20221397 Ver 1_RGP50_CoverLetterWithAttachments_Br115_R018_20221010

Tnr�M
O�
qq�
'u C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 7, 2022
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
SUBJECT: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Regional General Permit 50
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run (Class C), Stanly County, NC
WBS Number: BP10.R018.1
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
We are requesting a Section 404 Regional General Permit 50 for work associated with the replacement of
Bridge No. 115 with a new bridge at the same location in Stony Run (Class C) on SR 1968 (St. Martin
Rd) in Stanly County. The project will permanently impact 7 linear feet of Stony Run for a bridge pier
associated with the proposed 110' cored slab bridge. There will be 125 linear feet of permanent stream
impact needed for stream bank stabilization along Stony Run, approximately 7 linear feet of bank
stabilization impacts overlap with other permanent impacts necessary for installation of bridge piers and
are not included in the bank stabilization total. There will be I I I linear feet of temporary stream impacts
necessary for dewatering; all but 6 linear feet of the temporary stream impacts overlap with permanent
impacts previously reported.
The bridge will consist of two lanes, with an approximately 39-foot wide structure with two 12-foot travel
lanes and 6.5-foot unpaved paved shoulders on either side of the bridge. The proposed structure will be
lengthened from 91 feet to approximately 110 feet. The approach roadway would extend approximately
250 feet from the western end and 240 feet from the eastern end of the proposed bridge. The roadway
approaches will also include two 12-foot travel lanes with approximately 6.5-foot unpaved shoulders. The
total length of the project is approximately 600 feet.
There will be no wetland impacts.
Section 106
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed
the project for Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources. A No Survey Required Form for
Historic Architecture and Landscapes was provided through ETRACS by a NCDOT Architectural
Historian on September 28, 2021. A No Archaeological Survey Required Form was provided by a
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax: [phone] WEST MAIN STREET
DIVISION 10 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001 Website: www.ncdot.gov

NCDOT Archaeologist on November 10, 2021. Additionally, tribal coordination was conducted for the
project by NCDOT staff on August 23, 2021. A response from the Catawba received on September 29,
2021, stated that Catawba had no immediate concerns within the boundaries of the proposed study area.
Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ
website lists Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) as endangered and northern long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis), as threatened within the study area. There is habitat in the study area for
Schweinitz's sunflower. No species of Schweinitz's sunflower were found during field surveys of the
study area on September 30, 2021. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database, accessed January 27, 2022, found no occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower within 1.0 mile of
the study area. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for Schweinitz's sunflower.
There is potential summer roosting habitat in the existing bridge and the surrounding trees for northern
long-eared bat (NLEB). No evidence of bats using the bridge was observed during field reviews
conducted on July 29, 2021 and September 30, 2021. The project may require tree clearing or pile driving
but no blasting or percussive activities are anticipated. Based on the findings and in conforming to
SLOPES procedures it has been determined that the USACE's Alternative Local Procedure (ALP)
Situation 2 would be applicable. The NCDOT determined that the project `May Affect -Not Likely to
Adversely Affect' the NLEB. 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. Section 7 responsibilities are therefore
considered fulfilled.
Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A desktop-GIS assessment of
the study area, as well as the area within a 1.13 mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) was performed. No
water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified.
Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study area and the area within
660 feet of the study area was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on January
27, 2022 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to no nests
or eagles being identified during the survey, no known occurrences within a mile, and minimal impact
anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
If you have any questions, comments or need additional information after reviewing this material please
contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
oel Howard
PDEA Engineer, NCDOT Division 10

Attachment A — Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan
Attachment B — Delineation Materials
Attachment C — Representative Photographs
Attachment D — T & E Supplemental Information
Attachment E — Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
Attachment F — No Archaeological Survey Required Form; Historic Architecture, Landscapes No
Survey Required Form, and Tribal Coordination

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
WBS Number: BP. 1OR. 018.1
Bridge 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment A
Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan

Highway North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stormwer
„ at ,, , Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Version 2.08; Released April 2018 FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: SF-830115 TIP No.: BP10.R018.1 County(ies): Stanly Page 1 of 1
General Project Information
WBS Element:
SF-830115 ITIP Number: BP10.R018.1 Project Type: Bridge Replacement Date: 7/27/2021
NCDOT Contact:
Shawn Harris
Contractor / Designer:
STV Engineers, Inc. / Edward Vance
Address:
1000 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleight, NC 27610
Address:
900 West Trade Street, Ste. 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone:
919-548-6191
Phone:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
[e-mail]
City/Town:
Oakboro, NC
County(ies):
Stanly
River Basin(s):
Yadkin -Pee Dee
I CAMA County?
I No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
No
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
0.11 Surrounding Land Use: Rural, Agricultural land
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
1.6 ac.
0.6 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Bridge : Two 11' lanes, 5' paved shoulders and 64" sidewalks on both sides
Approach: Two 12' lanes, variable paved shoulders
Bridge: Two 12' lanes,3.2' to the right and 3.5' to the left shoulders
Approach: Two 12' lanes, variable shoulders
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Design/Future: 6800 Year: 2025
Existing: 3400 Year: 2012
General Project Narrative:
(Description of Minimization of Water
Quality Impacts)
The existing 91', 3 span bridge over Stony Run on SR 1968 (St. Martin Road) is being replaced with a 2 span bridge with a span arrangement of 1 @40' (24" Cored Slab), 1 @70'
(24" Cored Slab). The bridge will have 1.5:1 sloping abutments. The bridge will be superelevated at 4% with two 12' travel lanes with 6'-4 1/2" shoulders on both sides, 36'-9"
clear width and 39' OTO width. The existing bridge structure will be removed. Overall drainage patterns will be maintained. There are roadside ditches that flow towards the
bridge on both sides of the structure which will be maintained in the proposed conditoin. On the begin side of the bridge, a traffic bearing grated drop inlet with double frame and
grates (2GI) was placed on the right side of the roadway in the shoulder berm gutter to pick up runoff from the bridge. Class -II rip rap abutment protection on both banks of the
stream is also proposed to prevent future erosion and stream migration. No deck drains will be required to meet spread criteria.
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1):
Stony Run
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
13-1731-5-5
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Class C
Supplemental Classification:
None
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
No Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
iYes
I Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? INo Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? INo
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
INo
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative

C
O
V
L
0
L
U
a
E
L
a
V
T
L
i
0
H
2
N
E
L
a_
to
O
C
3
0
L
i
v
C
m
E
C
0
L
C
W
I
N
H
ui
W
o_
to
0
U
N 7
N O
O�L—
� TL
r—x}
0�1Y
T A T E O F NORTH C A R D �j I N� STAR
f u �
SIATH PIIaHCT RHPHRHNCH NQ HEE TOTAL
SNnT SHEETS
�1
See Sheet to For Index Sheets
�_�
BP10.R018.1
rd
See Sheet i B For Standard Symbology Sheet
DIVISION (OF HIGHWAYS
G T�j W Y S
r.y,�
l V V srwTe mia.Nn
.w. wia. ecua�PrwN
"V
o
RosSA� 1
F s aoNo
BP10.R018.1 P.E.
Fo
P4
SR 12
STANLY COUNTY
p,A
oC4
LOCATION: BRIDGE #115 OVER STONY RUN CREEK ON SR 1968 MARTIN RD)
aJ` 3
(ST.
NORTH CAROLINA
P = MP 6$
r
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURE
m o
HATL
SR'9" END
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
r PROJECT
�3 BEGIN
PROJECT
I N
VICINITY MAP
�--�� DETOUR N.T.S.
z
W
o
M
0
z
BEGIN BRIDGE
4 END BRIDGE
BEGIN PROJECT WBS BP10.R018.1
-L- STA. 14+82.81
_L— STA. 15+95.19
-L- STA. 12+30.00
END PROJECT WBS BPIO.R018.1
I -L- STA.18 + 36.00
TO OAKBORO
SR 1968
(ST. MARTIN RD) mo N TO q�R`RLE
J,
�Z
SITE 1
I
Permit Drawinj
•
THIS
PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. Sheet 1 Of
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO
THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD H
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
VPLANS
"HYDRA
GRAPHIC SCALES
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTH
PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY:
ULICS
20
10 0 20 40
ADT 2014 = 2000
STV C Engineers, Inc.
STV 10090o Chorlawee( NC 2 St, style T1a
p,Il2(G, tie, N28202
ENGINEER
ADT 2025 = 4000
LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS BPI0.R018.1 = 0.094 MILES
NC License Number F-0991
pJpgp
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
I`_11
DHV = N/A
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS BP10.R018.1 = 0.021 MILES
P.E.
a
PLANS
20
10 0 20 40
D = N/A
T = 6 %
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS BPIO.R018.1 = 0.115 MILES
J
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
DECEMBER 31, 2021
NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE
a
'
.4
sIGNATURE:
ROADWAY
DESIGN
PROTECT ENGINEER
O
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
V = 45 MPH
ENGINEER
TRF,
V4
2 0 4 8
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
NCDOT CONTACT: GARLAND HAYWOOD, PE
LETTING DATE:
STEPHEN L. SAUCIER
PROTECT DESIGNER
COLLECTOR
Division Bridge Manager
JUNE 15, 2022
SUB REGIONAL
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
SIGNATURE:
P.E.

DETAIL A DETAIL B DETAIL C DETAIL D DETAIL E DETAIL F
SPECIAL CUT DITCH SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH LATERAL BASE DITCH RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT LATERAL BASE DITCH
(Not to Scale) (Not to Scale) 1Nott. Scale) (N tta Scale) (No tta Scale) (—t. Scale)
I^b 10'min. 0
1' aaq Ditch ill Galural Natural
Slope N roun :� .�� Fill Ditch I.0'min. 2.5- Ditch I.0'min. 1.5' Groun 7. 1"ht. Fill
Ground 2:� D F\O Ground ?: �', n°t Flape d D, Slope Grade Grade D �', Slave
Min. D= 1.0 FL ' D E° GEOTEXtILE g e Min. D= 1.0 Ft.
Min. D= 1.1 Ft. CL II RIP -RAP CL I RIP -RAP L'-J B= 2.0 Ft.
Max. d= 1.0 Ft. b= 2.0 F.
Min. D= 1.0 Ft. When g is 5
FROM -L- STA. 12+00 TO STA. 13+50 LT �' B= 2.0 Ft. Type of Lim —zoo TONS, a nRip-Rap Type of Daer= za TONS, Cr IRip-Rap
FROM -L- STA. 11+50 TO STA. 13+50 RT b= 2.0 Ft. FROM -L- STA. 15+60 TO STA. 16+20 LT
FROM -L- STA. 13+TO STA. 15+0 RT Tvpe °f Liner= B Rip -Rap
FROM -L- STA. 15+75 TO STA. 16+20 RT FROM -L- STA. 13+50 TO STA. 15+00 LT FROM -L- STA. 15+00 (60' LT) TO STA. 15+00 (50' RT) FROM -L- STA. 15+TO STA. 15+LT
FROM -L- STA. 15+60 60 TO STA. 15+7575 RT
O
�11 AARON C. LOMDER 6 WT-
BRITTANY F. LOWDER
Be 1?3B PO MI4
iTER AND WE.
MMTER
4"
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH
SEE DETAIF A
— PUE
—P E—
—� t
05
SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH �
SEE DETAIL A
O
O
�
=�Q
SITE 1B
SITE 1C
y PERMANENT IMPACTS
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER
IN SURFACE WATER
105 LF
11 LF
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
EST. 10 TONS CLASS 'I' RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL E
2' LATERAL BASE DITCH
W
2' LATERAL BASE DITCH
EST. 70 TONS CLASS 'B' RIP RAP
_
SEE DETAIL F
EST. 150 SV GEOTEXTILE
i SEE DETAIL C
IMPERVIOUS
DDE = 20 CY
DDE = 60 CY
DIKE
lk
TD
T E TDE TDE
TDE�TD
I
TDE
TDE
I
WINDSTREAN
y
OMLINE=qI ,)q ..
�_!lVIOUSF KE
SS BM'
GREEU TTLL-3
�A T T T S T T _; 7 T T TT T
-L- IN 571
ST. MARTIN RD
S0 MTLL
OF NMt*—N 4
SPECIAL STILLING
BASIN
O
LAMERENCE C. MCLESTER AND WT.
AVALLEA L MCLESTER
D0 W9 PC 199
40' 0' 40'
GRAPHIC SCALE
Permit Drawing
Sheet 2 of 7 SITE 1
TL-3
TDE
STV Engineers, In C'
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
STU100
900 Wes{ Trod, St., S'Ite 715
8P10.R018.1
✓�eo/u1. Churotte. NC 28202
NC License Number F-0991
PW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
2' LATERAL BASE DITCH
SEE DETAIL F
DDE = 60 CY
—TDE
O
AARON C. LONXR & WE,
BRITTANY F. LOWER
BB 1T3B PC ABI
E TDE
SHEET NO.
9
ENGINEER
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL I
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
0
I
F � pUE
NINpSTREAM F \ PLI�
\
\
��✓ _� SITE IA - - GREU TLC \
_—_ PERMANENT IMPACTS _
IN SURFACE WATER Ds \
7 LF
ST.SR T�JRD
----- TYPE -III
SITE 1B
PERMANENT IMPACTS V IN SURFACE WATER GREU TI^3
7 F \ U, F
F F
CLASS II RI RAP
SEE STRUC URE PLAN R -
�— I
R I
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH /
SPECIAL STILLING SEE DETAIL B
DDE = 35 CY
BASIN
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
DDE E DETAIL
PI Sla 17f68.60
CY MELVN L PO AND WE, Q1 SPECIAL CUT 'V' DITCH 35
CLASS 'I' RIP RAP JANICE L POOLE + SEE DETAIL A D _ 2r 5 52—q (RT)
EXTEND TO CLASS 'II' EMBANKMENT RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT OB 321PO 937 (O (D L = 293�7�
EST. 15 TONS EST. 34 SY GEOTEXTILE EST. 10 TONS CLASS
S T RIP
RAIL E OO T = I'IV.'FV
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT MELVN LPOOLE AND MFE, R = 765.1J0' /
EST. 220 TONS CLASS 'II' RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL D SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH JA" �� I
SEE DETAIL B OB 321PO 23? I
LEGEND I
®DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
®DENOTES PERMANENT
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
o�

m DDETAIL C DETAIL D
DETAIL A DETAIL B
SPECIAL CUT DITCH SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH LATERAL BASE DITCH RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
(Not to Scale) (Nor ro Scale) 1Not to Scolel (N tta Scale)
b 10'min. o
< Ditch < Grounl
Slope 7.j i� Fill Ditch I.0'min. 2.5'
Ground 7:� F\o Nerurol 1 ° Fill D I Slope Grade
D Group ?:) Eo°t Slave d
Min. D= 1.0 Ft. D GEOTEXIILE g
Min. D= 1.1 Ft. CL II RIP -RAP
Max. d= 1.0 Ft.
FROM -L- STA. 12+00 TO STA. 13+50 LT Min. D= 1.0 Fi. It i. , a a. B= 2.0 Ft.
FROM -L- STA. 11+50 TO STA. 13+50 RT b= 2.0 Ft. Tvpe STA. 1 zz0 roNs,a IIRip-Rap
FROM -L- STA. 13+75 TO STA. 15+20 RT Type RLiner= B Rip -Rap
I� FROM -L- STA. 15+75 TO STA. 16+20 RT FROM -L- STA. 13+50 TO STA. 15+00 LT FROM -L- STA. 15+00 (60' LT) TO STA. 15+00 (50' RT)
X� 06
SITE/It c
TEMPORARY IMPACT SURFACE
J
SURFACFAC E WATER
111 LF \
T LA L BASE DITCH /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( EST. 70 TONSLASS 'B' RIP P
�y, EST. 17
SY GEOTEXrr E
Tom+ ^-� SEE C IMPERVIOUS g�
STER ` DDE = 60 Cv� �' DIKE g
e PECI L Cu'v' D Tc TDE TD TD
SE DETA _. 1 I I TDE
TDE,
P PU R
DETAIL E
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
(N t m Scale)
10'mm.
Dir<h I.0'min 1.5'
Grade
LATERAL BASE DITCH
(Notro Scel�e7 —y
N°tural
Group 2:� D � 1"hl. Fill
Slave
B Min, D= 1.0 Ft.
I.^J B= 2.0 Ft.
b= 2.0 F.
FRlIM _I_ CT4 1 + D — CTA 1—In IT
FROM -L- STA. 15+45 TO STA. 15+60 LT
FROM -L- STA. 15+60 TO STA. 15+75 RT
Q,
AARON C. LOWDER M WE.
BRITTANY F. L�Eft
:
I
DB 1738 Pa
I 1
I
w
10
SITE 11
SFRFACEI WA ERSRIP
S
RAP AT EMBANKMENT
'I'RIP
XTTDE—TDE
EST. 10 T NS CLASS
RAPSEEDET ILE2'
L*L BASE DITCHSEE
DETAIL F
DDE = 20 CY
TDE-
- 'ems w�■ww►�IN����N����r���� � • --
I �
_ -0i--, ,ill IlmPl 0�,n� I�I�/moo■
117kill
SPECIAL STILLING
BASIN
i
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH I
+ I I hl / l / �P DDEE DE351 CLA 'I,Cy
.—\VN�PO CFO ME.
OOLE
EXTEND TO CLASS 11' EMBANKMENT RIP RAPgq RIP RAP AT E�v�I.BAN�MEN11T11 � � ` 06JAN K. 23?
ll-
wE� EST. 15 TONS EST. 34 SY GEOTEXTILE EST. 10 TONS CLASS EID PARApll��' z�T
/ RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT I /� \
uve/// EST. 220 TONS CLASS 'll' RIP RAP
SEE DETAIL D SPECIAL LATE
Rp+.E DT.
LEGEND ILj
¢I$�
®DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER X���
®DENOTES PERMANENT
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER ,�� fl�°j
40/
GR PH C A E�V���
Permit Drawing
Sheet 3 of ��
STV Engineers, Inc.
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
STV
_
100 goo Wes{ Trod, 51.. 1u11e 715
8P10.R0/8.l
3
Charlotte. NC "202
1
NC Lloense Number F-0991
PW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
/ 7
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
IUNLESS
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
17 PO .
2' LATERAL B SE bIT \ \
\ \ \ \
\
\
\
I
SF \
DDE 60 Cy
\
TDE - DE �T� Al��91,
R
��
E
�9�
TD
PUE�
4
NI STREAM / F / / / F /
\
PL�E I I
— Bo
_ — 1 3 ,r
_ .11111 _ —
_ MARTIN Rp
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER \ \ —ARE TL-g ' \
\ SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DIT6}iIII
\ DDE DETA35
sto n�+C�so \) g/PECIAL UT 'V' DITCH I rZ U ' (R� I
J > / /SE�.rDE`rAIL A 444 7• rL7� I
3�� L
NEIL��u&i k E AND � R 765.U0' / =
OLE
M 37 277
I

436

TDE
SITE 1C
LEGEND TEMPORARY IMPACTS
DENOTES TEMPORARY IN SURFACE WATER
—= IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER 111 LF
DENOTES PERMANENT
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
TDE
TD
5S
IMPERVIOUS
DIKE \ .
TDE
SITE 1 B
SWEngineers, Inc,PROJECT
ST`! 100 900 west T,.d, St., S, to T,5
REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
8P10.R018.1
4
PERMANENT IMPACTS
� ¢" NC' erase"Nu b, F-0091
RhV SHEET NO.
IN SURFACE WATER
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
105 LF
2' LATERAL BASE DITCH —
SEE DETAIL F
DDE = 20 CY
TDE TDE
— — — I IMPERVIOUS
F F I LOW LINE=41 .34' DIKE
WINDSTREAM x
O
OF MAINTENANCE) I v
17-111
L T T __T T T T r
01
SPECIAL STILLING
BAS I N
F
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
SEE DETAIL B
DDE = 35 CY
CLASS '1' RIP RAP
EXTEND TO CLASS '11' EMBANKMENT
EST. 15 TONS EST. 34 SY GEOTEXTILE
I
I lii i
�Y
-—CLASS 11 RI RAP
� �►UC
TDE
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
DDE = 60 CY
TDE
F -----
.. WINDSTREAM
P —III
_s SITE IA
PERMANENT IMPACTS c IN SURFACE WATER =_
7 LF
ST.
TYPE-111 SITE 113
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER
20 LF_
\ILY/
0
Z
SPECIAL STILLING
RIP RAP AT EMBANKMENT
Cj
BASIN
EST. 10 TONS CLASS '1' RIP RAP
� m
SEE DETAIL ELo
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
MELVIN B. POOLE AND WIFE,
p
SEE DETAIL B
JANICE K. POOLE
C\
DB 321FIG 237
�p
R
\llW
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH
SEE DETAIL B
DDE = 35 CY
20' 0' 20'
GRAPHIC SCALE

PARCEL NO.
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
NAMES
1 LAWERENCE C. MCLESTER
AVALEA L. MCLESTER
2 JOEL E. WHITLEY
J MELVIN B. POOLE
JANICE K. POOLE
ADDRESS
14026 MCLESTER RD
OAKBORO, NC 28129
12611 ST. MARTIN RD
OAKBORO, NC 28129
12606 ST. MARTIN RD
OAKBORO, NC 28129
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STANLY COUNTY
PROJECT: BP10.R018.1
BRIDGE # 115 OVER
STONY RUN CREEK
ON SR 1968
(ST. MARTIN RD)
Permit Drawing
Sheet 6 of 7
SHEET 6 OF 7 5 / 26 / 2022

WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
la
15+49.76/ 15+54.40
Bridge pier
< 0.01
7
1 b
15+4.90/ 15+61.73
Bank Stabilization
0.02
118
1c
15+11.03/ 15+57.33
Dewatering
0.02
6
TOTALS":
0.02
1 0.02
1 125
6
1 0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
1. Temporary impacts total 111 If of which 105 If were covered under permanent impacts.
2. Permanent bank stabilization impacts total 125 If of which 7 If were covered under permanent impacts.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
WBS Number: BP. 1OR. 018.1
Bridge 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment B
Delineation Materials

m'Guc
m
h
0
Luther Rd
SR-1979
Z.
ye -n N
d`Po m
Bull �� R
'f,�O Hill Rd
° h`� Sti Maur
N
O
` i �_ �
blb m sP
3 1 Harley Rd �R Q o- ,90
q'1 r
S�1 Q°°�`ekn a°
V% o
s �a
�a
�a
a-,nbo1,
�e Dr Sib
c +v
�1�41�rS°¢¢ x s
` S ��° M�cars o` Oa �'
" y rSti O
s F �r wr aClet
�. �V of L
n m
w
e d a�sFTT c' h
se
hR _Hill s Aquadale Rcl
0 oso zoo a,zoo
Fee 13
OF NOnTH C
0
A4
OF TAP
STv loo
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No.
4019567
Drawn By: I Checked Bv: Approved By:
AJV JLK I MAI
Sir
Rise
h�
sq'1 a
C1
9-6ee`'�a:=
C�
Legend
io Project Study Area (-7.8 Acres)
c 138
,may � .
napolis
oncord
52 i
r, Stanly County, NC
Source: © OpenStreetMap (and)
contributors, CC -BY -SA
Nilson Qa
°\
n `tea Sc pNCIN,
p Ste,
Division 10
Bridge Replacement
SR 1968 Over Stony Run
BP10.R018.1
Bridge No. 830115
Stanly County, NC
Wednesday, October 5, 2022
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP

.5tontl Fur,
K�cF IN
)AA;
0 500 1,000 2,000 'r)�'l
Feet
F NO7H C
Pao H
q
Legend
Division 10
Bridge Replacement
SR 1968 Over Stony Run
�4
Project Study Area (-7.8 Acres)
BP10.Ro18.1
Bridge No. 830115
OF 1AP
Stanly County, NC
Wednesday, October 5, 2022
STv loo
FIGURE 2
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
NIAP
Oakboro Quad
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No.
4019567
Ref. USGS 7.5 Minute Topography
Quadrangle Map [Oakboro, NC]
USGS The National Map Topo Base Map
Drawn By:
AJV
Checked By:
I JILK
Approved By:
MAI

Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Nonhydric (0%)
Predominantly nonhydric (1 to 32%)
Partially hydric (33 to 65%)
Predominantly hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (100%)
Not rated or not available
Go
TbB
so 75 150
OF NORTH C
hP
ai
A4
OF TAP
STv loo
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No.
4019567
Drawn By: I Checked By: Approved By:
AJV JLK I MAI
GoF
OaA
M
Legend
io Project Study Area (-7.8 Acres)
-.- National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Los
BaB
I
BaF BaD
GoC
GoF
Mapped Soil Units Within the PSA
BaB Badin channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
BaD Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
BaF Badin channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
GOC Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
GOF Goldston very channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes
OaA Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
TbB Tarrus channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Division 10
Bridge Replacement
i�apolls SR 1968 Over Stony Run
oncord
sz BP10.R018.1
Bridge No. 830115
Stanly County, NC
Wednesday, October 5, 2022
Stanly County, NC
�JrrFIGURE 3
.❑ra
Sources: NC OneMap, NC Center for NRC�+ SOIL SERIES
Geographic Information and Analysis,
NC 911 Board; NRCS Soil Series Data MAP
Stanly County, NC (2019)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.•
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run City/County: Oakboro/ Stanly Sampling Date: 7/29/2021
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Josh Kotheimer, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.243996 Long:-80.310241 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: None Mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Region is experiencing mild drought conditions. Wetland point for Wetland A.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
X Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15x15
)
1. Acernegundo
10 Yes
FAC
2. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3 Yes
FACW
3. Ligustrum sinense
1 No
FACU
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
14 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
7 20% of total cover:
3
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
2
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100.0%
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species 0
x 1 =
0
FACW species 3
x 2 =
6
FAC species 10
x 3 =
30
FACU species 1
x 4 =
4
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 14 (A)
40
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A
=
2.86
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-12 2.5Y 5/3 90 10YR 4/6 10 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
X Redox Depressions(F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.•
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run City/County: Oakboro/ Stanly Sampling Date: 7/29/2021
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Josh Kotheimer, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hillside Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): 5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: Long: Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: None Mapped
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Region is experiencing mild drought conditions. This is the upland point for Wetland A.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
—Surface Water (Al) —True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP2
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15x15 )
1. Ligustrum sinense 20
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
_=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Yes
20 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover:
FACU
4
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5x5 )
1. Saururus cernuus
50
Yes
OBL
2. Impatiens capensis
30
Yes
FACW
3. Microstegium vimineum
20
No
FAC
4. Phytolacca americana
10
No
FACU
5. Asclepias syriaca
5
No
FACU
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
is
50% of total cover: 58
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
115 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 23
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
2
(A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
3
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
66.7%
(A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species 50
x 1 =
50
FACW species 30
x 2 =
60
FAC species 20
x 3 =
60
FACU species 35
x 4 =
140
UPL species 0
x 5 =
0
Column Totals: 135 (A)
310
(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A
=
2.30
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Types Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-3
10YR 3/3
100
Loamy/Clayey
3-9
10YR 5/3
90
7.5YR 4/6 10 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
9-12
2.5Y 5/3
90
7.5YR 4/6 10 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
? Redox Depressions(F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user Manual Version b.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 over
Stony Run
Applicant/Owner Name NCDOT
Basin Wetland
Piedmont
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Stanly
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Wetland Type
Level III Ecoregion
River Basin
County
❑ Yes ® No
Date of Evaluation 7/29/2021
Wetland Site Name Wetland A
Assessor Name/Organization Josh Kotheimer, PWS/ STV
Inc.
Nearest Named Water Body
Stony Run
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040105
NCDWR Region
Asheville
ude/Longitude (deci-deqrees)
35.243996,-80.310241
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
®B ®B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

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

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

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
®A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
TAA WT
o ®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
T
o ®A
®A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ®A
®A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
1E ❑B
❑B
shrub
U) ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
®C
®C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
®A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ®D
JI
22
Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland A
Wetland Type Basin Wetland
Date of Assessment 7/29/2021
Josh Kotheimer, PWS/
Assessor Name/Organization STV Inc.
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence
(Y/N)
NO
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
Bridge No. 115 On SR 1968 over
1. Project name (if any): Stony Run (Stony Run)
3. Applicant/owner name: NCDOT
5. County:
7. River basin:
Stanly
Yadkin-PeeDee
Date of evaluation: 7/29/21
Assessor name/organization
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Josh Kotheimer, PWS /STV Inc.
Run
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.243902,-80.309907
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stony Run 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 307
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 35 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ®Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Bridge No. 115 On SR 1968 Date of Assessment
7/29/21
over Stony Run (Stony Run)
Stream Category Pa4 Assessor Name/Organization
Josh Kotheimer, PWS /STV
Inc.
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
HIGH

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
8
6
IZ-
=0
C- 4
2
0
-07-29
202 _06'C
20�
y ,
Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
2021
Coordinates
35.243789,-80.310092
Observation Date
2021-07-29
Elevation (ft)
390.5
Drought Index (PDSI)
Mild drought
WebWIMP HZO Balance
Dry Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1.0
Written by Jason Deter.
f U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
30 Days Ending
301h °/pile (in)
701h °/pile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2021-07-29
3.234252
5.114961
6.893701
Wet
3
3
9
2021-06-29
3.062992
5.348819
6.173229
Wet
3
2
6
2021-05-30
2.227165
3.460236
2.940945
Normal
2
1
2
Result
i
i
i
i
i
i
j Wetter than Normal - 17
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days Normal
Days Antecedent
ALBEMARLE
35.3992,-80.1994
609.908
12.419
219.408
8.314
10522
90
NEW LONDON 1.5 W
35.4398,-80.2466
628.937
3.864
19.029
1.812
1
0
RICHFIELD 0.2 SSW
35.4683,-80.2578
652.887
5.797
42.979
2.858
24
0
ALBEMARLE 5.1 SSE
35.2944,-80.1596
445.866
7.58
164.042
4.654
1
0
MT PLEASANT
35.4117,-80.4308
740.158
13.06
130.25
7.578
19
0
NORWOOD 6 W
35.2206,-80.2275
450.131
12.441
159.777
7.586
648
0
NORWOOD 2 NE
35.2475,-80.1244
290.026
11.302
319.882
8.701
30
0
NORWOOD 1 ENE
35.2333, -80.1
290.026
12.759
319.882
9.823
3
0
STANFIELD 4.5 SSE
35.1755,-80.3967
500.0
19.045
109.908
10.663
17
0
CONCORD
35.4111,-80.5833
700.131
21.635
90.223
11.688
88
0

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
WBS Number: BP. 1OR. 018.1
Bridge 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment C
Representative Photographs

ti$Im ,M. +fi. qa
'FP

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
WBS Number: BP. 1OR. 018.1
Bridge 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment D
T & E Supplemental Information

Supplemental Information
ePCN Form — NCDOT Division 10 — SR 1968 (St. Martin Road) over Stony Run
Project Number BP.10R.018.1
Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
STV conducted protected species habitat assessments on July 29, 2021 and September 30, 2021.
No federally protected species were identified during field reviews. As of June 28, 2022, the United
States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists two federally protected species, under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) as potentially occurring in the study area (Table 1). For each species, a
discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along with the Biological
Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area. Additionally, the bald eagle is
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and is discussed below. Previously the
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) was listed as potentially occurring within the study area. A
mussel survey was conducted on October 19, 2021. The Biological Conclusion for the survey at
that time was "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect". Due to revisions in USFWS mapping,
the Atlantic Pigtoe is no longer listed as potentially occurring within the study area.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species potentially occurring within the study area
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
NE
Allyolis se tentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
T
Yes
May Effect*
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
May Effect — *NLEB is exempt due to consistency with 4(d) rule
NE - No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS optimal survey window: Late August - October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant species limited to the Piedmont regions
and counties of North and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall originating
from a cluster of tuberous roots. The plant's flower consists of yellow disk and ray flowers formed
on small heads less than 1.5 centimeter (cm) in diameter. The petals, or modified leaves, are two
to three cm long. The lanceolate leaves are arranged in an opposite pattern within the lower two-
thirds of the stem transitioning to alternate within the upper third. The typical habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower includes periodically maintained roadsides and utility line rights -of -way,
old pastures, edges of upland woods, and other disturbed open areas. Soils associated with suitable
Schweinitz's sunflower habitat generally include thin upland soils clayey in texture (and often with
substantial rock fragments) which have a high shrink -swell capacity. Flowering occurs from
August to the first frost of the year.
STV Environmental Scientists Joshua Kotheimer, PWS and Timothy O'Halloran, WPIT
conducted plant by plant field surveys for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflowers on September
30, 2021 during the flowering season and USFWS-designated optimal survey window. Suitable
habitat was found along the SR 1968 roadside and woodland edges, but no sunflowers were
observed. Review of the NCNHP records on January 27, 2022 revealed no documented
occurrences or populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the study area or within one mile of the
Supplemental Information — Stanly 115

study area. Based on the literature review and field survey conducted during the flowering season,
it is determined that the project would have `No Effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: May 15 — August 15
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is a medium-sized bat approximately three to 3.7 inches in
body length with a wingspan of nine to 10 inches. As its name suggests, this bat species is
distinguished from other species in the genus *otis by its long ears. The range of the NLEB
consists of the eastern and north central portions of the United States including 37 states. In North
Carolina specifically, the NLEB primarily occurs in the western part of the state in the mountain
region. Only scattered occurrences have been documented in the piedmont and coastal plain
regions of the state. In western North Carolina, NLEBs spend winter hibernating in caves and
mines. During the summer, NLEBs roost singly or in colonies within trees including underneath
the bark, in cavities, or in crevices. Roosting trees can be both live and dead and are typically >
three inches diameter at breast height in size. Males and non -reproductive females may also roost
in cooler places such as caves and mines. The NLEB has also been observed roosting in man-made
structures including barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges,
and bat houses. Foraging habitat includes forested hillsides and ridges, the airspace above
waterways, and along woodland edges. Mature forests are generally considered to be an important
habitat type for foraging.
The final section 4(d) rule for the NLEB went into effect February 16, 2016. Within the range of
the NLEB in North Carolina, any take of the species within a hibernaculum (breeding grounds) is
prohibited including any action that may change the nature of the hibernaculum's environment or
entrance ways. The 4(d) rule exempts incidental takes of the species for tree -cutting activities
occurring greater than 0.25-mile from a known hibernaculum or more than 150 feet from a known
maternity roost during the pup -rearing season (June 1 through July 31).
Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the USFWS developed a Standard
Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) agreement concerning potential
effects to the federally -threatened NLEB (*otis septentrionalis). The SLOPES was signed and
became effective on January 30th, 2017. The SLOPES agreement details how the USACE will
make determinations of effect to the NLEB when the USACE is the lead federal agency for a
project and is applicable to activities regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 in the western 41 counties
of North Carolina, to include North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) non-federal
aid projects. The SLOPES is also applicable to non-NCDOT projects in the eastern 59 counties of
North Carolina.
Based on review of the USFWS Asheville Field Office's online database on June 28, 2022, no
known NLEB hibernation or maternity sites have been documented within Stanly County. The
bridge on SR 1968 over Stony Run was assessed for evidence of bats by STV Environmental
Scientists on July 29, 2021 and September 30, 2021. The field review concluded that no caves or
mines (potential hibernacula) exist in the study area; however, potential foraging and roosting
habitat, including trees and the air space above Stony Run is present. The bridge over Stony Run
Supplemental Information — Stanly 115

was examined for cavities sufficient for roosting and evidence of bats such as guano and staining;
no evidence was observed on the bridge. Review of the NCNHP records obtained on January 27,
2022 revealed no known occurrences of NLEB within the study area or within one mile of the
study area. The project would not disturb any hibernating bats as no bridge demolition blasting
will be required and no caves or underground mine habitat is located within the study area.
Based on the findings of the literature and field reviews, it has been determined that the project
meets the exempt criteria, and any take associated with the project has already been addressed in
the Biological Opinion for the 4(d) rule, and no further action under Section 7 is required for this
species.
On March 23, 2022, the USFWS published a proposal to reclassify the NLEB as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act. The USFWS has been ordered to complete a new final listing
determination for the NLEB by November 2022. The proposed reclassification, if finalized, would
remove the current 4(d) rule for the NLEB, as these rules may be applied only to threatened
species. Depending on the type of effects a project has on NLEB, the change in the species' status
may trigger the need to re -initiate consultation for any actions that are not completed and for which
the Federal action agency retains discretion once the new listing determination becomes effective
(anticipated to occur by December 30, 2022). If the project may result in incidental take of NLEB
after the new listing goes into effect this will need to be addressed in an updated consultation with
the USFWS that includes an incidental take statement.
The following conservation measures have been recommended by the USFWS as an additional
form of protection for the NLEB and will be considered by the NCDOT when determined to be
feasible and practicable: 1.) conducting tree removal activities outside of NLEB pup season (June
1 to July 31) and/or the active season (April 1 to October 31); 2.) minimizing the use of herbicides
and pesticides, and; 3.) performing any bridge repair, retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation
work outside of the NLEB active season (April I to October 31) in areas where NLEB are known
to roost on bridges or where such use is likely. NCDOT will complete a bat assessment within 30
days of structure removal.
Biological Conclusion: May Effect — NLEB is exempt due to consistency with 4(d) rule
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do not nest
in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to
large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites,
typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0 mile radius of the
project limits, was performed on January 24, 2022 using 2019 color aerials. No water bodies large
enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there
was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study area and the area within 660
feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on
January 27, 2022 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it
has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
Supplemental Information — Stanly 115

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
WBS Number: BP. 1OR. 018.1
Bridge 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment E
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
WBS No.: BP10.R018.1 (formerly 17.BP.10.R.156)
Project Location: Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 (St. Martin Road) over Stony Run in
Stanly County
Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT),
Division 10, plans to replace Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 (St. Martin Road) over Stony
Run in Stanly County, North Carolina.
Constructed in 1961, the existing concrete channel beam bridge is approximately 26-feet
wide with two approximately 9-foot travel lanes and two approximately 3.5-foot wide
paved shoulders. The length of the existing structure is approximately 91 feet. There are
no existing sidewalk or bicycle facilities. The existing right-of-way along SR 1968 (St.
Martin Road) is approximately 40 feet in width. Bridge No. 115 has a posted single
vehicle weight limit of 26 tons and a truck tractor semitrailer weight limit of 38 tons. SR
1968 (St. Martin Road) is classified as a Minor Collector with a 55-mile per hour design
speed and posted speed limit.
The project proposes replacing the existing two-lane bridge structure with an
approximately 39-foot wide structure with two 12-foot travel lanes and 6.5-foot paved
shoulders on either side of the bridge. The proposed structure would be lengthened from
91 feet to approximately 112 feet. Shifts in proposed horizontal and vertical alignment is
not anticipated. The approach roadway would extend approximately 250 feet from the
western and 240 feet from the eastern end of the proposed bridge. The roadway
approaches include two 12-foot travel lanes with approximately 6.5-foot paved shoulders.
The total length of the project is approximately 606 feet.
The proposed right-of-way width would be approximately 130 feet at its widest point and
the project would require approximately 0.98 acres of right of way acquisition and
approximately 0.15 acres of proposed easements. Residential and business relocations are
not anticipated. The project is scheduled for right-of-way in December 2021 and has a
LET date for February 2023. An off -site detour of approximately six miles would be
required for the full duration of construction. The detour route will take travelers on SR
1968 (St. Martin Road), SR 1975 (McLester Road), SR 1115 (Liberty Hill Church Road),
NC Highway 24/27 (East Red Cross Road), SR 1221 (Frog Pond Road) and SR 1970
(Hazard Road).
Purpose and Need: NCDOT Structure Management Unit records indicate Bridge No.
115 has a sufficiency rating of 39.28 out of a possible 100. The bridge's status is
identified as Structurally Deficient in the Structure Safety Report published by the
NCDOT Structure Management Unit on March 15, 2021. The purpose of the project is to
replace the deficient bridge.
08/04/22

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: A Nationwide Permit (NWP) No.
3 Maintenance from the USACE would most likely be applicable for the bridge
replacement. Minor temporary impacts to the waterway may result from the demolition
of the existing bridge and dewatering efforts. If the NWP No. 3 is required, then a
corresponding State Water Quality Certification (No. 4132) pursuant to Section 401 of
the CWA from the NCDWR would also be required. If the proposed project involves
replacing an existing bridge with a culvert, requires a new horizontal alignment, or
involves a temporary onsite detour, then a NWP No. 14 Linear Transportation Projects
from the USACE would likely be applicable. If a NWP No. 14 is required then a
corresponding State Water Quality Certification (No. 4135) pursuant to Section 401 of
the CWA from the NCDWR would also be required. In the unlikely event that project
impacts to waters of the U.S. exceed NWP thresholds of 300 linear feet or 1/2 acre in
area, then a Section 404 Regional General Permit (RGP) No. 50 may be utilized. This
RGP authorizes NCDOT permanent impacts of up to 500 linear feet of stream and/or up
to one acre of wetlands/open waters for each single and complete linear project. Should
compensatory mitigation be required, it is anticipated that the N.C. Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) in -lieu fee program will be utilized.
Cultural Resources: On September 28, 2021, a "Historic Architecture and Landscapes
No Survey Required Form" was provided through ETRACS by a NCDOT Architectural
Historian. Additionally, on November 10, 2021, a "No Archaeological Survey Required
Form" was provided by a NCDOT Archaeologist.
Threatened and Endangered Species: STV reviewed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online databases for
information related to the occurrence of federal and state protected (threatened or
endangered) species in Stanly County. As of January 24, 2022, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally protected species as occurring or
having the potential to occur in Stanly County. These protected species include the
Schweinitz's sunflower, Atlantic pigtoe and the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB).
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the project study area. Plant by
plant field surveys for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflowers were conducted on
September 30, 2021 during the flowering season and USFWS-designated optimal survey
window. Suitable habitat was found along the SR 1968 roadside and woodland edges, but
no sunflowers were observed. Review of the NCNHP records on January 27, 2022
revealed no documented occurrences or populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the
study area or within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and field
survey conducted during the flowering season, it is determined that the project would
have `No Effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Potential habitat for Atlantic pigtoe exists within Stony Run in areas with stable substrate.
Habitat was also present along streambanks under submerged root mats. A mussel survey
and habitat assessment were conducted on October 19, 2021. It was determined that
substrate was dominated by gravel, cobble, and bedrock with silt and sand accumulations
in pools and other depositional areas. Areas of appropriate habitat were searched,
08/04/22 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
concentrating on the stable habitats preferred by Atlantic pigtoe. The results of the study
indicate that the study area supports freshwater mussel fauna of at least three species.
While appropriate habitat was present, the Atlantic pigtoe was not found during these
efforts. The results of the survey are documented in the Stony Run Aquatic Species
Survey Report (dated October 19, 2021) which is uploaded to the Connect NCDOT
project page. Although impacts to Atlantic pigtoe are unlikely to occur in the study area,
they cannot be ruled out. Review of the NCNHP records on January 27, 2022 revealed no
documented occurrences or populations of Atlantic pigtoe occurring within one mile of
the study area. Additionally, the study area is located outside of the current range of this
species based on data provided by the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation
online system. Based on the survey results, the biological conclusion for Atlantic pigtoe
is `May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect.'
Based on review of the USFWS Asheville Field Office's online database on January 24,
2021, no known NLEB hibernation or maternity sites have been documented within
Stanly County. The bridge on SR 1968 over Stony Run was surveyed on July 29, 2021
and September 30, 2021. The field reviews concluded that no caves or mines (potential
hibernacula) exist in the study area; however, potential foraging and roosting habitat,
including trees and the air space above Stony Run is present. The bridge over Stony Run
was examined for cavities sufficient for roosting and evidence of bats such as guano and
staining; no evidence was observed on the bridge. Review of the NCNHP records
obtained on January 27, 2022 revealed no known occurrences of NLEB within the study
area or within one mile of the study area. The project would not disturb any hibernating
bats as no bridge demolition blasting will be required and no caves or underground mine
habitat is located within the study area. Based on the findings of the literature and field
reviews and per the final 4(d) rule, it has been determined that the project qualifies for the
exemption for incidental take and `May Effect — exempt due to consistency with 4(d)
rule' the NLEB. Section 7 responsibilities have been fulfilled for the NLEB. The
following conservation measures have been recommended by the USFWS as an
additional form of protection for the NLEB and will be considered by the NCDOT when
determined to be feasible and practicable: 1) conducting tree removal activities outside of
NLEB pup season (June I to July 31) and/or the active season (April 1 to October 31); 2)
minimizing the use of herbicides and pesticides, and; 3) performing any bridge repair,
retrofit, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation work outside of the NLEB active season
(April 1 to October 31) in areas where NLEB are known to roost on bridges or where
such use is likely. In addition, NCDOT is committed to completing a bat assessment of
the existing pipe 30 days prior to the removal of the structure.
Important Note: On March 23, 2022, the USFWS issued a Proposed Rule to reclassify the
NLEB from a threatened species to an endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act. If the Proposed Rule is finalized, the 4(d) rule will cease to apply and will be
replaced by the ESA Section 9's full take prohibition. NCDOT is closely monitoring the
Proposed Rule process and will likely issue updated guidance and commitments in
addressing potential project impacts on the NLEB.
08/04/22 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
Since this project is state funded, the USACE will act as the lead federal agency for
issues related to the NLEB. The USACE has developed a Standard Local Operations
Procedure for Endangered Species (SLOPES) to address Northern long-eared bat (NLEB)
when they are the lead agency, which NCDOT will follow for this project. This
procedure applies to projects in NCDOT Divisions 9-14. The requirements of the
SLOPES for the NLEB will be completed prior to Let and will be submitted USACE.
Based on the findings and in conforming to SLOPES procedures it has been determined
that the USACE's Alternative Local Procedure (ALP) Situation 1 would be applicable.
The biological conclusion for NLEB is May Effect, however, NLEB is exempt due to
consistency with the 4(d) rule.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act: The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for
the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large bodies of open
water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within
1.0 mile of open water. A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area
within a 1.0 mile radius of the project limits, was performed on January 24, 2022 using
2019 color aerials. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered
potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the
review area, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits
was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NHP database on January 27, 2022
revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to
the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it
has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
Special Proiect Information:
Floodplain: This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA-
regulated stream, Stony Run, which is classified as an AE floodway and is at high risk of
flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program. Due to this, the Hydraulics Unit
will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) to determine the project
status 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).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NC NHP): Stony Run within the project
area is part of the NC NHP designated Natural Heritage Area YAD/Big Bear Creek
Aquatic Habitat. Big Bear Creek Aquatic Habitat comprises Big Bear Creek from its
confluence with Little Bear Creek downstream to its confluence with Stony Run.
Coordination with the NC NHP determined that the mapped aquatic habitat is not
attached to an existing conservation easement and there are no legal or development
restrictions in place.
Farmland: According to Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil -survey,
approximately 0.06 acres of Prime Farmland, 0.65 acres of "Prime farmland if drained
and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"
08/04/22 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
and 0.85 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance are within the Project Study Area.
Preliminary design plans indicate that the proposed right-of-way acquisition and
construction easements would impact approximately 0.95 acres of soil classified as
"Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded
during the growing season." Proposed right-of-way is not anticipated to directly impact
existing cultivated areas.
Based on spatial information from the Stanly County GIS Department and the NC
Agriculture Development & Farmland Preservation Trust Fund accessed on July 6, 2022,
there are no Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VADs) or Enhance Voluntary Agricultural
Districts (EVADs) within the Project Study Area.
Farming operations near the structure may be affected temporarily during construction by
using the approximately six -mile offsite detour route. NCDOT Division 10 will
coordinate with owners of the agricultural operations that are temporarily impacted by the
off -site detour.
Environmental Commitments: Greensheet Commitments are located at the end of the
checklist.
Estimated Costs (FY 2022):
Utility $20,000
Right -of -Way $65,000
Construction $1,580,000
Total $1,665,000
Traffic Information:
Current (2012) 2,000 vpd
Year (2040) 4,000 vpd
T 6%
D N/A
(Source: Right -of -Way Design Plans for MO.R018.3, STV, Inc., December 2021)
Design Exceptions: There are no design exceptions for this project.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: Stanly County Bike Route Map identifies SR
1968 (St. Martin Road) as an existing on -road bicycle route (Route 2: Northern Route).
The bicycle route identified in the map does not possess any bicycle accommodations
such as dedicated bike lanes. The NCDOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
Network (PBIN) data (accessed July 2022) does not identify any existing or planned
facilities along the project corridor on SR 1968 (St. Martin Road) or within the Project
Study Area. Roadway design plans proposes wider paved shoulders on the roadway
approach and bridge replacement which will provide additional area to accommodate the
on -road bicycle route.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build — The no build alternative would not replace the deficient bridge, and
thus is not a viable option.
08/04/22

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
Rehabilitation — Rehabilitation would only provide a temporary solution to the
structural deficiency of the bridge.
Onsite Detour — An onsite detour was not considered feasible for this project due
to the proposed alignment of the new bridge; an offsite detour will be used.
New Alignment — Given that the alignment for SR 1968 (St. Martin Road) is
acceptable, a new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Offsite Detour — An offsite detour of approximately six miles is required for the
full duration of construction. The detour route will take travelers on SR 1968 (St.
Martin Road), SR 1975 (McLester Road), SR 1115 (Liberty Hill Church Road),
NC Highway 24/27 (East Red Cross Road), SR 1221 (Frog Pond Road) and SR
1970 (Hazard Road).
Other Agency Comments:
An EMS Input Form was sent to the Stanly County Emergency Medical Services director
on 08/10/2021 and 09/16/2021. A completed input form was received on 09/17/2021. The
Stanly County EMS Director did not have any special concerns regarding the project.
Response: Comment noted.
A School Input Form was sent to Stanly County Schools Transportation Director on
08/10/2021, 09/16/2021, 11/6/2021 and 7/7/2022. No comments were received.
A Planner Input Form was sent to Stanly County Planning and Zoning Director on
08/10/2021 and 09/16/2021. A completed input form was received on 11/9/2021. The
Director noted that SR 1968 (St. Martin Road) is popular with recreational road
bicyclists, especially on weekends and holidays. He mentioned that the roadway is
narrow and does not provide bicycle lanes for cyclists. He was not aware of any
agricultural operations, VADs, farmland protection easements or farm support services
within the vicinity of the project.
Response: Comment noted. Minor impacts related to access along SR 1968 (St. Martin
Road) are anticipated during the construction phase of the project by using the proposed
offsite detour route. The project is not expected to impact direct access points during the
construction activity. Preliminary roadway design plans propose wider shoulders for
bicycle traffic, serving to enhance safety and improve cycling conditions.
Tribal coordination letters were sent out on August 24, 2021 to the representative of the
Catawba Indian Nation, per NCDOT Tribal Coordination Guidance (dated 6/26/19). A
response was received from the Catawba Nation on September 30, 2021. The Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer stated that the Catawba Nation did not have any immediate
concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties, sacred sites or archaeological sites
within the boundaries of the Project Study Area.
Public Involvement:
08/04/22

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
Public involvement is not required for this project.
08/04/22

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
LItemjl to be completed by the Engine YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under ® ❑
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? #9 (Reconstruction of existing crossroad or
railroad separation and existing stream
crossings, including, but not limited to,
pipes, culverts, and bridges.)
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
Items 2 — 4o be completed by the Engineer.
YES
NO
__,
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
❑
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
❑
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
Items 5 — 8 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.'
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; ❑
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the ❑
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
08/04/22

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
YES NO
El Z
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Items 9 —12 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. _.M YES NO
9.
Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its
® ❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10.
Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent
® ❑
fill in waters of the United States?
11.
Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of
❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12.
Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental
❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
Allns 13 — 15 to be completed by the Engine
13.
Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
❑
Cultural Resources
14.
Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the
❑
National Register of Historic Places?
15.
Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of
❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
08/04/22 9

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
Response to Question 9:
Three federally protected species are listed for Stanly County: Schweinitz's sunflower,
Atlantic pigtoe and the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Habitat for Schweinitz's
sunflower is present at the site along roadside. A plant by plant survey was completed on
September 30, 2021 for the sunflower and no plants were found. The Schweinitz's
sunflower has not been recorded within one mile of the site, therefore the biological
conclusion for Schweinitz's sunflower is "no effect." Potential habitat for Atlantic pigtoe
exists within Stony Run in areas with stable substrate and along streambanks under
submerged root mats. A mussel survey and habitat assessment were conducted on
October 19, 2021. While appropriate habitat was present, the Atlantic pigtoe was not
found during these efforts. Based on the survey results and NCNHP records, the
biological conclusion for Atlantic pigtoe is `May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect.'
As the proposed action is consistent with the Section 4(d) rule, the northern long-eared
bat (NLEB) is exempt from a biological conclusion determination. The USACE has
developed a Standard Local Operations Procedure for Endangered Species (SLOPES) to
address NLEB when they are the lead agency, which NCDOT will follow for this project.
This procedure applies to projects in NCDOT Divisions 9-14. . The requirements of the
SLOPES for the NLEB will be completed prior to Let and will be submitted USACE.
Based on the findings and in conforming to SLOPES procedures it has been determined
that the USACE's Alternative Local Procedure (ALP) Situation 1 would be applicable.
The biological conclusion for NLEB is May Effect, however, NLEB is exempt due to
consistency with the 4(d) rule.
Response to Question 10:
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 3 or 14 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) is anticipated. It is estimated that there will be 307 linear feet of temporary
stream impacts associated with the demolition of the existing bridge and dewatering
during construction of the proposed bridge. One jurisdictional wetland was identified and
delineated in the study area with 0.009 acres of potential impact. Potential permanent fill
impacts due to bridge construction may occur to Stony Run but will be avoided if
possible and minimized if necessary. Stream relocations and/or channel modifications are
not anticipated.
08/04/22 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
DocuSigneddd by: �w Prepared by: �aCbh 6 f Date: 8/5/2022
Jacob Elliott, AICP 451A63ED92674FB..
STV Engineers, Inc., Planner
Doc uSigned by:
Reviewed by: de (bWa� Date: 8/5/2022
Joel Howard DEFFGE9485A34E3..
Environmental Program Supervisor I
FDocuSigned by:
4"t,VIAA,a `&'JWC)oa Date: 8/5/2022
Garland Haywood, PE 568D887B80E4404...
Division Project Development Engineer
08/04/22 11

DocuSign Envelope ID: 55EEB436-61 D5-4FCD-9EF0-AC042DF3BE06
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge No. 115 carrying SR 1968 (St. Martin Road) over Stony
Run in Stanly County
BP10.R018.1 (formerly 17.BP.10.R.156)
Agricultural Land Use
Farming operations in the vicinity of the bridge may be affected temporarily
during construction by using the approximately six -mile offsite detour route.
Continued coordination should occur between NCDOT Division 10 and with the
owners of the agricultural lands that are temporarily impacted by the off -site
detour.
FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program
(FMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT' S
Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). 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.
Section 404 Mitigation
A Section 404 Individual Permit may be required if the project impacts can't be
reduced below the permitting threshold. If mitigation is required, then it is
anticipated that the Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) will be used.
Stormwater
NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will
be utilized throughout the life of the project. Erosion and sediment will be
controlled through the specification, installation, and maintenance of more
stringent erosion and sedimentation control methods.
08/04/22 12

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
WBS Number: BP. 1OR. 018.1
Bridge 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment F
No Archaeological Survey Required Form,
Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form,
Tribal Coordination

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
21-09-0014
---.r------
t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
LZ NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
' This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
County:
Stanly
WBSNo.:
BP10.R018.1
Document
Type:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
Permits :
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
T e s :
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 St. Martin Road over Ston Run.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on September 28, 2021. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE,
or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is defined on the following maps and
follows the boundary of the Study Area. There are no properties over fifty years of age that
warrant further evaluation based on a reconnaissance survey of the APE through Google Street
View and GIS information. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties and no
survey is required. If design plans change, additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictinz that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the
Stanly County survey, Stanly County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered
valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There
are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
❑Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
R ,�:�.
NCDOT Architectural Historian
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 3

Study area St. Martin Rd Stanly 115
Study area for Stanly bridge 830115 on St. Martin Rd
0
x
ti
a
m
a�
500ft length
SK-�q68
100 ft width
500ft length o
e 10Oft width 500ft length
r�
c'e
S�
c
at
500ft lengt
100 feet width from each side C/L of structu
500 feet length along roadway from C/L of structure
4a
c
�a
h
912412021, 826A8 AM
12.257
— Overrrde 1
SHgns
©Pedestnan Bridge
0 0.01 0.03 0-06 mi
Other Structures
Cantilever Sign
T Tunnel
❑ ❑.03 0.05 ❑.1 km
= Ferry Ramp
Overhead Sign
Railroad Bndge
V Pavement on Piles
,r T-Pole Sign
7 Culvert
• Private Structure
Pedestrian Structures
'P) Large Pipe
NCOOT GIS U, Ew, C--* hAw: Cmirbi . C�— C.. y
�
L` Vehicular Underpass
0 Pedestrian Walkway
grime Structures
G"mne c Sto* Canty. SUW of Norm Ci`*Wta DOT. C
COWSYecU/+o carmi DUM. hGvoearl Esa HERE Cu— SaleGradi
Pedestrian Underpass
]i Bridge
INCREMENT P. METIRIASA VSGS. EPA. NIPS VS Census 8ma
NCDOT
O NC COT 2058
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 3

W
Eld
s •'L' �l �'; � sal"••'' �� •1
9
�S• ���!`ISM .)'
OP
Y Li
State Historic Preservation Office GIS.
Historic Architecture andLandscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 3

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
September 29, 2021
Attention: Garland Haywood
NC Department of Transportation
716 West Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
Replacement of Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 over Stony Run in Stanly Co.
2021-193-173 17BP10.R018.1
Dear Mr. Haywood,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
6Ar9AA_ A
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Project Tracking No.
21-09-0014
NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORMm?'
form ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this
h
onl ertains to
YpThis
�w •.-... _ �y
project. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must
� ;'...,,,, .•;.�'
=.
consult separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Bridge 115 County: Stanly
WBS No: BP 10.R018.1 Document: MCC
Federal Aid No: Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: N/A
Project Description: The project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 115 on SR 1968 in
Stanly County, North Carolina. The archaeological APE is centered on the bridge structure and
measures approximately 1,200ft long by 200ft wide.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Permitting and funding information was reviewed for determining the level of archaeological input
required by state and federal laws. Based on the submitted "request for cultural resources review"
form, the project is state funded with federal permit interaction. As such, Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act will apply and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will
serve as the lead federal agency. Next, construction design and other data was examined (when
applicable) to define the character and extent of potential impacts to the ground surfaces embracing
the project locale. The archaeological APE encompasses all areas of potential ground disturbing
activity.
Once an APE was outlined, a map review and site file search was conducted utilizing on-line
resources provided to the NCDOT by the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Wednesday,
November 10, 2021. No NRHP eligible archaeological sites nor any other archaeological resources
are located within the APE or directly adjacent.
Examination of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), State Study Listed (SL), Locally
Designated (LD), Determined Eligible (DE), and Surveyed Site (SS) properties employing resources
available on the NCSHPO website is important in establishing the location of noteworthy historic
occupations related to a perspective construction impact area. A cross-check of these mapped
resources concluded that none of the above properties with potential contributing archaeological
components are situated within the APE. In addition, historic maps of Stanly County were appraised
to identify former structure locations, land use patterns, cemeteries, or other confirmation of historic
occupation in the project vicinity. Archaeological/historical reference materials were inspected as
well. In general, the cultural background review established that no previously recorded
archaeological sites, cemeteries, or NRHP properties with potential archaeological components are
located within the APE. Based on cultural -historical factors, the APE is considered to have a low
potential for the documentation of archaeological resources.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
1 of2

Project Tracking No.
21-09-0014
Further, topographic, geologic, flood boundary, and NRCS soil survey maps were referenced to
evaluate pedeological, geomorphological, hydrological, and other environmental determinants that
may have resulted in past occupation at this location. Aerial and on -ground photographs (NCDOT
Spatial Data Viewer) and the Google Street View map application (when amenable) were also
examined/utilized for additional assessment of disturbances, both natural and human induced, which
compromise the integrity of archaeological sites. Environmental/impact factors do not suggest a
heightened potential for archaeological resource recovery.
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized
tribes have expressed an interest: Catawba Indian Nation and the. We recommend that you ensure
that this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current
NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.)
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably
predicting that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
There are no existing NRHP eligible archaeological sites within the projects APE, and it is unlikely
to contain significant, intact, and preserved archaeological deposits. As currently proposed as a
federally funded project, no further consultation is advocated. A finding of "no archaeological
survey required" is considered appropriate.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST: NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
Scott Halvorsen 11/10/2021
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II Date
2020 PROGRAMMATICAGI2L'EMEN7'ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM "NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
2of2

17BP.10. R.156 Detour Route
3
Qa
1 Lici<
��1f Rd
•�'(��
� 6
A
OD
4
lid(r)
`598ft
IK
N
a
to
oc
W
•��oAA^h
k
O\
Sun �\
St
h `r
S
� Q eoa
Ynn Rd
�• cw
J
Q
�^
a
G
Oakbor
Hu r/
Py� J
Community
Park II
a
y�
0
P`o,Ati
Oakbo
a�w
138 NC �3S ywy
r
t�
tiC
Aquadale Rd
`551 ft
a
NC 138
�.
i
r
3/25/2020, 9:50:34 AM
Total Detour Route = 6.0 miles

Q
5
di{ f
I
\ .• �� ,/�
`L � w47f
' } S©urice: Esr iD gitalc
CNE�S. Airbus DS, U,
*User Co m1 nity
Geo
0
Portion of the Oakboro topographic map illustrating the boundaries
and location of the APE in Stanly County, North Carolina.

"''Y�n a y{IiPt iN+�y_'1'{{' W }, W 2 '. �p aj #• 3
,
b q•}�� r j�
2 T s� �P r dP � �` Y i j •.f