20160770 Ver 1_Application_20160808

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Thomson, Nicole J
Sent:Monday, August 08, 2016 2:43 PM
To:[e-mail]; Wrenn, Brian L; [e-mail]; Wilson, Travis
W.
Cc:Carpenter,Kristi; Powers, Tim; Parker, Jerry A
Subject:Bridge No. 33 on SR 2359 (Huffines Mill Road) over Huffines Mill Creek, Rockingham
Co. WBS No. 17BP.7.R.64
Attachments:Cover letter and PCN signed.pdf; Bridge 33 USGS.pdf; Bridge 33 Soil.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Good afternoon!

Please find the attached application and supplemental information for the proposed bridge replacement.

Dave B – your hard copy is in the mail.

As per the usual, due to file sizing, I’ll have to break this up into multiple emails.

Please don’t hesitate to call me with any questions or concerns!

Nikki

Nicole J. Thomson
Division Environmental Supervisor Assistant
Division Environmental Office

919-754-7806 Mobile

[e-mail]

PO Box 14996
Greensboro, NC 27415-4996

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

R r� � �, , r_<,! y;` �G d S� F� �� �' t„� �,�'
�. r� r, �yy ;�� �
�j(� . . - � r _,.' ��:� � '�
�,,,� _ �' i7 g !
f ��� � 1
. R �'� �
�'3�11 F'Cn�
} f� t �C � � �
Gd�32' F�C3�D � �
i: � �
. � � nE
��#�3 � �: � �
� P��}�2 �� Wk� ,�` . R�n$
. ° .�,,,
, R n � �'
��`��� • Wk� � ��
Cc�B � � � R � � �`�-� C�
�`�,. � ; Pcl� 2
�� � '� �� f r'� , . -�---
. � � �
�. C�� ' � `�, �_,�- � F�n�'
� � P� � �? Bridge 33 �
. �
. ���82 ;;�' r - --
.�.�- ��.p�� ' ��� ,��E�� �r,E � � �% .
- ,�,,%;� .
,
� '� '�
�clB� 23�� Va8 ,c, ' � �`�� ,
� ��`� � Rn� ' K'`C�� r' �
� .�'" C�� 2
R�l �] 2� 1 IE � ? 3f?i�
� �P� -.
�{'fl� � � �t }� i � � ''� ��'l�
i+�l� �'( � _,�r � �1�� {� B � �y
�'cD � . . �
�_�.�-.-- ,
�
���� � ,.:' `. � �" �:.�t���
���
.c� I �, �.�
���, � ', '--
s -
Map Location Soil Map Figure 2
NCDOT Bridge 33 over
Huffines Mill Creek N
STOKES ROCKINGHAM Huffines Mill Road, New Bethel, NC
� Rockingham County �� �{
�
Rockingham County Soil Survey, 1977
Soil Sheet 9
FORSYTH GUILFORD February 24, 2016
1 inch = 1 000 feet Tr�arrs c�rtatian

j,a
Transportation
August 8, 2016
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mr. David Bailey
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., Ste. 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
PAT McCRORY
Covernor
NICHOLAS J. TENNYSON
Secretary
NC Division of Water Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Attn: Mr. Brian Wrenn
450 W. Aanes Mill Rd., Ste. 103
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Subject: Nationwide 14 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 33 on SR 2359 (Huffines
Mill Road) over Huffines Mill Creek, Rockingham County, North Carolina, WBS Element No.
17BP.7.R.64
Dear Mr. Bailey and Mr. Wrenn:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace the subject bridge.
The purpose of the project is to replace a functionally obsolete 3T L x 18' W, dual span timber beam
bridge on concrete bent with vertical concrete abutments with a new, 32'W x 8'H , conspan, three-sided
bottomless culvert. An off-site detour will be used to convey traffic during construction. The project will
also include some minor approach work on the existing roadway.
The North Carolina Nahual Heritage Database was checked for records of threatened and endangered
species. A survey for Roanoke logperch (Percinia rez) and James spinyxnussel (Pleurobema collina) was
conducted in April 2008. No specimens of either species was found during the survey. Therefore the
biological conclusion is "No EffecY'. Attached is a species survey report prepared by NCDOT Biological
Surveys Group. NES conducted a survey far smootl� coneflower at Bridge 33 on Huffines Mill Road in
Rockingham County on August 2, 2016. Marginal roadside habitat exists on all four quadrants of the bridge
but no specimens were found. A laiown population of smooth coneflower at Penny's Bend in Durham
County was visited prior to the survey. This population was past bloom but the deadheads and petals were
clearly distinguishable for identification purposes. The biological conclusion for smooth coneflower at the
Bridge 33 site is No Effect; Habitat Present. Bald eagle is protected in every county in North Carolina
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. No suitable feeding/water source is located within one
mile of the project study area to suppart Bald eagle habitat. Fivther, Mr. Gary Jordan (USFWS) recently
released the Programmatic Conference Opinion (PCO) for the recently listed Northern Long Eared Bat
(NLEB). This opinion, states in part, that "...tt is the Service's conference opinioia that NCDOT activities
in eastern North Carolina (Divisions 1-8), as proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the NLEB. "
This project was reviewed by NCDOT's Human Environment Unit in 2014 for potential affects to
historical architecture and archaeology. It was determined there would be no eligible architectural or
archaeological resources present within the project study area.
The project study area is comprised mostly of hardwood forest. There are no wetlands or other
jurisdictional feature's within the project boundaries, other than Huf&nes Mill Creek.
NCDOT best management practices (BMPs) wilt be used to minimize and contro] sedimentation and
erosion. The construction foreman will review the BMPs daily to ensure erosion and sedimentation is
�Nothing Compares�ti
State ofNonh Carolina � Department of Transportation � Division of Highways, Division 7 Office
1584 Yanceyville Street, Greensbom, NC 27405� P. O. Hox 14996, Greensboro, NC 274I5-0996
336-487-0000

;" PAT McCRORY
::?
covernor
w NICHOLASJ.TENNYSON
Transportation secrerary
being effectively controlled. If the foreman determines the devices are not functioning as intended, they
will be replaced immediately with better devices.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Huffines Mill Creek (DWR Class: C) is shown on the USGS topographic map as a perennial stream. The
channel is well defined with a subshate primarily composed of bedrock, sand, cobble, boulders, and a
considerable amount of gravel and is 4-6 feet in width. From the project site, Huffines Mill Creek flows to
its confluence with Little Jacobs Creek which then continues to its confluence with Jacobs Creek where it
flows into the Dan River. The Dan River meets the definition of a Traditional Navigable Water. For these
reasons, we believe Huffines Creek is a Relatively Permanent Water and is under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In order to conshuct the project, it will be necessary to impact waters of
the United States in the Roanoke River Basin (HUC 03010103). Specifically, NCDOT is requesting to
replace Bridge No. 33 with a new, three-sided, bottomless culvert. The impacts are listed in the table
below:
Perm. SW Temp. Perm. Temp.
Structure Size / Type Impacts SW �xisting Existing
Impacts Channel Channel
(ac) ac Im acts 1 Im acts 1
Concrete Footer <0.01 0 1 I 0
Bank Stabilizarion <0.01 0 32 0
Dewatered Area 0.03 0 0 65
�Nothing Compares��_
State ofNorlh Caroline � Depertment of Tnnsp9�«on � Division of Highways, Division 7 0�ce
1584 Yanceyvi0e Street, Greensboro, NC 27405) P. O. Box 14996, Greensboro, NC 27415-4996
336487-0000

Transportatlon
PAT McCRORY
Governor
NICHOLAS J. TENNYSON
Secretary
Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesring a revised authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to proceed
with the construction project outlined above. We are also requesting a revised authoxizarion under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DBNR), Division of Water Resources (DWR).
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Jerry Parker at [phone] or
jparker(c�,ncdot•�ov. Your review and consideration are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
�. �� «��
.M. Mills, PE
Division Engineer, Division 7
Enclosures
cc: Travis Wilson, Wildlife Resources Commision (electronic copy)
Gary Jordan, US Fish & Wildlife Service (electronic copy)
Tim Powers, NCDOT (electronic copy)
Barry Hanington, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT
7eremy Warren, NCDOT
Jason Julian, Dishict 3 Engineer, NCDOT
=File
�Nothing Compares`;..�_
SmteofNorlhCarolina � DepanmentofTranspor[ation � Divisio��ofHighways,Division701fice
1584 Yanceyvilie Street, Creensborq NC 27405� P. O. Box 14996, G�eensboro, NC 27415-4996
336-487-0000

pFWATFq Office Use Only:
� 1 0� Qc� Corps action ID no.
� � � � � o _ .�.r � DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
7. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: � Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NW P) number: 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps7 � Yes ❑ No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
� 401 Water Quality Certiflcation — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional Generai Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ For the record only for Corps Permft:
because written approval is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes � No ❑ Yes � No
1f. is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation � Yes ❑ No
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h ❑ Yes � No
below.
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes � No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replace Bridge No. 33 on SR 2359 over Huffines Mill Creek
2b. County: Rockingham
2c. Nearest municipality ! town: Reidsville
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state 176P.7.R.64
proJect no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if Division Engineer NC DOT Division 7, Mr. Mike Milis, PE
applicable):
3d. Street address: PO Box 14996
3e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27415
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent � Other, specify: NC DOT Highway Division 7
46. Name: Division Engineer NC DOT Division 7, Mr. Mike Mills, PE
4c. Business name NC DOT
(if applicable):
4d. Street address: PO Box 14996
4e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27415
4f. Telephone no.: [phone]
4g. Fax no.: [phone]
4h. EI71all 8dd1'BSS: �11�[e-mail]*note: p/ease also copy Mr. JerryParker, Highway Division 7 Environmental
Supervisor on a!! correspondence — fparke�@/�cdof.gov
5. AgenUConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Mr. Jerry Parker
5b. Business name NC DOT Highway Division 7, Division Environmental Supervisor
(if applicable):
5c. Street address: PO Box 14996
5d. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27415
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.3341945 Longitude: - 79.8601987
1c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project: Huffines Mill Creek (22-32-2-1)
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Roanoke River (HUC 03010103)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project study area is comprised of mostly hardwood forest. There are no additional jurisdictional features associated
with Bridge 33 other than Huffines Miii Creek
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: — 65 LF of stream
within the project boundaries
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a structurally deficient and functionally obsolete timber bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Traffc will be detoured off-site. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be installed. Water will be diverted around
the construction area. The oId dual-span, timber beam bridge with timber caps on concrete bent will be removed. The new
culvert structure will be a three sided, bottomless 32'XS' conspan structure. Sandbags will be utilized as needed lo divert stream
flow for footer installation (see attached construction sequencing). Equipment to be used includes a track hoe, dump truck, paving
e ui ment, um s and various hand tools.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the � Yes � No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property J
project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type � Prelimina ❑ Final
of determination was made? ry
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): N/A Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
N/A
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � Yes � No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes � No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check ail that apply):
❑ Wetlands � Streams—tributaries � Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number Type of impact Type of Forested Corps (404, 10) or Area of impact
Permanent (P) or wetland DWQ (401, other) (acres)
Tem ora T if known
W 1 Choose one Choose One Choose one Yes/No -
2g. Total wetland impacts 0
2h. Comments: There are no wetlands within the project boundaries.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3 b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial (PER) Type of Average stream Impact
number ar intermittent jurisdiction width length
Permanent (P) or (INT)? (feet) (linear
Temporary (T) feet)
S1 P Huffines Mill pER Corps 4-6 32
Stabilization Creek
S1 P Huffines Mill PER Corps 4-6 11
Concrete Footer Creek
Construction! Huffines Mill
S1 T Dewatering Creek PER Corps 4-6 65
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 108'
3i. Comments: Of the 43 LF of stream impacts, only 11 LF are associated with permanent impacts to the stream due to the
installation of a footer 32'L X S'W three-sided culvert. This footer installafion is in the same location as the existing
bridge footer which will need to be removed and then replaced. The other 32 LF of impact is associated with streambank
protection (i.e. the rip rap is restricted to the banks of the channel and will not encroach within the thalweg). The 65 LF of
temporary impacts are associated with the impervious dikes that will be used upstream and downstream of the proposed
crossing. The dewatering of the stream will run concurrently with the construction activities (i.e. the temporary impacts
associated with dewatering are within the permanent stream impact footprint location).
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individuall list all o en water im acts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number— waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or (if applicable)
Tem ora T
01 Choose one Choose One Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: No open water imapcts
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
Page 4 of 11

5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond Excavat
Flooded Filled ed Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1 Choose One
P2 Choose One
5f. Total
5g. Comments: There are no ponds created for this project
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required7
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surFace area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Neuse 0 Tar-Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number — Reason Buffer mitigation Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name required? (square feet) (square feet)
Tem ora T im act
B1 - No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 11

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project is to remove and replace a structuraliy deficient bridge and replace it with an three-sided,
bottomless culvert. Roadway approach work is minimized as much as is practical to reduce the overall project footprint.
Additional measuresected An off-site detour will be employed to avoid the need for a temporary parallel structure.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Erosion and sedimentation BMPs will be installed prior to construction. Water will be diverted around the work area to
prevent sedimentation of downstream aquatic resources. Impacts will be minimized by strict enforcement of Best
Management Practices for the protection of surFace waters, restrictions against the staging of equipment in or adjacent to
waters of the US and coordination (including a pre-construction meeting) with the Division Environmental Supervisor.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes � No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ❑ Payment to in-lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose one Quantity
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one Quantity
Type: Choose one Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
Page 6 of 11

4h. Comments: NCDOT is not proposing mitigation for this particular bridge to bottomless culvert replacement.
Previous correspondence with the USACE discussed that the proposed arch footer located on the west bank is
primarily in the same location as the existing bridge footer and abutment. On the east side, the arch footer is well
up on the bank with no impacts to the stream (including the bank stabilization which does not impinge upon the
stream). There is no "low flow shaping" under this bottomless culvert. Per NCDOT hydraulics unit, the existing
bridge (out to out) is 18 feet wide; the proposed bottomless culvert length is 35 feet. This is an additional 17 linear
feet of channel that will be indirectly impacted by the proposed arch culvert. Currently, there is no streambank
vegetation or habitat under this bridge due to its configuration and the location of the abutments and existing
footers right at the creek edge. Per the USACE email, no mitigation wiil he required for the 17 linear feet of "new
culvert coverage".
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigatfon Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ❑ Yes � No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3(2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 11

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
7. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified � yes � No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: ❑ Yes � No
2. Stormwater Mana ement Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? � Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
Plan is attached
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? �WQ
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local governmenYs jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply): ❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Pro ram Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply � pRW
(check all that apply): ❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ❑ yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the � yes ❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes � No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)7
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surtace Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes � No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 26 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ❑ Yes � No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in � yes � No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Per the NC DWQ April 10, 2004 Version 2.1 Cumulative Impacts policy, small scale public transportation projects — such
as widening projects, bridge replacements and intersection improvements — have a"low potential for cumulative impact
since little (if any) new impervious surtace is added and the projects are usually in already developed locales." This
proposed project is within a somewhat developed landscape (i.e. existing residential homes in the vicinity), this is not a
road on a new location (i.e. there is an existing road and bridge structure and thus, the area already contains impervious
surtaces) and the project drains to Huffines Mili Creek which is Class C(i.e. not ORW, HQW, or 303(d) listed waters).
We anticipate the NC DWR will advise us if a qualitative or quantitative analysis is needed.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
It is not anticipated that this project will generate any wastewater as it is a roadway project.
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federaily protected species or
habitat? ❑ Yes � No
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act � Yes � No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Criticai
Habitat?
NES Bios survey unit surveyed the project reach for Roanoke logperch (Percinia rex) and James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina) in April 2008, as well as searching the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database. The database
search indicated that there are no known occurrences of either species within the project study area or in Huffines Mill
Creek. Further, no species were found during the field survey.
NES conducted a survey for smooth coneflower at Bridge 33 on Huffines Mill Road in Rockingham County on August 2,
2016. Marginal roadside habitat exists on all four quadrants of the bridge but no specimens were found. A known
population of smooth coneflower at Penny's Bend in Durham County was visited prior to the survey. This population was
past bloom but the deadheads and petals were clearly distinguishable for identification purposes. The biological
conclusion for smooth coneflower at the Brid e 33 site is No Effect; Habitat Present.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ❑ No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
This bridge replacement project takes place in Rockingham County which is not near any coastal or tidal habitat that
would support EFH (i.e. salt marshes, oyster reefs, etc.).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation � yes � No
status (e.g., Natfonal Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
This project was submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Human Environment Unit for review in
2014. It was determined that no survey was required for historical architecture, and a field survey on March 5, 2014
supported that no archaeological resources will be affected by this project.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ❑ Yes � No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Mr. Mike Mills, PE 'l�n � ��J'��� August 8, 2016
, ar�
Applicant/AgenYs Printed Name ApplicanUAgenYs Signature Date
(Ageni's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 10 of 11