20200262 Ver 1_BR-0127 CE_20200219

1 9/27/2019

Type I and II Ground Disturbing Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form

Project No. BR-0127
WBS Element 48836.1.1
Federal Project No. N/A

A. Project Description:

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No.
980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road) over an Unnamed Tributary of South Deep
Creek in Yadkin County (Refer to Figure 1).

Bridge No. 980189, built in 1968, is a steel girder bridge with two 10-foot travel lanes and is
approximately 31 feet long. Bridge No. 980189 has a posted single vehicle weight limit of 19
tons and a truck tractor semitrailer weight limit of 25 tons. The existing right of way along SR
1325 (Mountain View Church Road) is approximately 60 feet. The project is scheduled for
Right of Way (ROW) in October 2019 and Let in July 2020. Minor ROW acquisition is
anticipated.

The project proposes to replace the existing structure with an approximately 30-foot wide
single span cored slab bridge with two 10-foot travel lanes and three-foot-eleven inch
shoulders on the existing alignment. Guardrail will be installed at the bridge approaches. The
proposed bridge would be approximately 62 feet in length and have a proposed right of way up
to 87 feet. The total length of the project is approximately 565 feet. The proposed bridge will
not be posted with a weight restriction and will be designed to meet the legal load rating. An
offsite detour is required for the duration of construction. The roadway is classified as a local
road with a 55-mile per hour design speed and posted speed limit.

B. Description of Need and Purpose:

The replacement of Bridge No. 980189 is part of the Growing Rural Economy and Agriculture
through Transportation and Technology Enhancement or Replacement in North Carolina
(GREATTER-NC) Project under the United States Department of Transportation’s 2018 Better
Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant program. The purpose of the
grant and this bridge replacement project is to provide transportation infrastructure to support
economic development and improve physical and digital connectivity in rural communities in
North Carolina. The posted weight restriction on Bridge No. 980189 prohibits large or heavy
vehicles, typically used in transporting agricultural and manufactured products, from using the
bridge. Vehicles above the posted weight must detour 3.8 miles to avoid the bridge. Replacing
the existing bridge will eliminate posted weight limits by providing a safe crossing for all legal
loads and will make accommodations for broadband installation in order to support economic
competitiveness.
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
2 9/27/2019

C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:

☒ TYPE I A

D. Proposed Improvements:

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

E. Special Project Information:

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

Floodplain: Unnamed Tributary of South Deep Creek, which crosses under Bridge No.
980189, 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 Archaeological Resources on 02/24/2019; a Survey
Required form was provided on 10/26/2018, and a No Historic Properties Present or Affected
form was provided on 7/16/2019 for Historic Architecture.

Agricultural Land Use: Agricultural land use including, cattle, crops, and dairy farms was
identified surrounding the project area using aerial imagery and confirmed by the April 2019
site visit. Farming operations in the vicinity of the bridge may be affected temporarily during
construction by loss of direct access and by the approximately 3.8 mile detour route.
Additionally, minor right of way acquisition is required for the project; one of the affected
property owners appears to have farming operations, possibly cattle, on either side of the
bridge. Farmland outreach coordination has been initiated with property owners near the
bridge. Continued coordination should occur through the NCDOT right of way acquisition
process with the owners of the agricultural lands that are temporarily impacted by the off-site
detour and those impacted by project right of way needs.

Environmental Commitments: Project commitments are located at the end of the checklist in
Section I.
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
3 9/27/2019

Estimated Costs (FY 2020): The estimated costs are as follows:
Utility* $18,000
R/W** $6,650
Const.*** $825,000
Total $849,650
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, August 2019
*** NCDOT Contracts Standards and Development Unit, September 2019

Estimated Traffic:

Crashes: NCDOT’s Safety Planning Group completed a planning level query of bridge crash
counts from 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2017. Over the five-year study period, zero crashes were
reported within a 500 feet distance of Bridge No. 980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church
Road).

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: There are no existing bike or pedestrian facilities
on Bridge No. 980189 along SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road). A Start of Study letter
was sent to NCDOT Bicycle & Pedestrian Division; no comments were received.

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

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

New Alignment – A new alignment option for SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road) is not
needed as the existing alignment has been deemed acceptable.

Onsite Detour – An offsite detour was determined acceptable.

Replace Bridge in Place with Offsite Detour (Preferred Alternative) – An offsite detour is
required for the duration of construction. The detour route is approximately 3.8 miles long and
will utilize SR 1314 (Old U.S. 421) and SR 1103 (Marler Rd).

Agency Comments: Input forms were sent to the Yadkin County EMS Director, Yadkin County
Planning Director, and the Yadkin County Schools Director of Transportation in February and
April of 2019. A phone call was placed to Yadkin County Schools in May 2019; no comments
regarding the project were received.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2015* 360 vehicles per day (vpd)
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 2040 720 vpd
Source: *NCDOT Traffic Review Sheet, 2018
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
4 9/27/2019

A low level of impact was noted from the Yadkin County Planning Director if the bridge was
closed for up to a year. They also indicated the presence of agricultural activity in the area.
Yadkin County EMS noted a yearlong bridge closure would have a low impact on emergency
services, and that there may be prolonged response times to areas north of the project.

Response: An offsite detour is required for the duration of construction. The detour will utilize
SR 1314 (Old U.S. 421) and SR 1103 (Marler Rd). Continued coordination with County EMS and
Schools will take place prior to construction; see Section I, Project Commitments.

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

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

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

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

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

The Catawba Indian Nation has no immediate concerns, however, they requested notification
should any Native American artifacts and/or human remains be located during construction.

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

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

Prior to ROW, newsletters will be sent out by STV on behalf of NCDOT to the properties
affected by the project to inform them of the project and the offsite detour
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
5 9/27/2019

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: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
6 9/27/2019

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: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
7 9/27/2019

G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F

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

The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

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

A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Farmland Conversion Impact Rating has
been completed for this project and a total score of 58 out of 160 points was calculated for the
BR-0127 project site. Since the total of the points assigned in part VI of the NRCS Farmlands
Conversion Form AD-1006 for BR-0127 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: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
8 9/27/2019

H. Categorical Exclusion Approval

Project No. BR-0127
WBS Element 48836.1.1
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: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
9/30/2019
10/2/2019
10/3/2019
9 9/27/2019

I. Project Commitments

Yadkin County
Bridge No. 980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road) over
Unnamed Tributary of South Deep Creek WBS No. 48836.1.1 Project No. BR-0127

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

NCDOT – Division 11
Agricultural Land Use
Continued coordination should occur through the NCDOT right of way acquisition
process with the owners of the agricultural lands that are temporarily impacted by the
off-site detour and those impacted by project right of way needs.

NCDOT Division 11
Continued Coordination for Schools and Emergency Services
NCDOT should coordinate with Yadkin County Schools (Denny Key, 336-679-2233) and
Yadkin County Emergency Services (Keith Vestal, 336-849-7622) at least one month
prior to construction.
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
^_MOUNTAIN VIEW CHURCH RDHARRIS RDJ O E L D R
Rocky Branch
Yadkin County, NC
Sources: Yadkin County GIS, NC One Map, NC HPO GIS Portal, NC DEQ, EPA, & Google Earth
STIP BR-0127Bridge No. 980189 Replacementover UT of South Deep CreekYadkin CountyNCDOT Division 11
July 2019
Fig ure 1
0 1,100 2,200550Feet
¯
^_
Legend
Direct Co m m unityImpact Area(DCIA)
Project Study Area
^_
Br. 980189 overUT of So uth DeepCreek
Parcels
Floodplain
NWI Wetland
Stream
§¨¦77 (/421
(/601
(/21
§¨¦77
§¨¦ 77
U
T

of
S
o
u
t
h

D
e
e
p

C
r
e
e
k
UT of South Deep Creek
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
(SR 1325)CHURCH RD.MOUNTAIN VIEW (SR 1314)OLD U.S. 421(SR 1103)
MARLER RD.
(SR 1323)
COLLINS RD.
(S
R 1322)MO
U
N
T
G
R
O
V
E
R
D.
(SR 1103)
MARLER RD.
(SR 1345)WAGONER RD.(SR 1326)3 OAKS RD.(SR 1325)CHURCH RD.MOUNTAIN VIEW (SR 1400)HARRIS RD.(SR 1446)
HOMESTEAD RD.(SR 1316)CHEEK RD.(SR
1
1
0
3
)MARLER RD.
SOUTH DEEP CREEK
S
O
U
T
H D
E
EP C
R
E
E
K
77
77
21
PROJECT
END
PROJECT
BEGIN
421
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
LETTING DATE:
STATE STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STATE PROJ. NO.F. A. PROJ. NO.DESCRIPTION
NO.
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
SHEET
1
PROJECT ENGINEER
GRAPHIC SCALES
PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)DEPARTMEN
T
O
F TRA N S PORTATIONSTATEOFNORT
H
CAR
O
LI
NA0
0
PLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY:
NC License Number F-0991
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:
NCDOT CONTACT:
PROJECT LENGTH
SIGNATURE:
P.E.
P.E.
SIGNATURE:
4
PROJECT DESIGNER
900 West Trade St., Ste. 715, Charlotte NC, 28202
ENGINEER
DESIGN
ROADWAY
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
See Sheet 1B For Standard Symbology Sheet
See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
DHV
D
T
V
=
=
=
=
=
ADT
N/A
DESIGN DATA
55
N/AN/A
MPH
STV ENGINEERS, INC.
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.DETOUR
wrightepR:\Roadway\Proj\PSH\BR-0127_rdy_psh01_tsh.dgn9/6/2019N/A
GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, AND STRUCTURE
YADKIN COUNTY
ETHAN P. WRIGHT, PE
2015
SUB REGIONAL TIER
LOCAL RURAL
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
-----------
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
-----------
BR-0127
BRIDGE NO. 980189 OVER UT OF SOUTH DEEP CREEK
ON SR 1325 (MOUNTAIN VIEW CHURCH ROAD)
-L- STA. 15+78 +/-
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L- STA. 16+40 +/-
END BRIDGE
CRE
E
KS
OUT
H DE
E
PSUBMITTED 09-06-19PRELIMINARY PLANSScale : 60
THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD ___.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN A MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.
STRUCTURES MANAGEMENT UNIT
TIERRE PETERSON, PE
KEVIN G. BAILEY, PE
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT BR-0127 = 0.107 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT BR-0127 = 0.012 MILES
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT BR-0127 = 0.095 MILESTIP PROJECT: BR-0127CONTRACT:TO MARLER RD
124 YWH DLO OT
100502550
2550 50 100
5 102.55
-L- STA. 13+85.00
BEGIN TIP PROJECT BR-0127
-L- STA. 19+50.00
END TIP PROJECT BR-0127NAD 83NA 2011360
PE
-L- SR 1325 (MOUNTAIN VIEW CHURCH RD.)
48836.1.1
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
TT15" RCP
3 6" CMP18" RCP
15" HDPE15" RCPEIP
EIP
EIP
R/R SPIKE
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/W
EXISTING R/WN 87°35'49" E660.18'S 00°46'20" W92.06'N
7
5
°5
1'5
1
" E
19
9
.5
8'
EIP
EIP
40" PINE
TAMMY L. CHAPPELL
AND WIFE
J. MARK CHAPPELL
DB 317 PG 231
DB 778 PG 383
RETHA E. PINNIX
AND WIFE
DANIEL PINNIX
DANA PINNIX WARD
BRENDA SUE GORDON
01E/279
DB 316 PG 788
DB 1228 PG 172
COLTON HEMRIC
JENNIFER S. HEMRIC
AND WIFE
VAN W. HEMRIC
COLTON HEMRIC
JENNIFER S. HEMRIC
AND WIFE
VAN W. HEMRIC
COLTON HEMRIC
JENNIFER S. HEMRIC
AND WIFE
VAN W. HEMRIC
DB 1228 PG 172
DB 1228 PG 172S 35°00'00" E100.98'S 27°07'21" E56.03'SOILSOILGRAVELGRAVELSO
IL
6.86'
0
.15'
6
0.
0
0'MOUNTAIN VIEW CHURCH ROAD
S.R. 1325
60.00'TO OLD HWY 421
BL-3
BR0127-2
GATE
SOUTH DEEP CREEKUT OF
S
O
UT
H
D
E
EP
C
R
E
E
K
UT
OF
TO SR1103 MARLER ROAD
4 S BW W/ 1 S ELEC
5 S ELEC
5 S ELEC
4
S BW36" WW W/ 5 S BW W/ 1 S ELEC
5 S BW W/ 1 S ELEC5 S BW36" WDBM#1
BR0127-1
INCOMPLETE PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER ENGINEER
R/W SHEET NO.8/17/999/6/2019R:\Roadway\Proj\PSH\BR-0127_rdy_psh04.dgnwrightepNC License Number F-0991
Charlotte, NC 28202
900 West Trade St., Suite 715
STV Engineers, Inc.
4
NAD 83NA 201113+0012+0011+0010+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00
1035
1045
1025
1015
1005
1055
1065
1075
BR-0127
BRIDGE #980189
-L-
e = EXIST
DS = EXIST
PI Sta 10+77.70
D
L = 110.65'
T = 56.24'
R = 250.00'
PI Sta 11+71.15
D
L = 77.95'
T = 39.05'
R = 500.00'
PI Sta 14+07.65
D
L = 62.71'
T = 31.35'
R = 8,650.00'
e = EXIST
DS = EXIST
e = NC
DS = 55 MPH
1035
1045
1025
1015
1005
1055
1065
1075
995 995
+20.00
EX. R/W
45.00' LT,
+46.89
45.00' LT
+46.97
EX. R/W
+35.61
42.00' RT
+43.35
EX. R/W
+40.00
EX. R/W
42.00' RT,
+36.42
EX. R/W
1
2
2
2
TYPE-III
TYPE-III
TYPE-IIITYPE-III
GREU, TL-3
GREU, TL-30130340302020201000102 0201000102013020210'10'+19.8024'
TYP.+94.6024'
TYP.+74.0024'
TYP.+48.0010'10'+95.00+61.62+56.388:1
8:1
8:1
8:1
10' R
MTN. VIEW CHURCH RD.-L-+64.00TL-3
GREU
TL-3
GREU10+00-L- PC Sta. 10+21.46
-L- POT Sta. 10+00.00
-L- PCC Sta. 11+32.10
-L- PT Sta. 12+10.05
-L- PC Sta. 13+76.29 -L- PT Sta. 14+39.00
-L- POT Sta. 22+10.0815+0020+00020250250202502502+72.00PROJECT BR-0127
BEGIN TIP
-L- STA. 13+85.00
PROJECT BR-0127
END TIP
-L- STA. 19+50.00
(-)3
.7107%(+)2.9686%
-L- STA. 13+85.00
ELEV. = 1027.98'
BRIDGE
-L- STA. 19+50.00
ELEV. = 1028.59'
EXISTING GROUND
EXISTING GROUND
PI = 16+27.00
EL = 1,019.00'
VC = 484'
K = 72
DS = 43 MPH PROPOSED GRADE EXIST. (+)2.8679%
EX
IST
. (-)3
.9024%
LOW POINT
ELEV = 1022.99'
STA 16+53.89
1.5:11.5:1CLASS II RIP RAP
CLASS II RIP RAP
PROJECT BR-0127
BEGIN TIP
PROJECT BR-0127
END TIP
ELEV. 1025.96'
67.97' RT
-L- STA 20+06.25
BM 1
F
F
C
F
C
F
F
F
F
F F
C
F
C
F
C
F
F
F
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0089
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 6

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-0127 County: Yadkin
WBS No: 67127 Document: Federal Categorical Exclusion
Federal Aid No: Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit
Type:
USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge 189 on SR 1325 over a tributary to South Deep Creek in Yadkin County. The
Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.) is approximately 610 meters (2,002 ft.) long and 123 meters
(400 ft.) wide. 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, the Yadkin County web soil survey,
an aerial photograph, and an examination of records about previously recorded sites, previous
archaeological surveys, and previous envrionmental reviews at the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. The bridge is oriented approximately east-west.

The topographic map (Elkin South) shows the A.P.E. is located in a narrow stream valley. The
landforms in the A.P.E. include a narrow floodplain on each side of the stream, and moderately-
sloped ridges on each side. Narrow strips of floodplain and sloped ridges have a low to moderate
potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. The landforms in the southeast and southwest
quadrants may be drainage valleys. There are two structures shown in the northwest quadrant, two
in the northeast quadrant, and one in the southeast quadrant. Most of the A.P.E. is shown as being
cleared land.

The Yadkin County soil survey shows two soil types in the A.P.E., Clifford sandy clay loam (2-
6% and 6-10% slopes), moderately eroded, and Codorus loam (0-2% slopes), occasionally flooded.
Clifford sandy clay loam is a well-drained soil found on interfluves (ridges). Codorus loam is a
somewhat poorly-drained soil found on flood plains.

The aerial photograph shows the A.P.E. is mostly cleared land (pasture?). The aerial photograph
shows how much of the surrounding agricultural land has been "contoured" to control erosion.
Also, the presence of red clay subsoil can be seen throughout the project area. (This is confirmed
by the Yadkin County soils survey aerial photograph which shows red soil in plowed fields, as
well as by the moderately-eroded soil types). The northeast quadrant is cleared (pasture?). The
southeast quadrant is occupied by several structures at the east end, and a small creek joins the
tributary a short distance south of the bridge. (This is the "drainage valley" landform depicted in
the topographic map.) The southwest quadrant is cleared (residential yard?). There is a driveway
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0089
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 6
in this quadrant. The northwest quadrant is mostly cleared (residential yards?). There are two
houses in the A.P.E.

There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the A.P.E. There is a
project that has been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) within the A.P.E.
The project is the Frontier Energy Gas Pipeline in Rowan, Davie, Iredell, Yadkin, Surry and
Wilkes Counties (ER 98-8509). No survey was recommended for the part of the pipeline that
crosses (the west side of) the A.P.E. of this project. Surveys were conducted for other parts of the
pipeline (Reid 19999; Smith 1998).

References Cited

Reid, Dawn
1999 Intensive Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Frontier Energy Gasline Corridor, Wilkes
County, North Carolina. Report prepared for Duke Engineering & Services, Charlotte, North
Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.

Smith, Caleb
1998 Intensive Archaeological Survey of Three Proposed Yadkin River Crossings, Surry, Wilkes
and Yadkin Counties, North Carolina. Report prepared for Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.,
Charlotte, North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.

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. Much of
the A.P.E. appears to be disturbed by residential development. The soils in the A.P.E. are
described as 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 2/24/2019
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II Date

DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377

Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 1 of 2

HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
**SURVEY REQUIRED FORM**

This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BR-0127 County: Yadkin
WBS No.: 67127.1.1 Document
Type:
CE
Fed. Aid No: Funding: State Federal
Federal
Permit(s):
Yes No Permit
Type(s):
USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge No. 189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd) over UT to South Deep
Creek.

SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
On October 26, 2018 a search of NC HPOWEB GIS Service map reveals that there is property
that is an identified historic site in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project. An
architectural historian will need to conduct an eligibility evaluation for the Hall Family House
(YD0485).

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION

Map(s) Previous Survey Info. Photos Correspondence Design Plans

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN

Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- **SURVEY REQUIRED**

Shelby Reap October 26, 2018

NCDOT Architectural Historian Date

Anticipated Fieldwork Completion Date: tba

18-09-0089
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377

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

Date: August 8, 2019

MEMORANDUM TO: File

From: Marissa Lenoce, Transportation Planner, STV Engineers,
Inc

SUBJECT:
NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Bridge No.
980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road) over an
Unnamed Tributary of South Deep Creek
Yadkin County, NC

WBS 48836.1.1, Project No. BR-0127

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) (FPPA) requires an assessment of
the potential impacts of land acquisition and construction activities in prime, unique, and local or
statewide importance as defined by the US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). This
memo is to document the completion and results of the NRCS Farmland Conservation Impact
Rating process for Project BR-0127 consistent with FPPA.

Project Description
BR-0127 proposes to replace Bridge No. 980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road)
over an Unnamed Tributary of South Deep Creek in Yadkin County. The project proposes
replacing the existing bridge with an approximately 28-foot wide structure with two 11-foot
travel lanes and three-foot shoulders. The proposed bridge would be approximately 64 feet in
length and with a proposed right of way up to 87 feet. The total length of the project is
approximately 565 feet.

Applicability
Project BR-0127 is subject to the provisions of FPPA for the following reasons:
 It is a federally funded project.
 It is not within a municipality, urbanized area, or urban built-up area.
 Prime farmlands of statewide importance are found within the project area.
 The land is not in water storage or used for national defense purposes.

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Structures Management Unit
1581 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1581
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Website: www.ncdot.gov
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377

NRCS Farmland Figure
In accordance with guidance provided by NCDOT Community Studies, the farmland figure was
created to display the project location and a one-mile buffer over a layer displaying prime
farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and Farmland of Local Importance in the vicinity
of the project. A project footprint was created to include a 25-foot buffer from the slope stakes.
The NRCS farmland figure is attached to this memo.

Completion of Part VI of the NRCS Form AD-1006
Part VI (Site Assessment Criteria) of the NRCS Form AD-1006 was completed for this project.
Points allotted for each criterium and reasoning are provided below.
1. Area in Non-urban Use: 13 out of 15 points. Estimated using aerial
photography; approximately 80% of the land within the 1-mile buffer is non-
urban.
2. Perimeter in Non-urban Use: 8 out of 10 points. Estimated using aerial photography;
more than approximately 70% borders on land in non-urban use.
3. Percent of Site Being Farmed: 11 out of 20 points. Estimated using aerial
photography; approximately 55% of the site is being farmed.
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government: 0 out of 20 points. The site is
not designated as a Voluntary Agriculture District (VAD) or Enhanced Voluntary
Agriculture District (EVAD).
5. Distance from Urban Built-up Area: 8 out of 15 points. Determined using aerial
photography; site is within 2.0 miles of Marler and Hamptonville.
6. Distance to Urban Support Services: 8 out of 15 points. Services exist within 3 miles
of the project site.
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average: 0 out of 10 points. The farm units
are more than 50% below the average size farm unit in Yadkin County (106 acres).
8. Creation of Non-farmable Farmland: 0 out of 10 points. This project will have
no implications on remaining farmable land.
9. Availability of Farm Support Services: 0 out of 5 points. No farm support
services were identified within the site.
10. On-Farm Investments: 10 out of 20 points. Some on-farm investments including
barns, storage buildings, and irrigation were identified using aerial imagery.
11. Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services: 0 out of 10 points. No significant
reduction in demand for farm support services would occur as a result from the
project.
12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use: 0 out of 10 points. The project is
compatible with existing agricultural use.

Result of Site Assessment Criteria
The sum of the points assigned in part VI of the NRCS form AD-1006 for BR-0127 is 58.

Summary
A preliminary screening of farmland conversion impacts in the project area has been completed
and a total score of 58 out of 160 points was calculate for the BR-0127 project site. Since the
total assessment score does not exceed the 60-point threshold established by the NRCS, farmland
conversion impacts may be anticipated, but are not considered notable.
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377

Sources
US Census. Census of Agriculture. 2012. County Data. North Carolina. Yadkin County. Accessed
8/06/2019.
(https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_Coun
ty_Level/North_Carolina/st37_2_001_001.pdfhttps://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/20
12/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/North_Carolina/cp37097.pdf)

Yadkin County. GIS Application. Yadkin County, NC. Accessed 8/06/2019.
(https://yadkin.connectgis.com/Map.aspx)

Legal Information Institute. Section 658.5- Criteria. Accessed 8/06/2019.
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/658.5)

Attachments
NRCS Farmland figure

Cc: Harrison Marshall and Herman Huang, NCDOT Community Studies
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377
South DeepCreekSout
h Deep Cr
eekNCRS Farmland Figure
Legend
Project Footprint1-mile BufferStreamParcel
Prime Farmland
Farmland ofStatewideImportance
¯
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Yadkin County, NC
Sources: Yadkin County GIS, NC One Map, NC HPO GIS Portal, NC DEQ, EPA, & Google Earth
STIP BR-0127Bridge No. 980189Replacement over UT of South Deep CreekYadkin CountyNCDOT Division 11
August 2019^_
§¨¦77 (/421
(/601
(/21
§¨¦77
DocuSign Envelope ID: CE1E0E27-3B0D-4ED0-BD2F-3FB7E3BCB377

Appendix A

MEMORANDUM

DATE: 10/10/2019

TO: File FILE NUMBER: 4019918

FROM: STV Engineers Inc. PROJECT/PROP. NO.: BR-0127

SUBJECT: BR-0127 CE Documentation CLIENT: NCDOT Structures Management Unit

The following documents were used in the preparation of the Categorical Exclusion for BR-0127.

- Historic Architecture and Landscapes Survey Required Form (10/26/2018)
- Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Historic Properties Present or Affected Form
(07/16/2019)
- No Archaeological Survey Required Form (02/24/2019)
- Local EMS Input Form (04/23/2019)
- Local School Input Form (02/26/2019)
- Natural Resources Technical Report (06/2019)
- Section 7 Survey Results for the Northern Long -eared Bat (03/29/2019)
- Landowner Notification (02/07/2019)
- Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package (PJD) (06/06/2019)
- Farmland Conversion Memo (08/08/2019)
- Certification of Financial Contribution BUILD Grant Application (07/19/2018)
- Field Scoping Meeting Worksheet (04/17/2019)
- EIS Relocation Report (08/29/2019)
- Right of Way Cost Estimate (08/25/2019)
- NCDOT Bridges Budget and Sources Used (2018)
- NCDOT Bridge Crash Count (2018)
- Bridge Traffic Review Sheet (10/02/2018)
- GeoEnvironmental Pre-Scoping Comments (06/07/2019)
- NCDOT Hydraulics Pre -Scoping Comments (03/25/2019)
- Structure Safety Report (06/07/2017)
- FEMA Flood Insurance Study (08/18/2009)
- NCDOT Rail Pre-Scoping Comments (05/10/2019)
- North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Pre -Scoping Comments (05/10/2019)
- North Carolina Division of Water Resources Pre -Scoping Comments (05/14/2019)

MEMORANDUM

PAGE 2 OF 2

- North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Pre-Scoping Comments (08/22/2019)
- US Fish and Wildlife Pre-Scoping Comments (05/23/2019)
- Screening Checklist (accessed 08/2019)
- Pre-Screening Summary (08/30/2018)
- Division Resource Map (accessed 07/09/2019)

Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 1 of 2

HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
**SURVEY REQUIRED FORM**

This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: BR-0127 County: Yadkin
WBS No.: 67127.1.1 Document
Type:
CE
Fed. Aid No: Funding: State Federal
Federal
Permit(s):
Yes No Permit
Type(s):
USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge No. 189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd) over UT to South Deep
Creek.

SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
On October 26, 2018 a search of NC HPOWEB GIS Service map reveals that there is property
that is an identified historic site in the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project. An
architectural historian will need to conduct an eligibility evaluation for the Hall Family House
(YD0485).

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION

Map(s) Previous Survey Info. Photos Correspondence Design Plans

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN

Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- **SURVEY REQUIRED**

Shelby Reap October 26, 2018

NCDOT Architectural Historian Date

Anticipated Fieldwork Completion Date: tba

18-09-0089
Project Tracking No. (Internal Use)

Historic Architecture and Landscapes SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement. Page 2 of 2

Project Tracking No.
18-09-0089
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 6

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-0127 County: Yadkin
WBS No: 67127 Document: Federal Categorical Exclusion
Federal Aid No: Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit
Type:
USACE
Project Description:
Replace Bridge 189 on SR 1325 over a tributary to South Deep Creek in Yadkin County. The
Area of Potential Effects (A.P.E.) is approximately 610 meters (2,002 ft.) long and 123 meters
(400 ft.) wide. 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, the Yadkin County web soil survey,
an aerial photograph, and an examination of records about previously recorded sites, previous
archaeological surveys, and previous envrionmental reviews at the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. The bridge is oriented approximately east-west.

The topographic map (Elkin South) shows the A.P.E. is located in a narrow stream valley. The
landforms in the A.P.E. include a narrow floodplain on each side of the stream, and moderately-
sloped ridges on each side. Narrow strips of floodplain and sloped ridges have a low to moderate
potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. The landforms in the southeast and southwest
quadrants may be drainage valleys. There are two structures shown in the northwest quadrant, two
in the northeast quadrant, and one in the southeast quadrant. Most of the A.P.E. is shown as being
cleared land.

The Yadkin County soil survey shows two soil types in the A.P.E., Clifford sandy clay loam (2-
6% and 6-10% slopes), moderately eroded, and Codorus loam (0-2% slopes), occasionally flooded.
Clifford sandy clay loam is a well-drained soil found on interfluves (ridges). Codorus loam is a
somewhat poorly-drained soil found on flood plains.

The aerial photograph shows the A.P.E. is mostly cleared land (pasture?). The aerial photograph
shows how much of the surrounding agricultural land has been "contoured" to control erosion.
Also, the presence of red clay subsoil can be seen throughout the project area. (This is confirmed
by the Yadkin County soils survey aerial photograph which shows red soil in plowed fields, as
well as by the moderately-eroded soil types). The northeast quadrant is cleared (pasture?). The
southeast quadrant is occupied by several structures at the east end, and a small creek joins the
tributary a short distance south of the bridge. (This is the "drainage valley" landform depicted in
the topographic map.) The southwest quadrant is cleared (residential yard?). There is a driveway
Project Tracking No.
18-09-0089
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 6
in this quadrant. The northwest quadrant is mostly cleared (residential yards?). There are two
houses in the A.P.E.

There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the A.P.E. There is a
project that has been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) within the A.P.E.
The project is the Frontier Energy Gas Pipeline in Rowan, Davie, Iredell, Yadkin, Surry and
Wilkes Counties (ER 98-8509). No survey was recommended for the part of the pipeline that
crosses (the west side of) the A.P.E. of this project. Surveys were conducted for other parts of the
pipeline (Reid 19999; Smith 1998).

References Cited

Reid, Dawn
1999 Intensive Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Frontier Energy Gasline Corridor, Wilkes
County, North Carolina. Report prepared for Duke Engineering & Services, Charlotte, North
Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.

Smith, Caleb
1998 Intensive Archaeological Survey of Three Proposed Yadkin River Crossings, Surry, Wilkes
and Yadkin Counties, North Carolina. Report prepared for Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.,
Charlotte, North Carolina. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.

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. Much of
the A.P.E. appears to be disturbed by residential development. The soils in the A.P.E. are
described as 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 2/24/2019
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II Date

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

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

Project
Area

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

Area of
Potential
Effects
ER 98-8509

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

Area of
Potential
Effects
NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local EMS Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0127 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Contact Information
Interviewee Name: Keith Vestal
Title/Position: Director
Organization/Agency: Yadkin County EMS
Email: [e-mail]
Date: April 23, 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 980189
on Mountain View Church
Road over Unnamed Tributary
of South Deep Creek.

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

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

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

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

6. Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or
stakeholders)?
West Yadkin Fire Department, Yadkin County Schools

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.

NC Department of Transportation Community Studies Group, Human Environment Section
Local Planner Input Form for
STIP Project BR-0127 COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Contact Information
Interviewee Name: Dawn Vallieres
Title/Position: Director
Organization/Agency: Yadkin County Planning and Development
Email: [e-mail]
Date: February 26, 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 980189 on
Mountain View Church Road over
Unnamed Tributary of South Deep
Creek.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Who should we contact to discuss outreach needs for any special populations? Please provide
input on community leader contacts, media sources or other ways to reach these populations.
Emergency services should be contacted to make them aware of any road closure.

Access, Accessibility, and Mobility
9. Is there pedestrian or bicycle activity/traffic or transit use along the project? If so, please
describe multimodal activity in the project area.
NO

10. Are there any existing access, accessibility, or mobility concerns or any barriers to non-auto
travel in the area? Please consider all modes.
NO

11. Are there any adopted plans for pedestrian, greenway, bicycle, or transit facilities in the area?
For each plan, please provide a description of how the plan applies to the project area, the
title of the plan, its year of adoption, and the current status of its implementation.
NO

Agricultural Operations
12. Are you aware of any active agricultural operations in the vicinity of the project? If so, please
describe these operations (e.g. size, ownership, crops, years farmed, suppliers, customers,
value to the community). [If yes, answer Question 12. If no, skip to Question 13.]
This is a predominantly rural farming area with multiple parcels in farm use with various
crops, sizes, and ownership forms. It is very valuable to the community.

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

14. Does the project lie within a VAD or EVAD district, or are you aware of any land with other
farmland protections (plans, tax districts or credits, trust, agricultural zoning, deed
restrictions)? If so, please describe the nature and location of these areas and properties.
NO

Other Notable Features
15. Are there any recreational properties within the project area that were purchased or
improved with Land and Water Conservation Act funds?
NO

16. Are there any other specific notable community resources or issues in the project area? (e.g.
socio-economic resources, recreational resources, community safety concerns, cohesive
neighborhoods, areas in decline) If so, please describe.
NO

Detours and Closures
17. Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where road or bridge closure or
reduction in number of lanes for construction would be of particular concern?
NO

18. [If applicable] Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with
the condition/capacity of potential detour routes, or the location of resources along these
routes?
NO

19. Rate the overall impact on local planning objectives if the bridge or roadway were closed or at reduced capacity
for up to a year:
Positive Impact No Impact Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact
Closing Questions
20. Are road names referenced by the names locals would use?
YES
21. Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or
stakeholders)?
Emergency personnel in advance of actual construction.

22. Do you have any additional comments about this project?
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Replacement of Bridge No. 980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road) over
an Unnamed Tributary of South Deep Creek
Yadkin County, North Carolina

STIP No. BR-0127
WBS Element No. 67127.3.1

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 ................................................................. 2
5.0 WATER RESOURCES ..............................................................................................3
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................3
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. ..................................................................... 3
6.2 Construction Moratoria ......................................................................................... 4
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ............................................................................... 4
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ....................................... 4
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................5
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 Yadkin 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 ..........4

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0127, Yadkin County, N.C.

1 June 2019

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road) over an Unnamed Tributary
(UT) of South Deep Creek in Yadkin County, North Carolina (STIP No. BR-0127;
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 February 11,
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

Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 4 shows the
location and extent of these terrestrial communities. Terrestrial community data are
presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 1).

Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community Dominant Species (Scientific name) Coverage
(ac.)
Maintained/Disturbed
Fescue (Festuca spp.)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
17.7
Floodplain Forest
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
0.7
Total 18.4

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0127, Yadkin 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 one federally
protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Yadkin County (Table
2). For this 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 Yadkin County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Yes Meets 4(d)
rule
T – Threatened

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.
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 February 8, 2019 using the most currently-
available orthoimagery. Water bodies large and sufficiently open enough to be
considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since foraging habitat was present
within the review area, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the
project limits was performed by Three Oaks staff on February 11, 2019. No nests or
individuals were identified. A review of the April 2019 North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0
mile of the study area. Due to the lack of known occurrences and minimal impact
anticipated, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0127, Yadkin County, N.C.

3 June 2019

5.0 WATER RESOURCES

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

Table 3. Potential streams in the study area
Stream Name Map ID
NCDWR
Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Bank
Height
(ft.)
Bankfull
width
(ft.)
Depth
(in.)
UT to South Deep Creek SA 12-84-2-(1) WS-III 1-2 1-3 1-2
UT to South Deep Creek SB 12-84-2-(1) WS-III 0.5-3 1-3 1-3
UT to South Deep Creek SC 12-84-2-(1) WS-III 3-5 15-25 6-18
UT to South Deep Creek SD 12-84-2-(1) WS-III 1-4 2-4 1-6

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

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

6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.

Four potential jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 4). The
locations of these streams are shown on Figures 3 and 4. NCDWR Stream Identification
forms and North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) forms are included in a
separate PJD package. Potential jurisdictional streams within the study area have been
designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0127, Yadkin County, N.C.

4 June 2019

Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID Length
(ft.) Classification Compensatory
Mitigation Required
River Basin
Buffer
SA 144 Intermittent Undetermined Not Subject
SB 115 Intermittent Undetermined Not Subject
SC 517 Perennial Yes Not Subject
SD 496 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Total 1,272

Two potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Table 5).
The locations of these wetlands are shown on Figures 3 and 4. The wetlands are located
within the Yadkin – Pee Dee River Basin (USGS HUC 03040101). USACE wetland
determination forms and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) forms
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 Non-tidal Freshwater
Marsh Low Riparian 0.06
WB Headwater Forest High Riparian 0.01
Total 0.07

6.2 Construction Moratoria

No designated trout waters exist within the study area; therefore, no in-water moratoria
are anticipated for this project. No bat-related moratoria are anticipated for this project.

6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules

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

6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters

The USACE has not designated any waters in the study area as Navigable Waters under
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0127, Yadkin County, N.C.

5 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.
NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

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_N
C_Category_5_303d_list.pdf.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. (NCNHP). 2001. Guide to Federally Listed
Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC. 134 pp.
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.

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). 1962. Soil Survey of Yadkin County, North Carolina.
Natural Resources Technical Report STIP No. BR-0127, Yadkin County, N.C.

6 June 2019

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

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS) 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: Yadkin County. Updated June 27, 2018.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/yadkin.html

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. Elkin South, 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. 189 onSR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd)over UT to South Deep CreekSTIP No. BR -0127Project Vicinity MapYadkin County, North CarolinaSR-1325 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. 189 onSR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd)over UT to South Deep CreekSTIP No. BR-0127Topographic MapYadkin 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. 189 onSR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd)over UT to South Deep CreekSTIP No. BR -0127Jurisdictional Features MapYadkin County, North CarolinaSR-1325 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 250125 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Intermittent
Perennial
SA
SB
SC
SD
WA
WB
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS,
SB
WB
See Inset
Inset
4FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 189 onSR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd)over UT to South Deep CreekSTIP No. BR -0127Terrestrial Communities MapYadkin County, North CarolinaSR-1325 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 250125 Feet
¯Legend
Project Study Area
Terrestrial Communities
Floodplain Forest
Maintained/Disturbed
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Intermittent
Perennial

Appendix B
Qualifications of Contributors

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: Wetland and stream assessment, T&E surveys, document
preparation/review

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: Wetland and stream assessment, T&E surveys, document review

Investigator: Hayley Wood
Education: B.S. Earth Sciences, UNC-Charlotte, 2017
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, October 2018-
Present
Environmental Scientist, WK Dickson, June 2018-September 2018
Responsibilities: Document review

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

Appendix C
Protected Species Survey Reports

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

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

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

March 29, 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. 189 over UT of South Deep Creek on SR 1325 in Yadkin County, TIP No. BR-0127. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT, Division 11) proposes to replace Bridge No. 189 over UT of South Deep Creek on SR 1325 in Yadkin County, TIP No. BR-0127. The existing bridge is a single span structure with timber deck, steel I-beams, timber end walls and guard rails. The overall length of the structure is 31 feet. Northern long-eared bat The project to replace Bridge No. 189 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 29, 2019, NLEB is listed by USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html) as “probable/potential” in Yadkin 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 56 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
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 29, 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. 189 over UT of
South Deep Creek on SR 1325 in Yadkin County, TIP No. BR-0127.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT, Division 11) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 189 over UT of South Deep Creek on SR 1325 in Yadkin County, TIP No. BR-0127.
The existing bridge is a single span structure with timber deck, steel I-beams, timber end
walls and guard rails. The overall length of the structure is 31 feet.

Northern long-eared bat
The project to replace Bridge No. 189 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 29, 2019,
NLEB is listed by USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html)
as “probable/potential” in Yadkin 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 56 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 189 on
Mountain View Church Road (S.R. 1325) in Yadkin County as TIP Project BR-0127.

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 review 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-0127.

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 N orte.
Los efectos que estas instalaciones propuestas tienen sobre el medio ambiente representan una gran
preocupación para el Departamento y deben ser descritas adecuadamente en documentos ambientales .
Como parte de este proceso, el Departamento está obli gado a identificar y documentar recursos
ambientales con el fin de evitar o reducir los impactos. Los arroyos y los humedales son dos de los
recursos que deben ser identificados durante el proceso de revisión. El Departamento ha comenzado
los estudios de planeación relacionados con su propuesta de puente 189 en Mountain View Church
Road (S.R. 1325) en el condado de Yadkin identificado como Proyecto TIP BR-0127.

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

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

Cuando llame, por favor mencione el Proyecto TIP BR-0127 del NCDOT.

Gracias por su cooperación.

Atentament e,

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 6, 2019

United States 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 (PJD) for the following Natural
Resources Technical Report: STIP No. BR-0127: Replace Bridge No. 980189 on SR
1325 (Mountain View Church Road) over an Unnamed Tributary to South Deep Creek in
Yadkin County, North Carolina.

Mr. Kichefski,

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of Bridge No.
980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road) over an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to South Deep
Creek in Yadkin County, North Carolina. Below and attached are a brief description of the project,
appropriate forms, and figures depicting all features.

Field work was conducted on February 11, 2019. Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) staff members
Jim Mason and Lillian Lovingood conducted the site investigation (Figure 1). Six potential
jurisdictional features (four streams and two wetlands) were identified within the study area (Tables 1-3;
Figures 2-3). No potential jurisdictional surface waters (i.e. ponds, basins, or tributaries) were
identified.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Stream Identification forms are included for
each potential stream where jurisdictionality was in question. Additionally, 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 potential 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
UT to South Deep Creek SA 12-84-2-(1) WS-III
UT to South Deep Creek SB 12-84-2-(1) WS-III
UT to South Deep Creek SC 12-84-2-(1) WS-III
UT to South Deep Creek SD 12-84-2-(1) WS-III

Table 2. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID Length
(ft.) Classification NCSAM Rating Compensatory
Mitigation Required
River Basin
Buffer
SA 144 Intermittent Low/Low Undetermined Not Subject
SB 115 Intermittent Medium/Medium Undetermined Not Subject
SC 517 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
SD 496 Perennial * Yes Not Subject
Total 1,272
Note: NCSAM forms were not completed for Streams SC and SD due to lack of degraded conditions that would result in a
lower mitigation ratio.

Table 3. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area
Map ID NCWAM Classification NCWAM
Rating
Hydrologic
Classification Area (ac.)
WA Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh Low Riparian 0.06
WB Headwater Forest High Riparian 0.01
Total 0.07

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. 189 onSR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd)over UT to South Deep CreekSTIP No. BR -0127Project Vicinity MapYadkin County, North CarolinaSR-1325 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. 189 onSR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd)over UT to South Deep CreekSTIP No. BR -0127Topographic MapYadkin County, North CarolinaSR-1325USGS 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 250125 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Intermittent
Perennial
SA
SB
SC
SD
WA
WB
3FigureReplacement of Bridge No. 189 onSR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd)over UT to South Deep CreekSTIP No. BR -0127Jurisdictional Features MapYadkin County, North CarolinaSR-1325 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 250125 Feet
¯
Legend
Project Study Area
Potential Wetland Waters of the U.S.
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the U.S. (Stream)
Intermittent
Perennial
SA
SB
SC
SD
WA
WB

Appendix B

Stream and Wetland 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:
2/11/2019 BR-0127/SA 36.148238
J. Mason/L. Lovingood - Three Oaks Eng.Yadkin -80.800921
23.25
8.5
8.5
6.25
Juncus effusus in stream
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:
2/11/2019 BR-0127/SB 36.148308
J. Mason/L. Lovingood - Three Oaks Eng.Yadkin -80.802223
23.5
12.5
5.5
5.5
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-0127 2/11/2019
36.148238, -80.800921
SA 140
NCDOT 4. Assessor name/organization:J. Mason/L. Lovingood - Three Oaks
Yadkin
Yadkin-PeeDee South Deep Creek
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
1-2
1-3
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)
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
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
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 LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
YES
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
LOW
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
Stream Site Name
MEDIUM
NA
BR-0127 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
ason/L. Lovingood - Three O
2/11/2019
NO
YES
NO
Intermittent
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pa1
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-0127 2/11/2019
36.148308, -80.802223
SB 115
NCDOT 4. Assessor name/organization:J. Mason/L. Lovingood - Three Oaks
Yadkin
Yadkin-PeeDee South Deep Creek
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
0.5-3
1-3
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)
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
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************Check for TidalMarsh Streamsonly
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
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
YES
NA
NA
HIGH
Stream Site Name
MEDIUM
NA
BR-0127 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
ason/L. Lovingood - Three O
2/11/2019
NO
YES
NO
Intermittent
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Pa1
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
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-0127 - Br. 189 on SR 1325 over UT South Deep Cr Yadkin
WA WET
2/11/2019
NCDOT NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:---J. Mason, L. Lovingood - Three Oaks Eng.
0-2concavefloodplain
Datum:NAD 83-80.80088136.148195LRR P, MLRA 136
PEMNWI classification:Clifford sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded (CcC2)
Slope (%):
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)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland WA abuts both Stream SA and SD in a pasture
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.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
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
WA WET
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
40
0
25
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or 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
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Absent
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Absent
Within wetland )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
No
10Carex lurida
2Solidago sp.
Juncus effusus 15
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
27
614
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
10
0
Multiply by:
30
1.60Prevalence Index = B/A =
15
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)Within wetland
=Total Cover
FACW
OBL
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
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)
%
M10
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
Distinct redox concentrations
10 M
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.
%
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 4/2 10YR 4/4
10YR 4/44-12
0-4
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
90 C
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
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 X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X X
X
X
X
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
1
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland WB is heavily disturbed by cattle.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:BR-0127 - Br. 189 on SR 1325 over UT South Deep Cr Yadkin
WB WET
2/11/2019
NCDOT NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:---J. Mason, L. Lovingood - Three Oaks Eng.
0-2concavefloodplain
Datum:NAD 83-80.80220336.148493LRR P, MLRA 136
PSSNWI classification:Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (CrA)
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
OBLYes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10 4 5
Yes FAC
60
5
0
Multiply by:
0
2.60Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
13
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
5
Carex lurida 5
Absent
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Within Wetland )
20
Indicator
Status
20
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
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
65
0
25
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/clayey
Loamy/clayey
90 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 4/2 10YR 4/4
10YR 4/64-12
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
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
10 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
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
>12
>12
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:BR-0127 - Br. 189 on SR 1325 over UT South Deep Cr Yadkin
WA/WB UPL
2/11/2019
NCDOT NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:---J. Mason, L. Lovingood - Three Oaks Eng.
2-4nonehillslope
Datum:NAD 83-80.80201536.148425LRR P, MLRA 136
UplandNWI classification:Codorus loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded (CrA)
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.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)Within Wetland
=Total Cover
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
25 10
10
0
Yes
Yes
FACU
FAC
30
0
220
Multiply by:
0
3.85Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
FACU
Total % Cover of:
10
55
(A)
(B)
(A)
15
25
38
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
75
No5
10
Allium vineale
Festuca 70
10
Ligustrum sinense
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Liriodendron tulipifera
Carya glabra
Within Wetland )
50
Indicator
Status
10
30
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes FACU
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:
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
250
0
65
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/clayey
Loamy/clayey
70 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 4/3
10YR 4/3 7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/66-12
0-6
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.
%%
M10
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
30 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
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-0127
03040101
MooresvilleNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Yadkin
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
South Deep Creek
J. Mason, L. Lovingood - 3 Oaks Eng.
WA
2/11/2019Date 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.)
36.148195, -80.800881
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
LOW
Rating
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
YES
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WA
son, L. Lovingood - 3 Oaks Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
2/11/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
NA
NA
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
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-0127
03040101
MooresvilleNCDWR RegionCounty
Yadkin-PeeDee
Yadkin
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
South Deep Creek
J. Mason, L. Lovingood - 3 Oaks Eng.
WB
2/11/2019Date of Evaluation
Wetland Site Name
Assessor Name/Organization
Nearest Named Water Body
Project Name
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
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.)
36.148493, -80.802203
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
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
YES
HIGH
YES
HIGH
NA
HIGH
LOW
LOW
Rating
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
YES
LOW
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Wetland Type
Wetland Site Name WB
son, L. Lovingood - 3 Oaks Headwater Forest
Date
Assessor Name/Organization
2/11/2019
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Rating
MEDIUM
HIGH
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO

Appendix C

JD Request Form
PJD Form

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 1

This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELDOFFICES
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina28801-5006
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGHREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina27587
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina27889
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
GeneralNumber:910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Propertyowner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: _______________________________________________
City, State: _______________________________________________
County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B. REQUESTORINFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Multiple Parcels
Wagoner, NC
Yadkin
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.
18.4
✔
✔
✔
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/
36.148004
-80.802063
✔
✔
✔
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)
SA 36.148238 -80.800921 144 ft
Non-wetland - Intermittent Stream Section 404
SB 36.148308 -80.802223 115 ft
Non-wetland - Intermittent Stream Section 404
SC 36.148004 -80.802063 517 ft
Non-wetland - Perennial Stream Section 404
SD 36.147993 -80.801277 496 ft
Non-wetland - Perennial Stream Section 404
WA 36.148195 -80.800881 0.06 ac Wetland Section 404
WB 36.148493 -80.802203 0.01 ac Wetland Section 404
6/6/2019
Ron Johnson, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
NC Yadkin Wagoner
36.148004 -80.802063
17
South Deep Creek
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the 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, Elkin South, NC
1962 Yadkin County Soil Survey

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

Date: August 8, 2019

MEMORANDUM TO: File

From: Marissa Lenoce, Transportation Planner, STV Engineers,
Inc

SUBJECT:
NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Bridge No.
980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road) over an
Unnamed Tributary of South Deep Creek
Yadkin County, NC

WBS 48836.1.1, Project No. BR-0127

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 CFR Part 658) (FPPA) requires an assessment of
the potential impacts of land acquisition and construction activities in prime, unique, and local or
statewide importance as defined by the US Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). This
memo is to document the completion and results of the NRCS Farmland Conservation Impact
Rating process for Project BR-0127 consistent with FPPA.

Project Description
BR-0127 proposes to replace Bridge No. 980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road)
over an Unnamed Tributary of South Deep Creek in Yadkin County. The project proposes
replacing the existing bridge with an approximately 28-foot wide structure with two 11-foot
travel lanes and three-foot shoulders. The proposed bridge would be approximately 64 feet in
length and with a proposed right of way up to 87 feet. The total length of the project is
approximately 565 feet.

Applicability
Project BR-0127 is subject to the provisions of FPPA for the following reasons:
• It is a federally funded project.
• It is not within a municipality, urbanized area, or urban built-up area.
• Prime farmlands of statewide importance are found within the project area.
• The land is not in water storage or used for national defense purposes.

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Structures Management Unit
1581 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1581
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Website: www.ncdot.gov

NRCS Farmland Figure
In accordance with guidance provided by NCDOT Community Studies, the farmland figure was
created to display the project location and a one-mile buffer over a layer displaying prime
farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and Farmland of Local Importance in the vicinity
of the project. A project footprint was created to include a 25-foot buffer from the slope stakes.
The NRCS farmland figure is attached to this memo.

Completion of Part VI of the NRCS Form AD-1006
Part VI (Site Assessment Criteria) of the NRCS Form AD-1006 was completed for this project.
Points allotted for each criterium and reasoning are provided below.
1. Area in Non-urban Use: 13 out of 15 points. Estimated using aerial
photography; approximately 80% of the land within the 1-mile buffer is non-
urban.
2. Perimeter in Non-urban Use: 8 out of 10 points. Estimated using aerial photography;
more than approximately 70% borders on land in non-urban use.
3. Percent of Site Being Farmed: 11 out of 20 points. Estimated using aerial
photography; approximately 55% of the site is being farmed.
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government: 0 out of 20 points. The site is
not designated as a Voluntary Agriculture District (VAD) or Enhanced Voluntary
Agriculture District (EVAD).
5. Distance from Urban Built-up Area: 8 out of 15 points. Determined using aerial
photography; site is within 2.0 miles of Marler and Hamptonville.
6. Distance to Urban Support Services: 8 out of 15 points. Services exist within 3 miles
of the project site.
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average: 0 out of 10 points. The farm units
are more than 50% below the average size farm unit in Yadkin County (106 acres).
8. Creation of Non-farmable Farmland: 0 out of 10 points. This project will have
no implications on remaining farmable land.
9. Availability of Farm Support Services: 0 out of 5 points. No farm support
services were identified within the site.
10. On-Farm Investments: 10 out of 20 points. Some on-farm investments including
barns, storage buildings, and irrigation were identified using aerial imagery.
11. Effects of Conversion on Farm Support Services: 0 out of 10 points. No significant
reduction in demand for farm support services would occur as a result from the
project.
12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use: 0 out of 10 points. The project is
compatible with existing agricultural use.

Result of Site Assessment Criteria
The sum of the points assigned in part VI of the NRCS form AD-1006 for BR-0127 is 58.

Summary
A preliminary screening of farmland conversion impacts in the project area has been completed
and a total score of 58 out of 160 points was calculate for the BR-0127 project site. Since the
total assessment score does not exceed the 60-point threshold established by the NRCS, farmland
conversion impacts may be anticipated, but are not considered notable.

Sources
US Census. Census of Agriculture. 2012. County Data. North Carolina. Yadkin County. Accessed
8/06/2019.
(https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_Coun
ty_Level/North_Carolina/st37_2_001_001.pdfhttps://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/20
12/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/North_Carolina/cp37097.pdf)

Yadkin County. GIS Application. Yadkin County, NC. Accessed 8/06/2019.
(https://yadkin.connectgis.com/Map.aspx)

Legal Information Institute. Section 658.5- Criteria. Accessed 8/06/2019.
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/658.5)

Attachments
NRCS Farmland figure

Cc: Harrison Marshall and Herman Huang, NCDOT Community Studies
South DeepCreekSout
h Deep Cr
eekNCRS Farmland Figure
Legend
Project Footprint1-mile BufferStreamParcel
Prime Farmland
Farmland ofStatewideImportance
¯
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Yadkin County, NC
Sources: Yadkin County GIS, NC One Map, NC HPO GIS Portal, NC DEQ, EPA, & Google Earth
STIP BR-0127Bridge No. 980189Replacement over UT of South Deep CreekYadkin CountyNCDOT Division 11
August 2019^_
§¨¦77 (/421
(/601
(/21
§¨¦77
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-0127 FIELD REVIEW MEETING DATE: 04/17/2019
DIVISION: 11 LOCATION: 36.14798, -80.80203
COUNTY: Yadkin
ROUTE (US / NC / SR): SR 1325
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No. 980189 over UT to South Deep Creek
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: Local
TIER: Sub- Regional
MPO / RPO AREA:
MUNICIPALITY:

ATTENDEES

NAME (PRINT)

PHONE No

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

DIVISION RIGHT OF WAY
REPRESENTATIVE

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

ROADWAY DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION AND SURVEYS
REPRESENTATIVE

WORK ZONE TRAFFIC CONTROL
REPRESENTATIVE

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

5/11/12
2

DIVISION (COMPLETED BY DIVISION STAFF AND SENT WITH THE FSM LETTER)
EXISTING FEATURES
FEATURE BRIDGED: UT to South Deep Creek
(BRIDGE / CULVERT) LENGTH 31 (FT.) DECK WIDTH (OUT TO OUT) 25.5 (FT.)
WATER DEPTH: 0.50 (FT.) HEIGHT BED-TO-CROWN: 12.2 (FT.)
PRIOR SURVEY DATE: POSTED: SV TTST:
STRUCTURE TYPE: Timber Deck on I-beams
SPAN TYPE: Timber Deck
SUFFICIENCY RATING: 49.12
POSTED SPEED LIMIT IN PROJECT VICINITY: 55 (MPH / STATUTORY 55MPH)
DETOUR: OFF-SITE YES ON-SITE NO STAGE CONSTRUCTION NO
IF DETOUR IS OFF-SITE, PROVIDE DESCRIPTION OF DETOUR ROUTE SR 1103 and SR 1314
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF DETOUR? 3.1 ( MILES )
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ROAD ON DETOUR? NO
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO BRIDGES ON DETOUR? NO
ARE BRIDGES ON DETOUR CURRENTLY PROGRAMMED ON TIP? NO COMMENTS:
ARE THERE EMS, SCHOOL , OR BUSINESS ACCESS ISSUES? NO COMMENTS:
ARE THERE ANY RAILROAD CROSSINGS ON DETOUR? NO COMMENTS:
SHOULD WORK ZONE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION? NO
REASONS:

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

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

5/11/12
3
HYDRAULICS UNIT (COMPLETED BY HYDRAULICS UNIT STAFF PRIOR TO THE FSM)
WILL THIS PROJECT REQUIRE A FEMA PERMIT? YES
IS THERE UNUSUAL SCOUR POTENTIAL? NO IS PROTECTION NEEDED? YES
ARE BANKS STABLE? No IS PROTECTION NEEDED? Yes, on south side both banks
DOES STREAM CARRY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF LARGE DEBRIS? Yes
WILL THE PLACEMENT OF BENTS IN THE WATER BE ALLOWED N/A COMMENTS
WERE HYDRAULIC ALTERNATIVES BESIDES A BRIDGE CONSIDERED No COMMENTS
POSSIBLE SPAN LAYOUT: 55 FT or 60 FT

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. ) – Exposed rock, existing footings on rock
ARE ANY IMPACTS ANTCIPATED TO NATURAL SPRINGS OR ARTESIAN WELLS No COMMENTS:
POSSIBLE FOUNDATION TYPE: EB Piles

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 (2015)

ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 360

% TRUCKS/DUALS
-L- DESIGN YEAR (20 ) ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC % 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 the project study area.
KNOWN ENDANGERED SPECIES POPULATIONS IN AREA No COMMENTS:
TROUT OR TVA COUNTY No COMMENTS:
CAMA COUNTY No PRIMARY NURSERY AREA No
MORATORIA No IF YES-DURATION
COMMENTS:
IS WATER FEATURE CLASSIFIED AS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER No COMMENTS:
WHAT IS THE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PROJECT: WS-III; UT South Deap Creek
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 Yes
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: Historic Architectural Survey required

5/11/12
5

ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT (COMPLETED BY ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT PRIOR TO FSM)
ALIGNMENT: EXISTING HORIZONTAL Fair
EXISTING VERTICAL Fair
POSSIBLE DESIGN STANDARDS Subregional Tier
POSSIBLE DESIGN SPEED 55 (MPH)
POSSIBLE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS unlikely COMMENT
APPROXIMATE PROJECT LENGTH 700 (FT) NUMBER AND WIDTH OF LANES 2/ 10 ft
SHOULD THIS PROJECT HAVE CURB AND GUTTER OR SHOULDER APPROACHES Shoulders
COMMENT
TOTAL SHOULDER WIDTH 3 (FT) PAVED SHOULDER WIDTH 0 (FT)
CLEAR ROADWAY ON STRUCTURE 27 (FT)
WILL EXISTING DRIVEWAYS, BUSINESS ACCESS, -Y- LINES OR RAMPS NEED TO BE RELOCATED No
COMMENTS: maintain existing gate access or put standard guardrail approach
IS THERE ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY / PERMANENT EASEMENTS / TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ANTICIPATED FOR
CONSTRUCTION Yes COMMENT
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED No
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: 21” Cored Slab
NUMBER OF SPANS 1 LENGTH OF SPANS 55 or 60 (FT)
WILL RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT BE REQUIRED No
WILL STRUCTURE REQUIRE DESIGN FOR VESSEL IMPACT OR FENDER SYSTEM No
DESCRIPTION:
ARE ANY RETAINING WALLS ANTICIPATED No

5/11/12
6

CONSTRUCTABILITY AND ACCESS (DISCUSSED AT THE FSM BY DIVISION BRIDGE MANAGER)
METHOD OF ACCESS: Road closure, Off-site detour
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
ARE CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS AVAILABLE NEAR SITE Yes
ANY ANTICIPATED AREAS OF TEMPORARY SHORING REQUIRED No
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: retain existing footings (entire concrete wall section if possible)
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED / RESOLVED AT FSM BY ATTENDEES
LIST ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED BY ROADWAY DESIGN:
1) retain existing footings
2) coordinate with landowner dealing with cattle
3)

DESCRIBE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING HOW THE ALTERNATIVES WERE DECIDED UPON, WHY CERTAIN
ALTERANTIVES WERE REJECTED, AND IF AN ALTERNATIVE WAS SELECTED, WHY.

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

Page 1 of 1

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

NEW REQUEST: UPDATE REQUEST: REVISION REQUEST: Update to Estimate Revision to Estimate
Revision No.:
DATE RECEIVED: 08/13/19 DATE ASSIGNED: 08/19/19 # of Alternates Requested: 1
DATE DUE: 09/13/19
TIP No.: BR-0127
DESCRIPTION: Replace bridge # 980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Rd) over Unnamed
Tributary of South Deep Creek
WBS ELEMENT: 48836.1.1 COUNTY: Yadkin DIV: 11 APPRAISAL OFFICE: 3
REQUESTOR: Marissa Lenoce & Tierre Peterson DEPT: STV & Structures Mgmt Unit
TYPE OF PLANS: HEARING MAPS | LOCATION MAP | AERIAL | VICINITY | PRELIMINARY | CONCEPTUAL
** Based on past project historical data, the land and damage figures have been adjusted to include condemnation
and administrative increases that occur during settlement of all parcels.**
APPRAISER: Tommy Nance COMPLETED: 08/25/19 # of Alternates Completed: 1

TYPE OF ACCESS:

NONE: LIMITED:
PARTIAL: FULL:
ESTIMATED NO. OF PARCELS: 1
RESIDENTIAL RELOCATEES: - $ -
BUSINESS RELOCATEES: - $ -
GRAVES: - $ -
CHURCH / NON – PROFIT: - $ -
MISC: - $ -
SIGNS: - $ -
LAND, IMPROVEMENTS, & DAMAGES: $ 6,150
ACQUISTION: $ 500
TOTAL ESTIMATED R/W COST: $ 6,650

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

NOTES:
Sources and Uses of Funds for the GREATTER-NC ProgramSummaryDesignROWUtilitiesConstruction TotalNon-federal sources7,886$ 3,154$ 3,154$ 78,858$ 93,052$ 531,000$ BUILD37,114$ 14,846$ 14,846$ 371,142$ 437,948$ Other federal-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 980189
STR_No TotalTotal Injury Fatal A_Inj B_Inj C_Inj PDO UnkAADT (2016) Truck%Crash Reduction - Total CrashesCrash Reduction - Total Injury Crashes (K,A,B,C)980189000000005406%00
Bridge Traffic Review Sheet
TIP:BR‐0127
County: Yadkin
Bridge Number and Location: BRIDGE 980189 ON SR1325 OVER UT OF SOUTH DEEP CREEK
Reviewer: Keith Dixon
Date: 10/2/2018
Base Year:2015
Base Year AADT Estimate 360
Is the bridge location modeled with an approved model?No
Historic AADT Location:SR 1325 N OF SR 1314
2015 360
2014
2013 420
2012
2011 420
2010
2009 380
2008
2007 290
2006
Class Data N/A
Result: Assume Minimum Design Standards

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

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

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

MEMORANDUM TO: Marissa Lenoce
Planner STV Inc.

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

TIP NO: BR-0127
WBS: 67127.1.1
COUNTY: YADKIN
DIVISION 11
DESCRIPTION: Bridge Number 980189 on SR1325 over UT of South Deep Creek

SUBJECT: Pre-Scoping Comments

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

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

6/7/2019

GeoEnvironmental Pre-Scoping Comments
T.I.P.#: BR-0127
Page 2 of 2

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
West Yadkin School
1338
1326
1418
1400
1103
1323
1112
1114
1112
1339
1191
1416
1413
1314
1171
1184
1124
1125
1126
1390
1325
22
1103
1103
1123
1175
1176
1406
1195
1327
22
1314
1206
1207
1208
1125
1175
1209
1210
1445
1446
Bro
.10
.80
.
9
0
.10
.50
.80.4
0
.
1
0
.10.21.07
51
1.
3
1
.43.26.
2
6
.46.63.65.401.01.35
1.13
.49
.64
1.
2
2.47
.50
.50
1..92.21.10.
7
3
.63
.26
.54
1.50
.30
.54.29.60
.51.1.54.09.18.61.73.96
.09.24.20.09.19.25.11.18
.061
.20
1
.17
1.35.
4
5
.25.09.10.18
.40.04.04.25.08
.12.63.13.11.11Wagoner
Longtown
Marler
Marler
421
77
77
21
73
South
Deep
Cr
e
e
k
.702.151103
SCALE: 1"= 2000'
0'2000'2000'
Bridge Location (980189)
BR 0127
2/25/2019 StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/1/3
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 3 9 1 8 5 5 4 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 .1 4 8 0 1 , -8 0 .8 0 2 0 4
T i m e :2 0 1 9 -0 2 -2 5 1 2 :3 9 :3 2 -0 5 0 0
2/25/2019 StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/2/3
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 1 .4 1 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 0 0 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 0 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 2 .1 3 p e r c e n t
Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [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 1 .4 1 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 0 0 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 0 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 Flow Report [Peak Southeast US over 1 sqmi 2009 5158]
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 9 8 f t ^3 /s 1 1 4 3 4 5 3 4 .5
5 Ye a r P e a k F l o o d 3 6 6 f t ^3 /s 2 1 2 6 3 3 3 4
2/25/2019 StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/3/3
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
1 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 4 9 2 f t ^3 /s 2 8 0 8 6 5 3 5 .1
2 5 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 6 6 1 f t ^3 /s 3 6 3 1 2 0 0 3 7 .5
5 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 8 1 2 f t ^3 /s 4 3 2 1 5 3 0 3 9 .6
1 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 9 5 2 f t ^3 /s 4 8 9 1 8 5 0 4 1 .9
2 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 1 0 9 0 f t ^3 /s 5 4 1 2 2 0 0 4 4 .3
5 0 0 Y e a r P e a k F l o o d 1 3 1 0 f t ^3 /s 6 1 9 2 7 7 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
.6 MI.S.JCT.SR1103
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT UNIT
ATTENTION:PRIORITY MAINT; SALVAGE BEAMS
Structure Safety Report
Routine Element Inspection - Contract
COUNTY:YADKIN STRUCTURE NUMBER:980189 FREQUENCY:24 MONTHS
FACILITY CARRIED:SR1325 MILE POST:
LOCATION:
FEATURE INTERSECTED:UT TO SOUTH DEEP CREEK
LATITUDE:36° 8' 52.74"LONGITUDE:80° 48' 7.29"
INSPECTED BY
ERIC A. PATTERSON
ASSISTED BY KEITH PROCTORSIGNATURE
SOUTH APPROACH
TIMBER FLOOR ON I-BEAMSSUPERSTRUCTURE:
E.BTS:TIMBER CAPS/TIMBER POST&CONC.SILLS @ 5-8 CTS.SUBSTRUCTURE:
E.BTS:TIMBER CAPS/TIMBER POST&CONC.SILLS @ 5'-8" CTS.
1 @ 30'-9SPANS:
1 @ 30'-9"
POSTED SV:19 POSTED TTST:25
PRESENT CONDITION:Fair INSPECTION DATE:06/07/2017
OTHER SIGNS PRESENT:(4) 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
Structure Element Scoring
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Quantity
Level 1
Quantity
Level 2
Quantity
Level 3
Quantity
Level 4
Quantity
Parent
Number Location
31 0 Timber Deck Deck 785 785 0 0 0
107 0 Steel Open Girder/Beam Beam 403 0 319 84 0
515 107 Steel Protective Coating Beam 1872 0 1612 0 260
216 0 Timber Abutment Abutments 70 48 11 11 0
220 0 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap/Footing Footing 104 76 10 18 0
228 0 Timber Pile Piles and Columns 10 8 1 1 0
235 0 Timber Pier Cap Caps 52 38 0 0 14
313 0 Fixed Bearing Bearing Device 26 0 26 0 0
515 313 Steel Protective Coating Bearing Device 26 0 26 0 0
332 0 Timber Bridge Railing Bridge Rail 62 0 61 1 0
510 0 Wearing Surface Wearing Surfaces 738 0 0 738 0
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date 6/7/2017
Summary of Maintenance Needs
Maintenance By Defect
MMS
Code Element Name Defect Name Recommended Quantity
3314 Steel Open Girder/Beam Corrosion Feet84
3346 Timber Abutment Decay/Section Loss Feet40
3346 Timber Abutment Check/Shake Feet6
3348 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap/Footing Delamination/Spall Feet18
3344 Timber Pile Decay/Section Loss Each2
3344 Timber Pier Cap Decay/Section Loss Feet14
3316 Timber Bridge Railing Connection Feet1
3316 Timber Bridge Railing Check/Shake Feet61
2816 Wearing Surface Crack (Wearing Surface)Square Feet738
3342 Steel Protective Coating Effectiveness (Steel Protective Coatings)Square Feet1898
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Element Structure Maintenance Quantities
Location
MMS
Code Description
Total
Quantity
Severe
Quantity
Poor
Quantity
Fair
Quantity
Good
Quantity
Maint
Quantity
Abutments 3346 Maintenance of Timber Bulkheads or Wingwalls 46 487011110
Beam 3314 Maintenance Steel Superstructure Components 84 0403319840
Beam 3342 Clean and Paint Steel 1872 0187216120260
Bearing Device 3334 Bridge Bearing 0 0262600
Bearing Device 3342 Clean and Paint Steel 26 0262600
Bridge Rail 3316 Maintenance of Timber Bridge Rail 62 0626110
Caps 3344 Maintenance To Timber Substrcutre 14 38520014
Deck 3324 Maintenance of Timber Deck Components 0 785785000
Footing 3348 Maintenance of Concrete Substructure 18 7610410180
Piles and Columns 3344 Maintenance To Timber Substrcutre 2 810110
Wearing Surfaces 2816 Asphalt Surface Repair 738 073807380
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date 06/07/2017
Element Condition and Maintenance Data
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 31 0 01021 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 200124 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER FLANGE FOR APPROX 10'L.
PMAINT.
3 10107 Feet10
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 20% SECTION LOSS
(AVG 1/4" REMAINS).
2107 Feet1
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet20
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 20515 Square Feet20
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 124515 Square Feet124
General Comments
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 31 0 0922 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 400104 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 20% SECTION LOSS (AVG
1/4" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER FLANGE FOR APPROX 8'L.
PMAINT.
3 8107 Feet8
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF THE WEB FOR
APPROX 1'L, AND APPROX 80% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16"
REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L.
PMAINT.
3 1107 Feet1
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 20% SECTION LOSS
(AVG 1/4" REMAINS).
2107 Feet1
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet21
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 40515 Square Feet40
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 104515 Square Feet104
General Comments
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
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 31 0 0229 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 200124 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 0% SECTION LOSS
(AVG 5/32" REMAINS). PMAINT
3 1107 Feet1
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG
1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF THE WEB FOR
APPROX 1'L WITH PERFORATIONS, AND APPROX 80%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
3 1107 Feet1
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet29
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 20515 Square Feet20
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 124515 Square Feet124
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 31 0 0031 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 100134 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM ENDS AT THE ABUTS, SURFACE CORROSION ON
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR UP TO 1'L.
2107 Feet2
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet29
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 10515 Square Feet10
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 134515 Square Feet134
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 5
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 31 0 0031 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 100134 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM ENDS AT THE ABUTS, SURFACE CORROSION ON
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR UP TO 1'L.
2107 Feet2
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet29
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 10515 Square Feet10
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 134515 Square Feet134
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 134515 Square Feet134
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 6
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 31 0 0130 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 200124 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF THE WEB FOR
APPROX 1'L AND THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L,
AND APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'. PMAINT.
3 1107 Feet1
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 20% SECTION LOSS
(AVG 1/4" REMAINS).
2107 Feet1
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet29
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 20515 Square Feet20
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 124515 Square Feet124
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 7
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 31 0 0328 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 200124 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 1, APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG
7/32" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE, AND APPROX
30% SECTION LOSS (AVG 3/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
1" OF THE WEB FOR 1'L. PMAINT.
3 1107 Feet1
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG
1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF THE WEB FOR
APPROX 2'L AND THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L,
AND APPROX 80% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 2'L. PMAINT.
3 2107 Feet2
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet28
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 20515 Square Feet20
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 124515 Square Feet124
General Comments
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Span 1 Beam 8
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 31 0 0031 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 100134 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM ENDS AT THE ABUTS, SURFACE CORROSION ON
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR UP TO 1'L.
2107 Feet2
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet29
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 10515 Square Feet10
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 134515 Square Feet134
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 9
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 31 0 0031 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 100134 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM ENDS AT THE ABUTS, SURFACE CORROSION ON
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR UP TO 1'L.
2107 Feet2
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet29
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 10515 Square Feet10
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 134515 Square Feet134
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 10
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 31 0 0031 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 100134 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM ENDS AT THE ABUTS, SURFACE CORROSION ON
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR UP TO 1'L.
2107 Feet2
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet29
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 10515 Square Feet10
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 134515 Square Feet134
General Comments
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Span 1 Beam 11
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 31 0 0031 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 100134 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM ENDS AT THE ABUTS, SURFACE CORROSION ON
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR UP TO 1'L.
2107 Feet2
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet29
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 10515 Square Feet10
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 134515 Square Feet134
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 12
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 31 0 0301 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 400104 Square Feet
Corrosion BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG
3/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF THE WEB FOR
APPROX 1'L AND THE HALF HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L,
AND APPROX 40% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/8" REMAINS) IN
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
3 1107 Feet1
Corrosion LAYERED RUST WITH UP TO 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER FLANGE FOR FULL
LENGTH OF THE BEAM. PMAINT.
3 29107 Feet29
Corrosion BEAM END AT THE ABUT 1, SURFACE CORROSION ON
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR UP TO 1'L.
2107 Feet1
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 40515 Square Feet40
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 104515 Square Feet104
General Comments
Span 1 Beam 13
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 31 0 0292 Feet
515 Steel Protective Coating 144 0 400104 Square Feet
Corrosion LAYERED RUST WITH UP TO 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER FLANGE FOR FULL
LENGTH OF THE BEAM. PMAINT.
3 29107 Feet29
Corrosion BEAM ENDS AT THE ABUTS, SURFACE CORROSION ON
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR UP TO 1'L.
2107 Feet2
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION SCATTERED ALONG THE
FLANGES AND WEB.
2107 Feet
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
PC HAS FAILED 4 40515 Square Feet40
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 104515 Square Feet104
General Comments
Span 1 Wearing Surface
Asphalt Wearing Surface
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
510 Wearing Surface 738 0 07380 Square Feet
Crack (Wearing
Surface)
REFLECTIVE AND CHECKERED CRACKING UP TO 1/8"W
THROUGHOUT THE AWS
3 738510 Square Feet738
General Comments
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail
Timber Rail
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
332 Timber Bridge Railing 31 0 0130 Feet
Connection APPROX 12' OUT FROM ABUT 1, LOWER RAIL IS LOOSE.
PMAINT.
3 1332 Feet1
Check/Shake TOP RAIL IS LONGITUDINALLY CHECKED ALONG THE
FULL WIDTH AND LENGTH OF THE MEMBER
2 30332 Feet30
General Comments
Span 1 Right Bridge Rail
Timber Rail
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
332 Timber Bridge Railing 31 0 0031 Feet
Check/Shake TOP RAIL IS LONGITUDINALLY CHECKED ALONG THE
FULL WIDTH AND LENGTH OF THE MEMBER
2 31332 Feet31
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
1 Each of Corrosion: Freckled rust. Corrosion of the steel has initiated.
1 Square Feet of Peeling/Bubbling/Cracking (steel Protective Coatings): Finish and primer coats.
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Near Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
General Comments
Span 1 Far Bearing
Fixed 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
313 Fixed Bearing 1 0 001 Each
515 Steel Protective Coating 1 0 001 Square Feet
Corrosion FRECKLED CORROSION 2313 Each1
Effectiveness (Steel
Protective Coatings)
FRECKLED CORROSION 2 1515 Square Feet1
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
General Comments
End Bent 1 Timber Abutment 1
Timber Abutment
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
216 Timber Abutment 35 24 0011 Feet
Check/Shake CHECKING IS WIDELY SCATTERED IN THE BLKD.2 6216 Feet6
Decay/Section Loss SOFTNESS AND DECAY UP TO 1"D IS SCATTERED IN THE
BLKD.
2 10216 Feet5
General Comments
End Bent 1 Timber Pile 5
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
Decay/Section Loss AT THE SILL EXTENDING UP APPROX 1'L, SECTION LOSS,
APPROX 1"W X 3"D.
2 1228 Each1
General Comments
End Bent 1 Reinforced Concrete Footing 1
Reinforced Concrete Footing
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
220 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap/Footing 52 29 0185 Feet
Delamination/Spall 6T END OF THE FOOTING, TOP, SCALING/SPALLING
(DETERIORATION), APPROX 12'L X UP TO 1'W X UP TO
3"D.
3 12220 Feet12
Delamination/Spall RT END OF THE FOOTING, TOP, SCALING/SPALLING
(DETERIORATION), APPROX 6'L X UP TO 1'W X UP TO 3"D.
3 6220 Feet6
Cracking (RC and
Other)
VERTICAL CRACKING UP TO 1/32"W IS SCATTERED
ALONG THE LENGTH
2220 Feet5
General Comments
End Bent 2 Timber Abutment 1
Timber Abutment
Defect Type Defect Description CS Maint
Qty
Element
Number CS Qty
Element
Number Element Name
Total
Qty
CS1
Qty
CS2
Qty
CS4
Qty
CS3
Qty
216 Timber Abutment 35 24 0110 Feet
Decay/Section Loss AT BEAM 7, SOFTNESS AND DECAY WITH 100% SECTION
LOSS ALLOWING FILL TO SPILL ONTO THE CAP, APPROX
1SQFT AFFECTED. PMAINT
3 4216 Feet1
Decay/Section Loss AT THE RT & LT BLKD ENDS, BOARDS HAVE SOFTNESS
AND DECAY WITH SECTION LOSS UP TO 100% FOR 1'L.
LOWER 1' OF THE BLKD, SOFTNESS AND DECAY IS
SCATTERED ALONG THE LENGTH.
3 26216 Feet10
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
AT THE RT & LT BLKD ENDS, BOARDS HAVE SOFTNESS
AND DECAY WITH SECTION LOSS UP TO 100% FOR 1'L.
LOWER 1' OF THE BLKD, SOFTNESS AND DECAY IS
SCATTERED ALONG THE LENGTH.
General Comments
End Bent 2 Timber Pier Cap 1
Timber 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
235 Timber Pier Cap 26 12 1400 Feet
Decay/Section Loss STARTING FROM THE LT END OF THE CAP, TOP OF THE
CAP ADJACENT TO THE BLKD, DECAY WITH 100%
SECTION LOSS FOR APPROX 14'L X 3"W X UP TO 2"D.
THIS VOID UNDERMINES APPROX 1/4 OF THE BEARING
AREA FOR BEAMS 1-7. THE RT & LT END OF THE CAP
HAVE APPROX 10% SECTION LOSS FOR 2"D. PMAINT
4 14235 Feet14
General Comments
End Bent 2 Timber Pile 5
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 0 010 Each
Decay/Section Loss AT THE SILL EXTENDING UP APPROX 8"L, APPROX 15"
SECTION LOSS IN THE OUTER GROWTH RINGS. PMAINT.
3 1228 Each1
General Comments
End Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Footing 1
Reinforced Concrete Footing
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
220 Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap/Footing 52 47 005 Feet
Cracking (RC and
Other)
HL VERTICAL CRACKING IS SCATTERED ACROSS THE
LENGTH
2220 Feet5
General Comments
Structure Number:980189 Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Span 1 Deck Timber Deck Timber Deck 785
Span 1 Beam 1 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 2 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 3 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 4 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 5 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 6 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 7 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 8 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 9 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 10 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 11 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 12 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Beam 13 Plate Girder Steel Open Girder/Beam 31
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail Timber Rail Timber Bridge Railing 31
Span 1 Right Bridge Rail Timber Rail Timber Bridge Railing 31
Span 1 Wearing Surface Asphalt Wearing Surface Wearing Surface 738
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Near Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
Span 1 Far Bearing Fixed Bearing Fixed Bearing 1
End Bent 1 Timber Pier Cap Timber Pier Cap 26
End Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
Elements Verfied
Location Name Component Element Name Amount
End Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Column 1
End Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 1 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 1 Timber Abutment Timber Abutment 35
End Bent 1 Reinforced Concrete Footing Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap/Footing 52
End Bent 2 Timber Pier Cap Timber Pier Cap 26
End Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 2 Timber Pile Timber Pile 1
End Bent 2 Timber Abutment Timber Abutment 35
End Bent 2 Reinforced Concrete Footing Reinforced Concrete Pile Cap/Footing 52
Elements Verfied
Location Name Component Element Name Amount
General Inspection Notes
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
7
5
5
7
N
7
8
NC SMU Inspection Items
Deck Debris
Drainage System
Utilities
Slope Protection
Wingwall
Scour
Drift
Item Grade Scale
Fender System
Response to Live Load
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
G, F, P, or C
F
Grade
G
F
G
G
16
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
16
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
740 3376
0 3332
0 3352
0 3366
0 3364
10 3350
G, F, P, or C
Field Scour Evaluation L
Movable Span Machinery G, F, P, or C
Superstructure Paint Code A
980189Structure Number:Inspection Date:06/07/2017
National Bridge and NC SMU Inspection Item Details
Item Deck Debris Grade F
Details RT & LT GUTTERLINES, DEBRIS COLLECTED UP TO 2"D.
Maint Code 3376 Qty.740
Item Wingwalls Grade F
Details NW TIMBER WING HAS SCATTERED AREAS OF SOFTNESS. THE ENDS AND TOP BOARDS HAVE
DETERIORATION UP TO FULL SECTION LOSS. TOTAL AFFECTED AREA IS APPROX 10SQFT.
Maint Code 3350 Qty.10
980189Structure Number:Inspection Date:06/07/2017
Span 1 Wearing Surface: REFLECTIVE AND CHECKERED CRACKING UP TO 1/8"W THROUGHOUT THE AWS
RT & LT TIMBER RAILS, PAINT IS INEFFECTIVE ON THE TOP OF THE RAILS, AND SUBSTANTIALLY
INEFFECTIVE THROUGHOUT THE BALANCE.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Right Bridge Rail: TOP RAIL IS LONGITUDINALLY CHECKED ALONG THE FULL WIDTH AND LENGTH OF
THE MEMBER. LEFT RAIL IS SIMILAR.
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail: APPROX 12' OUT FROM ABUT 1, LOWER RAIL IS LOOSE. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
RT & LT GUTTERLINES, DEBRIS COLLECTED UP TO 2"D.
NW TIMBER WING HAS SCATTERED AREAS OF SOFTNESS. THE ENDS AND TOP BOARDS HAVE
DETERIORATION UP TO FULL SECTION LOSS. TOTAL AFFECTED AREA IS APPROX 10SQFT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
End Bent 2 Abutment/Backwall : AT THE RT & LT BLKD ENDS, BOARDS HAVE SOFTNESS AND DECAY WITH
SECTION LOSS UP TO 100% FOR 1'L. LOWER 1' OF THE BLKD, SOFTNESS AND DECAY IS SCATTERED
ALONG THE LENGTH.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
End Bent 2 Abutment/Backwall : AT THE RT & LT BLKD ENDS, BOARDS HAVE SOFTNESS AND DECAY WITH
SECTION LOSS UP TO 100% FOR 1'L. LOWER 1' OF THE BLKD, SOFTNESS AND DECAY IS SCATTERED
ALONG THE LENGTH.
End Bent 2 Abutment/Backwall : AT BEAM 7, SOFTNESS AND DECAY WITH 100% SECTION LOSS ALLOWING
FILL TO SPILL ONTO THE CAP, APPROX 1SQFT AFFECTED.
RT CURBING HAS SCATTERED AREAS OF SOFTNESS AND LOSS IN THE TOP, AND GENERALLY IS DRY
WHEN SOUNDED.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
End Bent 2 Cap 1: STARTING FROM THE LT END OF THE CAP, TOP OF THE CAP ADJACENT TO THE BLKD,
DECAY WITH 100% SECTION LOSS FOR APPROX 14'L X 3"W X UP TO 2"D. THIS VOID UNDERMINES APPROX
1/4 OF THE BEARING AREA FOR BEAMS 1-7. THE RT & LT END OF THE CAP HAVE APPROX 10% SECTION
LOSS FOR 2"D. PMAINT
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
End Bent 2 Cap 1: STARTING FROM THE LT END OF THE CAP, TOP OF THE CAP ADJACENT TO THE BLKD,
DECAY WITH 100% SECTION LOSS FOR APPROX 14'L X 3"W X UP TO 2"D. THIS VOID UNDERMINES APPROX
1/4 OF THE BEARING AREA FOR BEAMS 1-7. THE RT & LT END OF THE CAP HAVE APPROX 10% SECTION
LOSS FOR 2"D. PMAINT
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
End Bent 2 Cap 1: STARTING FROM THE LT END OF THE CAP, TOP OF THE CAP ADJACENT TO THE BLKD,
DECAY WITH 100% SECTION LOSS FOR APPROX 14'L X 3"W X UP TO 2"D. THIS VOID UNDERMINES APPROX
1/4 OF THE BEARING AREA FOR BEAMS 1-7. THE RT & LT END OF THE CAP HAVE APPROX 10% SECTION
LOSS FOR 2"D. PMAINT
Span 1 Beam 1: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 10'L. PMAINT.
Span 1 Beam 2: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 20% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 8'L. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 2: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L, AND APPROX 80% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 3: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L WITH PERFORATIONS, AND APPROX 80% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16"
REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 3: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L WITH PERFORATIONS, AND APPROX 80% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16"
REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 6: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L AND THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L, AND APPROX 50% SECTION
LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 7: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 2'L AND THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L, AND APPROX 80% SECTION
LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 2'L. PMAINT.
BEARINGS THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE HAVE SURFACE CORROSION ON EXPOSED SURFACES WITH
PITTING UP TO 1/16".
Span 1 Beam 12: LAYERED RUST WITH UP TO 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER
FLANGE FOR FULL LENGTH OF THE BEAM. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 12: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG 3/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L AND THE HALF HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L, AND APPROX 40% SECTION
LOSS (AVG 1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 12: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG 3/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L AND THE HALF HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L, AND APPROX 40% SECTION
LOSS (AVG 1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
Span 1 Beam 13: LAYERED RUST WITH UP TO 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER
FLANGE FOR FULL LENGTH OF THE BEAM. PMAINT.
End Bent 2 Pile 5: AT THE SILL EXTENDING UP APPROX 8"L, APPROX 15" SECTION LOSS IN THE OUTER
GROWTH RINGS. PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Bent 2 Footing: HL VERTICAL CRACKING IS SCATTERED ACROSS THE LENGTH
End Bent 1 Abutment/Backwall : SOFTNESS AND DECAY UP TO 1"D IS SCATTERED IN THE BLKD.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
End Bent 1 Abutment/Backwall : SOFTNESS AND DECAY UP TO 1"D IS SCATTERED IN THE BLKD.
End Bent 1 Abutment/Backwall : CHECKING IS WIDELY SCATTERED IN THE BLKD.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
End Bent 1 Pile 5: AT THE SILL EXTENDING UP APPROX 1'L, SECTION LOSS, APPROX 1"W X 3"D.
Bent 1 Footing: RT END OF THE FOOTING, TOP, SCALING/SPALLING (DETERIORATION), APPROX 6'L X UP TO
1'W X UP TO 3"D.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Bent 1 Footing: 6T END OF THE FOOTING, TOP, SCALING/SPALLING (DETERIORATION), APPROX 12'L X UP TO
1'W X UP TO 3"D.
Bent 1 Footing: VERTICAL CRACKING UP TO 1/32"W IS SCATTERED ALONG THE LENGTH
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 1: BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 20%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4" REMAINS).
Span 1 Beam 2: BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 20%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4" REMAINS).
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 3: BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 0%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS). PMAINT
VIEW OF A TYPICAL BEARING WITH LAYERED RUST AND PITTING UP TO 1/16"
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 6: BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 20%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4" REMAINS).
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
Span 1 Beam 7: BEAM END AT ABUT 1, APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG 7/32" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE, AND APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG 3/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 1" OF THE WEB FOR 1'L.
PMAINT.
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Condition Photos
VIEW OF TYPICAL SURFACE CORROSION IN AREAS OF PC LOSS ON THE LOWER FLANGE AT THE BEAM
ENDS.
SOUTH APPROACH
POSTING
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Structure Photos
LOOKING UPSTREAM
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Structure Photos
NORTH APPROACH
UPSTREAM
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Structure Photos
TYP BEARING AT THE ABUTS
ABUT 2
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 Structure Photos
ABUT 1
DOWNSTREAM
Structure:980189 County:YADKIN Date:06/07/2017 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
31013250
0
UT TO SOUTH DEEP CREEK
SR1325
.6 MI.S.JCT.SR1103
0
80° 48' 7.29"36° 8' 52.74"
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
1
8 CODE
CODE
CODE
CODE
1968
Highway
Waterway 15
2 0
360
2015 6%
7 MI
30 FT
31 FT
.3 FT .3 FT
24.5 FT
25.5 FT
18 FT
0No Median
00°
999.9 FT
24.5 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
49.12
Not Deficient
YES
0Is not on NHS
09Local
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
7
5
5
7
N
Unknown 0
HS-13 24
HS-8 14
Posting Required 0
P
Posted for Load
4
5
N
7
8
0000
U
CODE
720 2025
06/07/2017
NO
NO
NO
PCT SHARE
980189
1
000000001970189
197
(63) OPERATING RATING METHOD -Load Factor 1
(65) INVENTORY RATING METHOD -Load Factor 1
NATIONAL BRIDGE INVENTORY-------- STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL Run Date: 10/20/2017
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 :
1968 BMU Unknown
TAN 90 2
09 NFA NFA 360 227
.6 MI.S.JCT.SR1103
SR1325 UT TO SOUTH DEEP CREEK
31
0 12 10FTVCHCFT FT
TIMBER FLOOR ON I-BEAMS
0ONUNDER
227LTRT2015
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:TIMBER CAPS/TIMBER POST&CONC.SILLS @ 5-8 CTS.
1 @ 30'-9
13 LINES 14 I-BEAMS @ 1'-11.25 CENTERS
4X8 TIM/ 1.5"
AWS
25.5 FT
24.5 FT 25.167 FT .3 FT
999.9 FT
HS-8 HS-13 int bm 15
Secondary S.R. Route N
LT RT .3 FT
SV TTST 20 DATE 10/20/2017
UNDER ROUTES AND CLEARANCES
YADKIN 11 1 980189
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT UNIT
DATA ON EXISTING STRUCTURE Run Date: 10/20/2017
REMARKS :
3314 LF 10Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 1: BEAM END AT ABUT 2,
APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER FLANGE
FOR APPROX 10'L. PMAINT.
3314 LF 1Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 2: BEAM END AT ABUT 2,
APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/8"
REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF THE
WEB FOR APPROX 1'L, AND APPROX
80% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16"
REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR
APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
3314 LF 1Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 3: BEAM END AT ABUT 1,
LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER FLANGE
FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 0%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS).
PMAINT
3314 LF 1Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 3: BEAM END AT ABUT 2,
APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG
1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF
THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L WITH
PERFORATIONS, AND APPROX 80%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN
THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L.
PMAINT.
3314 LF 1Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 6: BEAM END AT ABUT 2,
APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/8"
REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF THE
WEB FOR APPROX 1'L AND THE FULL
HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L, AND
APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG
5/32" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'. PMAINT.
3314 LF 2Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 7: BEAM END AT ABUT 2,
APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG
1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF
THE WEB FOR APPROX 2'L AND THE
FULL HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L,
AND APPROX 80% SECTION LOSS
(AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 2'L. PMAINT.
3314 LF 1Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 7: BEAM END AT ABUT 1,
APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG
7/32" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE, AND APPROX 30% SECTION
LOSS (AVG 3/16" REMAINS) IN THE
LOWER 1" OF THE WEB FOR 1'L.
PMAINT.
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:980189 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
YADKIN 06/07/2017
Priority Maintenance Level Not DeterminedPriority Maintenance Item Critical Finding Item
Key
3314 LF 29Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 12: LAYERED RUST WITH
UP TO 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32"
REMAINS) IN THE UPPER FLANGE FOR
FULL LENGTH OF THE BEAM. PMAINT.
3314 LF 1Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 12: BEAM END AT ABUT 2,
APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG
3/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2" OF
THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L AND THE
HALF HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L,
AND APPROX 40% SECTION LOSS
(AVG 1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L. PMAINT.
3314 LF 29Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 13: LAYERED RUST WITH
UP TO 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32"
REMAINS) IN THE UPPER FLANGE FOR
FULL LENGTH OF THE BEAM. PMAINT.
3316 LF 1Maint to Timber
Handrail
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail: APPROX 12' OUT
FROM ABUT 1, LOWER RAIL IS LOOSE.
PMAINT.
3344 LF 14Repair / Replace
Timber
Substructure
Components
End Bent 2 Cap 1: STARTING FROM THE
LT END OF THE CAP, TOP OF THE CAP
ADJACENT TO THE BLKD, DECAY WITH
100% SECTION LOSS FOR APPROX
14'L X 3"W X UP TO 2"D. THIS VOID
UNDERMINES APPROX 1/4 OF THE
BEARING AREA FOR BEAMS 1-7. THE
RT & LT END OF THE CAP HAVE
APPROX 10% SECTION LOSS FOR 2"D.
PMAINT
3344 LF 1Repair / Replace
Timber
Substructure
Components
End Bent 2 Pile 5: AT THE SILL
EXTENDING UP APPROX 8"L, APPROX
15" SECTION LOSS IN THE OUTER
GROWTH RINGS. PMAINT.
3346 SF 4Repair / Maintain
Timber Wings &
Blkhds
End Bent 2 Abutment/Backwall : AT BEAM
7, SOFTNESS AND DECAY WITH 100%
SECTION LOSS ALLOWING FILL TO
SPILL ONTO THE CAP, APPROX 1SQFT
AFFECTED. PMAINT
3314 LF 8Maintain Steel
Superstructure
Components
Span 1 Beam 2: BEAM END AT ABUT 2,
APPROX 20% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4"
REMAINS) IN THE UPPER FLANGE FOR
APPROX 8'L. PMAINT.
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:980189 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
YADKIN 06/07/2017
Priority Maintenance Level Not DeterminedPriority Maintenance Item Critical Finding Item
Key
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 10
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 1: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 10'L. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 2: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L, AND APPROX 80% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" 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:980189 County YADKIN
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 3: BEAM END AT ABUT 1, LOWER SIDE OF THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'L, APPROX 0%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS). PMAINT
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 3: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L WITH PERFORATIONS, AND APPROX 80% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16"
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:980189 County YADKIN
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 6: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/8" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L AND THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L, AND APPROX 50% SECTION
LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 1'. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 2
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 7: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 75% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 2"
OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 2'L AND THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L, AND APPROX 80% SECTION
LOSS (AVG 1/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER FLANGE FOR APPROX 2'L. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:980189 County YADKIN
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 7: BEAM END AT ABUT 1, APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG 7/32" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
FLANGE, AND APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG 3/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER 1" OF THE WEB FOR 1'L.
PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 29
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 12: LAYERED RUST WITH UP TO 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER
FLANGE FOR FULL LENGTH OF THE BEAM. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:980189 County YADKIN
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 12: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 30% SECTION LOSS (AVG 3/16" REMAINS) IN THE LOWER
2" OF THE WEB FOR APPROX 1'L AND THE HALF HEIGHT OF THE WEB FOR 1"L, AND APPROX 40%
SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/8" 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 29
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 13: LAYERED RUST WITH UP TO 50% SECTION LOSS (AVG 5/32" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER
FLANGE FOR FULL LENGTH OF THE BEAM. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:980189 County YADKIN
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3316 Maint to Timber Handrail 1
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Left Bridge Rail: APPROX 12' OUT FROM ABUT 1, LOWER RAIL IS LOOSE. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3344 Repair / Replace Timber Substructure Components 14
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
End Bent 2 Cap 1: STARTING FROM THE LT END OF THE CAP, TOP OF THE CAP ADJACENT TO THE BLKD,
DECAY WITH 100% SECTION LOSS FOR APPROX 14'L X 3"W X UP TO 2"D. THIS VOID UNDERMINES
APPROX 1/4 OF THE BEARING AREA FOR BEAMS 1-7. THE RT & LT END OF THE CAP HAVE APPROX 10%
SECTION LOSS FOR 2"D. PMAINT
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:980189 County YADKIN
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3344 Repair / Replace Timber Substructure Components 1
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification Received
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
End Bent 2 Pile 5: AT THE SILL EXTENDING UP APPROX 8"L, APPROX 15" SECTION LOSS IN THE OUTER
GROWTH RINGS. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3346 Repair / Maintain Timber Wings & Blkhds 4
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Priority Maintenance
Status
Division Bridge Maintenance Notification Received
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
End Bent 2 Abutment/Backwall : AT BEAM 7, SOFTNESS AND DECAY WITH 100% SECTION LOSS ALLOWING
FILL TO SPILL ONTO THE CAP, APPROX 1SQFT AFFECTED. PMAINT
SF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:980189 County YADKIN
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
MMS Code MMS Description Quantity
3314 Maintain Steel Superstructure Components 8
Submitted Date:
06/07/2017
Priority Level
Recommended
Status
Routine Maintenance
Location:
Bent/Span No.
Details
Span 1 Beam 2: BEAM END AT ABUT 2, APPROX 20% SECTION LOSS (AVG 1/4" REMAINS) IN THE UPPER
FLANGE FOR APPROX 8'L. PMAINT.
LF
Submitted By:
ERIC A. PATTERSON
Assisted By:
BRIDGE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS
Bridge:980189 County YADKIN
THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE ITEMS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PRIORITY MAINTENANCE REQUEST
Structure Data Worksheet Spans
County:YADKIN Structure No:980189 Date:06/07/2017 Inspected By:EP
1 30.75'NBIS = 28.417'29.583'.
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:
980189 YADKIN 06/07/2017 EP
NONE NOTED
0 3.1 FILL FACE
1 4.8 RAIL TO CAP
1.6 11.3 TOP OF SILL
3 15 GROUND AT SILL 3 15.2 GROUND AT SILL
7 15.2 WSWE
12 15.5 SOUNDING
17 15.4 SOUNDING
23 15.4 SOUNDING
27.8 15.4 GROUND AT SILL 27.8 14.8 GROUND AT SILL
27.9 15.1 WSWE
29.5 10.2 TOP OF SILL
30 4.9 RAIL TO CAP
30.7 3.1 FILL FACE
DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM
Distance
(Station) (ft)
Sounding
(ft)
Description Distance
(Station) (ft)
Sounding
(ft)
Description
Top of Rail = 0 FT (Sounding)
STREAMBED PROFILE (Downstream)
06/07/2017980189CountyYADKINDate:Bridge:
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
A Report of Flood Hazards in
YADKIN COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
Community Name Community
Number
TOWN OF BOONVILLE 370551
TOWN OF EAST BEND 370560
TOWN OF JONESVILLE 370260
TOWN OF YADKINVILLE 370640
YADKIN COUNTY 370400
EFFECTIVE: 5/18/2009
REVISED: 8/18/2009
Federal Emergency Management Agency
State of North Carolina
Flood Insurance Study Number
37197CV000
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 290 feet upstream of Cranberry Road (SR 1343)0.66 **1209 *
South Deep Creek Tributary 4A
At the confluence with South Deep Creek Tributary 4 0.56 **1094 *
Approximately 300 feet upstream of Cranberry Road (SR 1343)0.55 **1080 *
South Deep Creek Tributary 5
At the confluence with South Deep Creek 7.33 **5438 *
Approximately 250 feet upstream of US Highway 21 6.63 **5109 *
Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of US Highway 21 2.26 **2607 *
Approximately 1.4 miles upstream of US Highway 21 2.07 **2466 *
Approximately 0.5 mile downstream of Mountain View Church Road (SR 1325)1.59 **2092 *
Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Mountain View Church Road (SR 1325)1.16 **1721 *
Approximately 415 feet downstream of Interstate 77 0.88 **1360 *
Approximately 275 feet upstream of Marler Road (SR 1103)0.66 **1211 *
South Deep Creek Tributary 5A
At the confluence with South Deep Creek Tributary 5 3.84 **3628 *
Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the confluence with South Deep Creek Tributary
5
2.86 **3023 *
Approximately 1,325 upstream of Mountain View Church Road (SR 1325)2.39 **2698 *
Approximately 300 feet upstream of Interstate 77 2.04 **2446 *
Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of Interstate 77 0.99 **1560 *
South Deep Creek Tributary 6
At the confluence with South Deep Creek 0.86 **1430 *
Approximately 825 feet upstream of the confluence with South Deep Creek 0.84 **1406 *
South Deep Creek Tributary 7
At the confluence with South Deep Creek 1.00 **1565 *
Approximately 880 feet upstream of the confluence with South Deep Creek 0.97 **1538 *
Steelman Creek
At the Yadkin/Davie County boundary 2.40 **1299 *
Approximately 550 feet upstream of the Yadkin/Davie County boundary 2.34 **1269 *
Approximately 145 feet downstream of Else Road (SR 1163)1.94 **1128 *
Approximately 1,655 feet upstream of Else Road (SR 1163)1.62 **1007 *
Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Else Road (SR 1163)1.46 **944 *
Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Else Road (SR 1163)0.72 **605 *
Tanyard Creek
At the confluence with Yadkin River 4.26 **1843 *
Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of River Road (SR 1367)3.85 **1731 *
Approximately 100 feet downstream of River Road (SR 1367)2.40 **1289 *
Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of River Road (SR 1367)2.12 **1192 *
Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of River Road (SR 1367)1.82 **1083 *
Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of River Road (SR 1367)1.71 **1040 *
Turner Creek
Approximately 385 feet upstream of the confluence with Yadkin River 10.64 **3267 *
Approximately 1,875 feet downstream of Farmington Road (SR 1716)10.36 **3212 *
Approximately 720 feet upstream of Farmington Road (SR 1716)7.88 **2707 *
Flood Insurance Study Report: YADKIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Effective Date: May 18, 2009 Page 16 of 103
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
South Deep Creek Tributary 5
001 125.0 5438.0 929.51 131.0 / 23.0
005 499.0 5438.0 930.2 38.0 / 32.0
010 1001.0 5438.0 933.5 14.0 / 18.0
015 1483.0 5438.0 939.9 20.0 / 163.0
016 1551.0 5438.0 941.5 15.0 / 165.0
017 1681.0 5438.0 941.9 20.0 / 215.0
018 1826.0 5109.0 941.9 225.0 / 179.0
019 1854.0 5109.0 941.9 225.0 / 179.0
019 1911.0 5109.0 941.9 215.0 / 43.0
020 1977.0 5109.0 941.9 230.0 / 24.0
020 2008.0 5109.0 942.1 230.0 / 24.0
025 2493.0 5109.0 942.7 106.0 / 115.0
027 2737.0 5109.0 943.1 14.0 / 110.0
030 2991.0 5109.0 944.9 16.0 / 199.0
035 3504.0 5109.0 947.0 25.0 / 93.0
038 3768.0 5109.0 949.1 37.0 / 74.0
040 4013.0 5109.0 950.5 138.0 / 112.0
045 4547.0 5109.0 951.3 105.0 / 75.0
050 5009.0 5109.0 953.1 113.0 / 39.0
055 5483.0 2607.0 955.4 29.0 / 65.0
060 6024.0 2607.0 957.0 105.0 / 25.0
065 6472.0 2607.0 959.1 54.0 / 34.0
070 6986.0 2607.0 964.4 75.0 / 22.0
075 7500.0 2607.0 969.1 36.0 / 13.0
080 7989.0 2607.0 977.1 48.0 / 32.0
085 8507.0 2607.0 982.1 31.0 / 31.0
090 9004.0 2466.0 985.6 53.0 / 67.0
095 9516.0 2466.0 987.2 9.0 / 107.0
099 9935.0 2466.0 989.8 9.0 / 58.0
105 10500.0 2466.0 995.9 69.0 / 30.0
110 10974.0 2466.0 999.0 45.0 / 91.0
114 11398.0 2466.0 1001.0 138.0 / 39.0
120 11971.0 2092.0 1003.9 53.0 / 47.0
125 12529.0 2092.0 1007.4 58.0 / 35.0
129 12893.0 2092.0 1008.7 194.0 / 8.0
134 13439.0 2092.0 1009.6 137.0 / 8.0
139 13881.0 2092.0 1012.9 19.0 / 32.0
141 14052.0 2092.0 1015.9 25.0 / 28.0
141 14109.0 2092.0 1021.4 16.0 / 16.0
145 14500.0 2092.0 1022.9 90.0 / 10.0
150 14988.0 2092.0 1026.2 50.0 / 86.0
155 15499.0 1721.0 1028.6 41.0 / 76.0
160 15996.0 1721.0 1033.0 8.0 / 174.0
165 16492.0 1721.0 1036.1 70.0 / 34.0
Flood Insurance Study Report: YADKIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND INCORPORATED AREAS
Effective Date: May 18, 2009 Page 76 of 103
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

4866
1:12,000
%,012 18.2
!(8
1460000 FEET
860000 FEET
1460000 FEET
880000 FEET
1480000 FEET
880000 FEET
1480000 FEET
860000 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
Old U s 4 2 1 H w y WMountain View Church RdShoreview Dr
Seagraves RdMarlerRd Brooks Mhp 1 DrHoot s R d
Brooks Mhp 2 DrJb
CirKey Smith Dr
Mama
M
o
o

L
n Helens DrDeboa LnBarbara LnZane LnBurton DrBrooks DrShamrockTrlJen k i n s D r
Plantatio n RdForest Hill Dr
J o e l DrNic
h
o
l
s
o
n

L
n
Belize Way
W ile s
R
d
Breezy LnTiny Tots DrCollins Rd
PineViewRd Lakeview DrInscore DrM
a
g
n
o
l
i
a

H
i
l
l

L
nJm RdRock BottomDrDouble W Dr
Lyndon Dr
A n s o ns Dr
KingRd WebbOliverRdDaisy
DrJim West DrWest Ln
Marvin RdBlack Angus Dr
LnjLn Kl
ine
Kno
l
l
DrPineview Farms DrStrawberry LnCre
e
k
s
i
d
e

D
r
Bu
xtonRd
Thad Henry Dr
WYadkinSchoolRdBrownRd JohnFHootsRdIreland Rd
Ingram Gordon Dr
Westwood Rd
RileyRdGroce Rd
Stella Rd
Q uarterdeckD r
CherryCirWestwoodRdExtCre p e M y r t le D r
Emily DrOak Dr
Hunters Ridge Dr
Pine Ridge Dr ThreeOaksR d
Sharlen DrCalLongRdRaineLn
T e e n B l a c k b u rnR d
MauldinRd
FlatRockChurch
R
d DotsTrlLydall-
W
e
s
t
e
x

R
d
OllieCouchRdHomestead Rd
Lucky Ln
RalphRd
Bray Rd
HunterDairyRdPriceRd
AsburyChurchRdBuckShoalsRdBuck Shoa
ls
RdLongtownRdLongt
ownRdKey StRockyBranchRdRocky Branc
h

R
d
RoseLnShirley
DrL o wd e r Rd
Vintage RdCourtDrJasmine WayNancy Dr
Trail
s

E
n
d

R
d
M i l l e r -B rook Rd
Golden Leaf LnAndrew RdCoe DrW e s CountryRd
Windy
Cedar
Dr
Pear Tree LnHarrisRdAlco
r
LnBell School House RdJoannA v eBur
gessRd£¤21
£¤421
£¤21
£¤21
£¤21
§¨¦77
i1020 i1049i10
6
0
i1033
i1013
i1073
i005
i995
i142 i075i946i105
i06
5
i108
i986
i080
i055
i132
i12
3 i954i051i89
5
i03
5
i095 i097i155i116i0
9
2
i080
i043i067i125
i07
7
i
14
5
i053
i935 i089i025
i158 i165i034 i024i009i085i153i134
i017i135
i965i114
i072
i109 i175i977
i91
3
i0
1
6
i925i063
YADKIN COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
370400 982.1942.0
1014.0 969.1907.0995.99
5
9
.
1
986.1
938.2
968.1
955.41038.3952.71022.99
5
1
.
3
1005.1
99
5
.
5 914.3989.4960.6
88
8
.
5
94
7
.
0987.2981.91028.61032.29
7
4
.
9
981.3
983.0964.1
999.29
6
6
.
0
1007.4
10
0
7
.
01043.2
933.5
896.2 981.694
2
.
7
1027.3
956.21036.1950.5
975.29
6
8
.
5 957.61015.01020.21009.6
941.91042.0920.21001.0
981.3
1026.61059.1931.4973.1
894.
0
958.9895.1958.2
FZ0439
FZ0440
FZ0441
i1040
i145
i04
5
NorthLittleHunting Creek
SouthDeepCreek Tributary 5
South DeepCreekTributary 4
South DeepCreek
South DeepCreek
South Deep CreekTributary 5
RockyBranch
Rocky Branch
UnnamedStream
UnnamedStream
80°46'0"W
80°46'0"W
80°46'30"W
80°46'30"W
80°47'0"W
80°47'0"W
80°47'30"W
80°47'30"W
80°48'0"W
80°48'0"W
80°48'30"W
80°48'30"W
80°49'0"W
80°49'0"W
80°49'30"W
80°49'30"W
36°9'0"N
36°9'0"N
36°8'30"N
36°8'30"N
36°8'0"N
36°8'0"N
36°7'30"N
36°7'30"N
36°7'0"N
36°7'0"N
36°6'30"N
36°6'30"N
36°6'0"N
SURRY COUNTY
IREDELL COUNTY
DAVIE COUNTY
5856 5866
5971
5970
5879
5878
5877
5876
5855
5854
5842
4848 4868 4888 5808 5828 5848
5869
4962 4982 5902 5922
5942
4941 4951 4961 4971 4981 4991
5900 5920
5941 5951 5961
4940 4950 4960 4970 4980 4990 5940 5950 5960
5868
4846 4866 4886
5807 5817 5827 5837 5847 5857 5867
5806 5816 5826 5836 5846
4844 4864 4884 5804
5825 5835 5845
5824 5834 5844
5822
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
4866YADKIN COUNTY 370400 J
3710486600J
5/18/2009
470048004900500051005200530054001005101010151020102510301035South Deep Creek Tributary 5 Limited Detail Study Plan: Floodway Run 2/25/2019 Mountain View Church Rd (SDCT5) torStructure ID: LDS_T5SDC_03AStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendWS 100-FWWS 100-yearGroundIneffBank StaEncroachment.06.14.047.14.06
1
Cashmore, Blake A.
From:Harris, James B <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 2:46 PM
To:Lenoce, Marissa A.
Subject:RE: [External] Start of Study Notification: Bridge No. 980189 in Yadkin County
**This e-mail is from outside STV**
Marissa –
Rail Division does not have any comments since no rail is involved on this project. Thank you. - - Jim

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

919 707 4707 office
[e-mail]

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

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

From: Lenoce, Marissa A. <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 2:25 PM
Cc: 4019918 <[e-mail]>; Scott, Elizabeth S. <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Start of Study Notification: Bridge No. 980189 in Yadkin County

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

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. 980189 in Yadkin County.

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

NCDOT is starting the project development, environmental and engineering studies for the replacement of
Bridge No. 980189 on SR 1325 (Mountain View Church Road), over Unnamed Tributary of South Deep Creek
in Yadkin County. The project vicinity map is attached.
2

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

We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project, including recommendation of alternates to be studied. Your comments
may be used in the preparation of an environmental document, in accordance with the State or National
Environmental Policy Act.

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

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

Thank you,
Marissa Lenoce

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

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

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

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

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-980189 Bridge Replacement in Yadkin County. Based on the
proposed project the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has no objections or
comments.

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

Sincerely,

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

May 14, 2019
MEMORANDUM___________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

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

August 22, 2019

M E M O R A N D U M

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project specific comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 980189
SCREENING CHECKLIST
BRIDGE ID:980189 FACILITY:SR1325 OVER UT OF SOUTH DEEP CREEK DIVISION:11
YEAR BUILT:1968 COUNTY:YADKIN POSTED (SV/TTST):15/20
COST ESTIMATE: $617,500
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 NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT AS THREATENED
WITHIN YADKIN COUNTY.
A CHECK OF THE CURRENT NC NHP DATABASE S HOWED NO OCCURRENCES OF FEDERALLY
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGPA)?
A NRTR must be prepared during project development before this question can be fully answered.Review the current USFWS
Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina and note if BGPA species are listed in the
county(s).
THE USFWS LIST FOR YADKIN COUNTY DOES NOT INCLUDE THE BALD EAGLE. THE NCNHP
DATABASE DOES NOT SHOW ANY OCCURRENCES W ITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any reason, following appropriate
public involvement?
Review the appropriate CTP for documentation of public involvement in the CTP development and any comments related to the project.
NO
4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low-income and/or minority
populations?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development.Using the NCDOT Demographic Tool , note the total
population, as well as minority and low -income populations for the county and each Census Block Group in which the project is located.
Also note any observations based on review of aerial photography.
THE PROJECT DEMOGRAP HIC STUDY AREA (DSA) CONTAINS PORTIONS OF 1 BLOCK GROUP.
THE MINORITY POPULATION OF THE DSA IS 0.0%. THIS COMPARES TO A MINORITY POPULATION
OF 15.0% FOR YADKIN COUNTY. THE POVERTY RATE FOR THE DSA IS 7.5%.YADKIN COUNTY’S
POVERTY RATE IS 12.3%.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF LOW INCOME HOUSING IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT VISIBLE ON
AERIAL IMAGERY.
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
98
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 980189
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 IS ONE NC SHPO RESOURCE WITHIN 1,000
FEET OF THE PROJECT.THE HALL FAMILY HOUS E IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE
NORTHWESTERN PROJECT BOUNDARY.
THERE ARE NO PARKS OR WILDLIFE REFUGES WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROPOSED ROW.
7 Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National
Historic Landmark (NHL)?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development.Review NC State Historic Preservation Office GIS data and
note the presence of historic properties within the proposed right of way,as well as within 1,000’ of the project.Note :this site does not
include archaeological resources.
ACCORDING TO THE NC SHPO GIS DATABASE, THERE IS ONE NC SHPO RESOURCE WITHIN 1,000
FEET OF THE PROJECT.THE HALL FAMILY HOUS E IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE
NORTHWESTERN PROJECT BOUNDARY.
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 CLAS SIFIED AS ORW, HQW,OR
LISTED ON THE FINAL 2014 303(D) LIST.
ANY STREAMS LOCATED IN THE PROJECT LIMITS ARE WITHIN A WATER S UPPLY III WATERSHED.
STATE BUFFER RULES DO NOT APPLY WITHIN THE YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN, WHERE THE
PROJECT IS LOCATED.
THERE IS NO MAPPED S AV WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
11 Does the project impact waters of the United States in any of the designated mountain trout streams?
Trout counties are identified on the PDEA Agency Merger Contact Map, and trout waters are identified by “Tr” classification i n their
NCDEQ Surface Water Classification (see Question #10 above). Determine if project is within 1000’ of a trout stream.
THERE ARE NO NCDEQ CLASSIFIED TROUT STREAMS OR DESIGNATED PUBLIC MOUNTAIN
TROUT WATERS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual Section 404 Permit?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development.Using express conceptual design right of way limits and
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping,calculate potential impacts to waters of the U.S. Note impacts to wetlands to the nearest 0.1
acre and to streams to the nearest 10 feet.
THERE ARE NO MAPPED NWI WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS.
99
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 980189
BASED ON NHD FLOWLINES, THE PROJECT WOULD IMPACT APPROXIMATELY 200 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.
YADKIN COUNTY IS NOT A CAMA COUNTY.
18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit?
Review NCDOT’s USCG Stream Coordination Map to determine if the project impacts a navigable waterway that may require
coordination and permitting with the USCG.
THERE ARE NO NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a designated Wild and Scenic River
present within the project area?
Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project is within 1,000’of a Wild and Scenic River.
THERE ARE NO WILD AND SCENIC RIVIRS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE PROJECT.
20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources?
Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project is within a CBRA area .
THERE ARE NO CBRA AREAS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands?
Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project is within federal lands.
THERE ARE NO FEDERAL LANDS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
22 Does the project involve any changes in access control?
Note if the project is proposing a change in control of access.
NO
23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
100
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 980189
This question will require additional evaluation during project development. At this time, note changes in traffic patterns a nd any
reduction in access to community resources.
NO
24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption?
Note if an offsite detour is recommended.
ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE COMPLETED IN A MANNER TO
MINIMIZE DETOURS AND IMPACTS TO TRAFFIC.AN OFFSITE DETOUR COULD BE USED WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTING TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND ACCESS.
25 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP or the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) (where applicable)?
This question will be evaluated during project development.
N/A
26 Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), or other unique areas or special l ands that were acquired in fee or
easement with public -use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property?
A l ist of resources using funds provide through Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)is available at http://waso-
lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm.Review the Division Resource Map to determine if the project crosses a TVA area .If parcel data is
available,use best available information to determine if any of these situations exist.
THERE ARE NO UNIQUE AREAS OR SPECIAL LANDS THAT W ERE ACQUIRED IN FEE OR
EASEMENT WITH PUBLIC USE MONEY WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout properties under the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development. Refer to Question #16 above, and if the project is within a
flood zone, review property data for locally-owned property (county or municipality)within the flood zone and note.If parcel data is
available,determine if any property in the flood zone is government owned.
THE PROJECT ROW LIMITS OCCUR WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.THERE ARE NO FEMA
BUYOUT PROPERTIES WI THIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT.
28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)?
This question will require additional evaluation during project development. Refer to Question #6 above.
SEE #6 ABOVE
29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT's Noise Policy?
Review NCDOT’s Traffic Noise Policy (pages 2 -3) to determine the level of noise analysis that may be required. Provide respo nses for
each funding scenario noting the level of environmental documentation.
IF THE PROJECT IS FEDERALLY FUNDED
Is the project a Type I project?
NO
IF THE PROJECT IS STATE FUNDED
Is the project on an interstate or full control of access US route and does it involve adding additional through lanes? Will the project
require a state EA or EIS?
THE PROJECT IS NOT ON AN INTERSTATE OR FULL CONTROL OF ACCES S US ROUTE.
30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA)?
This question will be evaluated during project development.
N/A
31 Are there other issues that may affect project decisions?
Note any other issues that should be considered during project development.
101
NCDOT Feasibility Studies Unit Bridge 980189
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
102
G
Note: Entire area is within a water supply watershed
§¨¦77
§¨¦77
§¨¦77
§¨¦77
£¤21
£¤21
M ountainViewChurchRdMarler Rd
ThreeOaksRdJoe l DrRJEvans D r
H a r r is R dI 77Wagone rRdLucky L nUS 21 Hwy
Pear Tree LnHarris
RdI 77980189
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
0 800 1,600400 Feet
¯
103
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-0127 Bridge #: 980189 BUILD Grant Div./County: 11/Yadkin
Project Description: Bridge on SR 1325 over UT of South Deep Creek

PRE-SCREENING DETERMINATION
Anticipated Project Development Duration: Potential 2-year project delivery to Letting.
Specific constraints/issues affecting duration: Off-site detour is feasible via SR 1103 and SR
1314, approximately 6 miles. In addition to replace-in-place with off-site detour, should
evaluate realignment to the north as an alternate. Aerial power and telecom located on
south side of bridge but crosses to the north over west end of bridge. Will require
relocation.

General Project Context: (see attached preliminary Study Area Map)
Existing typical section: Two lane Shoulder Facility classification: Local, Rural
Posted speed: 55 mph Existing right-of-way (est.): 50’ via GIS
Adjacent properties: There is an un-named creek that parallels the road on the SE side.
There is a house in the NW quadrant. Agricultural field in the NE quadrant.
Existing improvements proximate to project: Nothing observable via Google maps.
Surrounding community: Rural residential / agricultural / This project is 1.8 miles North
of the Yadkin Valley Scenic Byway on Old US 421 Highway.
Topography: Rolling
Current ADT / Source: 360 / 2015 NCDOT AADT Station Web Map
Utilities observed: Power, Phone cable run aerial on poles along the SE side of the road.
The overhead utilities cross the road diagonally to the SW corner of the bridge.
Other concerns: This bridge is posted at 15 tons for single vehicles and 20 tons for TTST
and has a sufficiency rating of 49.12
Bridge #980126 is located 1 mile South of this project on SR 1749 and it has a Sufficiency
rating of 28.97

8/30/2018 
NEPA /SEPA Planning: (see Environmental Pre-Screening Checklist)
Cultural Resource: ETRACS request submitted: Responses pending

Natural Resource: No known occurrence of T&E species in study area. T&E species listed
for Yadkin County include Northern long-eared bat.
FERC Permit: No Coast Guard Permit: No
Community Impacts: In Progress

Other Concerns: N/A

Hydrologic / Hydraulic Assessment:
River/Stream Crossing: Yes Name: South Deep
Creek Tributary 5
FEMA Regulated: Yes
FEMA Model Type: Limited Detail - Available
River Basin: Yadkin Pee-Dee Buffers: None
WATER QUALITY (DWR Surface Water Classification Map): indicate all that apply
HQW: No ORW: No Trout: No
WSWS: No Name: N/A Critical Area: No
Other Concerns: N/A

Division Consultation: (see attached worksheet)
General Summary:

Specific Utilities Considerations:

Other Concerns:

Utility Section Consultation:
Major Utilities Considerations:

Other Concerns:

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