2019

10 Updated 9/3/2019

I. Project Commitments

Wilkes County
Replace Bridge No. 960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) over East Prong Roaring River
WBS No. 48834.1.1
Project No. BR-0125

NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Floodplain Mapping 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 Hydraulics Unit
FEMA Coordination
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 Roadside Environmental Unit
Trout Water
Design standards for sensitive watersheds (DSSW) will be adhered to for the project
due to the Best Usage Classification of C;Tr for this portion of the East Prong Roaring
River.

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

NCDOT Division 11
Continued Coordination for Schools and Emergency Services
NCDOT should coordinate 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: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
PROJECT SITEROARING RI
VEREAST PRONGLITTLE SANDY CREEK(SR 1943)
BREWER MILL RD(SR 1002)TRAPHILL RD(SR 1002)
TRAPHILL RD
(SR 1941)ROUNDHILL CHURCH RD(SR 1743)TWIN LOCUST RD(SR
1
7
4
2
)GRI
SSEL TAI
L RD(SR 1939)BILLINGS HILL CHURCH RD(SR 1737)
L
O
N
GB
OTT
O
M R
D
RD (SR 1781)TRAPHILL ESTATESBEGIN PROJECT
END PROJECT
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
D
T
V
=
=
=
=
=
=
ADT
ADT

PROJECT LENGTH
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STATE PROJ. NO.F. A. PROJ. NO.DESCRIPTION
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
DESIGN DATAGRAPHIC SCALES 09/08/997/10/2019R:\Roadway\Proj\SHT\BR-0125_rdy_psh01_tsh.dgnjoshibrVICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
See Sheet 1B For Standard Symbology Sheet
See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
P.E.
NCDOT CONTACT:PRELIMINARY PLANSRIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
PROJECT ENGINEER DEPARTMEN
T
O
F
TRA N SPORTATIONSTATE O F NORT
H CAR
O
LI
NAPLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY:
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
P.E.
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
SIGNATURE:
ENGINEER
DESIGN
ROADWAY
NC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE
PROJECT DESIGNER
DHV
/N A
/N A
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
MPH
CONTRACT:NORTH CAROLINA
4
2040
N / A
0
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
00 10 20510
Scale : 60
15002016
55
0
PLANS
50 1002550
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
0 50 1002550TIP PROJECT: BR-0125BR-0125
WILKES COUNTY
RIVER ON SR 1002 (TRAPHILL RD)
LOCATION: BRIDGE #663 OVER EAST PRONG ROARING
67125.1.1
SEPTEMBER 12, 2019
BHUPESH R. JOSHI, EIT MAJOR COLLECTOR
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT BR-0125 = 0.226 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT BR-0125 = 0.031 MILES
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT BR-0125 = 0.195 MILES
END BRIDGE
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L-
BEGIN TIP PROJECT BR-0125
-L- STA. 10+35.00
END TIP PROJECT BR-0125
-L- STA. 16+12.44
-Y- STA. 10+15.00
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION E. PRONG ROARING RIVERE. PRONG ROARING RIVERSR 1002 (TRAPHILL RD.)-Y-SR 1743 (TWIN LOCUST RD)-L- STA. 14+49.56
(SR 1943)MILL R
D
TO BRE
WER
CHURCH RD
TO ROUNDHILL (SR 1941)
2000
TIERRE PETERSON, PE
Structures Management Unit
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, & STRUCTURE
-L- STA. 22+30.00
TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD __.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
SUB-REGIONAL TIER
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
JUNE 5, 2020
DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR HORIZONTAL CURVE RADIUS AND VERTICAL CURVE K-VALUE & NIGHTTIME SSD. NAD 83
NA 2011
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
NC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/997/10/2019R:\Roadway\Proj\SHT\BR-0125_rdy_psh04.dgnjoshibr4Scale : 50 BR-0125
NAD 83 NA 2011
TRANSITION TO THE EXISTING PAVEMENT
EACH TIE IN TO PROVIDE A SMOOTH
NOTE: INCIDENTAL MILL APPROXIMATELY 25' AT
SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- & -Y- PROFILE
* DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR HORIZONTAL CURVE DESIGN SPEED.
BST
BST
18" CMP3
0" CMP
4' WW
4' WW5' BWCONC
LOW WIRE= 1169.87
WOODSWOODSWOODS
CONC
BEDROCK
RIP RAP
RIP RAP
CONC
PYLON(5)
WD
BSTBST BSTTO GRISSEL TRAIL RD.(SR 1941)
T
O R
O
U
N
D
HILL C
H
URC
H R
D.
(SR 1943)TO BRE
WER
MILL RD.E. PRONG ROARING RIVERE. PRONG ROARING RIVERTRAPHI
LL RD. (SR 1002)
TRAPHILL RD. (SR 1002)TWIN LOCCUST RD.TTPAUL & PATSY JANE TRIPLETT
DB 392 PG 569
CLIFTON G. HUTCHISON
DB 767 PG 748
KATHY J. VARSALONA
DB 1064 PG 462
JULIE LYNN GRAMMAN
DB 1064 PG 461
LUCY B.S.COTHREN
DB 1118 PG 63
PAMELA DENISE TRIPLETT
DB 615 PG 44
DUKE
E
X
IS
T
IN
G

R
/W
EX
IS
T
IN
G

R
/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/WE
XISTIN
G R/WAREAWETLAND
AREA
WETLAND
EXISTING R/WEXISTING R/W50.00'40.00'40.00'40.00'65T
DUKE
65T
DUKE 1DUKE1129ADUKE
MAPPED BY GIS WOODS
WOODS
WOODS
GRASSFIEL
D
CULTIVATED FIELD
C
U
LTIV
A
TED FIELD
EIP
1 2
3
4
5
EX. ROW, 35.00
+30.00
25.00
+05.50
70.00
+50.00
25.00
+40.0060.00
+00.00
41.06
+50.00
25.00
+90.00
EX. ROW
L +47.18
EX. ROW
L +15.00
25.00, 35.00
+30.00
EX. ROW, 25.00
+00.95
EX. ROW
+85.00
35.00
+14.52
EX. ROW, 25.00
+64.82
70.00
+47.65 70.00
+80.00
60' R 60' R
-L- POC STA. 10+35.00
BEGIN TIP PROJECT BR-0125
-L- POT STA. 22+30.00
END TIP PROJECT BR-0125
-Y- POT STA. 10+15.00
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB
BEGIN BRIDGE
END BRIDGE
END APPROACH SLAB
.13
.1 2
.04.04.14
.11.10.09.08.07.06.05.05.06.0 7
.08
.087
.04.03.02.01.00.01.02.03.04.05.02.04 .03.041 1 '1 1 'FDPS2' FDPS2' 8:1
8:18:18:1
8:1
8:1
8:1
8:1
FDPS2' FDPS2' 120°
0' T
APE
R
6
LT &
RT
0' T
APE
R
6
LT &
RT
24'T
YP.
RIP RAP
CLASS II
11'
-L-TRAPHILL
RD
. (SR
1002)33'.027.02LT & RTTAPER30' +45.00.02.02.01.00.01.02.0315'TYP10'10'8.9'8.9'
STRUCTURE
REMOVE EXIST
9.9'
.0229.9'10.6'
T
YP.24'
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
REMOVE EXIST
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
REMOVE EXIST
+8 5 .0 0 +31.00 16.36'
+75.06
-L- STA. 14+38.90
-L- STA. 14+49.56
-L- STA. 16+12.44
-L- STA. 16+23.14
+62.51, 12.72' LT
GPS-2
+52.08, 15.42' LT
END SBG
16.42'
+02.08
16.42'
+09.79
+09.83, 51.03' LT
BL-3
+98.51+35.82, 13.69' LT
BM-2
.054.0129.9'11'
+7 0 .0 0
+86.80
+29.80, 20.96' LT
BL-4
17.02'
+49.86
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
POT St
a. 10+00.00-Y- POT Sta. 11+78.53
-L- POC Sta. 19+76.90 =
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TL-3
GREU
TL-3
GREU
TL-3
GREU
TL-3
GREU
PT Sta. 22+00.95
POT Sta. 23+10.16
PI Sta 12+64.84
D
L = 382.83'
T = 200.03'
R = 535.00'
PI Sta 20+12.75
D
L = 395.45'
T = 207.25'
R = 535.00'PC Sta. 18+05.50PT Sta. 14+47.65PC Sta. 10+64.82POT Sta. 10+00.00
11+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+00
23+00
DS = 40 mph
SE = 4%
DS = 40 mph
SE = 4%
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
F
C
C
F
F
F
F F
F
F
C
C
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
F
F
C
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
^_Traphill R dS t a t e R d 1 0 0 2
State Rd 1941St
a
t
e
Rd

1
7
4
2
Gri
s
s
e
l
T
a
il Rd
Round Hi
l
l
Chur
ch RdSt
at
e Rd 1743P o r c h T i m e L n
Traphill RdS
tate

R
d
1
0
0
2
July 2019
Fig ure 1
Legend
^_Br. 960 66 3 over E.Prong of RoaringRiverProject StudyDirect Co mmunityImpact Area(DCIA)
StreamFloodplainNWI We tlandParcel
¯
^_
Traphill VolunteerFire Department
Sources: Wilkes County GIS Department, NC One Map, NC HPO GIS Portal, & Google Earth
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
Bridge No. 960663 Replacement over East Prong of Roaring RiverWilkes CountyNCDOT Division 11
Wilkes County, NC
£¤421
¬«16
Wilkesboro
£¤421 ¬«18
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0087
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 10

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: BR-0125 County: Wilkes
WBS No: 67125 Document: Federal Categorical Exclusion
Federal Aid No: Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:

Replace Bridge 663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.) over the East Prong Roaring River in Wilkes
County. The Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.) is approximately 459 meters (1,506ft.) long and
122 meters (400 ft.) wide. The project is State-funded and will require Federal permits.
Easements will be required.

SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:

The review included an examination of a topographic map, 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. Bridge 663 is oriented northeast-
southwest but is considered north-south for this review.

The topographic map (Traphill) shows the A.P.E. is located in a narrow stream valley. An
unnamed tributary joins the East Prong Roaring River in the northwest quadrant. SR 1743
intersects with SR 1002 at the north end of the northwest quadrant. The landforms in the A.P.E.
appear to be narrow floodplain on each side of the river, and gently to moderately-sloped ridges.
There are no structures in the A.P.E.

The Wilkes County soil survey shows several soil types in the A.P.E. These include Dan River
and Comus soils (0-4% slopes), occasionally flooded, Danripple sandy clay loam (2-8% and 8-
15% slopes), moderately-eroded, Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex (15-35% slopes) and Rhodhiss-
Toast complex (5-15% slopes), and Tate-Cullowee frequently-flooded complex (0-25% slopes).
Dan River/Comus soils are well-drained soils found on floodplains,. Danripple sandy clay loam
is a well-drained soil found on slopes on stream terraces. Rhodhiss-Bannertown and Rhodhiss-
Toast complex soils are well-drained soils found on ridge side-slopes. Tate-Cullowhee complex
soils are well-drained soils found on stream terraces. Level landforms with well-drained soils
near streams have a moderate to high potential for archaeological sites.

The aerial photograph shows the land use in the A.P.E. is a mix of wooded and cleared. The
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0087
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 10
northwest quadrant is mostly wooded. The unnamed stream that joins the East Prong is visible
along the west side of SR 1002. There is a cleared pasture located along the west side of the
stream. SR 1743 joins SR 1002 near the north end. A house and yard are located at the north
edge of the A.P.E. The northeast quadrant is wooded in the south half and cleared (pasture?) in
the north half. A stream (not shown on the topographic map) runs through the south half of the
A.P.E. The southeast quadrant is mostly cleared (pasture?). The southwest quadrant is wooded.

A reconnaissance of the A.P.E. was conducted by NCDOT archaeologist Caleb Smith on
1/8/2019. The reconnaissance found that the landforms in the A.P.E. have a low to moderate
potential for archaeological sites. The northwest quadrant is a narrow strip of sloped land
between the road and the unnamed stream from the bridge north for approximately 120 meters
(394 ft.), then the intersection with SR 1743. The northeast quadrant is a steeply-sloped ridge
from the bridge north for approximately 100 meters (328 ft.). The ridge slope is wooded and
covered with large boulders. A stream runs along the east side of SR 1002. The northern half of
the quadrant is an undulating ridge top currently used as a hay field. The southeast quadrant is a
narrow strip of floodplain from the bridge south for approximately 40 meters (131 ft.), then a
slope up to a gently-sloped ridge top. The ridge top is currently an agricultural field. The
southwest quadrant is a poorly-drained floodplain from the bridge south for 60 meters (197 ft.),
then a sloped ridge. An old road runs along the base of the slope. The abutments from a
previous bridge are located on both banks of the river approximately 90 meters (295 ft.)
upstream (northwest) from the bridge.

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 landforms in the A.P.E. have a low to moderate potential for archaeological sites. The soils
on the landforms are mostly sloping and/or eroded.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
Caleb Smith 2/26/2019
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II Date

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
STIP BR-0125  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 = 11 out of 15
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 70% of the land within the 1-mile buffer is non-urban.

2. Perimeter in non-urban use. Points awarded = 5 out of 10
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 50% borders on land in non-urban use.

3. Percent of site being farmed. Points awarded = 3 out of 20
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 30% 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 = 0 out of 15
Determined using aerial photography; site is adjacent to the Traphill community.

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 = 0 out of 10
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 = 29 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: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating  July, 2019  page 2

Sources
US Census. Census of Agriculture. 2012. County Data. North Carolina. Wilkes County. Accessed
6/14/2019.
(https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/North_Carolina/
st37_2_001_001.pdfhttps://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/North_Car
olina/cp37097.pdf)

Wilkes County. GIS Application. Wilkes County, NC. Accessed 6/14/2019.
(https://gis.wilkescounty.net/main/#)

Legal Information Institute. Section 658.5- Criteria. Accessed 6/14/2019.
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/658.5)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating  July, 2019  page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A411843-3D35-4958-A1D6-DD6BCA3C79C6

Appendix A

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 9/10/2019

TO: File FILE NUMBER: 4019918

FROM: STV Engineers Inc. PROJECT/PROP. NO.: BR-0125

SUBJECT: BR-0125 CE Documentation CLIENT: NCDOT Structures Management Unit

The following documents were used in the preparation of the Categorical Exclusion for BR-0125.

- Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form (10/28/2018)
- No Archaeological Survey Required Form (02/26/2019)
- Local School Input (02/2 2/2019)
- Local EMS Input (03/18/2019)
- Local Planner Input (06/05/2019)
- Natural Resources Technical Report (06/2019)
- Section 7 survey results for the Northern Long -eared Bat (03/27/2019)
- Landowner Notification (02/07/2019)
- Community Impact Assessment (07/2019)
- Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package (PJD) (06/06/2019)
- Farmland Conversion Memo (07/2019)
- Certification of Financial Contribution BUILD Grant Application (07/19/2018)
- Field Scoping Meeting Worksheet (04/17/2019)
- Right of Way Cost Estimate (07/16/2019)
- EIS Relocation Report (07/16/2019)
- NCDOT Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System – Strip Analysis Report (06/12/2019)
- NCDOT Bridges Budget and Sources Used (2018)
- NCDOT Bridge Crash Count (2018)
- Bridge Traffic Review Sheet (10/02/2018)
- Geo-Environmental Pre-Scoping Comments (06/01/2019)
- Hydraulics PDR Summary (03/25/2019)
- Hydraulics Pre-Design Report (03/25/2019)
- Structure Safety Report (01/19/2017)
- FEMA Flood Insurance Study (12/03/2009)
- NCDOT Hydro Comments (05/08/2019)

MEMORANDUM

PAGE 2 OF 2

- NCDOT Rail Pre-Scoping Comments (05/10/2019)
- North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Pre -Scoping Comments (05/10/2019)
- US Fish and Wildlife Pre-Scoping Comments (05/23/2019)
- NC Wildlife Resource Commission Pre -Scoping Comments (08/22/2019)
- NC Division of Water Resources Pre -Scoping Comments (05/14/2019)
- Screening Checklist (accessed 08/2019)
- Pre-Screening Worksheet (05/21/2018)
- Pre-Screening Summary (08/30/2018)
- Environmental Pre-Screening Checklist (11/20/2017)
- Division Resource Map (accessed 07/2019)

Project Tracking No.
18-09-0087
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 10

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: BR-0125 County: Wilkes
WBS No: 67125 Document: Federal Categorical Exclusion
Federal Aid No: Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: USACE
Project Description:

Replace Bridge 663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.) over the East Prong Roaring River in Wilkes
County. The Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.) is approximately 459 meters (1,506ft.) long and
122 meters (400 ft.) wide. The project is State-funded and will require Federal permits.
Easements will be required.

SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:

The review included an examination of a topographic map, 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. Bridge 663 is oriented northeast-
southwest but is considered north-south for this review.

The topographic map (Traphill) shows the A.P.E. is located in a narrow stream valley. An
unnamed tributary joins the East Prong Roaring River in the northwest quadrant. SR 1743
intersects with SR 1002 at the north end of the northwest quadrant. The landforms in the A.P.E.
appear to be narrow floodplain on each side of the river, and gently to moderately-sloped ridges.
There are no structures in the A.P.E.

The Wilkes County soil survey shows several soil types in the A.P.E. These include Dan River
and Comus soils (0-4% slopes), occasionally flooded, Danripple sandy clay loam (2-8% and 8-
15% slopes), moderately-eroded, Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex (15-35% slopes) and Rhodhiss-
Toast complex (5-15% slopes), and Tate-Cullowee frequently-flooded complex (0-25% slopes).
Dan River/Comus soils are well-drained soils found on floodplains,. Danripple sandy clay loam
is a well-drained soil found on slopes on stream terraces. Rhodhiss-Bannertown and Rhodhiss-
Toast complex soils are well-drained soils found on ridge side-slopes. Tate-Cullowhee complex
soils are well-drained soils found on stream terraces. Level landforms with well-drained soils
near streams have a moderate to high potential for archaeological sites.

The aerial photograph shows the land use in the A.P.E. is a mix of wooded and cleared. The
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0087
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 10
northwest quadrant is mostly wooded. The unnamed stream that joins the East Prong is visible
along the west side of SR 1002. There is a cleared pasture located along the west side of the
stream. SR 1743 joins SR 1002 near the north end. A house and yard are located at the north
edge of the A.P.E. The northeast quadrant is wooded in the south half and cleared (pasture?) in
the north half. A stream (not shown on the topographic map) runs through the south half of the
A.P.E. The southeast quadrant is mostly cleared (pasture?). The southwest quadrant is wooded.

A reconnaissance of the A.P.E. was conducted by NCDOT archaeologist Caleb Smith on
1/8/2019. The reconnaissance found that the landforms in the A.P.E. have a low to moderate
potential for archaeological sites. The northwest quadrant is a narrow strip of sloped land
between the road and the unnamed stream from the bridge north for approximately 120 meters
(394 ft.), then the intersection with SR 1743. The northeast quadrant is a steeply-sloped ridge
from the bridge north for approximately 100 meters (328 ft.). The ridge slope is wooded and
covered with large boulders. A stream runs along the east side of SR 1002. The northern half of
the quadrant is an undulating ridge top currently used as a hay field. The southeast quadrant is a
narrow strip of floodplain from the bridge south for approximately 40 meters (131 ft.), then a
slope up to a gently-sloped ridge top. The ridge top is currently an agricultural field. The
southwest quadrant is a poorly-drained floodplain from the bridge south for 60 meters (197 ft.),
then a sloped ridge. An old road runs along the base of the slope. The abutments from a
previous bridge are located on both banks of the river approximately 90 meters (295 ft.)
upstream (northwest) from the bridge.

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 landforms in the A.P.E. have a low to moderate potential for archaeological sites. The soils
on the landforms are mostly sloping and/or eroded.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
Caleb Smith 2/26/2019
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II Date

“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 10

“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 10

Project
Area

“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
5 of 10

Area of
Potential
Effects

“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
6 of 10

Area of
Potential
Effects
Old bridge
abutment

“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
7 of 10

Figure 1: Southwest view of the northwest quadrant.
Figure 2: Northeast view of the northeast quadrant.

“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
8 of 10

Figure 3: East view of the north end of the northeast quadrant.
Figure 4: South view of the southeast quadrant.

“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
9 of 10

Figure 5: Southwest view of the south half of the southeast quadrant.
Figure 6: Southwest view of the southwest quadrant.

“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
10 of 10

Figure 7: Northeast view of the old bridge abutment northwest of the current bridge.
NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local Schools Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0125 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 960663 on SR 1002
(Traphill Road) over East Prong of Roaring River.

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. Estimate 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 likely will need to route around bridge closure through Grissel Tail Rd and Twin
Locust 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).
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 EMS Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0125 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 960663
on SR 1002 (Traphill Road)
over East Prong of Roaring
River.

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?
LONG DETOUR 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)?
SCHOOL OFFICIALS, MTN. VIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT, TRAPHILL FIRE DEPARTMENT

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.
EMS RESPONSE TIME COULD BE EXTENSIVE DUE TO POTENTIAL LONG DISTANCE OF DETOUR
ROUTES

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Replacement of Bridge No. 960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) over
East Prong Roaring River
Wilkes County, North Carolina

STIP No. BR-0125
WBS Element No. 67125.3.1

THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Coordination and Permitting

June 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-0125, Wilkes County, N.C.

1 June 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) over the East Prong Roaring River in Wilkes
County, North Carolina (STIP No. BR-0125; 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
Broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus)
Fescue (Festuca spp.)
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica)
8.0
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory
Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
White oak (Quercus alba)
Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides)
5.0
Montane Alluvial Forest
(Piedmont Subtype)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
vimineum)
0.8
Total 13.8

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0125, Wilkes County, N.C.

2 June 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-0125, Wilkes County, N.C.

3 June 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, 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). Five 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.)
East Prong Roaring
River
East Prong
Roaring River 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr 4-6 50-60 6-24
Unnamed Tributary
(UT) to East Prong
Roaring River
SA 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr 0.5-3 4-6 0.5-4
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0125, Wilkes County, N.C.

4 June 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.)
UT to East Prong
Roaring River SB 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr 2-4 2-4 0.5-2
UT to East Prong
Roaring River SC 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr 1-3 8-10 0.5-6
UT to East Prong
Roaring River SD 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr 1-3 5-7 0.5-4

There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or
water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within the study area or within 1.0 mile
downstream of the study area. The project is located within a USACE-designated trout
watershed; additionally, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
identifies East Prong Roaring River within the study area as a Hatchery Supported Trout
Water beginning at the Traphill Road crossing and continuing upstream. 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.

Five 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 where jurisdictionality was in question), as well as a North Carolina
Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) form for Stream SB (due to its degraded
condition), are included in a separate PJD Package. 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
East Prong
Roaring River 429 Perennial Yes Not Subject
SA 457 Perennial Yes Not Subject
SB 25 Intermittent Undetermined Not Subject
SC 409 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0125, Wilkes County, N.C.

5 June 2019

Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID Length
(ft.) Classification Compensatory
Mitigation Required
River Basin
Buffer
SD 367 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Total 1,687

Two potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Table 5).
The locations of these wetlands are shown on Figures 3 and 4. All wetlands in the study
area are located within the Yadkin – Pee Dee River Basin (USGS HUC 03040101).
USACE wetland determination forms and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NCWAM) forms for each site 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.)
in Study
Area
WA Headwater Forest Medium Riparian 0.08
WB Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh Low Riparian 0.02
Total 0.10

6.2 Construction Moratoria

The NCWRC designates the East Prong Roaring River as a Hatchery Supported Trout
Water within the study area. Therefore, an in-water moratorium from October 15 – April
15 is 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-0125, Wilkes County, N.C.

6 June 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 Stream Functional Assessment Team. North Carolina Stream Assessment
Method (NCSAM) User Manual [Version 2.1]. 2012. PDF Document.

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NCWAM) User Manual [Version 5]. 2016. PDF
Document.

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.
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0125, Wilkes County, N.C.

7 June 2019

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS) 2018. Bog Turtle. https://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/bogturtle.htm

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. 663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.)over East Prong Roaring RiverSTIP No. BR-0125Project Vicinity MapWilkes County, North Carolina
EastProngRoaringRiver SR -1002SR-1743 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:JUNE 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 400200 Feet
¯
^_
© OpenStreetMap (and)contributors, CC-BY-SA
Legend
Project Study Area
2FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.)over East Prong Roaring RiverSTIP No. BR-0125Topographic 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. 663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.)over East Prong Roaring RiverSTIP No. BR-0125Jurisdictional Features MapWilkes County, North Carolina
SR-1002 SR-1743 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:JUNE 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 200100 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Intermittent
Perennial
Culvert
East ProngRoaring River
SA
SB
SC
SD
WA
WB
4FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.)over East Prong Roaring RiverSTIP No. BR-0125Terrestrial Communities MapWilkes County, North Carolina
SR-1002 SR-1743 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:JUNE 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 200100 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Terrestrial Communities
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
Maintained/Disturbed
Montane Alluvial Forest (Small River Subtype)
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Intermittent
Perennial
Culvert

Appendix B
Qualifications of Contributors

Principal
Investigator Nathan Howell
Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina
State University, 2013
M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State
University, 2015
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, natural community assessment,
T&E surveys, document review

Investigator: Mary Frazer
Education: M.E.M. (Master of Environmental Management), Resource
Ecology, Duke University, 1991
B.S. Zoology, University of Wisconsin, 1988
Experience: Environmental Specialist, Three Oaks Engineering, July 2015-
present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2000-2015
Environmental Specialist, Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program, 1996-2000
Water Regulation Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, 1994-1996
Biologist, Soil and Environmental Consultants, 1992-1994
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, natural community assessment,
T&E surveys, GPS

Investigator: Lillian Lovingood
Education: B.S. Environmental Studies: Ecology and Environmental Biology,
UNC-Asheville, 2016
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, December
2018-Present
Aquatic Conservation Technician, NCWRC, March 2018-
November 2018
Responsibilities: Document preparation/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: 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 27, 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. 663 over East Prong Roaring River on SR 1002 in Wilkes County, TIP No. BR-0125. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT, Division 11) proposes to replace Bridge No. 663 over East Prong Roaring River on SR 1002 in Wilkes County, TIP No. BR-0125. The existing bridge is a four span structure with concrete deck, steel I-beams, concrete end walls and concrete guard rails. The overall length of the structure is 151 feet. Northern long-eared bat The project to replace Bridge No. 663 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 27, 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 45 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. 663
on Traphill Road (S.R. 1002) over E. Prong Roaring River in Wilkes County as TIP Project BR-
0125.

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-0125.

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 reemplazo del puente no. 663 en Traphill
Road (S.R. 1002) sobre East Prong Roaring River en el condado de Wilkes identificado como
Proyecto TIP BR-0125.

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 (919).

Cuando llame, por favor mencione el Proyecto TIP BR-0125 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

STIP BR-0125 Wilkes County
SHORT FORM COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLANNER, FIRM: Marissa Lenoce, STV
Engineers DIVISION: 11 Existing No. of Lanes: 2
Existing Median: No

NCDOT/LOCAL
PROJECT MANAGER: Tierre Peterson, PE WBS: 67125.1.1 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 960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) over the East Prong Roaring River in Wilkes County. The
proposed project will replace the existing bridge with a bridge on a new alignment to the east. The new structure
will be 33 feet wide, 9 feet wider than the current bridge. It will maintain 11-foot travel lane widths and increase the
shoulder width from 1 foot to 4 feet (two-foot paved, two-foot unpaved) on either side. An on-site detour is
anticipated. Existing right of way is 36 feet wide, and 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 0.5 mile away from
the community of Traphill, and approximately 2 miles from the Dockery community. The nearest major town is
Wilkesboro, approximately 15 miles southwest, and can be accessed using SR 1002 and NC 18. The land use in
the DCIA is primarily residential, undeveloped forested lands, and farmland. There are no planned commercial or
residential developments anticipated 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 1002 (Traphill Road) is classified as a Rural Major Collector road and serves as a
major thoroughfare for commuter and truck traffic between Elkin, Wilkesboro, Sparta, and Stone Mountain State
Park. The nearest interstate is I-77 (approximately 20 miles away) and can be accessed via NC 21. The current
(2015) average annual daily traffic (AADT) is 1,500 vehicles per day (vpd) and traffic is projected to increase to
2,000 vpd by 2040.
Local plans indicate a need for improved transit and bicycle facilities within the DCIA. The 2017 Wilkes County
Transportation Plan (CTP) notes that a Wilkes Transportation Authority (WTA) bus service is proposed for the
Traphill community, including service to Wilkes County Airport, several schools, the Traphill Library and Traphill
Fire Department, among other locations. The High County Bike Plan (2014) provides recommendations for a 25.1
mile bicycle route along NC 18, SR 1716 (Yellow Banks Road), and SR 1002 (Traphill Road) The proposed route
would provide bicycle route connections for Stone Mountain State Park, Traphill, and other unincorporated
communities to the Town of North Wilkesboro. While the Wilkes Co Growth Management Plan (2014) does not
specify recommendations for SR 1002 (Traphill Road), it indicates a need to improve and expand public transit
within the County.
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 2

STIP BR-0125  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 large commercial poultry farms, cattle,
crop including hay, and dairy farms are present within the DCIA, as observed during the 4/16/19 site visit and
indicated by the local planner. Along SR 1002 there is an agricultural field directly south of Bridge 960663, east
of the roadway and abutting the western bank of the East Prong Roaring River. There are two additional fields
located just north of the bridge on both sides of the roadway near the SR 1002 intersection with Twin Locust
Road. No farm support services were identified within the DCIA.
 Businesses and Economic Resources and Transportation Activity: Tractor trailer traffic (1-2 trucks) was
observed along the project corridor during the site visit performed on 04/16/2019. A local citizen also noted
truck traffic along this corridor.
 Emergency Management Services (EMS) Operations: There are no EMS facilities within the DCIA; however,
the Traphill Volunteer Fire Department is located approximately 0.7 mile north on SR 1002 (Traphill Road).
 School Bus Routes: According to Wilkes County School Transportation Director, 9 trips per day travel within the
project study area, including accessing Bridge 960663, 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 low-income
populations meeting the criteria for Environmental Justice within the Demographic Study Area (DSA), and low-
income communities were observed within the DCIA during the field visit on 04/16/2019.
 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 29 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 due to potential road closure and detour, as well as potential partial right of way
takes required for the project. No total takes are anticipated.
 Local Plans: Current roadway design proposes 2 foot paved shoulders, which is inconsistent with the 4 foot
paved shoulder recommendations provided for proposed bicycle routes in the CTP and High County Bike Plan.
 Emergency Management Services (EMS) Operations: The Wilkes County EMS Director indicated moderate
level impact on emergency services if SR 1002 were closed or at a reduced capacity for up to a year. An on-
site detour will be used during construction, and minimal impacts to EMS services are 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 – and buses would likely need to be rerouted around
the bridge closure through Grissel Trail Road and SR 1743 (Twin Locust Road), a distance of approximately
2.5 miles.
 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 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.
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.
 Businesses and Economic Resources and Transportation Activity: The Project Manager should ensure that
impacts to transportation activities 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.
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 4

 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.
 Alternative Construction Work Schedule: Wilkes County Schools indicated that SR 1002 (Traphill Road) is used
to access local schools at approximately 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Further coordination with Wilkes County
Schools is recommended to evaluate alternative construction work schedules if an on-site detour is utilized.
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-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 5

COMMUNITY CONTEXT MAP

STIP BR-0125  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?
There are no recreational resources within the DCIA; however, the East Prong
Roaring River is listed as a WRC Hatchery Supported Trout Water north of
SR 1002 (Traphill Road) which attracts anglers to the area. Stone Mountain
State Park is located approximately 6 miles north of the project area. SR 1002
(Traphill Road) is noted as a major thoroughfare and access route from points
south to this resource; however other roads provide access to the Park from the
south.
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 (NRCS Form AD-1006 for point projects or CPA-106 for
corridor projects, Part VI only) and a total score of 29 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

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 7

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
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 large commercial poultry farms, cattle, crop including hay, and
dairy farms are present within the DCIA, as observed in the 4/16/19 site visit and the local
planner. Along SR 1002 there is an agricultural field directly south of Bridge 960663, east of the
roadway and abutting the western bank of the East Prong Roaring River. There are two
additional fields located just north of the bridge on both sides of the roadway near the SR 1002
intersection with Twin Locust Road. No farm support services were identified within the DCIA.
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to impact identified agricultural operations?
Land actively being used for agricultural purpose may be temporarily impacted
during construction due to potential road closure and detour, as well as partial
right of way takes required for the project. No total takes are anticipated.
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?
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to result in impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and/or greenway facilities?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY
Presence
Were bicyclists, pedestrians or worn paths observed in the Direct Community Impact Area?
No bicycle or pedestrian activity, nor any facilities were observed during the site visit performed
on 04/16/2019. However, input from a local citizen identified that the corridor might be used for a
bicycle event in May 2019 and the local planner noted recreational bicyclists utilize the project
area.
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project likely to result in impacts to bicycle or pedestrian activity?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 8

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 Transportation Plan (CTP) identifies transportation needs within the
County through 2040, including proposed highway, public transit, pedestrian and bicycle and rail
infrastructure and improvements. The following recommendations were made for SR 1002
(Traphill Road) within the DCIA:
 Wilkes Transportation Authority (WTA) bus service is proposed for the Traphill
community, including service to Wilkes County Airport, several schools, the Traphill
Library and Traphill Fire Department, among other locations. The proposed service
would utilize SR 1002 (Traphill Road) directly within the DCIA. The WTA Executive
Director indicated on 07/01/2019 that there are no current plans to begin this bus
service.
 The CTP indicates that SR 1002 has been identified as a proposed bicycle route in the
High County Bike Plan (2014). Recommendations for roadways identified as proposed
bicycle facilities include; 5 foot bike lanes or 14 foot outside lanes, 4 foot paved
shoulders, and 54 inch railings on bridges.
The High County Bike Plan (2014) provides recommendations for a 25.1 mile bicycle route
along NC 18, SR 1716 (Yellow Banks Road), and SR 1002 (Traphill Road) The proposed route
would provide bicycle route connections for Stone Mountain State Park, Traphill, and other
unincorporated communities to the Town of North Wilkesboro. The recommendation includes 4
foot paved shoulders on SR 1002.
The Wilkes Co Growth Management Plan (2014) does not specify recommendations for SR
1002 (Traphill Road), but indicates a need to improve and expand public transit within the
County. No active bus routes were identified within the DCIA.
YES
NO
Impacts
Is the project consistent or not consistent with existing plans, regulations, and policies at the local,
regional, or state level?
Current roadway design proposes 2 foot paved shoulders, which is inconsistent
with the 4 foot paved shoulder recommendations provided for proposed bicycle
routes in the CTP and High County Bike Plan.

CONSISTENT
NOT
CONSISTENT

Recommendation YES
NO
DRIVEWAYS AND CROSS STREETS
Presence
Are there any driveways or intersections located along the project corridor?
Within the DCIA there is one cross street present – SR 1743 (Twin Locust Road). SR 1743 is
located north of Bridge 960663. There are four driveways located within the DCIA, including
three residential (two north of the bridge and one south of the bridge) and one farmland access
road off of SR 1743.
YES
NO
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 9

Impacts
Is the project likely to result in access or accessibility impacts to driveways and cross streets?
YES
NO

Recommendation YES
NO
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)?
Tractor trailer traffic (1-2 trucks) was observed along the project corridor during the site visit
performed on 04/16/2019. A local citizen also noted truck traffic along this corridor.
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 0.7 mile north on SR 1002 (Traphill Road). The Wilkes County EMS
Director notes concern for potential long detour routes that may affect response time.
YES
NO
NO
RESPONSE
Impacts
As checked on Local EMS Input Form
The Wilkes County EMS Director indicated moderate level impact on
emergency services if SR 1002 were closed or at a reduced capacity for up to a
year. An on-site detour will be used during construction, and minimal impacts to
EMS services are 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 960663, 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 detouring
school bus traffic around the bridge closure would have a high impact. Should
an off-site detour be required, buses would likely need to be rerouted around the
bridge closure through Grissel Trail Road and SR 1743 (Twin Locust Road), a
distance of approximately 2.5 miles. An on-site detour will be used during
construction, and minimal impacts to school transit services are anticipated.
YES
NO
NO
RESPONSE

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 10

Recommendation
The Project Manager should ensure that access to school bus frequented locations is
maintained and that impacts during construction are minimized.
YES
NO
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
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 11

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
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 low-income populations meeting
the criteria for Environmental Justice within the Demographic Study Area (DSA),
and low-income communities were observed within the DCIA during the field
visit on 04/16/2019.
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.
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
An on-site detour will be utilized during construction.
YES
NO

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 12

EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION WORK SCHEDULES
Wilkes County Schools indicated that SR 1002 (Traphill Road) is used to access local schools at
approximately 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Further coordination with Wilkes County Schools is
recommended to evaluate alternative construction work schedules if an on-site detour is utilized.
YES
NO

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS YES
NO

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-0125  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, 06/05/2019
9) Wilkes County Transportation Plan (CTP), 2017
10) High County Bike Plan, 2014
11) The Wilkes Co Growth Management Plan, 2014

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-0125  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
CT 9602, BG 3 1,581 1,524 96.4% 57 3.6% No No
DSA 2,885 2,647 91.8% 238 8.2% 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-0125  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
CT 9602, BG 3 1,581 378 23.9% 219 13.9% 148 9.4% No Yes
DSA 2,885 834 28.9% 219 7.6% 263 9.1% 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-0125  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
CT 9602, BG 3 1,228 16 1.3% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% N/A No
DSA 2,361 25 1.1% - 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-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 17

APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure 1: Bridge 960663 Approach Northbound Figure 2: Property Access Road on Twin Locust Road

Figure 3: East Prong of Roaring River Figure 4: Agricultural Field Southwest of DCIA
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 18

Figure 5: Field Southeast of DCIA Figure 6: Bridge 960663 Approach Southbound

Figure 7: Entrance to South Mountain State Park on John
P. Frank Parkway
Figure 8: WRC Hatchery Supported Trout Water Sign in
DCIA near East Prong of Roaring River

STIP BR-0125  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
02/22/2019

☒ Email
☐ Phone
☐ In-person
☒ Form returned on (03/18/2019)
☐ Interview on (date)
☐ No response
Comments:

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 20

LOCAL PLANNER
Name:
Title:
Agency:
Phone:
Email:
Eddie Barnes
Director
Wilkes County Planning Department
[phone]
[e-mail]
FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD(S) RESULT
02/22/2019

☒ Email
☐ Phone
☐ In-person
☒ Form returned on (06/05/2019)
☐ 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
02/22/2019

☒ Email
☐ Phone
☐ In-person
☒ Form returned on (02/22/2019)
☐ Interview on (date)
☐ No response
Comments:
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 21

Local EMS Input Form
NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local EMS Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0125 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 960663
on SR 1002 (Traphill Road)
over East Prong of Roaring
River.

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 22

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?
LONG DETOUR 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)?
SCHOOL OFFICIALS, MTN. VIEW FIRE DEPARTMENT, TRAPHILL FIRE DEPARTMENT

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.
EMS RESPONSE TIME COULD BE EXTENSIVE DUE TO POTENTIAL LONG DISTANCE OF DETOUR
ROUTES

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 23

Local Planner Input Form

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 24

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 25

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 26

Local Schools Input Form

NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local Schools Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0125 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 960663 on SR 1002
(Traphill Road) over East Prong of Roaring River.

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 27

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. Estimate 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 likely will need to route around bridge closure through Grissel Tail Road and
Twin Locust Road
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).
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.

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 28

APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS

STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  SHORT FORM CIA  July, 2019  page 29

PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACTS – POINT PROJECT

1. Area in non-urban use. Points awarded = 11 out of 15
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 70% of the land within the 1-mile buffer is non-urban.

2. Perimeter in non-urban use. Points awarded = 5 out of 10
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 50% borders on land in non-urban use.

3. Percent of site being farmed. Points awarded = 3 out of 20
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 30% 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 = 0 out of 15
Determined using aerial photography; site is adjacent to the Traphill community.

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 = 0 out of 10
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 = 29 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.

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

June 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-0125: Replace Bridge No. 960663 on SR
1002 (Traphill Road) over the East Prong Roaring River in Wilkes County, North
Carolina.

Mr. Kichefski,

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of Bridge No.
960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road) over the East Prong Roaring River 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 Nathan Howell and Mary
Frazer conducted a site investigation (Figure 1). Seven potential jurisdictional features (five streams
and two wetlands) were identified within the study area (Tables 1-3; Figures 2-3).

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 completed for streams that exhibited degraded conditions. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland determination forms and North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NCWAM) forms are included for each 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
East Prong Roaring River East Prong Roaring River 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr
Unnamed Tributary (UT) to East
Prong Roaring River SA 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr
UT to East Prong Roaring River SB 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr
UT to East Prong Roaring River SC 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr
UT to East Prong Roaring River SD 12-46-4-(7) C; Tr

Table 2. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID Length
(ft.) Classification NCSAM Rating
Compensatory
Mitigation
Required
River Basin
Buffer
East Prong
Roaring River 429 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
SA 457 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
SB 25 Intermittent Medium/Medium Undetermined Not Subject
SC 409 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
SD 367 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
Total 1,687
* 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 Headwater Forest Medium Riparian 0.08
WB Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh Low Riparian 0.02
Total 0.10

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,

Ron Johnson
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Environmental Analysis Unit

Cc: Dave Wanucha, NCDWR

Appendix A

Figures
1FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.)over East Prong Roaring RiverSTIP No. BR-0125Project Vicinity MapWilkes County, North Carolina
EastProngRoaringRiver SR -1002SR-1743 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:JUNE 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 400200 Feet
¯
^_
© OpenStreetMap (and)contributors, CC-BY-SA
Legend
Project Study Area
2FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 663on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.)over East Prong Roaring RiverSTIP No. BR-0125Topographic MapWilkes County, North Carolina
SR-1002 SR-1743USGS 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:JUNE 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 200100 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Intermittent
Perennial
Culvert
East ProngRoaring River
SA
SB
SC
SD
WA
WB
3FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd.)over East Prong Roaring RiverSTIP No. BR-0125Jurisdictional Features MapWilkes County, North Carolina
SR-1002 SR-1743 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:JUNE 2019
18-025
JSMCMR
0 200100 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Intermittent
Perennial
Culvert
East ProngRoaring River
SA
SB
SC
SD
WA
WB

Appendix B

Stream and Wetland Data Forms
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site:Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if • 19 or perennial if • 30*
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_________)Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 01 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _________)
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = _________)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)0123
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
01/09/2019 BR-0125/SB 36.333828
N. Howell, M. Frazer - Three Oaks Wilkes -81.049067
23.5
9.5
7.5
6.5
USACE AID #:NCDWR #:
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream?Yes No
14. Feature type:Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone:Mountains (M)Piedmont (P)Inner Coastal Plain (I)Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for a b
Tidal Marsh Stream):(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope)(less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2)Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2)Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2)Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated?Yes No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Anadromous fish 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached?Yes No
1.Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2.Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not A
3.Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4.Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5.Signs of Active Instability – assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down-cutting (head-cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C > 25% of channel unstable
6.Streamside Area Interaction – streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
A A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down-cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
BR-0125 1/9/2019
36.333828, -81.049067
SB 30
NCDOT 4. Assessor name/organization:N. Howell, M. Frazer - Three Oaks
Wilkes
Yadkin-PeeDee East Prong Roaring River
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
INSTRUCTIONS:Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs.Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle,and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation.If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property,identify and number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach.See the NC SAM User
2-4
2-4
7.Water Quality Stressors – assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other:(explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8.Recent Weather – watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10.Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a.Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent H Low-tide refugia (pools)
vegetation I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
11.Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a.Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b.Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c.In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) =
absent, Rare (R) = present but ≤ 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d.Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
12.Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a.Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b.Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles (including water pennies)
Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
Asian clam (Corbicula )
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans (true flies)
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia ) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13.Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14.Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15.Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16.Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom-release dam)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17.Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18.Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19.Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
E E E E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20.Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21.Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22.Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23.Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24.Vegetative Composition – First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25.Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a.Yes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b.Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A <46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230
Notes/Sketch:
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
NO
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NO
NA
NA
LOW
Stream Site Name
MEDIUM
NA
BR-0125 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
Howell, M. Frazer - Three O
1/9/2019
NO
YES
NO
Intermittent
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
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
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
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:
4
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:BR-0125 Traphill/Wilkes
WA WET
1/9/2019
NCDOT NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:---N. Howell, M. Frazer - Three Oaks Eng.
1-3concavefloodplain
Datum:NAD 83-81.04875836.334038LRR P, MLRA 136
PSSNWI classification:Tate-Cullowhee, frequently flooded complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes (TcC)
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.X
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 FACU
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)Within Wetland
=Total Cover
OBLYes
2
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
20
60
20
40
Multiply by:
0
2.40Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
4
410
10
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 )
Lonicera japonica
20
20
Carex lurida 20
20
Acer rubrum
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Absent
Within Wetland )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes 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
66.7%
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
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
120
0
50
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):
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
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
85 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 5/1
10YR 4/2 10YR 4/4
10YR 4/46-12
0-6
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.
%%
M20
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
15 M
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 X , 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
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
Land had been cleared in the past; sparsely vegetated now
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:
6
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:BR-0125 Traphill/Wilkes
WB WET
1/9/2019
NCDOT NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:---N. Howell, M. Frazer - Three Oaks Eng.
1-3concavefloodplain
Datum:NAD 83-81.04975436.333242LRR P, MLRA 136
PEMNWI classification:Dan River and Comus soils, 0 to 4 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (DaA)
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.X
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
FACYes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
120
0
0
Multiply by:
0
3.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
40
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
820
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
40
Microstegium vimineum 40
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
WB WET
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
120
0
40
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):
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
85 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 4/2
10YR 4/3 10YR 4/4
10YR 4/44-12
0-4
WB 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
Faint redox concentrations
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
15 M
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.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
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)
City/County:BR-0125 Traphill/Wilkes
WA/WB UPL
1/9/2019
NCDOT NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:---N. Howell, M. Frazer - Three Oaks Eng.
5-10nonehillslope
Datum:NAD 83-81.04865536.333992LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes, stony (RgD)
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
>12
>12
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
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?
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)
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)
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.
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
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
WA/WB UPL
1
5
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
290
0
75
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
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
20.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
20
Acer rubrum
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Liriodendron tulipifera
30 Feet )
20
Indicator
Status
20
Dominant
Species?
Yes
10
10
Ligustrum sinense
Polystichum acrostichoides 20
30 Feet
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.
30 Feet )
Lonicera japonica
20
4
410
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
10
65
(A)
(B)
(A)
30
0
260
Multiply by:
0
3.87Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Yes FACU
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10 4 0
Yes FACU
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30 Feet
=Total Cover
FACUYes
38
=Total Cover15
15 Yes FACU
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
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)
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)
%Texture
WA/WB 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.
%
Matrix
10YR 4/40-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
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)
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
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.)
36.334038, -81.048758
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
East Prong Roaring River
N. Howell/M. Frazer - 3 Oaks
WA
1/9/2019Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Level III Ecoregion
03040101
Winston-SalemNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Wilkes
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
Piedmont
River Basin
Applicant/Owner Name NCDOT
BR-0125
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.
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).
Well
WC
Loosely
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
Rating
LOW
HIGH
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WA
. Howell/M. Frazer - 3 OakHeadwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
1/9/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
LOW
LOW
Rating
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
HIGH
NO
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NO
LOW
NA
HIGH
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-0125
03040101
Winston-SalemNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Wilkes
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
East Prong Roaring River
N. Howell/M. Frazer - 3 Oaks
WB
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.)
36.333242, -81.049754
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.
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).
Well
WC
Loosely
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
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
YES
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WB
. Howell/M. Frazer - 3 OakNon-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
1/9/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
NA
NA
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES

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
Ron Johnson
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.
13.8
✔
✔
✔
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/
36.332542
-81.049778
✔
✔
✔
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)
See Attached List
6/6/2019
Ron Johnson, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
NC Wilkes Traphill
36.332542 -81.049778
17
East Prong Roaring River
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 terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit)or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or 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
Three Oaks aquatic resources in the review area which “may be” subject to regulatory jurisdiction
Site
Number Latitude Longitude
Estimated
amount of
aquatic
resource in
review area
(lf & ac)
Type of aquatic
resource
Geographic
authority to
which the
aquatic resource
“may be”
subject
East Prong
Roaring
River
36.33258373700 -81.04976366200 429 linear feet Non-wetland-
Perennial Stream Section 404
SA 36.33412392570 -81.04885230170 457 linear feet Non-wetland-
Perennial Stream Section 404
SB 36.33382792230 -81.04906709800 25 linear feet Non-wetland-
Intermittent Stream Section 404
SC 36.33326968880 -81.04965731640 409 linear feet Non-wetland-
Perennial Stream Section 404
SD 36.33273801640 -81.04940175460 367 linear feet Non-wetland-
Perennial Stream Section 404
WA 36.33403846860 -81.04875831740 0.08 acre Wetland Section 404
WB 36.33324199770 -81.04975444940 0.02 acre Wetland Section 404

STIP BR-0125  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 = 11 out of 15
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 70% of the land within the 1-mile buffer is non-urban.

2. Perimeter in non-urban use. Points awarded = 5 out of 10
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 50% borders on land in non-urban use.

3. Percent of site being farmed. Points awarded = 3 out of 20
Estimated using aerial photography; approximately 30% 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 = 0 out of 15
Determined using aerial photography; site is adjacent to the Traphill community.

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 = 0 out of 10
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 = 29 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-0125  Wilkes County  NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating  July, 2019  page 2

Sources
US Census. Census of Agriculture. 2012. County Data. North Carolina. Wilkes County. Accessed
6/14/2019.
(https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/North_Carolina/
st37_2_001_001.pdfhttps://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/North_Car
olina/cp37097.pdf)

Wilkes County. GIS Application. Wilkes County, NC. Accessed 6/14/2019.
(https://gis.wilkescounty.net/main/#)

Legal Information Institute. Section 658.5- Criteria. Accessed 6/14/2019.
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/658.5)
STIP BR-0125  Wilkes County  NCRS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating  July, 2019  page 3

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-0125 FIELD REVIEW MEETING DATE: 04/17/2019
DIVISION: 11 LOCATION: 36.33256, -81.04977
COUNTY: Wilkes
ROUTE (US / NC / SR): SR 1002
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace bridge No. 960663 over East Prong Raoring River
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Local
TIER: Sub- Regional
MPO / RPO AREA:
MUNICIPALITY:

ATTENDEES

NAME (PRINT)

PHONE No

E-MAIL
DIVISION CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
AREA BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEER

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: East prong Roaring River
(BRIDGE / CULVERT) LENGTH 151 (FT.) DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT) 28.33 (FT.)
WATER DEPTH: 4 (FT.) HEIGHT BED-TO-CROWN: 24 (FT.)
PRIOR SURVEY DATE: POSTED: SV TTST:
STRUCTURE TYPE: RC deck on I beams
SPAN TYPE: RC deck
SUFFICIENCY RATING: 62.85
POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN PROJECT VICINITY: 55 (MPH / STATUTORY 55MPH)
DETOUR: OFF-SITE NO ON-SITE Re-alignment 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, EMS
noted moderate 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, verify
POWER TRANSMISSION LINES NO IN CONFLICT NO
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 5-6 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? Yes IS PROTECTION NEEDED? Yes
DOES STREAM CARRY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF LARGE DEBRIS? No
WILL THE PLACEMENT OF BENTS IN THE WATER BE ALLOWED No COMMENTS
WERE HYDRAULIC ALTERNATIVES BESIDES A BRIDGE CONSIDERED No COMMENTS
POSSIBLE SPAN LAYOUT: 50 FT – 60 FT – 50 FT (160 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 1,500

% TRUCKS/DUALS
-L- DESIGN YEAR (2040) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2,000 % 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: Two wetlands identified during field work within project study area.
KNOWN ENDANGERED SPECIES POPULATIONS IN AREA No COMMENTS: Brook Floater mussel possible
TROUT OR TVA COUNTY Yes COMMENTS: Within USACE Trout Watershed; East Prong Roaring River within PSA
listed as WRC Hatchery Supported Trout Water north of Traphill Road.
CAMA COUNTY No PRIMARY NURSERY AREA No
MORATORIA Yes IF YES-DURATION Trout - October to April (may not be issue due to wild trout)
COMMENTS:
IS WATER FEATURE CLASSIFIED AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER No COMMENTS:
WHAT IS THE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT: Class C, Tr; East Prong Roaring River
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
No
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 None
ANY CLARIFICATION OR COMMENTS ON ITEMS ABOVE: possible need to coordinate with local tribes (review permit
application)
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 4 (FT) PAVED SHOULDER WIDTH 2 (FT)
CLEAR ROADWAY ON STRUCTURE 30 (FT)
WILL EXISTING DRIVEWAYS, BUSINESS ACCESS, -Y- LINES OR RAMPS NEED TO BE RELOCATED No
COMMENTS:
IS THERE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY / PERMANENT EASEMEN TS / TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ANTICIPATED FOR
CONSTRUCTION Yes COMMENT
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED Possibly to avoid tributary
IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF RELOCATEES No IF SO, DESCRIBE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

STRUCTURE DESIGN UNIT (COMPLETED BY THE STRUCTURE DESIGN UNIT PRIOR TO THE FSM)
POSSIBLE SUPERSTRUCTURE:
TYPE: 24” Cored Slab
NUMBER OF SPANS 3 LENGTH OF SPANS 50 – 60 – 50 (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: anticipating new alignment / possible staging of existing bridge
TOP-DOWN Yes
(WORK BRIDGE / CAUSEWAY) PROPOSED LOCATION RELATIVE TO EXISTING STRUCTURE: No
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, possibly
ARE CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS AVAILABLE NEAR SITE Yes
ANY ANTICIPATED AREAS OF TEMPORARY SHORING REQUIRED Possibly
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: staging bridge will limit construction staging area available
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED / RESOLVED AT FSM BY ATTENDEES
LIST ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED BY ROADWAY DESIGN:
1) Eastern Re-alignment
2) Stage existing bridge
3)

DESCRIBE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DECIDED UPON, WHY CERTAIN
ALTERANTIVES WERE REJECTED, AND IF AN ALTERNATIVE WAS SELECTED, WHY.
New alignment on the east side preferred.
Staged construction secondary and only if required.

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: Remove Riprap fill in stream during
demo of existing bridge

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: 06/25/19 DATE ASSIGNED: # of Alternates Requested: 1
DATE DUE: 07/31/19
TIP No.: BR-0125
DESCRIPTION: Replace bridge # 960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Rd) over East Prong of Roaring River
WBS ELEMENT: 67125.1.1 COUNTY: Wilkes DIV: 11 APPRAISAL OFFICE: 3
REQUESTOR: Marissa Lenoce DEPT: STV
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: Tommy Nance COMPLETED: 07/12/19 # of Alternates Completed: 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: $ 15,713
ACQUISTION: $ 7,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED R/W COST: $ 23,213

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

NOTES:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Study Criteria Summary
WILKES All and Rural
SR 1002 (Traphill Rd) from 760 ft W of Bridge 663 to 700 ft E of Bridge 663
Date:
County:City:
Location:
to5/1/2014 4/30/2019 Study:WILKES663
Report Details
Total
Damage
Injuries
F A B C Ch CiAccident TypeDateCrash ID
Acc
No Milepost
Condition
R L W
Trfc Ctl
Dv Op
Road
1 104752791 05/29/2016
14:50
FIXED OBJECT 7000 0 0 1 0 1 1$13.440 1 7 0 10 1
Unit Alchl/Drgs:Dir:Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn:Obj Strk:Speed:MPH1055 S 4 33:1
2 104101711 07/11/2014
22:20
ANIMAL 500 0 0 0 0 1 5$13.460 1 1 0 13 1
Unit Alchl/Drgs:Dir:Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn:Obj Strk:Speed:MPH1050 W 4 17:1
3 104825040 08/20/2016
00:08
FIXED OBJECT 4500 0 0 1 0 1 5$13.470 2 5 0 10 1
Unit Alchl/Drgs:Dir:Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn:Obj Strk:Speed:MPH2355 NE 4 37:1
4 105454043 04/19/2018
19:46
FIXED OBJECT 1800 0 0 0 0 1 5$13.470 1 7 0 13 1
Unit Alchl/Drgs:Dir:Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn:Obj Strk:Speed:MPH1045 N 4 59:1
5 104660066 02/28/2016
19:42
ANIMAL 3000 0 0 0 0 1 1$13.540 1 7 0 13 1
Unit Alchl/Drgs:Dir:Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn:Obj Strk:Speed:MPH1050 E 4 17:1
6 104124423 08/07/2014
09:08
REAR END, SLOW OR
STOP
5500 0 0 0 0 1 1$13.640 1 7 0 9 1
Unit Alchl/Drgs:Dir:Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn:Obj Strk:Speed:MPH1030 W 4:1
Unit Alchl/Drgs:Dir:Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn:Obj Strk:Speed:MPH105 W 12:2
Legend for
Report Details:
Acc No - Accident Number
Injuries: F - Fatal, A - Class A, B - Class B, C - Class C
Condition: R - Road Surface, L - Ambient Light, W - Weather
Rd Ch - Road Character
Rd Ci - Roadway Contributing Circumstances
Trfc Ctl - Traffic Control: Dv - Device, Op - Operating
Alchl/Drgs - Alcohol Drugs Suspected
Veh Mnvr/Ped Actn - Vehicle Maneuver/Pedestrian Action
Obj Strk - Object Struck
06/12/2019 -1-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Summary Statistics
High Level Crash Summary
Crash Type
Number of
Crashes
Percent
of Total
6 100.00Total Crashes
0 0.00Fatal Crashes
2 33.33Non-Fatal Injury Crashes
2 33.33Total Injury Crashes
4 66.67Property Damage Only Crashes
3 50.00Night Crashes
0 0.00Wet Crashes
0 0.00Alcohol/Drugs Involvement Crashes
Crash Severity Summary
Crash Type
Number of
Crashes
Percent
of Total
100.006Total Crashes
0.000Fatal Crashes
0.000Class A Crashes
33.332Class B Crashes
0.000Class C Crashes
66.674Property Damage Only Crashes
Vehicle Exposure Statistics
1700Annual ADT =
0.305 (Miles)Total Length =0.491 (Kilometers)
0.95 (MVMT)Total Vehicle Exposure =1.52 (MVKMT)
Crash Rate
Crashes Per 100 Million
Vehicle Miles
Crashes Per 100 Million
Vehicle Kilometers
Total Crash Rate 633.73 393.78
Fatal Crash Rate 0.00 0.00
Non Fatal Crash Rate 211.24 131.26
Night Crash Rate 316.86 196.89
Wet Crash Rate 0.00 0.00
EPDO Rate 2196.92 1365.10
06/12/2019 -2-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Miscellaneous Statistics
3.47Severity Index =
20.80EPDO Crash Index =
22300.00Estimated Property Damage Total = $
Accident Type Summary
Accident Type
Number of
Crashes
Percent
of Total
ANIMAL 2 33.33
FIXED OBJECT 3 50.00
REAR END, SLOW OR STOP 1 16.67
Injury Summary
Percent
of Total
Number of
InjuriesInjury Type
Fatal Injuries 0 0.00
Class A Injuries 0 0.00
Class B Injuries 2 100.00
Class C Injuries 0 0.00
Total Non-Fatal Injuries 2 100.00
Total Injuries 2 100.00
06/12/2019 -3-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Monthly Summary
Month
Number of
Crashes
Percent
of Total
Jan 0 0.00
Feb 1 16.67
Mar 0 0.00
Apr 1 16.67
May 1 16.67
Jun 0 0.00
Jul 1 16.67
Aug 2 33.33
Sep 0 0.00
Oct 0 0.00
Nov 0 0.00
Dec 0 0.00
Daily Summary
Number of
CrashesDay
Percent
of Total
Mon 0 0.00
Tue 0 0.00
Wed 0 0.00
Thu 2 33.33
Fri 1 16.67
Sat 1 16.67
Sun 2 33.33
06/12/2019 -4-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Hourly Summary
Number of
CrashesHour
Percent
of Total
0000-0059 1 16.67
0100-0159 0 0.00
0200-0259 0 0.00
0300-0359 0 0.00
0400-0459 0 0.00
0500-0559 0 0.00
0600-0659 0 0.00
0700-0759 0 0.00
0800-0859 0 0.00
0900-0959 1 16.67
1000-1059 0 0.00
1100-1159 0 0.00
1200-1259 0 0.00
1300-1359 0 0.00
1400-1459 1 16.67
1500-1559 0 0.00
1600-1659 0 0.00
1700-1759 0 0.00
1800-1859 0 0.00
1900-1959 2 33.33
2000-2059 0 0.00
2100-2159 0 0.00
2200-2259 1 16.67
2300-2359 0 0.00
06/12/2019 -5-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Light and Road Conditions Summary
Condition Dry Wet Other Total
Day 3 0 0 3
Dark 3 0 0 3
Other 0 0 0 0
Total 6 0 0 6
Object Struck Summary
Object Type
Times
Struck
Percent
of Total
ANIMAL 2 40.00
EMBANKMENT 1 20.00
OFFICIAL HIGHWAY SIGN NON-BREAKAWAY 1 20.00
TREE 1 20.00
Vehicle Type Summary
Number
Involved
Percent
of TotalVehicle Type
PASSENGER CAR 6 85.71
PICKUP 1 14.29
06/12/2019 -6-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Accident Totals
Yearly Totals Summary
Year
Total
Accidents
Fatal
Accidents
Injury
Accidents
Property Damage
Only Accidents
2014 2 0 0 2
2015 0 0 0 0
2016 3 0 2 1
2017 0 0 0 0
2018 1 0 0 1
2019 0 0 0 0
Total 6 0 2 4
Injury Totals
Year Fatal Injuries
Class A, B,
or C Injuries
2014 0 0
2015 0 0
2016 0 2
2017 0 0
2018 0 0
2019 0 0
Total 0 2
Miscellaneous Totals
Year Property Damage EPDO Index
2.0020146000$
0.0020150$
17.80201614500$
0.0020170$
1.0020181800$
0.0020190$
20.80Total22300$
Type of Accident Totals
Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End
Run Off Road &
Fixed Object Side Swipe OtherAngle
2014 0 0 1 0 0 10
2015 0 0 0 0 0 00
06/12/2019 -7-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Year Left Turn Right Turn Rear End
Run Off Road &
Fixed Object Side Swipe OtherAngle
2016 0 0 0 2 0 10
2017 0 0 0 0 0 00
2018 0 0 0 1 0 00
2019 0 0 0 0 0 00
Total 0 0 1 3 0 20
06/12/2019 -8-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Strip Analysis Report
Strip Diagram
Features Milepost Crash IDs
BEGIN LIMITS 760' W OF BRIDGE 663 13.40
13.41
13.42
13.43
13.44 104752791
13.45
13.46 104101711
13.47 104825040 | 105454043
13.48
13.49
13.50
13.51
13.52
13.53
13.54 104660066
13.55
Structure:960663 13.56
13.57
13.58
13.59
13.60
13.61
13.62
13.63
SR 1743 13.64 104124423
13.65
13.66
13.67
13.68
13.69
END LIMITS 700' E OF BRIDGE 663 13.70
06/12/2019 -9-All data presented in this report comes explicitly from the Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System based upon various input
criteria provided by the report's creator. The onus is strictly upon the user of this report to exercise due diligence in interpreting
and further representing this data.
Sources and Uses of Funds for the GREATTER-NC ProgramSummaryDesignROWUtilitiesConstruction TotalNon-federal sources46,613$ 18,645$ 18,645$ 466,140$ 550,043$ 3,138,800$ BUILD219,387$ 87,755$ 87,755$ 2,193,860$ 2,588,757$ Other federal-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 960663
STR_No Total Total Injury Fatal A_Inj B_Inj C_Inj PDO UnkAADT (2016)Truck%Crash Reduction - Total CrashesCrash Reduction - Total Injury Crashes (K,A,B,C)9606633100102015006%0.660.32
Bridge Traffic Review Sheet
TIP:BR‐0125
County: Wilkes
Bridge Number and Location: BRIDGE 960663 ON SR1002 OVER E PRONG ROARING RIVER
Reviewer: Keith Dixon
Date: 10/2/2018
Base Year:2016
Base Year AADT Estimate 1500
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 1756
Model 2040 Output 2404
Wilkes County 2040 Model CAGR:1.2%
2040 AADT Projection:2000
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]
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: 67125.1.1 (BR-0125)
COUNTY: Wilkes
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge 663 on SR 1002 over East Prong Roaring River

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 entirely in the
alluvial floodplain of the East Prong of the Roaring River. Embankment is currently at 12-15’
with silty sand, gravel and cobbles. The alluvium consists of silty sand, cobbles and boulders.
Rock is exposed in the existing cut 100’ to the NE from existing.

The GEU recommends replacement upstream of the existing. This will involve 20-25’ cuts in soil
for realignment in the SW corner but less rock and associated blasting issues are expected.
Cuts will be in silty sand soils derived from the gneiss ic rock units. These will be recommended
at 2:1.

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

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
PDR Summary
Field reconnaissance for Bridge 960663 in Wilkes County, NC was performed on
03/14/2019. Due to high traffic and bridge height sounding from the guardrail was not performed
but measurements to the low chord were made from under the bridge so that existing ground under
the bridge can be estimated accurately.
The stream bed was observed to have cobbles and sand. The over banks comprised of
loamy/sandy soils. No identifiable migration of the stream was observed. The stream banks do not
show significant signs of erosion. The floodplain is well vegetated, and the drainage area is rural.
After preliminary analysis of the bridge opening in HEC-RAS, it is recommended that the
existing low chord elevation be maintained at a minimum. Raising the low chord above the existing
low chord elevation is not a concern. If the existing roadway grade is being maintained in the
proposed condition, a 160 LF overall length is recommended to meet the 10’ setback requirements.
If the proposed roadway grade is to be raised higher, the overall length will need to be increased
to meet the setback requirements. Span arrangement for the structure will be finalized after
discussions with the Division.
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
1742
1786
1943
1784
1943
1749
1784
1749
1737
1741
1940
1941
1781
1002
1938
1002 1943
1944
1947
1946
1749
1002
1002
1941
1737
1743
1002
19
1939
1939
1939
1943
Combs Knob
Twin Knobs
Elevation 1715
Elevation 1906
Traphill
1
.09 .55.67.42.49.66.38.43
.25 .6
.30.15.56
.87.06
.06
1.56.37.651.27.61
1.
1
9
2.1
4
.561.
7
0
.68.16 1.06
.30
.77.88
.2
7
.32
.26 .44 .82.86.8
1Grissel
Tai
l
RdTraphill-Brown Rd
Lo
n
g
bott
o
m Rd
Gris
s
el Tail Rd Twi
n Locust
RdTraphill Estates RdTraphill Rd
Traphill Rd
Roundhill Church RdTraphill Mill RdTraphill RdJohn P Frank PkyTraphill Rd
Billings Hill Church RdR C RdBaugess Mill RBillings Hill Church RdBil
l
i
ngs Hil
l
Church RdBrewer Mill Rd
Brewer Mill Rd
Sa
n
d
y Cr
e
e
k Rd
Happy Corner Rd
Christian Home Rd
C
hristia
n Ho
me Rd
Traphill Rd Traphill RdAlleghany Spur RdAlleghany Spur RdJohn P FrMosswood Rd Elem.
Traphill
LittleSandyCr.Sparks
Creek
PRONGR
O
A
RI
N
G
ARING
RI
VE
R
RI
V
E
R
Bridge Location (960663)
BR 0125
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 0 0 2 9 9 7 7 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 2 6 9 , -8 1 .0 4 9 6 8
T i m e :2 0 1 9 -0 2 -2 5 1 2 :0 0 :4 4 -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 2 7 .7 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 1 4 .6 9 3 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 8 5 .3 0 7 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 .2 6 p e r c e n t
Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [85 Percent (23.5 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 2 7 .7 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 1 4 .6 9 3 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 8 5 .3 0 7 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 [85 Percent (23.5 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 1 4 4 0 f t ^3 /s 8 3 1 2 5 1 0 3 4 .5
5 Ye a r P e a k F l o o d 2 4 9 0 f t ^3 /s 1 4 4 0 4 3 0 0 3 4
1 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 3 2 9 0 f t ^3 /s 1 8 7 0 5 7 7 0 3 5 .1
2 5 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 4 3 5 0 f t ^3 /s 2 3 9 0 7 9 1 0 3 7 .5
5 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 5 1 4 0 f t ^3 /s 2 7 4 0 9 6 6 0 3 9 .6
1 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 6 0 6 0 f t ^3 /s 3 1 2 0 1 1 8 0 0 4 1 .9
2 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 6 8 6 0 f t ^3 /s 3 4 1 0 1 3 8 0 0 4 4 .3
5 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 8 1 1 0 f t ^3 /s 3 8 4 0 1 7 1 0 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
.1 MI.S.JCT.SR1743
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT UNIT
ATTENTION:PRIORITY MAINT; SPAN LENGTHS REVISED; DECK
OUT-TO-OUT REVISED
Structure Safety Report
Routine Element Inspection - Contract
COUNTY:WILKES STRUCTURE NUMBER:960663 FREQUENCY:24 MONTHS
FACILITY CARRIED:SR1002 MILE POST:
LOCATION:
FEATURE INTERSECTED:E.PRONG ROARING RIVER
LATITUDE:36° 19' 57.05"LONGITUDE:81° 2' 59.3"
INSPECTED BY
ERIC A. PATTERSON
ASSISTED BY KEITH PROCTORSIGNATURE
SOUTH APPROACH
REINFORCED CONCRETE FLOOR ON I-BEAMSSUPERSTRUCTURE:
E.BTS&INT.BTS:RC CAPS/TIM.POST & CONC.SILLS @ 6' CTS.SUBSTRUCTURE:
1 @ 37'-10,2 @ 37'-6,1 @ 37'-10SPANS:
1 @ 37'-10",2 @ 37'-6",1 @ 37'-10"
POSTED SV:24 POSTED TTST:31
PRESENT CONDITION:Fair INSPECTION DATE:01/19/2017
OTHER SIGNS PRESENT:(3) DELINEATORS
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 S-N
DIRECTION
MATCHES PLANS NO PLANS
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 4270 600 1327 2343 0
107 0 Steel Open Girder/Beam Beam 584 552 30 2 0
515 107 Steel Protective Coating Beam 3468 3404 0 64 0
228 0 Timber Pile Piles and Columns 23 20 3 0 0
234 0 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Caps 168 130 6 32 0
301 0 Pourable Joint Seal Expansion Joints 140 127 0 13 0
316 0 Other Bearings Bearing Device 32 0 32 0 0
515 316 Steel Protective Coating Bearing Device 96 64 0 0 32
331 0 Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing Bridge Rail 304 304 0 0 0
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date 1/19/2017
Summary of Maintenance Needs
Maintenance By Defect
MMS
Code Element Name Defect Name Recommended Quantity
3326 Reinforced Concrete Deck Cracking (RC and Other)Square Feet2133
3326 Reinforced Concrete Deck Delamination/Spall Square Feet240
3314 Steel Open Girder/Beam Corrosion Feet2
3344 Timber Pile Split/Delamination (Timber)Each6
3348 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Cracking (RC and Other)Feet26
3348 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Delamination/Spall Feet48
3310 Pourable Joint Seal Leakage Feet13
3342 Steel Protective Coating Effectiveness (Steel Protective Coatings)Square Feet96
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Element Structure Maintenance Quantities
Location
MMS
Code Description
Total
Quantity
Severe
Quantity
Poor
Quantity
Fair
Quantity
Good
Quantity
Maint
Quantity
Beam 3314 Maintenance Steel Superstructure Components 2 5525843020
Beam 3342 Clean and Paint Steel 64 340434680640
Bearing Device 3334 Bridge Bearing 0 0323200
Bearing Device 3342 Clean and Paint Steel 32 64960032
Bridge Rail 3318 Maintenance of Concrete Bridge Rail 0 304304000
Caps 3348 Maintenance of Concrete Substructure 74 1301686320
Deck 3326 Maintenance of Concrete Deck 2373 6004270132723430
Expansion Joints 3310 Maintenance of Standard Bridge Expansion Joints 13 1271400130
Piles and Columns 3344 Maintenance To Timber Substrcutre 6 2023300
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date 01/19/2017
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 1,072 150 0723199 Square Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, PATTERN MAP
CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W.
3 60012 Square Feet600
Cracking (RC and
Other)
TRANSVERSE CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W, SCATTERED 3 12312 Square Feet123
Abrasion/Wear
(PSC/RC)
COARSE AGGREGATE IS EXPOSED IN THE TOP OF THE
DECK, SCATTERED.
212 Square Feet159
Delamination/Spall SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 30SQFT
OF SCALING/SPALLING UP TO 0.5"D.
2 3012 Square Feet30
Patched Areas SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 10SQFT
OF SOUND PATCHING.
212 Square Feet10
General Comments
Span 1 Expansion Joint
Standard Joint
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
301 Pourable Joint Seal 28 28 000 Feet
General Comments
NOT VISIBLE
Span 1 Beam 1
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 37 35 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 218 214 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 1 Beam 2
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 37 35 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 218 214 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 3
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 37 35 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 218 214 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 4
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 37 35 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 218 214 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 1 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 1 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 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 1,063 150 0710203 Square Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, PATTERN MAP
CRACKING UP TO 3/32"W.
3 50012 Square Feet500
Cracking (RC and
Other)
TRANSVERSE CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W, SCATTERED 3 15012 Square Feet150
Delamination/Spall SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 60SQFT
OF SCALING/SPALLING UP TO 0.5"D.
3 6012 Square Feet60
Abrasion/Wear
(PSC/RC)
COARSE AGGREGATE IS EXPOSED IN THE TOP OF THE
DECK, SCATTERED.
212 Square Feet153
Patched Areas SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 50SQFT
OF SOUND PATCHING.
212 Square Feet50
General Comments
Span 2 Beam 1
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 37 35 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 219 215 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 2 Beam 2
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 37 35 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 219 215 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 2 Beam 3
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 37 35 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 219 215 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 2 Beam 4
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 37 35 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 219 215 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 2 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 2 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 2 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 2 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 2 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 2 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 2 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 2 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 2 Expansion Joint
Standard Joint
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
301 Pourable Joint Seal 28 24 040 Feet
Leakage SCATTERED ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE SEAL,
DEBONDED AREAS ALLOW WATER TO FLOW THROUGH
THE JOINT.
3 4301 Feet4
General Comments
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 1,063 150 0800113 Square Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, PATTERN MAP
CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W.
3 60012 Square Feet600
Cracking (RC and
Other)
TRANSVERSE CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W, SCATTERED 3 10012 Square Feet100
Delamination/Spall SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 60SQFT
OF SCALING/SPALLING UP TO 0.75"D WITH SOME
EXPOSED RESTEEL IN AREAS OF SHALLOW COVER
(APPROX 2SQFT).
3 10012 Square Feet100
Abrasion/Wear
(PSC/RC)
COARSE AGGREGATE IS EXPOSED IN THE TOP OF THE
DECK, SCATTERED.
212 Square Feet13
Patched Areas SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 50SQFT
OF SOUND PATCHING.
212 Square Feet100
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 3 Beam 1
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 38 36 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 227 223 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 3 Beam 2
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 38 36 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 227 223 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 3 Beam 3
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 38 36 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 227 223 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 3 Beam 4
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 38 36 011 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 227 223 040 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM END AT BENT 3, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
7/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L.
PMAINT.
3 1107 Feet1
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 3 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 3 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 3 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 3 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 3 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 3 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 3 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 3 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 3 Expansion Joint
Standard Joint
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
301 Pourable Joint Seal 28 23 050 Feet
Leakage SCATTERED ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE SEAL,
DEBONDED AREAS ALLOW WATER TO FLOW THROUGH
THE JOINT.
3 5301 Feet5
General Comments
Span 4 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 1,072 150 0110812 Square Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
TRANSVERSE CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W, SCATTERED 3 6012 Square Feet60
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Cracking (RC and
Other)
TRANSVERSE CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W, SCATTERED 3 6012 Square Feet60
Delamination/Spall SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 50SQFT
OF SCALING/SPALLING UP TO 0.5"D.
3 5012 Square Feet50
Abrasion/Wear
(PSC/RC)
COARSE AGGREGATE IS EXPOSED IN THE TOP OF THE
DECK, SCATTERED.
212 Square Feet282
Cracking (RC and
Other)
SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, PATTERN MAP
CRACKING UP TO 1/32"W.
212 Square Feet500
Patched Areas SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 30SQFT
OF SOUND PATCHING.
212 Square Feet30
General Comments
Span 4 Beam 1
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 34 32 011 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 203 199 040 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG
1/4" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L.
PMAINT.
3 1107 Feet1
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 4 Beam 2
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 34 32 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 203 199 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 4 Beam 3
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 34 32 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 203 199 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 4 Beam 4
Plate Girder
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
107 Steel Open Girder/Beam 34 32 002 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 203 199 040 Square Feet
Corrosion AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
2107 Feet2
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS
INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST.
3 4515 Square Feet4
General Comments
Span 4 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 4 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 4 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 4 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 4 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 4 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 4 Near Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 4 Far Bearing
Other Bearing
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
316 Other Bearings 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 3 2 100 Square Feet
Corrosion SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
2316 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
SURFACE CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC
LOSS.
4 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 4 Expansion Joint
Standard Joint
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
301 Pourable Joint Seal 28 24 040 Feet
Leakage SCATTERED ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE SEAL,
DEBONDED AREAS ALLOW WATER TO FLOW THROUGH
THE JOINT.
3 4301 Feet4
General Comments
Span 4 Expansion Joint
Standard Joint
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
301 Pourable Joint Seal 28 28 000 Feet
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
General Comments
NOT VISIBLE
Bent 1 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 28 20 080 Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
MAP CRACKING UP TO 1/8"W IS SCATTERED ACROSS THE
CAP.
3 8234 Feet8
General Comments
Bent 1 Timber Pile 3
Timber Pile
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
228 Timber Pile 1 0 001 Each
Split/Delamination
(Timber)
APPROX 2' UP FROM THE GROUNDLINE FOR 2'L,
SPLITTING/DELAM APPROX 2"W X UP TO 1.5"D.
2 2228 Each1
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 28 16 0120 Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
MAP CRACKING UP TO 1/8"W IS SCATTERED ACROSS THE
CAP.
3 6234 Feet6
Delamination/Spall LT END OF THE CAP, LOWER SIDE, APPROX 6SQFT OF
DELAM WITH CRACKING UP TO 1/4".
3 6234 Feet6
General Comments
End 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 42 36 006 Feet
Delamination/Spall STREAM FACE OF CAP IN BAY 1, APPROX 6SQFT DELAM 2 6234 Feet6
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Bent 2 Timber Pile 2
Timber Pile
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
228 Timber Pile 1 0 001 Each
Split/Delamination
(Timber)
APPROX 1' UP FROM THE GROUNDLINE FOR 3'L,
SPLITTING/DELAM APPROX 2"W X UP TO 1"D.
2 3228 Each1
General Comments
Bent 3 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 28 16 0120 Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
RT END OF THE CAP, LOWER SIDE, SCATTERED MAP
CRACKING UP TO 1/8"W.
3 12234 Feet6
Delamination/Spall LT END OF THE CAP ON ALL FACES, SPALLING UP TO 2"D
WITH EXPOSED RESTEEL. RESTEEL HAS LAYERED RUST
AND PITTING UP TO 1/16". PMAINT.
3 36234 Feet6
General Comments
Bent 3 Timber Pile 3
Timber Pile
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
228 Timber Pile 1 0 001 Each
Split/Delamination
(Timber)
APPROX 2' UP FROM THE GROUNDLINE, APPROX 0.5SQFT
DELAM UP TO 0.75"D.
2 1228 Each1
General Comments
Structure Number:960663 Inspection Date:01/19/2017
Span 1 Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck 1072
Span 1 Beam 1 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 37
Span 1 Beam 2 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 37
Span 1 Beam 3 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 37
Span 1 Beam 4 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 37
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 38
Span 1 Right Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 38
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 1063
Span 2 Beam 1 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 37
Span 2 Beam 2 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 37
Span 2 Beam 3 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 37
Span 2 Beam 4 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 37
Span 2 Left Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 38
Span 2 Right Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 38
Span 2 Expansion Joint Standard Joint Pourable Joint Seal 28
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 1063
Span 3 Beam 1 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 38
Span 3 Beam 2 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 38
Span 3 Beam 3 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 38
Span 3 Beam 4 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 38
Span 3 Left Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 40
Span 3 Right Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 40
Span 3 Expansion Joint Standard Joint Pourable Joint Seal 28
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
Elements Verfied
Location Name Component Element Name Amount
Span 3 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 3 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 4 Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck 1072
Span 4 Beam 1 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 34
Span 4 Beam 2 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 34
Span 4 Beam 3 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 34
Span 4 Beam 4 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 34
Span 4 Left Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 36
Span 4 Right Bridge Rail Concrete Railing Reinforced Concrete Bridge Railing 36
Span 4 Expansion Joint Standard Joint Pourable Joint Seal 28
Span 4 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 4 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 4 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 4 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 4 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 4 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 4 Far Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Span 4 Near Bearing Other Bearing Other Bearings 1
Bent 1 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 28
Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 1 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 42
Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 28
Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 42
Bent 3 Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap Reinforced Concrete Pier Cap 28
Bent 3 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 3 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 3 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 3 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Bent 3 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
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
6
6
7
N
7
6
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
P
G
F
20
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
Y
14
0
0
Y
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
1200 3352
0 3366
0 3364
0 3350
G, F, P, or C
Field Scour Evaluation R
Movable Span Machinery G, F, P, or C
Superstructure Paint Code A
960663Structure Number:Inspection Date:01/19/2017
National Bridge and NC SMU Inspection Item Details
Item Slope Protection Grade P
Details SLOPE PROTECTION AT ABUT 1 IS SUBSTANTIALLY LOST.
Maint Code 3352 Qty.1200
Item Response to live load Grade F
Details REBOUNDING NOTED UNDER LIVE LOADS
Maint Code Qty.0
960663Structure Number:Inspection Date:01/19/2017
SOUTH APPROACH AWS IS MAP CRACKED UP TO 1/2"W WITH POTHOLING AND POPOUTS.
Span 1 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 10SQFT OF SOUND PATCHING.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, PATTERN MAP CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W.
Span 1 Deck: COARSE AGGREGATE IS EXPOSED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, SCATTERED.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 30SQFT OF SCALING/SPALLING UP TO 0.5"D.
Span 1 Deck: TRANSVERSE CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W, SCATTERED
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Expansion Joint : SCATTERED ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE SEAL, DEBONDED AREAS ALLOW WATER TO
FLOW THROUGH THE JOINT.
Span 2 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 50SQFT OF SOUND PATCHING.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Span 2 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, PATTERN MAP CRACKING UP TO 3/32"W.
Span 2 Deck: TRANSVERSE CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W, SCATTERED
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Span 2 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 60SQFT OF SCALING/SPALLING UP TO 0.5"D.
Expansion Joint : SCATTERED ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE SEAL, DEBONDED AREAS ALLOW WATER TO
FLOW THROUGH THE JOINT.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Span 3 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 50SQFT OF SOUND PATCHING.
Span 3 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 60SQFT OF SCALING/SPALLING UP TO 0.75"D
WITH SOME EXPOSED RESTEEL IN AREAS OF SHALLOW COVER (APPROX 2SQFT).
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Span 3 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, PATTERN MAP CRACKING UP TO 1/16"W.
Expansion Joint : SCATTERED ACROSS THE LENGTH OF THE SEAL, DEBONDED AREAS ALLOW WATER TO
FLOW THROUGH THE JOINT.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Span 4 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, APPROX 30SQFT OF SOUND PATCHING.
Span 4 Deck: SCATTERED IN THE TOP OF THE DECK, PATTERN MAP CRACKING UP TO 1/32"W.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
NORTH APPROACH AWS IS MAP CRACKED UP TO 3/4"W WITH POTHOLING AND POPOUTS.
End Bent 2 Cap 1: STREAM FACE OF CAP IN BAY 1, APPROX 6SQFT DELAM
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Span 4 Beam 1: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
Span 3 Beam 4: BEAM END AT BENT 3, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 7/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
AT THE BEAM ENDS FOR UP TO 1'L, CORROSION HAS INITIATED IN AREAS OF PC LOSS WITH SCATTERED
LAYERED RUST. THIS IS TYPICAL THROUGHOUT THE SUPERSTRUCTURE.
THROUGHOUT THE SUPERSTRUCTURE, THE CONCRETE DIAPHRAGMS OVER THE BENTS ARE TYPICALLY
LONGITUDINALLY CRACKED UP TO 1/4"W IN THE LOWER 1/5 WITH SCATTERED EXPOSED RESTEEL.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Bent 3 Cap 1: LT END OF THE CAP ON ALL FACES, SPALLING UP TO 2"D WITH EXPOSED RESTEEL. RESTEEL
HAS LAYERED RUST AND PITTING UP TO 1/16". PMAINT.
Bent 3 Pile 3: APPROX 2' UP FROM THE GROUNDLINE, APPROX 0.5SQFT DELAM UP TO 0.75"D.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Bent 3 Cap 1: RT END OF THE CAP, LOWER SIDE, SCATTERED MAP CRACKING UP TO 1/8"W.
Bent 2 Pile 2: APPROX 1' UP FROM THE GROUNDLINE FOR 3'L, SPLITTING/DELAM APPROX 2"W X UP TO 1"D.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Bent 2 Cap 1: LT END OF THE CAP, LOWER SIDE, APPROX 6SQFT OF DELAM WITH CRACKING UP TO 1/4".
Bent 1 Cap 1: MAP CRACKING UP TO 1/8"W IS SCATTERED ACROSS THE CAP.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Bent 1 Pile 3: APPROX 2' UP FROM THE GROUNDLINE FOR 2'L, SPLITTING/DELAM APPROX 2"W X UP TO
1.5"D.
SHOT ROCK HAS BEEN PLACED AT BENTS 1 & 2 TO REPAIR A PAST SCOUR CONDITION.
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Condition Photos
ABUT 1 SLOPE PROTECTION HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY LOST .
SE & NW CORNERS, TYP GR END
SOUTH APPROACH
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Structure Photos
POSTING
SE & NW CORNERS, TYP GR CONNECTION
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Structure Photos
GR LOOKING SOUTH
LOOKING UPSTREAM
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Structure Photos
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
GR LOOKING NORTH
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Structure Photos
NORTH APPROACH
ABUT 2
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Structure Photos
TYP BEARING PLATE AT THE ABUTS
TYP BEARINGS AT THE BENTS
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Structure Photos
BENT 3
BENT 2
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Structure Photos
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 Structure Photos
BENT 1
ABUT 1
Structure:960663 County:WILKES Date:01/19/2017 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
31010020
0
E.PRONG ROARING RIVER
SR1002
.1 MI.S.JCT.SR1743
0
81° 2' 59.30"36° 19' 57.05"
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
Steel
Stringer Mutlibeam or Girder 302
000
4
1 CODE
CODE
CODE
CODE
1950
Highway
Waterway 15
2 0
1600
2012 7%
3 MI
37 FT
151 FT
1 FT 1 FT
24 FT
28.33 FT
20 FT
0No Median
030°
999.9 FT
24 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
62.85
Not Deficient
YES
0Is not on NHS
07Major 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
6
6
7
N
H 15 2
HS-21 37
HS-12 22
Posting Required 4
P
Posted for Load
5
4
N
7
6
0000
7
CODE
3200 2025
01/19/2017
NO
NO
NO
PCT SHARE
960663
3
000000001930663
193
(63) OPERATING RATING METHOD -Load Factor 1
(65) INVENTORY RATING METHOD -Load Factor 1
NATIONAL BRIDGE INVENTORY-------- STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL Run Date: 09/20/2017
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 :
1950 SHPWC 8-9-75204 H 15
TAN 120 2
07 FA NFA 1600 181
.1 MI.S.JCT.SR1743
SR1002 E.PRONG ROARING RIVER
151
0 24 30FTVCHCFT FT
REINFORCED CONCRETE FLOOR ON I-BEAMS
0ONUNDER
181LTRT2012
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&INT.BTS:RC CAPS/TIM.POST & CONC.SILLS @ 6' CTS.
1 @ 37'-10,2 @ 37'-6,1 @ 37'-10
4 LINES 24 I-BEAMS @ 6'-9 CENTERS
5.75 RC/NO
AWS
28.33 FT
24 FT 26 FT 1 FT
999.9 FT
HS-12 HS-21 Int.bms 24
Secondary S.R. Route N
LT RT 1 FT
SV TTST 31 DATE 09/29/2008
UNDER ROUTES AND CLEARANCES
WILKES 11 3 960663
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT UNIT
DATA ON EXISTING STRUCTURE Run Date: 09/20/2017
REMARKS :
3314 LF 1Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 3 Beam 4: BEAM END AT BENT 3,
APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
7/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
3314 LF 1Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 4 Beam 1: BEAM END AT ABUT 2,
APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4"
REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR
APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:960663 County Date:
These Repairs Should Be Made Within Twelve Months From Date Of This Inspection
MMS
Code
Description of
Function
Unit Quantity Remarks Est.
Cost
WILKES 01/19/2017
Priority Maintenance Level Not DeterminedPriority Maintenance Item Critical Finding Item
Key
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
01/25/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 3 Beam 4: BEAM END AT BENT 3, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 7/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
01/25/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 4 Beam 1: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:960663 County WILKES
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
Structure Data Worksheet Spans
County:WILKES Structure No:960663 Date:01/19/2017 Inspected By:EP
1 37.83'35.67'
2 37.5'37.3'
3 37.5'37.3'
4 37.83'NBIS = 146.167'35.67'
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:
960663 WILKES 01/19/2017 EP
16.5 DEBRIS ON BANK
0 2.8 TOP OF WALL
2 5.2 RAIL TO CAP
3.5 5.6 GROUND AT CAP 3.5 5.7 GROUND AT CAP
7 6.2 TOP OF SLOPE PROTECTION
32 20.1 TOE OF SLOPE PROTECTION
38 21.2 BENT 1 38 22.1 BENT 1
43 24.1 WSWE
50 25.6 SOUNDING
60 27.4 SOUNDING
71 24.1 WSWE
75.3 22.5 BENT 2 75.3 23 BENT 2
115 17.4 BENT 3 115 16.7 BENT 3
128 16.9 TOE OF SLOPE PROTECTION
144 5.8 TOP OF SLOPE PROTECTION
147 6.2 GROUND AT CAP 147 6.1 GROUND AT CAP
149.5 5.2 RAIL TO CAP
150 2.8 TOP OF WALL
DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM
Distance
(Station) (ft)
Sounding
(ft)
Description Distance
(Station) (ft)
Sounding
(ft)
Description
Top of Rail = 0 FT (Sounding)
STREAMBED PROFILE (Downstream)
01/19/2017960663CountyWILKESDate: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 480 feet downsteam of Elk Creek Darby Road (SR 1162)5.07 **4317 *
East Prong Roaring River
At the confluence with Roaring River 56.61 **19514 *
Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of the confluence with Roaring River 56.46 **19481 *
Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of the confluence with Roaring River 52.44 **18604 *
Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Roaring River 52.00 **18505 *
Approximately 1.7 miles upstream of the confluence with Roaring River 51.60 **18416 *
Approximately 2.0 miles upstream of the confluence with Roaring River 49.23 **17884 *
Approximately 2.2 miles upstream of the confluence with Roaring River 49.00 **17830 *
Approximately 2.4 miles downstream of Crossroads Road (SR 1945)48.77 **17777 *
Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of Crossroads Road (SR 1945)47.60 **17510 *
Approximately 1.1 miles downstream of Crossroads Road (SR 1945)47.34 **17452 *
Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of Crossroads Road (SR 1945)46.95 **17362 *
Approximately 25 feet upstream of the confluence of Little Sandy Creek 30.07 **13142 *
Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of Brewer Mill Road (SR 1943)29.62 **13019 *
Approximately 1,300 feet downstream of Brewer Mill Road (SR 1943)28.72 **12768 *
Approximately 100 feet upstream of Brewer Mill Road (SR 1943)28.30 **12653 *
Approximately 1,200 feet downstream of Traphill Road (SR 1002)27.82 **12517 *
Approximately 125 feet upstream of Traphill Road (SR 1002)27.16 **12332 *
Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Traphill Road (SR 1002)26.75 **12214 *
Approximately 325 feet upstream of Twin Locust Road (SR 1743)26.02 **12004 *
Approximately 0.7 mile downstream of the confluence of Big Sandy Creek 25.13 **11747 *
Approximately 25 feet upstream of the confluence of Big Sandy Creek 18.61 **9736 *
Approximately 2,000 feet downstream of Longbottom Road (SR 1737)17.97 **9524 *
Approximately 190 feet upstream of Longbottom Road (SR 1737)17.50 **9369 *
Approximately 0.6 miles upstream of Longbottom Road (SR 1737)16.81 **9138 *
Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of Longbottom Road (SR 1737)16.24 **8943 *
Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of Longbottom Road (SR 1737)15.87 **8812 *
Approximately 1.9 miles upstream of Longbottom Road (SR 1737)12.44 **7570 *
Approximately 2.5 miles upstream of Longbottom Road (SR 1737)10.44 **6786 *
East Swan Creek
At the confluence with Swan Creek 6.64 **2432 *
Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the confluence with Swan Creek 6.31 **2355 *
Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Swan Creek 4.15 **1814 *
Elk Creek
At the confluence with Yadkin River 50.61 **28961 *
Approximately 1,030 feet downstream of NC 268 50.44 **28902 *
Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of NC 268 50.00 **28557 *
Approximately 815 feet downstream of Kendell-Town Road (SR 1163)48.11 **27091 *
Approximately 1,050 feet upstream of Kendell-Town Road (SR 1163)46.72 **26037 *
Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Kendell-Town Road (SR 1163)45.47 **25103 *
Approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Kendell-Town Road (SR 1163)45.05 **24790 *
Approximately 1,920 feet downstream of Triplett Town Road (SR 1175)44.56 **24424 *
Approximately 100 feet downstream of Triplett Town Road (SR 1175)43.30 **23507 *
Flood Insurance Study Report: WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Effective Date: March 2, 2009 Page 16 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
009 941.0 19514.0 1009.0 36.0 / 64.0
018 1775.0 19514.0 1011.7 60.0 / 40.0
026 2638.0 19481.0 1014.0 43.0 / 58.0
033 3307.0 18604.0 1015.2 24.0 / 78.0
038 3759.0 18604.0 1016.8 46.0 / 64.0
042 4163.0 18604.0 1017.1 54.0 / 36.0
055 5512.0 18604.0 1023.9 80.0 / 38.0
065 6495.0 18505.0 1027.3 74.0 / 48.0
079 7926.0 18505.0 1030.4 56.0 / 44.0
089 8921.0 18505.0 1032.8 48.0 / 44.0
099 9890.0 18416.0 1034.6 44.0 / 48.0
106 10574.0 17884.0 1035.9 48.0 / 60.0
115 11530.0 17884.0 1038.7 55.0 / 47.0
124 12398.0 17830.0 1041.2 29.0 / 45.0
131 13110.0 17830.0 1044.6 38.0 / 78.0
137 13720.0 17830.0 1045.6 30.0 / 64.0
147 14741.0 17830.0 1048.7 62.0 / 56.0
158 15808.0 17830.0 1049.7 66.0 / 46.0
169 16940.0 17830.0 1051.6 36.0 / 64.0
178 17813.0 17830.0 1053.5 31.0 / 38.0
184 18429.0 17777.0 1056.5 28.0 / 68.0
192 19223.0 17777.0 1058.1 59.0 / 60.0
201 20117.0 17777.0 1059.7 53.0 / 46.0
214 21448.0 17777.0 1062.5 50.0 / 54.0
223 22347.0 17777.0 1063.5 52.0 / 74.0
232 23192.0 17510.0 1065.5 37.0 / 72.0
243 24333.0 17510.0 1067.3 21.0 / 70.0
249 24902.0 17510.0 1068.4 47.0 / 42.0
254 25407.0 17452.0 1069.9 43.0 / 57.0
268 26785.0 17452.0 1072.4 64.0 / 39.0
275 27475.0 17452.0 1073.2 50.0 / 52.0
284 28420.0 17452.0 1074.9 39.0 / 39.0
289 28853.0 17452.0 1077.4 48.0 / 65.0
296 29621.0 17362.0 1079.4 90.0 / 37.0
302 30218.0 17362.0 1081.7 160.0 / 64.0
307 30698.0 17362.0 1082.6 97.0 / 180.0
309 30939.0 17362.0 1082.8 134.0 / 102.0
311 31057.0 17362.0 1082.9 134.0 / 102.0
313 31256.0 17362.0 1083.1 88.0 / 82.0
316 31641.0 17362.0 1084.2 100.0 / 104.0
323 32304.0 13142.0 1084.9 72.0 / 38.0
329 32941.0 13142.0 1086.5 19.0 / 64.0
338 33795.0 13142.0 1089.6 70.0 / 29.0
344 34390.0 13142.0 1095.6 66.0 / 60.0
349 34895.0 13142.0 1096.6 41.0 / 52.0
Flood Insurance Study Report: WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Effective Date: March 2, 2009 Page 55 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
355 35454.0 13142.0 1098.2 44.0 / 62.0
358 35834.0 13019.0 1098.3 42.0 / 50.0
364 36398.0 13019.0 1101.7 50.0 / 50.0
370 36983.0 13019.0 1104.4 50.0 / 44.0
380 38049.0 12768.0 1114.8 70.0 / 84.0
386 38568.0 12768.0 1117.8 50.0 / 42.0
389 38859.0 12768.0 1123.5 90.0 / 50.0
390 38997.0 12768.0 1123.5 75.0 / 70.0
392 39211.0 12653.0 1123.5 37.0 / 42.0
401 40141.0 12653.0 1129.9 22.0 / 40.0
406 40566.0 12653.0 1133.1 40.0 / 40.0
412 41177.0 12653.0 1138.9 49.0 / 23.0
418 41757.0 12653.0 1142.7 60.0 / 38.0
427 42713.0 12653.0 1147.1 120.0 / 30.0
434 43408.0 12653.0 1149.6 56.0 / 240.0
445 44480.0 12517.0 1150.4 54.0 / 160.0
450 44978.0 12517.0 1151.2 46.0 / 78.0
454 45449.0 12517.0 1153.7 88.0 / 80.0
456 45587.0 12517.0 1155.9 100.0 / 80.0
458 45826.0 12517.0 1156.0 114.0 / 34.0
467 46663.0 12332.0 1157.2 42.0 / 46.0
475 47528.0 12332.0 1163.8 33.0 / 40.0
482 48204.0 12214.0 1168.0 52.0 / 40.0
488 48796.0 12214.0 1171.2 52.0 / 62.0
494 49415.0 12214.0 1175.7 70.0 / 80.0
500 49967.0 12214.0 1178.3 50.0 / 110.0
502 50205.0 12214.0 1179.2 130.0 / 96.0
503 50277.0 12214.0 1180.1 130.0 / 101.0
505 50473.0 12214.0 1180.5 114.0 / 110.0
511 51057.0 12214.0 1181.6 48.0 / 80.0
518 51756.0 12214.0 1183.1 48.0 / 36.0
520 52034.0 12214.0 1185.8 60.0 / 60.0
521 52132.0 12214.0 1187.9 100.0 / 70.0
523 52290.0 12214.0 1188.1 160.0 / 64.0
530 52995.0 12004.0 1189.0 160.0 / 60.0
540 53995.0 12004.0 1190.2 60.0 / 55.0
548 54840.0 12004.0 1194.3 44.0 / 52.0
554 55446.0 11747.0 1197.1 51.0 / 37.0
565 56540.0 11747.0 1202.9 120.0 / 30.0
568 56842.0 11747.0 1203.7 63.0 / 84.0
570 56954.0 11747.0 1206.9 49.0 / 40.0
571 57067.0 11747.0 1207.3 36.0 / 66.0
580 58025.0 11747.0 1209.5 41.0 / 48.0
583 58336.0 11747.0 1210.9 44.0 / 35.0
588 58824.0 11747.0 1219.9 32.0 / 36.0
Flood Insurance Study Report: WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Effective Date: March 2, 2009 Page 56 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

39841:12,000
%,012 18.2
!(8
1380000 FEET
940000 FEET
1380000 FEET
960000 FEET
1400000 FEET
960000 FEET
1400000 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
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
ZONE AE
NC-1746L
o
n
g
b
o
tt
o
mR
d
Sc enic V iew Dr
Fai r viewDrClubh ou se D r
O ld H o m e P la c e Dr
Po r c h T i m e L n
B r e w e r M illR d SandyLnL
o
w
M
e
a
d
o
w
s
L
n
Overland
Trl
N
C-1
7
3
8
Lon
g
b
o
t
t
o
m

R
d
Happiness LnLaurelwoodLn
T w in L o c u s t R d
TrailFo rd T o w nRdO ve r v ie w D rGr
issel
T
a
il
R
dGrisselTailRd
Roun
d
h
ill
C
h
u
rc
h
R
dRoundhi
l
l
ChurchRdDogwoodCir
ClubhouseR d GreenstreetDrAbsherRdViewpoin
t
DrD a rkHollo w Dr
Traphill Estates RdTraphill-BrownR dN
C-1742Piney
Gr
oveChurchRd
PineyGroveChurchRdGrandviewCirTra p h i l l Rd
i099
i041i037i0
2
2
i222i540i103
i555i428i418
i392
i027
i217i523i016
i554
i368 i091
i571i467i051i427
i406i475i518
i603
i49
5
i046
i565
i511 i08
5
i405i081
i072 i056
i494
i488i596
i548i458i530
i434
i450i624i473
i660
i615
i523
i505i065 i076i646
i635
i445
WILKES COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
370256
1360.6
1252.3
1
3
8
3
.
5
1239.3
1244.3
1325.3
1258.21265.11183.3
1142.7
1123.5
1258.1
1220.01243.8112
9
.
91336.212
1
9
.
9
1239.
5
1209.5
1197.1
1148.01352.1
1207.31157.21325.71147.1
1371.6
1133.1
1
1
6
3
.
81183.11232.11215
.
9
1
2
8
2
.
3
1331.2
1202.9
1181.61
2
9
8
.
8
1169.71345.3
1151.21339.8
1284.0
1175.7
1171.21228.91194.31190.2
13
0
4
.
8
1156.01189.0
1309.5
1149.
6
1193.71242.11200.3
1263.5
1238.01188.11180.5
1
2
8
7
.
3 1293.81255.0
1248.4
115
0
.
4
ZZ5636
ZZ5645 i122i020 i0
0
7
i00
5
i506i401i014i58
8
i580
i039
i060
i450i540i09
4
i030
Double CreekTributary 1
HarrisCreek
LittleSandy Creek
DoubleCreek
East ProngRoaring River
Big SandyCreek
Middle ProngRoaring River
Middle ProngRoaringRiver
East ProngRoaring River
EastProng RoaringRiver
81°2'30"W
81°2'30"W
81°3'0"W
81°3'0"W
81°3'30"W
81°3'30"W
81°4'0"W
81°4'0"W
81°4'30"W
81°4'30"W
81°5'0"W
81°5'0"W
81°5'30"W
81°5'30"W
81°6'0"W
81°6'0"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
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
3984WILKES COUNTY 370256 J
3710398400J
3/2/2009
4400460048005000520054005600113011401150116011701180119012001210East Prong Roaring River Limited Detail Study Plan: Floodway Run 2/25/2019 Traphill Road EPRR - TORStructure ID: LDS_EPRR_03Approximate Station (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendWS 100-FWWS 100-yearGroundIneffBank StaEncroachment.08.14.14.08.14.055.14
BR-0125 (960663)

• A PDR is available. Please let me know if a copy needs to be
provided. A summary of the PDR is listed below:
o East Prong Roaring River
▪ Class C; Tr
▪ Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
▪ DA = 27.5 mi2 (Selected Site)
• Stream Gage: 21121166
▪ Limited Detailed Study
• Possible Structures Impacted: No structures were
observed in the 100yr floodplain.
• RS = 45502
• Q100 = 12517 cfs
1
Cashmore, Blake A.
From:Harris, James B <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 2:19 PM
To:Lenoce, Marissa A.
Subject:RE: [External] Start of Study Notification: Bridge No. 960663 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. Than

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.

k you. - - Jim

From: Lenoce, Marissa A. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 1:23 PM
Cc: 4019918 <[e-mail]>; Scott, Elizabeth S. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Start of Study Notification: Bridge No. 960663 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. 960663 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. 960663 on SR 1002 (Traphill Road), over East Prong of Roaring River 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 4019918 <[e-mail]>; Scott, Elizabeth S. <[e-mail]>
(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.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
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-960663 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]

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

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

NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960663
SCREENING CHECKLIST
BRIDGE ID:960663 FACILITY:SR1002 OVER E.PRONG ROARING RIVER DIVISION:11
YEAR BUILT:1950 COUNTY:WILKES POSTED (SV/TTST):24/31
COST ESTIMATE: $3,500,000
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 P ROPOSED 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 2 BLOCK GROUPS.
THE MINORITY POPULATION OF THE DSA IS 3.2%. THIS COMPARES TO A MINORITY POPULATION
OF 11.7% FOR WILKES COUNTY. THE POVERTY RATE FOR THE DSA IS 12.3%.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.
86
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960663
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 WILDLIFE REFUGES WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROPOSED ROW.
THE MOUNTAINS TO SEA TRAIL, WHICH FOLLOWS THE EAST PRONG ROARING RIVER,IS
LOCATED WITHIN 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.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT CROSSES THE EAST PRONG ROARING RIVER, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED
AS AN NCDEQ TROUT STREAM.THE EAST PRONG ROARI NG RIVER IS ALSO MAPPED AS PUBLIC
MOUNTAIN TROUT WATER.
87
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960663
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) mapp ing, 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.
THERE ARE NO MAPPED NWI WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS.
BASED ON NHD FLOWLINES, THE PROJECT WOULD IMPACT APPROXIMATELY 490 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.
88
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960663
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control?
Note if the project is proposing a change in control of access.
NO
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
89
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 960663
Policy Act (FPPA)?
This question will be evaluated during project development.
N/A
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
90
!!
G
Proposed Mountains to Sea Trail
HolbrookFarmComplex
WK0002Holbrook FarmComplex 1978
Traphill R dGrissel
Tai lRdPo r c h T i m e L nLowMeadowsLn
TraphillUnrd25Ro undHillChRdTraphill Estates RdT w in Loc u s t R d
960663
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
0 800 1,600400 Feet
¯
91
5/21/18

2023 SMU Bridge Program – Pre-Screening Worksheet
Bridge #: 960663 BUILD Grant County: Wilkes Division: 11
Project Description: Bridge on SR 1002 over East Prong Roaring River
1. Is an off-site detour available? Yes
a. Describe Route: SR 1941 to SR 1943 to SR 1002
b. Approximate Length: 4.4 miles
c. Off-Site Detour Improvement Required: No
d. Other Considerations (seasonal, special events, etc): No

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: 1,900
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: Recommend Realignment Option

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-0125 Bridge #:960663 BUILD Grant Div./County: 11/Wilkes
Project Description: Bridge on SR 1002 over East Prong Roaring River

PRE-SCREENING DETERMINATION
Anticipated Project Development Duration: Potential 2-year project delivery to Letting.
Specific constraints/issues affecting duration: Off-site detour is feasible for replace-in-place.
Division recommends realignment alternate for project; should study both sides. Aerial
power and telecom in project area; standard coordination/relocation anticipated.

General Project Context: (see attached preliminary Study Area Map)
Existing typical section: Two Lane Shoulder Facility classification: Major Collector,
Rural
Posted speed: 55 mph Existing right-of-way (est.): 36’ via GIS
Adjacent properties: Woods and agricultural fields
Existing improvements proximate to project: Nothing observable via Google maps.
Surrounding community: Rural residential / This project is 0.25-mile SE of the community
of Traphill
Topography: Rolling
Current ADT / Source: 1,500 / 2016 NCDOT AADT Web Map
Utilities observed: Telephone and cable become aerial on poles along the NW side of the
bridge. Power is on separate poles and cross the road diagonally 100’ from the North end
of the bridge.
Power – Duke Energy, Phone Wilkes Communications, Cable – Time Warner Cable
Other concerns: N/A

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: N/A

Hydrologic / Hydraulic Assessment:
River/Stream Crossing: Yes Name: East Prong
Roaring River
FEMA Regulated: Yes
FEMA Model Type: Limited Detail - Available
River Basin: Yadkin Pee-Dee Buffers: Trout
WATER QUALITY (DWR Surface Water Classification Map): indicate all that apply
HQW: No ORW: No Trout: Yes
WSWS: No Name: 12-46-4-(7) Critical Area: No
Other Concerns: N/A

Division Consultation: (see attached worksheet)
General Summary: Division advises off-site detour is feasible via SR 1941 and SR 1943,
approximately 4.4 miles. Division recommends realignment alternate.
Specific Utilities Considerations: Aerial power located west of bridge and crossed road
north of bridge; may require relocation to access end bent. Aerial telecom/cable located
on west side of road and bridge; will require relocation.
Other Concerns:

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

5-YEAR BRIDGE PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL PRE-SCREENING CHECKLIST
STIP #: BR-0125 COUNTY: Wilkes DIVISION: 11 FUNDING:
State ☒ Federal ☐
DESCRIPTION: Bridge 663 on SR-1002 over East Prong Roaring River

ADJACENT STIP PROJECTS: None

Cultural Resources
1 Is the project located in a listed National Register Historic District?
No
2 Are there other listed National Register properties or state Study List properties in the project
study area?
No
3 Does the project potentially impact tribal lands?
Located in ECBI County
4 Did the project ETRACS request determine a survey was needed for one or more potential
historic resources?
Response
Natural Resources
1 Are there NWI wetlands in the project study area?
No
2 Does the bridge cross anadromous fish waters?
No
3 Does the bridge cross waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), High Quality
Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas; 303(d) listed impaired waters, or
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)?
No
4 Does the bridge cross a designated Wild and Scenic River?
No
5 Does the bridge cross designated mountain trout streams?
Yes – Hatchery Supported Trout Waters
6 Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county?
No
7 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) resources?
No
8 What federal T&E species are listed (USFWS or NMFS) for the county where the project is
located?
Bog turtle, Northern long-eared bat, Rusty-patched bumble bee
9 Are there known occurrences of protected species in the project study area?
No
10 Does the project study area include lands within the 100-year flood zone?
Yes
FERC/Coast Guard
1 Does the project cross known Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-regulated waters?
No
2 Does the project cross US Coast Guard navigable waters?
No
Community Impacts
1 Is the project located in a Census block group with low-income or minority populations?
Yes – Low Income
2 Is there a limited English proficiency or language assistance population in the Census block
group?
No
3 Are there any parks in the project study area? If yes, are there any Section 4(f) concerns
(federal projects only)?
No
4 Are there prime and important farmlands in the project study area (federal projects only)?
Yes: DaA = all areas are prime farmland; DpB2 = all areas are prime farmland; DpC2 = farmland
of statewide importance; and RhC = farmland of statewide importance
5 Is the project located along a designated bicycle route?
No
Other
1 Is the project located within or adjacent to publicly-owned lands or known lands restricted by
conservation easements (i.e., DMS, NCDOT, CWMTF)?
No
2 Are there any known Section 6(f) resources?
No
3 Are there known hazardous materials or landfills in the project study area?
No

WILKES
SURRY
ASHE
YADKIN
CALDWELL
AVERY
WATAUGA
ALLEGHANY
Legend
Division 11 County
FERC Licensed Dam
Wild and Scenic River
USCG Unobstructed Water
Tidally Influenced Water
Tidally Influenced Zone
FERC Site Boundary
Federal Land
Catawba River Basin
French Broad River Basin
New River Basin
Roanoke River Basin
Watauga River Basin
Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin
CAMA County
Native American Tribal Territory
Division 11 Resource Map