20170309 Ver 1_R87 NWP3 application_20170318

Carpenter,Kristi
From: Hood, Donna
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:33 AM
To: Carpenter,Kristi
Cc: Chapman, Amy
Subject: FW: R.87 NWP3 Application
Attachments: R87 NWP3 application.pdf
Kristi Lynn,
This is for a NW3. At this point I do not believe I will be required to do any written
concurrence, so no fee.
Thanks!
Donna
From: Thompson, Larry B
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 9:18 AM
To: Amschler, Crystal C CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>;
Hood, Donna <[e-mail]>
Cc: Howard, Joel M<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Luther G
<ghaywood @ ncdot.gov>
Subject: FW: R.87 NWP3 Application
Crystal, Donna:
The attached information is for a low-impact bridge replacement project that was
scoped on November 18, 2015. NCDOT is proposing to replace a 29-foot single-span
bridge with a 40' bottomless culvert.
STV has prepared the information that I am forwarding to you. It does not contain a
PCN, given that the intent was to construct under the low-impact bridge replacement
guidelines.
If you feel that further information is required, please let me know and we will
accommodate.
Thank you!
La rry
Larry Thompson, PWS, LSS
Division Environmental Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
704-983-4437 office
704-301-4881 mobile
Ithompson(c�ncdot.qov
716 W. Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Honeycutt, Nikki T. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 1:49 PM
To: Haywood, Luther G<�havwood@ncdot.�ov>; Thompson, Larry B
<Ithompson@ncdot.�ov>
Cc: Phillips, Brandon <[e-mail]>; 4017864 <[e-mail]>
Subject: R.87 NWP3 Application
Garland/Larry,
Please find attached the NWP#3 application for 17BP.10.R.87. Please let us know when
this is approved.
Thanks!
�l'ikki .7�'oneycutt, �'E
Engineering Director - Highways
� ��� � ���
.�
STV Engineers, Inc.
900 W. Trade Street, Suite 715
Charlotte NC 28202
Office: [phone]
Direct: [phone]
Cell: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
�-�.NMi1V '
����#�
Visit us at our website: http://www.stvinc.com
0 � �
The information contained in this electronic message is intended only for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information
that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are informed that

any dissemination, copying or disclosure of the material contained herein, in
whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
error, please notify STV and purge this message.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.

Corps Submittal Cover Sheet
Please provide the following information:
1. Project Name ;Replacement Bridge No. $34�56 an SR ,1218 aver Stony Run Creek „
2. Name of Property Owner/Applicant: NCD{�T Divisit�n 10, Lo�is Mitchell. P.E.
3. Name of Consultant/Agent:_STV Engineers, Inc.
*Agent Authorization needs to be attached.
4. Related/Previous Action ID number(s): N/A
5. Site Address: SR 121$ Gaddis Road o�er Stan Run Creek Fra Pon NC
6. Subdivision Name: N/
7. City: Fro Pond NC
8. County: Stanl
9. Lat: _35.277857° N Long: -SU.3Q�4429° W
10. Quadrangle Name: Fro,g Pand, NC (1981 j
11. Waterway: Sian Run Creek
12. Watershed: Yadkin
13. Requested Action:
X Nationwide Permit # 3
General Permit #
= Jurisdictional Determination Request
Pre-Application Request
The following information will be completed by Corps office:
AID:
Prepare File Folder Assign Number in ORM Begin Date
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404
Project Description/Nature of Activity/Project Purpose:
Site/Waters Name:
Keywords:

/�
� �� STV 100
:� _ _1 �,,�.,�;
March 9, 2017
Ms. Crystal Amschler
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Nationwide Permit #3
NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge No. 830156 on SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek, Stanly County, NC
State WBS Number: 17BP.10.R.87
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No. 4017864
Dear Ms. Amschler:
On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) — Division 10, STV
Engineers, Inc. (STV) is submitting a Low/Minimal Impact Bridge Project Data Sheet to serve as
Pre-Construction Notification (See Attachment A) in accordance with the October 6, 2009
agreement with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ, formerly the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources) and pursuant to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) #3 — Maintenance. The
NCDOT has retained STV to assist in matters related to wetland permitting services for this
project. Materials supporting our Jurisdictional Determination regarding the approximate location
and extent of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the approximate 2.5-acre project study area
(PSA) including a North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Stream Identification
Form, Wetland Determination Data Forms, an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos)
Form, Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map, and photographs, are
found in Attachment B. Accompanying figures, permit drawings, list of property owners, and an
impact summary are included in Attachment C. A"No Archaeological Survey Required Form"
and "Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form" are included as
Attachment D.
Based on National Agriculture Imagery Program aerial photography for Stanly County and
verified by field review, the PSA consists primarily of undeveloped forest, residential property,
disturbed (maintained) right-of-way (R/W), and the improved paved roadway.
Proiect DescriqtionlPuraose and Need
STV was retained by the NCDOT to provide engineering and environmental services for the
bridge replacement project on SR 1218 (Gaddis Road). The SR 1218 bridge over Stony Run
Creek PSA is located northeast of Red Cross in the western portion of Stanly County, north of
NC 24; see Attachment C— Figures 1 and 2.
The existing bridge consists of a 29' single-span bridge, and the proposed structure is a 40'
three-sided, aka, bottomless, culvert. The existing R/W is 60' wide. The new three-sided culvert
will essentially be on the same horizontal alignment as the existing bridge.

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
176P.10. R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
This project is part of the NCDOT's Division Managed "Low-Impact Bridge Replacement (LIBR)
Process." This program is intended to replace the State's aging, deficient bridges in an efficient
and cost effective manner. Many of the State's bridges were built in the 1950's and are now
deteriorating faster than funds are available to replace them. It is estimated that for every bridge
replaced, two additional ones become deficient. It is the goal of this program that all bridge
replacements meet state and federal environmental regulations while providing the maximum
benefit to the public.
The existing bridge conditions were most recently evaluated on August 12, 2013 by the
NCDOT. Subsequently, the NCDOT prepared an updated Structural Inventory and Appraisal
report for the SR 1218 Bridge over Stony Run Creek (identified as Bridge No. 830156). This
Structural Inventory and Appraisal report gives the bridge a sufficiency rating of 16.7 out of 100,
with a status considered "structurally deficient." The NCDOT is planning to replace the existing
SR 1218 Bridge No. 830156 over Stony Run Creek, while funding is available, with an improved
modern structure. During construction, the SR 1218 roadway will be closed to traffic, and traffic
will be detoured off-site.
It is anticipated that this Low-Impact Bridge Replacement project qualifies for a NWP #3. NWP
#3 authorizes the replacement of currently serviceable structures and allows minor deviations in
the structure's configuration due to current construction code or safety standards.
Backqround and Me�hodoloav
The scoping meeting for this Low-Impact Bridge Replacement project, SR 1218 over Stony Run
Creek Bridge Replacement, was held on November 18, 2015 at the proposed SR 1218 over
Stony Run Creek project site near Red Cross, NC. Representatives from the NCDOT and STV
attended. No regulatory agency representatives attended the field meeting. It was agreed by the
NCDOT and STV that a NWP #3 would be appropriate for this bridge replacement project.
Field surveys were conducted within the proposed SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek project
bridge replacement project study area (PSA) by STV environmental scientists on March 1,
2016. A PSA that was approximately 150 feet wide and 600 feet in length, centered along the
existing bridge, and that extended upstream of SR 1218 for 100 feet and downstream for
approximately 200 feet was field reviewed. Streams and wetlands within the PSA were
assessed and plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) and protected by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), which is administered and enforced in North Carolina
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District. Potential wetland areas
were defined using the USACE Routine On-Site Determination method as described in the 1987
"Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual."' This technique uses a multi-parameter
approach, which requires positive evidence of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and
hydric soils. In addition, the USACE "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0)"2 was utilized for
further procedural and technical guidance. Potential jurisdictional stream channels were
� Environmenta[ Laboratory, 1987, "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, " Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
z U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps ofEngineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region. Vicksburg MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Page 2

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Rep/acement March 9, 2017
176P.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
classified according to the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)3
methodology and USACE guidance. The wetland boundaries and stream centerlines and
breakpoints (transition from intermittent flow to perennial flow) were approximated with a
Trimble Geo7X hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit capable of subfoot accuracy
and mapped using ArcGIS 10.3 software. The wetland and stream boundaries were delineated
by STV and surveyed by the NCDOT.
A NCDWR Stream Identification Form is included in Attachment B. The Approved Jurisdictional
Determination (Rapanos) Form and representative photographs of the jurisdictional features
located in the PSA are also included in Attachment B.
Prior to fieldwork, the following references were reviewed to identify possible waters of the U.S.,
including wetland areas:
• U.S. Geological Service (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle maps [Frog Pond, NC (1981)]
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map (Frog Pond,
NC)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Soils Series Data Map for Stanly County,
NC (2012)
• USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey
The USGS map and Soil Survey each depict a stream within the PSA. The USFWS NWI map
depicts a palustrine forested wetland as a potential jurisdictional feature within the PSA.
Jurisdictional stream boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field by STV Senior
Environmental Scientist Brandon Phillips, CHMM, with pink Wetland Delineation tape at the
ordinary high water mark near the top of the stream bank. The boundaries were approximated
and mapped using ArcGIS 10.3 software for preliminary planning efforts. The delineated
boundaries were subsequently surveyed by the NCDOT.
The proposed SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek Low-Impact Bridge Replacement project is
located entirely within the Carolina Slate Belt Physiographic Province of North Carolina, which is
characterized by trellised drainage patterns. Based on topographic mapping, elevations in the
PSA range from approximately 520 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to 540
feet NGVD (Attachment C— Figure 2). The highest elevation in the PSA is located on SR 1218.
The lowest elevation in the PSA is located within Stony Run Creek where it exits the southern
portion of the PSA.
According to the NRCS SCS, the project study area contains three soil types: Badin channery
silt loam, 15-45% slopes (BaF); Goldston very channery silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GoC); and
Oakboro silt loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded (OaA); see Attachment C— Figure 3. The
Oakboro soil series is included on the NRCS List of Hydric Soils due to inclusions of the
Wehadkee and Armenia, undrained, soil types.
j North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for ldentification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their
Origins. Version 4J1. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh,
NC.
Page 3

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
17BP.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
The proposed PSA is located in the Yadkin-Pee Dee drainage basin, Rocky River Watershed
subbasin 03-04-01-05. The major stream in the project vicinity is Stony Run Creek. Stony Run
Creek is a Class C water that generally flows in a southeastern direction to Big Bear Creek,
which drains to the Rocky River which drains to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
The results of the on-site field review conducted by STV environmental scientists indicate that
one jurisdictional relatively permanent water (RPW), RPW Stream A(aka, Stony Run Creek),
and one palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland (Wetland A) are located within the PSA. The
figure entitled Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit (Attachment
B) depicts the approximate location of these jurisdictional features. Representative photographs
of the jurisdictional features that are located within the PSA are included in Attachment B. The
PSA is located in Stanly County which is not one of the 25 designated trout counties of NC.
5freams or Re/a�ivelv Permanent Wafers
RPW Stream A(Stony Run Creek) was concluded to be an RPW with perennial hydrology.
Stony Run Creek, also concluded to be providing important aquatic function, begins off-site to
the north and flows south across the PSA (Attachment B- Photographs 1 through 4).
Approximately 370 linear feet (0.17 acre) of Stony Run Creek is located within the PSA
(Attachment C- Figure 4). Stony Run Creek is depicted as a blue line stream on the USGS
topographic quadrangle and is depicted as a stream on the NRCS Soils Series Data Map of
Stanly County (Attachment C- Figures 2 and 3, respectively). RPW Stream A(Stony Run
Creek) flows to Big Bear Creek (RPW), which drains to the Rocky River (RPW), which drains to
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River, a traditional navigable water.
More information on the individual stream characteristics of RPW Stream A can be found on the
NCDWR Stream Identification Form included in Attachment B.
Wetlands
Wetland A is a small (approximately 0.02 acre), seasonally ponded wetland area located in the
northeast portion of the PSA. The wetland receives hydrology from overland runoff and
seasonal flooding from Stony Run Creek. Wetland A is located in the Stony Run Creek
floodplain and drains into Stony Run Creek through a non-jurisdictional drainage channel. The
wetland is classified as a palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland (Attachment B-
Photograph 5). The wetland was ponded at the time of the field review. Soils identified within the
wetland had features which indicate that the soils are saturated for a period of time (more than
two weeks) during the growing season. The soils survey for Stanly County has mapped this
wetland area as Goldston very channery silt loam. No vegetation was growing in the ponded
wetland.
More information on the individual wetland characteristics of Wetland A can be found on the
Wetland Determination Data Form included in Attachment B.
Imaacts to Watsrs of the U.S.
The project involves
Stony Run Creek c
impacts to waters
the replacement of the existing 29' single-span bridge that crosses over
i SR 1218 with a 40' three-sided (bottomless) culvert. No permanent
�f the U.S. would result from the project. Minor temporary impacts
Page 4

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
176P.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
(designated by the symbol "TS" on Attachment C- Sheets 4 and 4A) may occur to a maximum
of 105 linear feet (approximately 0.07 acre) of RPW Stream A(Stony Run Creek) due to the
demolition of the existing bridge and the removal of the existing timber bridge abutments that
may potentially cause incidental debris to fall into the channel (See Attachment C- Sheets 4
and 4A). Roadway approach work has been minimized to that which is absolutely necessary
within the scope of replacing the bridge and will result in no additional impacts to waters of the
U.S. No major utility relocations would be required as part of the bridge replacement; no
additional impacts would occur as a result of utility relocations.
Hydraulic calculations have been prepared based on the placement of the new 40' three-sided
culvert. No increase in the upstream flood elevations is anticipated based on these calculations.
Based on the results of the HEC-RAS model for SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek, the existing
bridge can be replaced with a three-sided culvert without causing a rise to the established 100-
year flood elevations and meets the requirements of Federal Highway Administration, Federal-
Aid Policy Guide, 23 CFR 650A, "Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on
Floodplains," and the Memorandum of Agreement between the NCDOT and the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program.
Project activities will be done in compliance with Water Quality Certification No. 3883. Work in
or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does not come into
contact with the disturbed area. A special stilling basin will be used to dewater the stream in the
work area. No untreated runoff shall be discharged into the stream. Necessary measures shall
be taken to prevent direct contact between uncured or curing concrete and waters of the state.
Matting that incorporates plastic mesh and/or plastic twine shall not be used in the stream or
floodplains. No temporary fills or access roads will be used.
Avoidance and Minimization
Due to the nature of the project, avoiding the minor temporary impacts to Stony Run Creek
while achieving project goals is not possible. There is not a practicable alternative that would
achieve the project purpose of replacing the bridge and improving the roadway approaches
without causing potential minor debris impacts to Stony Run Creek. Best management practices
(BMPs) and appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed and maintained
during construction activities to allow for the least adverse effect on the stream channel and
associated water quality.
Potential temporary impacts to Stony Run Creek are unavoidable due to the requirement to
replace the bridge with a three-sided culvert, and the removal of the existing bridge and the
existing timber abutments. Efforts to minimize impacts to this stream included:
The crossing of Stony Run Creek will essentially remain in the same location within the
existing SR 1218 R/W in order to reduce the need for additional roadway fill and to avoid
additional impacts to Stony Run Creek.
The construction of the culvert from either of the stream embankments will eliminate the
need for heavy equipment to enter jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and will allow
demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new culvert with minimal
temporary impacts to the stream channel. The road will be closed during construction
and work will be performed from the existing roadway approaches.
Page 5

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
17BP.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Activities on the project site involving impacts to waters of the U.S. will be required to follow the
General Conditions of the USACE Nationwide Permits (Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 34;
updated February 21, 2012), applicable USACE Wilmington District Regional Conditions (March
29, 2012), and applicable NCDWR consistency conditions (March 19, 2012).
Cnmpensatorv Mi#iaation
As described above, efforts have been made to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the
U.S. to the maximum extent practicable. The replacement of the existing bridge with a three-
sided (bottomless) culvert will cause potential temporary impacts to 105 linear feet
(approximately 0.07 acre) of RPW Stream A; see Attachment C— Sheets 4 and 4A. No
mitigation requirement is anticipated.
Stormwater ManaQement Plan
A bridge replacement project going through the Low-Impact Bridge Replacement Process is
considered to be a`re-development' procedure and redevelopment procedures do not require a
state stormwater permit. Consequently, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and runoff controls
will be implemented during construction to reduce the stormwater impacts to the receiving
stream due to erosion and unfiltered runoff. Temporary construction runoff will be controlled by
using silt fence, silt fence wattle breaks, rock silt checks with flocculant, special stilling basins,
and temporary matting and grassing.
The proposed roadway will be in normal crown and will drain through grass shoulders. Runoff
from the disturbed area will be conveyed through a special "V"-ditch to temporary rock silt
checks with polyacrylamide applied on the northeast quadrant of the stream channel, as well as
temporary turf reinforcement matting. Fabric silt fence will be used for small runoff areas where
the flow is in sheet form. Wattle breaks along the proposed temporary silt fence will be used for
small concentrated flows. All dewatering activities will be through a permeable fabric bag.
Cultural Resources
In a document dated March 8, 2017, the NCDOT Archaeologist made a determination of "No
Archaeological Survey Required" for archaeological resources within the Area of Potential
Effects (APE) or directly adjacent (Attachment D— No Archaeological Survey Required Form).
In a document dated February 23, 2017, the NCDOT Architectural Historian made a
determination of "No Survey Required" for Historic Architecture and Landscapes for the APE
(Attachment D— Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form).
Protecfed Species
STV conducted a protected species habitat assessment and review of the PSA on March 1 and
October 10, 2016. Prior to the field reviews, STV reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases, which provided
existing data concerning the potential occurrence of federally and state protected (threatened or
endangered) species in Stanly County. These databases indicate that there are two federal and
state endangered species that may occur in Stanly County. These protected species and their
physical description and habitat requirements are described below.
Page 6

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
17BP.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Schweinitz's sunflower fHelianthus schweinifzrfl - FederallState Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant limited to the Piedmont counties of North
and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall from a cluster of tuberous
roots. The sunflower consists of a flower with a yellow disk and ray flowers formed on small
heads. The disc is less than 1.5 centimeter (cm) across and the petals are two to three cm
long. The lanceolate leaves are opposite on the lower stem and alternate near the flowers. The
typical habitat for this plant includes roadsides, old pastures, transmission line rights-of-way
(R/Ws), open areas, and edges of upland woods. Periodically maintained R/Ws are typically
considered good potential habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Major characteristics of soils
associated with suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat include thin soils, soils on upland
interstream flats or gentle slopes, those which are clayey in texture (and often with substantial
rock fragments), those which have a high shrink-swell capacity, and those which vary over the
course of the year from very wet to very dry. Flowering occurs from August to the first frost of
the year.
No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed within the project study area and the
area was reviewed within the flowering season. There are no records of Schweinitz's sunflower
being located in the Frog Pond, NC USGS quadrangle. The NC Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) website was reviewed to determine the locations of the nearest populations of
Schweinitz's sunflower. The NCNHP determined that no populations of Schweinitz's sunflower
were present within several miles of the project study area. The project study area has some of
the proper habitat requirements preferred by this species, but there are no known populations
within the proximity of the project study area, so it is unlikely that Schweinitz's sunflower would
be found within the project study area. Based on the field review during the flowering season,
the available databases, and the limited area of proposed roadside disturbance, it is determined
that this project will have `no effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Bioloqical Conclusion: No Effect
Northern lonq-eared bat fMvofis septentrionalis) - Federal/State Threatened
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is a medium-sized bat about three to 3.7 inches in length,
but with a wingspan of nine to 10 inches. As its name suggests, this bat is distinguished by its
long ears, particularly as compared to other bats in its genus, Myotis, which are actually bats
noted for their small ears (Myotis means mouse-eared). The northern long-eared bat is found
across much of the eastern and north central United States and all Canadian provinces from the
Atlantic coast west to the southern Northwest Territories and eastern British Columbia. The
species' range includes 37 states. In North Carolina, the northern long-eared bat occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the piedmont and coastal plain. In western North Carolina,
NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is not known to be a
long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely rare in eastern North
Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina. During the
summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live
and dead trees (typically >_three inches dbh). Males and non-reproductive females may also
roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat has also been found, rarely, roosting in
structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges,
and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over
forest clearings, over water, and along tree-lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important
habitat type for foraging.
The final 4(d) rule for the NLEB went into effect February 16, 2016. Within the range of the
NLEB in N.C., take in their hibernacula is prohibited, including any action that may change the
Page 7

NCDOT Division 10 Low-lmpact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
176P.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
nature of the hibernaculum's environment or entrance to it. Outside of their hibernacula, this rule
exempts take of this species for any tree-cutting activity that occurs more than 0.25-mile from a
known hibernation site or more than 150 feet from a known maternity roost during the pup-
rearing season (June 1 through July 31).
Based on a review of the USFWS Asheville Field Office's website on July 29, 2016, Stanly
County, including the project study area, does not contain any known hibernation or maternity
sites. While no bat surveys of the PSA have been performed, a Bat Habitat Assessment was
conducted on October 10, 2016. This assessment/field review concluded that no caves or
mines (potential hibernacula) exist in the project study area (PSA), and there are few potential
roosting trees present. The field assessment further concluded that the bridge was not suitable
for bat roosting (Attachment E— Bat Habitat Assessment Form). A review of NCNHP records
conducted on July 29, 2016 revealed that there are no known occurrences of this species within
the PSA, or within one mile of the PSA. Based on the field review, the Bat Habitat Assessment,
the available databases, and the limited area of proposed roadside/tree disturbance, it is
determined that this project will have `no effect' on NLEB. Based on the best available
information and due diligence performed, this project qualifies for the exemption from the
incidental take prohibition under the final 4(d) rule and Section 7 responsibilities have been
fulfilled for the NLEB. In these circumstances the USFWS has promulgated a number of
recommended conservation measures to protect NLEB, including the following: conducting tree
removal activities outside of NLEB pup season (June 1 to July 31) and/or the active season
(April 1 to October 31); minimizing the use of herbicides and pesticides, and; 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. The NCDOT will consider the USFWS recommended conservation measures
when feasible and practicable.
Bialt�gical Conclusion: No Effect
Page 8

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Rep/acement March 9, 2017
17BP.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Closinp
Please feel free to contact the undersigned at [phone] should you have any questions or
concerns regarding this submittal in support of the NCDOT's use of Nationwide Permit #3.
Sincerely,
STV Engineers, Inc.
Brandon J. Phillips, CHMM
Environmental Science Senior Manager
cc:
.
Michael A. la o, PWS
Senior Scienti t
Attachment A— Low/Minimal Impact Bridge Project Data Sheet
Attachment B— Jurisdictional Determination Materials
Attachment C — Figures
Attachment D— No Archaeological Survey Required Form and Historic Architecture and
Landscapes No Survey Required Form
Attachment E— Bat Habitat Assessment Form
Garland Haywood - NCDOT
Larry Thompson - NCDOT
Page 9

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Rep/acement March 9, 2017
17BP.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Attachment A
Low/IVlinimal Impact Bridge Project Data Sheet

Low/Minimal Impact Bridge Project Data Sheet
Priorit 14
TIP NO
WBS 176P.10.R.87
Count Stanl
Brid e Number 830156
Description SR 1218 Gaddis Rd.
Ston Run Creek
Basin Yadkin-Pee Dee
Classification C
Stream SIN 13-17-31-5-5
Type Inland
Size width & de th 20 feet wide
Type Brid e
Existing Structure Size 29' L x 20' W
Suff. Ratin 16.7
Proposed Structure Type 3-sided culvert
SIZB (len thxwidth out-out) 4a'x�{�
Stream USACE Impacts (LF) 105 temporary
Non 404 Im acts LF 0
USACE Impacts (AC) N/A
Wetlands Non 404 Impacts (AC) N/A
CAMA Im acts AC N/A
NC DWQ Buffers Im acts SF N/A
Buffer A lication Re uired > 40ft Y/N N
NC DWQ StormWater Permit Re uired Y/N N
Habitat (y/n) Y
T8E Species Present No T&E species present
Bio Conclusion No effect
Moratorium Type (per WRC) N/A
Dates
Native/Hatche N/A
Trout Waters Trout S ecies Present
Trout Conditions Y/N
WRC Reviewer
CAMA AECs N/A
Essential Fish Habitat /n N
Nav. O enin N/A
USCG Permit N/A
Historic Pro erties N/A
Archaeolo ical Resources N/A
Tribal Lands N/A
4 Resources N/A
6 LWCF Resources NIA
Wild and Scenic River N/A
Forest Service Lands N/A
NA Area N/A
FEMA Bu out
FEMA Flood Stud Limited Detailed �
USTs Haz Mats N/A
Relocatees N/A
Location LAT 35.277857
LONG -80.3444429
Project Comments
Completed by:
Garland Haywood 13-Jan-17
Lead Engineer, Date
Larry Thompson 13-Jan-17
Division Environmental Officer, Date
3/1 /2017

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
176P.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek- PCN for NWP #3
Attachment B
Jurisdictional Determination Materials
-NCDWR Stream Identification Form
- Wetland Determination Data Form
-Approved Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) Form
-Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit
-Photographs

NC DW�
Date: 3/1 /2016
RPW Stream A(Stony Run Creek)
Stream identification Form Version 4.l l
Evaluator: Brandon Phillips
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if Z 19 or perennial if z 30`
42
'BP.10. R.87 SR 1 �
S#oney Run Creek
County: Stanly County
Stream Determination
Ephemeral [ntermittei
Latitude: 35.277857
Long itude:-80.344429
Other Frog Pond, NC
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holo Subtvtal - 19•5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0 1 � 3
ri le- ool se uence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 es =
e
o,,,,,..,a, ,.,,,.,��, a,�,�„� �a,�,,, ��� „��,,,.���,.��� ��� ���a��ua�
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
15. Sediment on plants or debris
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
2
2
�
0_5
1
1
3
3
0
1.5
1.5
C. Biolo Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1. er = q
'perenn��! cfrcamc ma�i alcn hc irion4ificrJ iicinn nthor mcthnrie Ccc n Z�, nf mnniiol
Notes: RPW Stream A Ston Run Creek was determin a be er nni I within ro�ec limit .
Sketch.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM— Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regian
ProjeCtlSlte. LIBR l7BP.l0.R.37 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek CltylCounty: Frog Pond/Stlnly Sampling C)ate: �3-1-16
Applicantl0wner: �CDOT Divisio,� l0 ��t� NC Sampling Point: DP#1
Investigator{s): grandon l�hiUips, CFiMM Section, Township, F?ange-
Lanc�form (hillslope, terrace, �tc.): Terrace Local relief {concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ("fo): �2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: -i5•27�85� N Long: -go.3=14429 W patum: N,aD 83
Soil Map UnitName: Gotdstcrn NWI classificati�n: PUB
ArP climatic 1 hydrolagic conditions on the site typical far this time of year" Yes X No {If no, expl�in in Rem�rks.}
Are Vegetation , Sail , or Hydraloc�y significantly disturbed? Ilre "hlormal C;ircumstances" pre�ent^ Yes X No
Are 1��e�etation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If ne�d�d, explain an�r ansv�rers in Remark�.j
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Ve�et�tion Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? `(e5 X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetl�nd Hydroingy Present? Yes X No
Rem arks:
DP#1 is t�epresentative of the vemal pool wetland areas that had no vegetation due to ponding at the tiine of the field review
(See Approxiinate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map Exhibit for appiroximate lacation of DP# l),
HYDROLOGY
Wetiand Hydraiogy Indioatars: �econdarv ndicators imin4mum of ti+�a reauiredl
Prjfn� �n�i�aior� [minimum ot or�e is reauired: ck�erck all that annlv7 _ Su rface Soil Cracks (B6}
_ Surface W'ater {A1} _ True Aqu�tic Plants (B14} _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8}
X High Wat�r Table (A�) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1j _ Drainage Patterns {B10j
x Saturatiun (A3) _ Oxidized Rhiz�spheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Mass Trim Lines (B16�
X Water Marks (B1} _ Presence of Reduced Iron (Cllj _ Dr�-Season Water Table (C2)
� Sedimant Deposits (82J _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled SoiIG {C6) _ Crayfish E�urrows (C$}
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surfaee (C; ) _ Saturation V'isible on Aerial Imagenf {�.9}
_,Algal N1at c�r Crust (P4) _ C�ther (Explain in RemarksJ _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (C�1}
_ Iron DepositG (g5} X Geomor�hic Position {D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imag�ry (B7} _ Shallow Aquitard (D3}
X Water-Stained Leaves (89) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4}
_ A�uatic Fauna �B13} _ FAC-Rleutr�l Test (D5}
Field Observations:
Surface Water Presznt'� Yes X No Depth (inchesj: 6"
Water Table Present? 1'�s X No Depth (inches}: 6" .
Saturation Present`? Yes X No Depth (inchesj: �" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Ineludes capiil�. frin er
DesCribeRecprtle�lData.(stream gauye, monitoring well, a�rial photos, previous inspecti�ns), if av�ilable:
RemarStS:
Wetland Hydrology indicarors are present.
US A,rmy Corps �t Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2 0

VEGETATIQN (Four 5tratay — Use scientific names af plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicatoi
Tree Sttetum {Plot size: 30' «a��s } � Cover ec'e '? Status
1.
4,
5.
7
50°fe of total caver.
S�CallrtUlShNb �I'i��I�rl {Plot SIZe: 14' radius �
1.
3.
4.
7_
$.
50°/o of total cover:
Hetb Sb'8tum (Plot size: 1 meter )
1.
4.
7.
8.
9.
10.
19.
Sampling Pain�. DP#1
uommance i est worKsneet:
Number of G�on�inant Species
That Are t?BL, FI�CW, or FAC: (A)
l�otal Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: {B)
Percent df D�minant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB}
Prevalen�elndex workaheer
= Total Co�er Total °/o Cover of: i b:
20°% of tc�tal cover: QBL species x 1=
FACW species � x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A} (B}
= Total Cover
20� of tot� cover:
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20°� of total cover:
WOc�d�r Vir�e Sfr �m {Plot size: 30' radius )
1.
2.
3_
= Total Co�er
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
arks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet}
Hydrophytic vegetation is no[ present due to ponding_
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic egeta on lndicators:
� 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic V'egetation
2- Dominance Test is 750�0
` 3- Prevalence I ndex is �3,0'
_ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheetJ
_ Pr�blematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problemabc.
Defini#ions oP Four VegetaHon Strata:
Tres— Woody plants, exduding vines, 3 in. {7,6 cm) or
more in �ameter at breast height (QBH}, regardless �f
height.
SaplinglShrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greaterthan or equal to 3.28 ft(1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous {non-woody) plants, regarcNess
vf size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woady vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
heic�ht.
Fydrophytic
Vegetati an
Present? Yes Na X
US Arm�� Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2,0

SOIL
Sampling Point: Dp#i
Proffl e Des�ri}rtion: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of ittdicatqrs,j
l7ept11 Matrix Redox Features
tirlChes} Colc�r (tn�Qi��, °/a Color tmoistl °Io Tvpe' Loc2 Textur9 Remerks
�-3 l0 YR 4/2 100 Silt loatn
?i-20 l0 YR 5/2 70 7.5 YR 5/ti 30 C PL Silt loam
'i' e: C=Concentratir�n, D=L�epietion, I
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (A1)
_ Histic EpipPdon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3}
_ Hydroc�en Sulfide (,A4j
_ Stratified Lay�ers {A5)
_ 2 cm Mucl< (A10� (LRR I�
_ Depleted Below Dark Surtace {A11}
_ Thiek Dark Surfac:e {Al2)
_ Sandy Muc:ky Mineral (S1} (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed �rlatrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5}
Stri�ped Matrix {S6)
Restrictive Laver (if observedl:
Type:
Depth (inches}:
Remarks:
� DarkSurtace{S7�
_ Polyvalue Below Surface {S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface {�9) (MLFL4147, 148}
_ Loamy Gleyed M�trix (F2}
x Depleted M�trix {F3}
_ Redox DarkSurface {F6}
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7}
_ Redox Depressions (F8}
_ Iron-Manganese N1as�es �F12) (LRR N,
M LRA 136)
_ Umbric Surtace (F13) {MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Flc�odplain �oil� (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ Reci Parent M�terial (F2'I} (MLRA 127, 947)
Hydric Soil Indicators were present.
on: PL=Pore Linin�, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ 2 cm Muclt (A'10} (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox {,�16}
(MLRA 147,148)
_ Piedmont Floo�plain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Very Shallo�N Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks}
3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
�n�etland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Enc�ineers Eastern fv9�auntains and F'iec�mont—Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Pr�JeCtlSlte: LBR l7BP.l0.R.87 SR 1318 over Stony Run Creek �,ItyirCOunty: Frog Pond/Stanly S�mpling Date. n3-1-16
ApplicantlC�wner: NCDOT Division l0 State: �� Sampling Point: DP#2
Inv�stigator(sj: 8����n PhiNips. CHMM Se�tion, Township, Range:
Lan�form (hillslope, terrace, etc.j: hillslone Local relief {concave, convex, nonz): Convex Slope (°/o): --2
Subre�ion (LRR or MLR,A}: LRR-P Lat: -�5•2778�� N Long: -80�3'���� �`' Datum: NAD 83
Soil Nlap UnitName: Goldsron N�NI classifica�ion: _ NA
r�re climatic I hydrologic canditic�ns on the sit� typical for this time of year? Yes x No (If no, expl�in in Remarks.)
are Vegetati�n , Soil , or Hydralogy signifir_antly disturbed7 Are "Normal Circumstanc�s" present? Yes � No
Are Vegetation , Soil , �r Hydrology natur�lly �roblemati�? (If needed, explain any ans�n�ers in Remarks.}
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Veget�tion Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Prpsent? `(es No X Within a Wetland? Yes No �
Vb'etland Hydrolc�gy Present? `(as N� X
Rem arks:
DP#2 is representa[ive of an uplaud area (See Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wedands Boundary Map ExhiUit for approximate location of DP#2).
HYDR OLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: �co[tdaN r�die�kors tmfnit'I'luiT1 oftWo requ�i9dl
Primarv lndicators fminirnurp of q�ae.is reauired: che�lc all thaT annlvl _�urtace Soil Cracks (86}
_ Surface UVater (A1) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14} y Sparsely Vegetate� Concave Surf�ce (88J
_ High V�,'ater Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C:'1) � Drainage Patterns {B10)
_ Saturation (A'�J _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3} � Moss Trim Lin�s (816)
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Rec�uced Iron (c'}t} � Dry-Season W�ter Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits {g2} _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils {c:6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C�,l
_ C�rift D�posits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surfaee {C7} _ Saturation V'isible on Aerial Imagen� (�9)
_,Algal Mat �r Crutit (�I} _ Qther {Explain in Rem�rks) _ Stunted orStressed Plants {C�1)
_ Iron Deposits (85) _ Geomc�rphic PoSition (L�2)
_ Inundation Vislble an Aeri�l Imagery {g7} _ Shallow Aquitard {D3)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (E��) _ Microt�pographic Relief (D4)
_ AquaCic Fauna (P13} _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Presznt? Yes Nu X Depth {inches}:
Water Teble Present? Yes Nc� X Depth (inches}:
Saturation Pres�nt? Yes Na X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydralogy Present? Yes Na X
ineludes c:a ill� frin e
Describe Recor�e� Data (stre�m gauc�e, monitoring +rvell, aerial photos, previous inspections}, if �v�ilable:
Rem arks:
Wetlund Hydrology Indicutors ere not present.
LiS Army C:orps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmunt — VPrsion �.0

1fEGETATIoN (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
T're8 Sh'�tum (Plot size: 30' radius ) �, �Over � Status
1. Platnnus�cci�leutalis 40 Yes FACW
2., Duez�cus ��uhra 30 Yes FACU
4.
5.
}
50% of total cover. 35
5�&olinflfShNb Stfstuffl (Plot size: 10' radius 9
1. Carnine�s car�li�tiru�a
2. Li:ttslnm� sinertse
3,
7
70 = Total C�ver
20°!0 of total cover. 14
30 Yes FAC
10 Yes FACU
40 = Total Cover
50°� of total couer. 20 20qo of total cover: 8
Herb �tratum (Plot size: i meter �
1. Lunicera japonicn 5 Yes FAC
2.
3.
4.
Sampliny Point: DP#z
�t urn.4trM..r•
Number of C�ominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (11}
Total Number of Dominant
Species Aeross All Strata: S (8)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60
Prevalar�ce Index worksheet:
Tatal °/o Couer oP: Multiplv bv:
OBL species x 1 =
FAGW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Cdlumn Totals: {P�)
Prevalence Inc�x = BIA =
(A1B}
�
_ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2- DominanceTest is �50�
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
_ 4- Morphological Adaptations' {Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet}
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Ve�etation' (Explain}
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrolc�gy must
be present, unless disturbed �r problematic.
6 Tree—Woody plants, excluc�ngvines, 3 in. {7.6cm) or
more in �ameter at breast height (DBHj, regardless of
�• height.
8.
SaplinglShrub —UVood�� plants, excludinc� vines, less
9- than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft { 1
10. m) tall.
11.
Herb—All herbaceous {non-w�adyJ plants, regarc�ess
5 = Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.2$ ft tall.
50°l0 of total cover: 2•5 20% of total cover: �
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
W10od�( VIn9 SVat�.k.tm {Plot size: 30' redius j h81 ht,
1.
= Total Caver
50°Io of total cover: 20°/0 of total cover:
oto numbers here �r on a separate sheet.}
Hydrophytic vegetation is present.
Hydraphytic
Ve�etati an
Present? Yes X Na
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version �.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP#'-
Profile pescription: {Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or coM9rm ttle AbsB41C9 of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Fzatures
tirtchesl Col�r tm�istl °�o Color (maist) °lo Tvp�' Locz Texture �amarks
Q-2 10 YR 4/4 l00 Silty clay
7-G LO YR 5/4 l00 5ilty clay
6-24 10 YR 6J3 95 7.5 YR 5/8 5 C PL ga(�y ���
'i'yp8: G-Concentration, C�DepE�tion, I
Hydric Soil Indicatars:
_ Histosol (A1j
_ Histic Epipedan {A2}
_ �Slack Histic (A3}
_ Hydr�gen Sulfide (,A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Mucl< (A1 []) {LRR I�
� Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick D�rk Surfac:e (R12}
� Sandy Mucky Mineral (�1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox(S5}
Strip�ed Matrix (S6j
Restrictive Layer {if observedj:
Type:
Depth (inches):
Rem arks:
�and Grains.
_ D�rk Surtac:e (S7)
_ Pol�rvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148j
_ Thin Dark Surface {S9) {MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy� Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3}
_ Redox barkSurta�e (F6J
_ Depleted Dark Surface {F7}
_ Redox Depressions {F8)
_ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
M LRA 136}
_ Umbric Surt�ce (F13J (MLRA 136, 122)
_ PiecJmont Floodplain Soils �F'19) (MLRA 148j
_ Red Parent M�terial (F2'1) (MLRA 127, 147)
Hydric Soil Indicators were not present.
on: PL=Pore Linin9, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 2 �m Muck {A10j (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Fiedmont Floodplain Soils (F19�
(MLRA 13G, 147)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Oth�r(Ex�lain in Remarks)
3lndicat�rs of h��drophytic vegetation �nd
wetl�nd h�rdrology must be present,
unless di�turbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Enqineers Eastern Nlountains anci Pie�mont— Version 2.0

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKCROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: NCDOT Div 10 LIBR - Bridge l56 on SR 1218 over Stony Run
Creek
State:NC County/parish/borough: Stanly City: Frog Pond
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.277857° N, Long. -80.344429° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: N 3904054.05 E 559619.45
Name of nearest waterbody: Stony Run Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) lnto which the aquatic resource flows: Yadkin - Pee Dee River
Name of watershed ar Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03040105
� Check if mapMcfi:t�ram of review zrea as�s3lt�r pa[ential j�irisclieCional areas isf:ire available upc�n request.
❑ Check if other sites (e.g., offsite rs3itig::iRi[an siic:s, diti��asa! sitc;s, etc...) are �stiso�iated witlt lhi4 zt�ti��n and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPL17:
� Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 02/29/l6.
� Field Determination. Date(s): 03/O1/16
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
❑ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
❑ Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain: .
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): �
❑ TNWs, including temtorial seas
❑ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
� Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
0 Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
� Wetlands directly abutting RP Ws that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
� Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
❑ Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
❑ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: Stream A= 370 linear feet: 20 width (ft) and/or 0.17 acres.
Wetlands: Wetland A= 0.02 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known): .
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
❑ Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain: .
� Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section IIl below.
Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TN W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section [II.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section [II.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections [II.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNV1� AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF AN1�:
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the ezistence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nezus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.0 below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: square miles
Drainage area: square miles
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Rcta�ic�r�sfii� wilh T�fW:
❑ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
❑ Tributary flows through 3 tributaries before entering TNW,
Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pfck List river miles from RPW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
^ Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) �ei�craf 'Trihut�rr=,r Char:sctcris�ic:ti iGhc,•c;k all lhai_a����,;
Tributary is: ❑ Natural
❑ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
❑ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate);
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
❑ Silts ❑ Sands Q Concrete
❑ Cobbles ❑ Gravel ❑ Muck
❑ Bedrock ❑ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
❑ Other. Explain: .
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: .
Tributary geometry: Pick Lisf
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: Pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Plck List
Describe flow regime: .
Other information on duration and volume: .
Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed: .
Tributary has (check all that apply):
❑ Bed and banks
❑ OHWM6 (check al] indicators that apply):
❑ clear, natural line impressed on the bank
❑ changes in the character of soil
❑ shelving
❑ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent
❑ leaf litter disturbed or washed away
❑ sediment deposition
[] water staining
� other (list):
❑ Discontinuous OHWM.� Explain:
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
❑ High Tide Line indicated by: ❑ Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
❑ oil or scum line along shore objects ❑ survey to available datum;
❑ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ❑ physical markings;
❑ physical markings/characteristics ❑ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
[] tidal gauges
� other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolared, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain: .
Identify specific pollutants, if known: .
bA natutal or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
❑ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): .
❑ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: .
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: .
❑ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: .
❑ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
❑ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: .
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Ccne�al Wc�lanrJ C'haracterisFivs�
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain: .
Wetland quality. Explain: .
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) Gencral Fic��u RGPatiuzts�ri wi�h iV�a}-TiVW:
Flow is: Pick List. Explain: .
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
❑ Dye (or other) test performed: .
(c) We[lanr� A�ljacen� f]ctennin�rion wi�h �lan-'Ci*IW:
❑ Directly abutting
❑ Not directly abutting
❑ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: non-jurisdictional stormwater conveyance.
❑ Ecological connection. Explain: .
❑ Separated by bern�/barrier. Explain: .
(d) 1're�x�mity�,[Zekatianskli�].to T�SW
Project wetlands are Piek List river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick List.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain: .
Identify specific pollutants, if known: .
(iii) Bioingical Characteristics. WeClar�d suppvrts (check all that apply);
❑ fiipariarr Iau�fcr. Charackcristics (type, auerage width): .
❑ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: .
❑ Habitat for:
❑ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: .
[] Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: .
0 Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
0 Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: .
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Piek List
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
pirectiv abnts? (Y/IV) Size (ii� acres7 Directly abuts7 (YII�� Siz� (in acresl
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: .
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A signi�cant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a signiticant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specifc threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNV�. Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the h-ibutary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the h-ibutary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: .
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the h-ibutary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: .
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the h-ibutary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D: .
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPL1�:
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
❑ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
0 Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that �lpw directly ar ind[rectly iato 3'1�Ws.
� Tributaries of Th1Ws where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: RPW Stream A, aka, Stony Run Creek, has an OHWM, well-defined bed and banks, and moderate flow
and is depicted as a blue line on the USGS topographic quadrangle and as a stream on the NRCS Soil Series Map. RP W
Stream A drains to Big Bear Creek (RPW), which drains to the Rocky River (RPW), which drains to the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River (TNW).
❑ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally: .

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
� Tributary waters: 370 linear feet 20 width (ft).
❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
3. Non-RPWse that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply);
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
Wetlands direCtly abutting an RPW that flow direetly or indire¢tly into TiYWs.
� Wettand4 directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdiational as edjacent wetiands.
� Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW: Wetland A shares a floodplain and non-jurisdictional drainage channel with RPW
Stream A.
❑ Wetlands directly abutting an RP W where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW: .
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: Wetland A= 0.02 acres.
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
❑ Wetiands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacenE to nan-RPWs that flow directly or [ndlrectly into TNWs.
❑ Wedanr�s adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combinarion with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates far jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the imp�undmetit of a jur�sdictional trihutary remains jurisdictional.
❑ Dcmonstrate that impo�ndment was created From "waters of the U. S.," ar
❑ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
� Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPL�:Io
❑ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
❑ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
❑ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
eSee Footnote # 3.
9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Fo[/owing Rapanos.

❑ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
❑ Other factors. Explain: .
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
❑ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: .
❑ Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPL17:
❑ If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland i7�elineatian Manual andlor �ppropriate Ctegional S�ppl+�ments.
❑ Review at't� included isolated w8�ters with no suhstaritial nexus Eo interstate (or foreign) commerce.
❑ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solelv on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
❑ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: .
❑ Other: (explain, if not covered above): .
Pmvide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for imgated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
❑ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
❑ Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ dkker non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .
❑ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Q Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): ]inear feet, width (ft).
Q Lakes/ponds: acres.
❑ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: .
❑ Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
� Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicandconsultant: Figure 4-Approximate Waters of the U.S. and
Wetlands Boundary Map.
� Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
❑ Corps navigable waters' study: .
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: .
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
� U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1:24000, Frog Pond, NC (1981).
� USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: NRCS Soil Series Data for Stanly County (2012).
� National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: Frog Pond, NC.
❑ State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
� FEMA/FIRM maps: .
�] 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
� Photographs: � Aerial (Name & Date): NC OneMap.
or � Other (Name & Date): Photos (03/1/16).
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: .
❑ Applicable/supporting case law: .
❑ Applicable/supporting scientific literature: .
❑ Other information (please specify): .

B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The limits of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., Stream A and Wetland A were
delineated by STV and the locations were approximated using a Trimble Geo7X hand-held GPS unit capable of subfoot accuracy (Figure 4-
Approximate Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map). Wetland A is loated in the floodplain of Stony Creek and drains to Stream A
through a non jurisditional drainage channel. Stream A was determined to be a relatively permanent water (RPW) with perennial flow based
on an OHWM, well-defined bed and banks, fish and moderate flow and is depicted on the USGS and Soils maps as a sh-eam. RPW Stream A
drains into Big Bear Creek (RPW) which drains to the Rocky River (RPW), which flows to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River (TNW).

� .- � ^1'l�' a�, . l V � .-ts� � : . C— . . � . _ _ . —
� �� 1 � t- i � L r . iq� � � �
Ston Run Creek flows to Bi Bear Creek which flows to Rock River �, � � ��� `'�� �} �'"���� `'�
�' ..
which then flows to the Pee Dee River, y '' `�� ' �' ' ��Y ' ,`� �' `�`�
a Tra ditional N avig abl e Wca t er� i,�� iy �'t� ��,. �� �� .} � ��'
s ,� - i .�t � �. • �a � �' �
•��t� �: �• v t�! ' �'� ���t:r;� . 1: � i ,�. r �a� ) . ',il� � ` ty t `�l �,:� � i .� t � , `` r� ' � � ! {, � ,.
� I� b' � . � � / 1a - ♦ . �4. 1 ,� � ,� , �II. � � f
��".`' a,. � a �., •• ��yj:�' ' ' � ' j! � pF��, �� � � �� �� � , �` � .�,, ' i �.
�y�? �y, ��j �� �py�{
� ?��' '� � e �,1'G. ` j�3 . f"�. � e 1 1 ! ' . •-vI 'IIiF �� ��,
1 411�+3 t� '{ �'�'�y�'.' �. e�+X�i �'''�'..� `3' d`' 1 �. 'N� !* �:_, �,�-.� , ri ��,�r� �y_�� ��` '��`_4 . —
. ^ .�._,..� �� �%� :� � ��. `� R -- � .� .
.4� i . {i`� ', i 1 � :�4Y� r^ . ,r. '�1f� , r tF` i:� ��' .A "S' 4 f � �, � ;.... y ;�� C0'stxtk:
�,� L; .i, �t � ` ` '� �e 'u .. � '.1� y�`. � '+;� '����y� :� '�j� t � ' i i�;� t � r,+�w°���c''t(if� �} `^� �J,�!% aGf�� , r ' � y;
�k�,�- �"'+" `,_ '. ,� •. `' a� �. -� ��i" �' �`f � � �' ° � -��.,�4��{�� ��� � s�
�' � �- ... �, � . , ,r t d. <� � I'4� 35.2 � �S 1 i 11 �J �' `i F �.��—m—.
�:'': .R n._..5. i 1� �..� � W' �,�'� F �l - a'. ' - ' _ _ ��l'� �s} 4, r� �`
. •
'��.'�. �- e ..�- �$ .,i, ',� ���� '. ��1 4�
4,' w��i �.. �,i.4�� j �'t���_ , � 5 �%�t �•t�� ' ��J_ �k' _ �`I,��'Jt r ���•�� �� • � � �I� 6 4�'.l,�j� - � � } !�1 � ��%p�k �y 1��,..� �'. �_�. (y�V.�� =.1•� .. �•���
,�I. `��i1, i � �� � �i , t i' � �I , I. � r � •'ti'I , at ♦�ii� ��,�.y
�4i'��. yr ���{��r�� - � ••��� :;��' .`;. .-�� - � l ,�,; `'.,�� K n{��•�' � � r •,,R.r_ -•' �,` �,
y}�, •� !;Y S���o;'tT � ,+ � 1ti.i .9. SI �l,, �y �4�'.� �j:.. � ��I�'�. ( �� I.['�'4A�lJ��� � �•'M�' . '_ .Y ��:��.���� '�p �,'�S',�
1 �:Y - � ��i N ... - �.. � i� �� S ,i�k.��._ a . � � 1 � .k 1 � _ r' , � . ',:9. — .,r�`
,,�{ , ' � �y '�;v M1ft �� �,, . �t f� y�l. 1 ��� � :� �'p . �� ' �: �' � � Pi
* !xt! 4� V'��1 Ty ��R Y�dtN.1H_:�`� .. .� . 7� 7 �l��/�..L�S ����` � �ry''e`�.. ��JB'+%y^�, .. , _-.t,� �`'�PFrR�'fi�1`
�� " 9",1�`.. `���! i �. y' �' .� �r i•��.i �� �ti�' � ��u_./it 1bjT ��, �� %� � {...�. SJ�' , .-.!. �• ' - _
'1 v,�= Y
'i. ''� ._g s.*d��.��,`; �� x: '..� ,F i'� '� `- �i��s��`�' � � � • _ --Y -
"i " �' �` \�� � ���� ' , • � �� �' i. �� `'" �.�,�` � .����r�_- ' --:v Projech
:�?� � �:� ` * �� �,._ r' " p ' ',d`. ��`' � � � ' ,, �� �_'•r1�{� "x .�, :�'�� ,�:;. Division 10 Low-Impact
�. +�� ��'� ,.� ,� '. '� ;�.<, � *.:, � �- �.�. �- ; Bridge Replacement
`•� . !,�' c:�. _ - '� �' , ; ti r � �' .'��' , .�,. �' ��cl�r
r �
F - � � iw �
._ 'd
'S .
��` -��� �� `��' - �i . y 't. ' � " �� , ;; t�F �c � �,� NCAOT WBS No..
, � .� � .r .S - t ,
�r
;�
e�''~ � • � �.-
. 4� _
� � ''+c:. 1 .
r,
17BP.10.R87
� .� �.i .��>e ., i �� Y"=r. � �� �• . Y-�. .� ti. -.�, .�'`��;+�'_— � .��
r , L�r 1 f �.- �.s PI �t�� - � .��i� k _ �,�1 � � }R � . r. ��� .. ,
��
s • i. ( .
.a� 9 "b: , • � "�,: ' , - �r` _ `�" �: ,. # '� SR 1218 (Bridge 156)
i • �_ �r , r,I �., `i � {�
+; : i. .... , ', . Over
�/ � ��/�
�. �� r� ' ` �c �� . `� ' p y. 4` 'f� �' �'' �i �;,...'— � 4
;�, ''�� _ �� Stony Run Creek
� �.y . x . .
< �j �+'1''� �� �, ` { � _ �� •v .�ts1 - �i. ,
� � � < �- �
- . .
.K a ��!; �` ,�'+ .�y � ' ' �•xC= _ , • �� ,, y� t � , �� Stanly County, NC
. � _ � r a �y� !. • . .,�� .3
=' � ` `:i � '�." �. � � `°� �P
> L � � � ,•,,;� ,-, ' � 4-.
° � , �� � . �. ,� ' '�y. �'�'" t� . ` Ti[le:
r�.wi �� '� , ^ -. � � j.'..t a+� _ � .7E,�� :�
I ' ` . _ .
;�= � � '� ��, � � 7_ ' y�.,� �} t . �' _ � �. � ' J � :
? `, • $�-. �� _ .. . ; ���: :� , ,�;, � ��. ` F�`�"` 'i APPROXIMATE
,! . r ��r �,, i ' ; � . ► '� .k� 'if° ' 7EA1 '� • � _��— � �° — - -:�„ `��' � WATERS OF THE U.S.
.c t� �� y ':.� �' .
� , � � ti, � ��r •� 7 , ► i;.- �� ��� r�1Y �`"s 11 .�wi.�, �`�4v�,:. -� RPW Stream A - Stony Run Creek (� 370 Ifl .aNnw'ETLANDS
�' • I . , � � f ` ��* � '` ,� � �( '{ � o o BOUNDAR4' MAP
. ;, �� � +. ,� +�"��' . ':16 = �j' (35 277755 N, -80.344344 1l�
� •' ' � ' ` r�" • ' ' i�' �
:kt; i;,�� '1y ` ; � •; ` t�r � ` �•� 3��, ' +�4 ��`
�F ,I} � � ��� �it L..n
7��.' F� , '� ,. .} , � ` J+ � �11'( � .� � , , `.� ' �.FL-_
`i, •, l" i�� � �•,� /�L��� . '�' i�'q � . r �'`Av '. l � � .��. r�:�Y} , ��` . '� _ �•,�� i2 ' t �'P , � :vuurcef:Acriollmxgcry-NCOncMap
�.�� � l �f�F •U . 11��A�f:. .••� �. (ry�, n' i. � � • .
�{ ��i, i l �' � y - ly .
�`„ .. , . � �. •, i, . , A 4 Y �' l.� �f ie � -�.�' . .; p ..� � � �,
� � .. 4 {' .+ � ::y �. E �. � r 91 ` , t� 3�., .
. � �, � • '1� �. � � � . ' n� � � �` �. �'' � . ��� �1 , I`{r>teS
„� i ' A:��� - � �'; � ' ^ 1 ,•' 2 , � � `' d; � i Junsdictional waters of ihe U S
i ;r p� �.� �� s 4' }: �� . _ .,�5' � ` ` � �
� ��>' x ,.,,{ � ,�Y - .7. _ {�,� ` � � . -� ' � � _ , . . � Y- � � • � '� { f ` `'1 � . ,. Ymcr�duning fteld bev ews conducted
' `'r'� i ', V� � � ' ,,^:',. ._�, . �}� - . .+'� ',., � � �.� . � ., ,...�.a '� � +�t q, �+!, 'h: � o:r March 1, 2016 Junsdictional
-s�. � � �� '��r .}.• � � ���� F. - � ' ; �� . _„�� . ���c,.andanes have been marked in the
1 �' �� '�„ � I'� � '��"•'� . � ` � `4 ..� �y _ ,�.� . ...� . �.�','S+ - � ' �- ��, . ��. � �" : � t �"�'� � • 'iyVd with pink wetland boundary tape
t, r. � .� i )�, i ... -. . f • I ,
� � t . � � . � �, � ,�y ��,'.� �� 4' �� ' 1�� �, and flagging locations were surti�ey�d
" �.yy{{,, { yrt` �',�� �r�`; '_ � �".• ' yi `, � ,.'j•' ' y �`� j � �:y Yhe North Carolina Degartrnenl. of
N � �i. .
` � ��, � 1� ;� �i T , � .; Transportation. This map is in[ended
Legend �� � ^ � � - F 1�Ay;��1� ;, ��• � g�`•� �or planning purposes only
� . ,r, t ; ,�It�� t
�fti �� .1-��� �-1 �' .�� � � l�.
v1 � e : . `
.� ., y ,. � ; , - � � :,. r- # �} � � 2 Jurisdiclional boundaries of the
� + � {,�� , ^ » "� .� "� � r� ' �� +� +1 � �} 9 ' .� r Nrafers of the U S have not been
� * ~ } �� L . i � � � �.- .'�_� ,. � . r.-., ,��r sT ��y'�` 1' �
,�'.� !� � � N',�` y;yz 'A��� , i ��., i i�, `�nfeed by [he U S Army Corps of
^* E , , . � 1 �;� ngineers and are subjed to change
� Project StudyArea (� 2.5 acres) �x 3 'A��. ';�11 �+ r#q`R�'��,v �a t +�,��� ;-.. ', u #��� #t�H+�= �' �,� teB�owingver�Fication
'7 c;,
-� s a , a;: • a.e ., � r.
Jurisdictional RPW Stream :�a�i , � .•"'. ,..�x� ;- � F `' '�,� '�' �� � �'�"�•�� �,� :.r ��� ,TLK �he��P:
i c' s ; � . , ,. :� � : , � _.� `� 4..-. t.L
Potentially Jurisdictional Wetland , ��'�`; � F" ?, ` ��, � �4,p°`� "� ' ;` �`� : �-� a`
a •���{. � �'�. � 1 �� - . S ••� . � :�j �' , ' :€�o�roved By: Date:
�•� f ` �A����� Ia 1 ''.1��4 � • t C � ' �� �� �°. hl� �:.,, � ;�i �.,�1�� = wT`ti � '� .� Y s
MA1 3/l /2017
� Data Point #!; ,, .' � ; �� � . ,� ,�. • . �,
� �' } � � ° � �' ,� �. 1`: ' e,` _ 1� ,y.�. ,•� � ,s��''�{��^ �a9�V Engineers, Inc. Project No.
Photograph Location �: � ,r. i ., ,, < ,;;
� s�� 4017864
0 50 100 200 ,� '"?t' `��' '�:; :` '.:, ,� , ' ,� ���r�`�,.F!�+�:
� �, ��� _ , � 1y , �. ' �•,.
� n
- Feet ' r� ' a � � � , ,, � �� . y a .
,
_ s� �� ; � ; yT ,�� ;,� .1 , � x. 5 ,�,��s�`.�� EXHIBIT
,
,3- � , �'•'� � ��' �' � •���`f-_,�,.�+ .

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
176P.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek — PCN for NWP #3
�+ , : � , ,� � , i. ,.
i �� ` � � 4� `� � ; � ;}; .�:: � .
� �' ; �. , A
!e ��' � w �� � v � ��� � � .��'� �l
I��� V S � ,A � f
� � �r � ^- � ,� �r siy
�� �' �� ���' Ir'. r�� �.
. �, I'L �,�k� � . �I � rn _. .. ' r
.y"�� � :� Y ? ���' ;�' �'��'�'' � `' � �1 ��
� w
}�. �i r! ` � 4_, 1 f� !�., �. f i
�{+ � 4F'V ji� I
Pl"'� +►� -�� I � �i,�. 1 ��7� �"; � . j�' � �►+�� AI.',� ; "F1I' �r.. '! �
��� ��.aC'��o�„w�' �' , . .� �� ���� ' r
� L.: � ' .�, �p � ..y�:,r4.
` � � c . ...;'� � �
�: -. .� I ..r.
� � t . r ��,'� � , w. ',+�7.� � - ,
,;t�`�i r � . � �'' , � �� + - � �,
r ..A�.
g"�,�`"��y � ` M r.Jfs�� 7C•. � i 1 �_ � � ,���'w1% �
?�J, � �A,` � • "^ ,s ' , � , �' _ � � a��� _ � + •
1 T �'t'"~i . . "_w _
���-, ,�.��'�-''_F'�
":��`�' `_'�'�
;�"� �
E� ,
'___. __"_�'�'.
. r��,,. : �
h�r.r�=. , . �.�c��_..-�M��;*�a�
Photograph 1— A view of the SR 1218 (Gaddis Road) bridge over Stony Run Creek looking to
the east.
�� -'g � � y , � �4` - 4 � � vF, � �.�,, '� f" � l",� . � .. � Y f . .`�, ��� . �,V r .'. I
t 'k +I� ! '4 +S f}� _: w .r,�, ' S' , q ' �,� x� ..� nl�,�� . i . y,v�+� ,��`'�
,
� ' _. i " ° �".�4, M�9` , '��i'., .�� +.,� � � � � u , N ;a�."�1
� s ��r � "' �.
, ,
�� �, �., � ���.
� � .�� �, �
,, �a��� � ���
'j �� - ,� �� 4 '' � �r`I,k y,.� � � � , �' � � � f � y', �, ��' ?
� � � �' �
� I ' r 6 �r M� � T . . � ,� � Y � �
,:i o � r a
��. � �Jd i �.�:. �.; �i S � !F�- t { , �� R l , i. i: '� r
����.r5�}.'� � .1cy l 4 � .��� � � . .. .. `�° � ��,n� �, �,.-yf . + ti �-
y � n
� M ¢ j �y
!'�jf�'�.�T��i�} � � j�'�� l i -� n��1r �� M � t�;�N, �r�` � �.'� M f r r'-. Ei � _ � �! i�.�.7
�1'� 4�l�'��, �� *'+)��.��r -�r S.. N w1� ����� �'��' •..�. e ;�'� i;� �Y+�
��; ,j� �±-,1�;�y��`� x..�� '�N % ��� w� "�,.fv � �;� fft��l���"�h�(X !'!.
f M"M + •
r.., �,4 ; � �s� � _ ,� � � �� ,t�f � i � j � Y�M; �
Y���� m�1WG r�y�i+y,'�'��. '� T � ;:� �'„'� . _`a �?��f ��.�i: C.1�5
� k , � ,�� _ - _. ��ys '` u f ti "fy, �' �'�� y .� �t
j Y a �_ _
'r��;,y�y� .�,, r'pyi!'°n —. - � �_ .Er • �,__, x �,r'��+�: t 'P
����� � ,,,y� � ` � � ` .. � * arty�� .�.
�rry'" ir" } Y ��' F 9 � . - - "r� �y ,�... .. ;
�<�,'+� � a :4t � `eb1, �• � - � � �, � ;.: L` �
� - :. � c '' . • y�
' � _,�� '� �`�` <.'� v� ,. ..
,f�j.. . � r��l�' 1 ' ` r w ,�.._.
1;�� �+ r� ; , � ,M ' i�
fv � "
��
�:
� i F�+�'" `.�
Photograph 2— A view of perennial RPW Stream A(Stony Run Creek) at the SR 1218 (Gaddis
Road) bridge, looking upstream to the north.

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement
17BP.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek — PCN for NWP #3
March 9, 2017
_�_. 6--�- _ _�. _____ , -., _. � , .+• �
-�. - �,
� � ".. -- �.��_� ---s,.:., - _ - . -
�
�, - �.._ - --- - -
��, ��. `:'�`�,a - . � _—�,
Photograph 3— A view of perennial RPW Stream A(Stony Run Creek) at the SR 1218 (Gaddis
Road) bridge, looking downstream to the south.
. , ,.- ra� ' �`� � � ... �
.� �;� ��.,
,�,k �" i� ��{� �' -�r�� �
± � �' `t'' -- �:i � � � t� . �
�I� = i�kr'" '�`� l � .; j� � wIfT�9l
��"'"� ,, � i� __..._ ,�
�` I�/�;�� i... 5�� � �+� � •� - � ___� � � .�..
I+. 5! 3�' i �s•-� �.-_'�. �r-�'��'� _�
f I : I•
�;i' �. i { ��� .
II
wl�
�� ..
p� ti
Photograph 4— A view of RPW Stream A(Stony Run Creek) flowing under the SR 1218 (Gaddis
Road) bridge.

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Rep/acement
176P.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek — PCN for NWP #3
V t '.�! .,r �� �I � 'y'� � IGy�'� G� ;'�* / �'T�'�
Yv"�
�{ } l� i � r "�� a� i� ii
� .�°' � 2 } �V � � 1 � i � x i i, � l .3'*F ,� % .
��, �.� ! l I ,[I '�, � + f I� IIr�1� � t�1 �II f i, � t � e ri ,
, 4 a �� ���� ` � ' � �
-.r, i, +�' ''+ ' i ' ��i�,� � �1i:1�' � r,,r_ � , „� '
�t,�r: �I� � l - �,kl-r ..�n�. � ��
j � , t
z� � i � ` �,�� ,.�',� � ., .w {�� ��t� ,+�'{����� �
' + i �.,�".,, ��� �y � ,tr. "i?- :�' � :•��:
� ��� '�i` �,� ��_ t_ , '�` x !' ' ' { ' �
� z� � ,: �� ,_ ��
t '. ; �'� r -�y �1. ., t�` .. �y�
Y ` "� . eCi+ "`"w+r..- 'ft1�� I �4�
� w : :��, �'�'`` ��o-`��. �' �' s*�`�"� =� �
1
«,: � �,�� �� � t� � `
t�� �A ' ,.. � ?��'; a� '4-� , � e
+� `r','�� t � � �K �� � f , : , � � : . �
cW��• x y`�� y�yr�� �.�.r,w�^r . -'-�fr'��.`u�''�"'-0��er�� Ft�f
fE�, r�.af 'j�•, � ; �y. � - t` , r.;,��_ _ �_. . �,i�"J .� .:
l+ � a+.. A ` '.- �^'gP
��"�'- ,• ,r�s. . ' ' -�� r.- -..
r� � .�� �', � , r
. . .. � A "_-�F�. . � � "' ' -
�'� � .
. � � ' v' � _ A �� . Y ������ . [i �" ��
- . ' �•� Y �� • �t J_ '�" y �
��,f., _y' •� � � .. .'� • M .. .� : � �n_ • �' !,_$. i �,i '_�i nl ' �
�.�
..A
� „�� ' �
R,_ y
� - � �'� _�' � T. f i �
' y _ �s �� .. �� �.
�
, 7 . � . �� .� � �' � � _ ' '�y�, y�_,
.. �t,�� _ ..V M ` y, . -' ` ;����i`'S�� �'7
� �..+ �,. . +�� � . '��j,,� . ♦.� �
tS���,- Jy� �"4 w � � � �
,'�' �, y .
M1�.�✓w�1 � • . � �^R' ~ ���s Ji�` p' #' �
.,`. `' `. • �' � '- � ' y",�y�,-t�"�;`, . {
�' � �� F �r y i.' � �
� ��
, a _ �t. �. � �- "�"
' �'S .' •r:� ��, ,� �i; � , �-
-� � _ � '��} '.��i
� �� w �• . ��� t�y "xp �ti,�,y . �� � :
.. _ y���,^�`��:l�l Y '' i�"+�� �.� �
Photograph 5— A view of the vernal pool Wetland A.
l ,:
yk
March 9, 2017

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
176P.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek — PCN for NWP #3
Attachment C
Figures

� , ; i ., , �_ �! _� -� �, ,.�, _ ., ,
. .
; � ; � __. �� � - � _ - ����'f _�; �; _
� � - I �.aa
( E, . ' , ' � y, F _' �, ' • ` � , ' ` - _' • /'' = E_ ►J 1 V _
P ,� / .�
R � � , � , - � , � _ ,� /r.�%.1
V . . ' + �� _ � � . 1 l / " � __`' j i ti\ r ' � �I �_� 1 �- . i
� ' r/ ! � � f r,�
i - � .f �\ _ �'j , � `
i � �! . «. *, • • � r wt4 : , / I' ,�� � s "� � • iC:lient:
J � , ' '
, ' � �.: � ' ' 7f % � t� -i� �� � . , 1' i-
� 1 ; _ . � � ��R7N e�
'�. i �
� .-- � � - � . � . � . �-+ �1 F! /(�, ''�1,
' ��� � . . _-� � .� � � j r /+� �!
-� � �� • � - i � f ` ' , " � { �� . i f�' �1
i �
r � L�. _ i � � � . . - t�,. - 3
� � .- ♦ � . ♦ �� -..f - \ �/� �I
j � // w . �� �i
,� � . � • � � `� / I !'� , �� — . c I -_` - � .- _, V e�_ _ ` y �9A f�
.f ' l ( � � - � • r ,�`��',37
� � �}! ���i� 1 • �i. - +. �i Fa • � ^-.�-`l�i�;'Ti �' � � t.Osa�•
r ' -
•. �,
, d � +� i' �' i�r � � � _,, �
•�• �
� �' � — _ _ ! �,, � �- � \ � tlt r^' � , o�,� � -- , ' �
� , � � 7 ` a ��o���r.
�i '. _. `-� '' �i '�\ y ; ' �� _ . - ,f �� �� ,� Division 10 Low-Impact
' ;. � � ` .! ) r ` � k J� 4(L. .• .,a� / � l �� Bridge Replacement
1 � y
- a� f� ' -- '�4�.�'i �• �� �"` 'f'\ 1' ' �
� ` � � / -•-�.,�i �� � •. r ` ���o �. -� � •` ' NCDOT W BS No.:
, ', 1,�/ , � ; �- 1. . � r ' � j - - �,�,�.'y� � � � �/- ' �� �� 17BP.10.R.87
•. ' I . '/ : l .. � � / - �•,, �� ' "t -
_ � / ` J - �R t � � 1' � /� `� � t`'l� ��-s}}f i" '-� SR 12180(Berdge 156)
�' . . — .
! ., — , I
� . , r •� Stony Run Creek
r t . - ' f
.` ��' � r , "� /i ! ; _ � �'. _ • � ,, ,5., : , . - , � � ,_� ,,
..� a "�
, . . _ F./ i
. . � .. . . � . � • ., - '.
� ^ ,, , � �
r� "' y�� �,�� �� ,:i � Stanly County, NC I
! ( ,�
— . ' �, • r ""�..�`�/ ' ;, • ' � r. .• �r r�ue:
`� �� —�� ; + I .*, . t�. _ - � �, �� � r %� /4 ._
�d� � " �'_'�.'1 �' � � ,f , � t ) f� �
.r � � � � � ' � � �si' . . �`� .� � � � ' t I `
� / F ` � �, ; '. ', �. � ' , - ; , �—� ' y' �:� ���r""I USGS TOPOGRAPF[IC
� - I %� L� ° � � � . , .F``. `� `,� � i � �� aY�; � % �n♦
�M' � DY m ,�: �� ; � • � ' . i n ' + �^ . '��� � . `�'. .� 11ltiP
� �
- � ' — �� �� �� I �� �� : �, �� �h �� s�
I v�` � �� f � , �� + .',� 1 1 � � ,�,, i , • -` � ��. ' ; �S' '' . ; � �',� ReC USCS 7.5 Minute Topography
, . . i � �� ., � `' , /�� � r' Quadrangle Map
� ,l �� -_ ��� �► t . `. � ! . f�, � J �Frog Pond . NC (1981)I
�, , f j
rJ '�� ��I _ . � � �E� ;j�' . � �,`.` '.� '.� �- rt ' �.' '�l �- i
' � " / 1 � � ( � ' {� \. `' I ,6- ,�t l`
, ' f� ` ` • t � �' { �1-�-�-��' y v � �, ' '� . .
� , ii� � � � f .�( , �• r ✓ - ' , I `, � _ - � �1" �, � � _,�,� � ,f'� � -
• r � � �• %'���—• !', r" . ... �; � ;/" _ . 'a � �. � .. .` i
� �' /', • y� y �
/� , � • •� �' ff Y / � � ` ' � ` ` �J�' .! r � �� � / � l� �� ' i' 11.
�`�'� / � �, ,� � � � - _ / .„„� .. �j J� r - ./ y /;'
. �- � � r '
. � f� � � s� _ ,I' J_aY _- + •' _ - f • _ i.
� ' . ' l ' ' • .�i" � j- i . ._- � 1 �l � � �.t t 1 `♦,� � � '� - ' i
� ' �� �. .• � r `!i � �" ; , . :`. �`.
• '� � ��� _. � ."��.• S _� =' . �� . �V � . . '�� q - _ = ,,:.� � � !
• , . � � - � 1 t -.` , '�� ,� , �
� � ,� � � �• � �' / � � �'� �1�' ,� _ ' � �' - ' �'s i Fro Pond Quad
� % � � _ • ,l _ � , , ,� �-+ . r ;' / _ _ , ,, r . t � 9
p - t � - - - �,' � '�: ' �
r
� � ' � � � .�� , � � � � � ' , ' -»_ � �% � - Drawn By: Checkcd By:
s / ` � ' ' .
" -�" - , N - f � . �' ;z - - � JLK BJP
Legend , . -- �' �'
. ` ,- _
°�`� � a . • . , f,..� �` �������� �. Approved By: Da[c:
� -' � � � �
�p � 4 . .�� _ •
� 5 - • . � _ MAI 3/1/2017
Project Study Area (� 2.5 acres) , -,�?� 27 ; � �;
� � • � `
� � j _,� '1 Q STV Enginecrs, Inc. Project No.
`f ,r� � - ° , �
0 500 1,000 2 000 �' : • • ° ,�� _ 'S . , i%' �� . I�� f �~ •� 4017864
' ; ��� � f , �r�` " � � ' . �
Feet ` � _ �� �-�
• ' ��� ` 1 � �i
�'y�,,`�1 �Q - . ..�
, � • - FIGURE 2
_ � ��, , "�' � � Capy�r,ight'0201�3IQafiionalGeogfaphicSocoetyC�,�u€re�

re
�
�
�
' I �
i - 4 � I � '
�
�
�� �
ti
/ /' ' }
I �Rv il
.� OaA "
.�-.�7:.� ,t *y. .� �I_-t
�,� j � 71 � '� t t
. n-
�,, �ti-� ���, ;. � �.. .
; ;� 1< z
' ,+,� . . �k . � A . '•.
I. �1�` �. _ �Hi.i � `-� # ��� . �
~ �G � +c u r
• �13 y�i
i �1 . .. .. f � � , -,
, �� ��
-� '� ;�
j� ,.:�� �,-
� w
GoC ��i �
:, t,, _,
• ;•
~,,
_ " �� c
� t1�
�
t
l. a
•.ta , . �
� �� 1
;�. �
`
. . - '� j��`
/ �
i ' �! r
� ,'�� " � a� . .� ��.
„_
V � !
Legend N i �
w�E
; �� �.
�-' _, o Project Study Area (� 2.5 acres) 5 `
�--° National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
0 100 200 400
Feet
�4�. ` :. �
�- • � -�
,:�. �� —_
,,
i+1G
ap, NC
� gdl
SR �21g ��;a��' �
GoF
=Ff3
CGenL
�'��,+'' i�140
Projcct
Division 10 Low-lmpact
Bridge Replacement
NCDOT WBS No.:
17BP.10.R.87
SR 1218 (Sridge 156)
Over
Stony Run Creek
Stanly County, NC
rue:
NRCS SOIL SERIES
VIAP
ReC NRCS Soil Series Da�a
Slanly County, NC (2074)
Nlapped Soil Units Within the PSA
BaF Badin channery silt loam,
15 to 45 percent slopes
Goldston very channery
KkB GoC silt loam, 4 to 15 percent
slopes
Oakboro silt loam, 0 to 2
OaA percent slopes, frequently
flooded
er fQr c,���raphic Informatian and Analysis, NC�}11 Board
Drawn By: I Checked By:
JLK BJP
:�pproved By: Dxte:
MA1 3/1 /2017
SZ'V Engineers, Inc. Project No.
4017864
FIGURE 3

.i�� \�l.w� ..�I . � . �w lyf� �► �- 1ti4._i � f F��.�
�� �i � a. ' 1 r �� � �� W , �
Stony Run Creek flows to Big Bear Creek which flows to Rocky River ' ,�� { '��� �� . '� �'���'' �-'��, ��'�
which then flows to the Pee Dee River, a Traditional Navigable Water' �`.j, � ''��!� �'���,�, , �� ,;•,,, � '�°� � ��, �� ,,� ,� � :' t :s .��' ��;� -- �p�j
';: - — - •-i � t � -:� : �_ . � _ � f f �v}�,'y,tis�;¢4,� ; :. { ,� Y r _ 5TV . /�//,,,i
� ' r �i + ��. �. �i �it't CrF� � r � � 'i,9� n ',( , f;� �;{� , �F y� . �t . • '�� -r� s; i:r. � /
1 �. `t� �'��'+�1 ; � . ii' �;-t'���• � ��Mi .��± `�.3!"� / ,�`. �I '��`T"� �, iQ � uyA\4} � .. y, ��,� r - yr w�_ 's`.� �7� .
w' j r� � . T/ ��e'sS �
. T,s . , ` �1,�� "�. . Y�S � 9'' �y � i.': �Y }
µ� ��y.. a;. �� J�b �� �� �JN''z 1 �tif^`�1'Z (� t♦� i \ r � � r'� .�a r � �� ���'� �` � �'zk_ _��.'l � :a��:f� �K ^�.it� 1 � � � . `' '
.Ii�.' �: 7 �'�L�. r 1�'i ♦ ���},.' !� 4e4?_. '� /Xt 1'S � �� -'.' A 1�
,l�l ,� 'l '� < � - �, � �.,:� `S� ��y�1 .. ��'i�,�.. µs..�Nk�' �s i �� ���� "�;� �� �����ill�f-���"' �,�� c�Cf@� � �. � voA� Clie�nt:
_� ��4_`� a.�` ;� �`�`j.`,; ' . ,��. A, °�KY e. � ..7' �`��..� ,� ����'`��`►� � � (35.278171 °N, -80.344194 °V11� k . � ��,�'i � ��A�Hc,
� � , 5y�a`� ]�� v%,�� , �
,� ,..'i�� �r/.'T'�.a `,= Ri�li�t`'7�,{��C. �".,r �"4' �'�t +/�-` ��.". �'.��'4��.� ,,�i.-�s.�T. �f�y 4 4� .. �P �F4� f.\.
.J��{ I�w i•� �l h�,�llt� , ;'. ,. .� '�A ���- �1'L. I.. �,y_ 1�1 �I � .L►� � e. �r. 1 � IJ�"� � tl:4. �. .h �i�'�,
ry, i� i . �. �t, r ,. j� �` •.,r, � �'•i +\ ti . %'F,r,a ��- �' ,, �-^y7 � � A , �'�`. � .i ., �, �:`�• f.
�.t.T`�t►t�' �i_ �T. �j��Y.'sl.�lQ +:� .�� 4��� y„������•' �y� '�' � �''� ,� � I��i �'�"' .$ u�y.ri"5.,��'�'r�.����y.i .r ��.�712,�':�''. :� �i
;�i• �.. Vt e i' . �1 . _ a- � _�, _ ,`.,.i � i •. � � � 1, � .i . • V•'' L.4,� ir' �'�
• A � �. , .. .;l +� 1 1 �', �-.` : . S d � . x d' � i, � � � ., , ,�
�_i �'1, . �,�� 1$�:. � r1� �' i � �~ � r� �� q_�.Y -� • ��.,._ ��e ,.� '_�A�.�'� , i�,,if�,S 4, :�. u,e;, �'r'`. ,� ��,,
�` �r � � ' t5 «,,•�' � �..�r`.ti .� �, ` �e ��� � ��.: v.9� j� .� ��t s �y ��.7.•'� _ __��`�sr 'r�,�� � �
�.v . i� H .r . Y • �lt L +
k _ ,, ° + �` * � • • F ;fi /� 'A'� I 1 ! ` ► . � '� r" � m.�
� ' t .:_T s�. ` ` � � {'i• � '4' ' 'i� p'��� � � t v 7�� � ; ' � �l�
�.-:' � �.4 , � -'� :�� '� "� � � «. _
),�t , .�. ,�, ', e».�� � • !� � � ,, z� ��. � ,
�,��. � ,`My►�%�: ``, ,'��' � ��. ., � .. � k � , :;y� . � 1', +�','�, �`'� � _ - _ —
,�1 ��,
F . �� , . ' � � � �� ,y`���_ - _ �� Pro ect:
.y�+.�• ' ..�n. �i°,..-+..�+! f�^ � � � tr�� � 1��'s�Yt3. ra�•�N.,va. -- . ��� DivisionlOLow-Impact
_' ( ♦ � n
'.s. , ` � . �.� � �. ' "��y " . Bridge Replacement
�.. y�� i i� �� .5` i ���. � ..,IY.��� �+h'k'�t-' �� `� ly�.ty�1 � ty��_ '
'1',. �1 �`_ i .-,.:��a.�'r� �� ���.,:��, � x � �_, ��`�;a.1 !`' i :��,� NCDOT WBSNo.:
. ;T F °, �� �,�'.. ; - � 's" � ' ��� •� �' * �, rt� � . � �,: _ 17BP.10.R87
,_, r' a� ' ` � � �, ;� ` a. `��_ . =� . _ ., SR 1218 (Bridge 156)
�� ��'f � �, �_ �` � 'i , �
�. { ;` s '� � :. ,.r-'. � "�} ,,�; , ��:� �' ll ;�f.� ': _ , ��� " Over
`�� , s� � :� ��1,� .� �- � �'. . - �, Stony Run Creek
�,7ii' � v�.� + '7 -,1 1 �1,.� _I t �-'T � � �� � _ 4
L f S �� � ' �y ' �; ,� Stanly County, NC
a�' ,. •. , ,, , t� , ,� �� q,y � V . t �
� 1�` + �. •-
.♦ . � t, �j`)� :7. ��i. �4 1� 'y . �r * i' . �.• ". ' , �
�� . �S� �i � _ - t �,�'� y ` �• y ,
I ��Y. �F � • �.. q� t" � .� �, .. Title:
i ��`j* wy"� t r+..�.' �. � a
. � � � `; .e` � �.-. }�': * L� `� �i.'�. A..P: � . . .. �` 'i: �^ �� � , , 7 � �' �� _ .. . � • ��� '� � :t6 � �,5� . �A ,� iq.
€'z�` Y� . , . � j 12 ; �'' - �s �' ;� ,� _ �a � �. c�. ��^ APPROXIMATE
��_ . ' � . �}kY� �; ' � � �, � . ,..,,� ;E., � � � = _�..i � � WATERS OF THE U.S.
,�• �, � - '� � "� , � " ,� ` ��'a=, z r�� "�'�- RPW Stream A - Stony Run Greek (� 370 Ifl � AND WET'LANDS
�
i� „ � � .� ' '���'}'1,�, , �; �N - � �, i
BOUNDARY MAP
��` '� � = :.�� '. y� �, r.�,- �;� - •�f� �°��;:��� . _ :� (��.2����5 °r�, -�a.sa.4��a� °�M
� �.':�� ,� , �, 1 �
� �, r. . '.. _ . : ` �� . - fa.- ' 'i � �..Y jr,
^':�'�- � �� '� �. �' (� 1 ' ��� l�� � O ky � � � � }' � '�'; ..
"t�� ; '4' �� t : �� i � .�^� Ih '.'� ��R9� �, ' �1. �l.! ,� � � .
�I`� I ? � �� �• .�' . ,n ' +,�I'R :/ C � ° lti. �,"� .ti.,. .. � • ��' .� � ' Sources:Acriallmagcry-NCOncMap
����ti j `� i ,�.' � .!�, F. �. �'�,. ..�{f�, � � . ��� `'��`�� n'{. . � Mr " - � :
,. T�4 � � : •4 �N���� �+ ':.��� '�� .��t��1r'� �I V �,7t� re ��_ � +c ♦ •�y�.�.'. ' � S_
���"."�! ��''� `�t�,d� . ' . I ,. �� , � �'�,'; :�"y. � .� , 1,4�.t. �Yt / 1 ,�� i �,. .r �.,+' I � �f ' ' � . . i�i0985:
�� � � �; �'�' ,� � ' ' `
� . � - � ; , - � -, ' �f � � , ' 1 Jurisdictional waters of the U S
� � ��a�.. � �%" ���`� I '<•� " ��- - � :��+ �a'� � �s "d�^ ' �;,_ „�, ,,: �t, '� -.;�rre delineated by SN Engineers,
� � �� ° � � ; � �.,'� � � • ��� '- - - `+Ty�� �'S' 9 ,{� r � ia� �� � _ -� .. �; ' , .�a� r:-,c during feld reviews conducted
+,, '_* '. � t'•' . '� �1.. �'. � � . � 1, � �+ ` ' � ��,� .;;. M1�n March 1, 2016. Junsdiclional
M� ; r ��� . � � � , �� . ..�•' �' � 1 �� - ; .r �. �% b'�/ . . ' ;, ��undanes have been marked in the
�� � j� -' � , , � " � ,,,'III � � �� 1, � �' r y _ ��' f�eld wdh pink wetland boundary tape
�}� �_ih - ' ... �� • ;'�:' f : .i'���y,� ..'n��h�:%- 1 ,'y��, . ,;� _ �� . .�.� 5 ♦ S
« .f— � �' �, y�� z i Y+ � �� "� a �i and flaggmg locations were swvay..d
� t�.�'� i t�„ �� �('�� r��� �� ` tr [he North Carolina Departmenl of
s � � � i � . �. � '�j t� , � , � ; iransportahon This map is mtended
L�ie n d � � � ' � ' � ` � � � � � •�i " ��j � � � � ��! �ar plannmg purposes only
g •rr -� � �A_ .' �,ar !� �' -',�.` .r e, �.� 1 c l',
� ,�i � , �_�,:,� �'�t� t '� � � ��, 2 Jurisdichonal boundanes of the
r' `t� L' � ,. -1' , },';`. I( .I h' �aters of the U S have not been
s . � � ,��Z.y, .. ,� ���'e '��, � .' 4.. � , . 4 � ��{ o � a t .., , venfied by Ihe U S Army Corps of
• � r� S if, , ;, � , ' , �,�, . � � �(,�y� �iT �� ?d tngineers and are subjed to change
�.: �' ` - T'�n�r 1� _ 1, � +j � �/..: � ��, � �, i follawing ver�cation.
� Project Study Area (� 2.5 acres) . � - �,_ � �� � J��.� � ?j �,. ;.
��� ,,
r . � . - +,t�� .i.. - `�. � . �� ' l7�rawn B
i � �, • � e - . � �. .. � , � 't Y� Checked By:
� Jurisdictional RPW Stream �. �� r-:,� { - ' `� � a =:�. < � },. . � � _� , � �. �+;� �; �
�:,• •� ; ; .:. �, � :_ �'� �,s �P � JLK BJP
�}.- i - '� � � �.� , �
Potentiall Jurisdictional Wetland `��` � ' °~ = r ' ` �y�, ` �' �
Y � ` k�r1''• � i �' � , ' 4���� 'J �; wf ' t�� �_ : ��+,� . � + ,�� yj+ � ���i' � � ��proved By: Date:
� � �
: , .f � ��� �� i' � �.. `• ���, t � MAI 3/1/2017
Data Point � � � , -:,',. ro ,,,-���fff,��� „ ', : �� � ; ;,, ..., _ ' ..�,
. .�r �.� 1�. � �',,y. i . i •'T .,t' .���..
Photo ra h Loeation �! y,y - �- 1 ��� � � �� � -y_�` • �� � � f ' } � �t �' S�VEngineers,Inc.PrajectNo.
9 p _ � �'�!� � _ . v��
�� ` ' . , s . � �� � � +k � ' � k _
� 'rJ� � Q� 200 � � � , r �1 � . �, w ,. � K .. !�, ',J � ' k� �°'M�q' 4017864
.
4 �'�' �� � .. ��
i. . i y � ' . " r
r , � i .,, ".'� _ `�,• +' 1€ ., : . r��,. �.
, � ;,*�.,,� �,�; , , �; . , - ' „ ' FIGURE 4
- Feet =� � � - � ��� . ,� �. � , � ,,,
� � ,+:. " a�.?�
-:y . '� � - ��' � � 1 :,r r.,
_ ".3. __t. " .4'_ _� _' �1� - ����IS 0`��� .S.- � .�5. " i e

See Sheet 9A For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 1 B For Standard Symbology Sheet
���`��� �� ����� ��������
1[� I[ �S� 1[ � �'� �� C� ��" J� 1[ �� �I '�Y � ��`" �
STAI�LY COUI�TY
� LOCATION: BRIDGE #156 OVER ST011IY RU111 CREEK 0111 SR 1218 (GADDIS RD)
�
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAI11tAGE, F� STRUCTURE
�
�
0
� STREAM IMPACTS
�
�
�
BEGIN PROJECT WBS l7BP.l0.R.87
—L— STA.I4+30.00
TO
�
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II.
SEE
FIGURE
SITE 1
BEGIN CULVERT
-L- STA. 15 + 79.69
�
END CULVERT
-L- STA. 16+20.31
�
N
\/
�
0
2
----- ----
--
TO SR 1221
�._ . _ _ .-- .__ .. _ _ _._-._
�. ..� .
��^����� �� �1��\\\
�� �ra�1���i�i�
���w�t���.�l:��.f;
r'��i`�'�:�►:�i�?w+,����� �
�.,�,
END PROJECT WBS 17BP.IO.R.87
—L— STA.17 + 90.00
Permit Drawing
Sheet _ OI _ UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY: HYDRAULICS
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
STV Engineers, lnc. ENGId(EER
ST�! 100 �°o��o�:�` N�°z�2oz s���.E �,�5
20 70 0 20 40 ADT 2012 = 250 e� Nc o�e�se N�mee� r-o9gi op �oWtN
LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS I7BP.IO.R.87 = 0.060 MILES < �, c
ADT 2025 = 500 2012 STANDARD SP6CIFIC9TION5 ti'4 +90�
PLANS LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS 17BRIO.R.87 = 0.008 MILES � �
DHV = N/A Y.E. ' .
SlGNATl/RE: s
20 10 0 20 40 D= N/A TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.87 = 0.068 MILES RIGHT OF WAY DATE: NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE ROADWAY '. :
T= 6% NOVEMBER 18, 2016 PRo.�scr ExcmEee DESIGN �°.�P Qor"�
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) E1vGINEER °f TnnPo•
V = 45 MPH
4 2 0 4 8 NCDOT CONTACT: GARLAND HAYWOOD, PE LETTING DATE: MAAMOON K. ABDELAZIZ
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION: JULY 21, 2017 YRorEcr nEsrcxEa
LOCAL Division Bridge Manager
PROFILE (VERTICAL) r.E.
SIGNATURE:

�
� LEGEND
m
�DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
I AREA (AG I LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY 0.07 105
SW IMPACTS
O
�
4
JE�RH
D8
� SEE
�i�� FIGURE
SITE 1
� � ��,:; �,� � - ,- --
�_�-� ----�----�
- � � �. � � �, �. �r ���,r �,_ � r�:
� F --- �
-- ----
—
_ �
_ —,"-�'� � � �
,��" -L- �
,, , ,— G�p15 ROAD —.
SR_ 1218_--- - — "- � � — — _ C�
— ' i F
i
�� �'
�" __ �,...'—_. -
i.-- - _—___
� ��--� - � IP�� -'.�N� " _
S
G r^�f���
� M ,QV��
546 eM-i
-L- 15+73J4, /3.65'RT
ELEV. 530.00
RR SPIKE lN BASE OF 24" OAK
542
538
�
� 534
�
a
E
� 530
�
�
s
`E 526
�
�
� 522
G
�
�
�
E 518
0
�
U
� 514
�
�
°
�� 510
M=
�:
� � � � � � �
�_._ _,__ ; _
\ -
\ �
�
�
� �X/ST . .
BEGIN GRADE
STA/4+30.00
EL = 530.63'
O
J P Uo I.. PoN5
E _:,� fi�2
14+00 15+00
BEGIN CULVERT
-L- STA 15t7g.69
LOW POINT
STA 15t79.57
ELEV 526.53'
1
PUE
STV LI1gIl7CC7S� IttC. PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
STv, 1009oa W i � s���e �15 /7BPJO.R.87 4
eazl- cn- �i t�s, Nc 2bz`o'2
� V� L� �C L s le � ber F� �0991 WW SHEET NO.
� ROADWAY DESIGN HYOR.4ULIC5
S I TE � � �� O ENGINEER ENGINEER
z
��r,ozE,_s arni.ve_ ;sf_SaeF�i;r�� ^
, Ak�6� 1N�lFc O
. 'ti�nieuA !iONEYCUI�T 6c.+1t.l�iU�-� N
� 08 13�9 PG 526
Z�
� � �
� a
PUE — Q DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
PUE — P�E � P�E 2 UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
�PUE��__�P-F3P _. . .,.., .,�..�;.r�-,�r ����c_,��;r'-�:
/Q - - s .�, ., - � �, 4�` � ;--�:v-wr�, - ., - . � , "'`_� PUE �
�_i+. "'r `*�
-.r-��.r �� �
�� d �
- �'_ -- _ � �� �' I
���---
--------- ---- F — — — — �— — —
_ �
�y
r: ; �� � _,.-� . . ...: �. ..., . '� F .. . _ . . _-'�, r,•,_,..- —
* / O
w
J Uri� aY ��U6'� eLRi i �F'.
: � �a0 i'G F:C-2
F I
r _ __
1 _
� - - —
f'; N � �
m m
`� PUE �
4 0' 0' 4 0'
Permit Drawing
Sh9At _ Of _ GRAPHIC SCALE
546
END GRADE
sran+so.00 T'� i � 542
EL = 534.65' �
/
/
/
a � � i � 538
� END CULVERT -
L- STA 16+20.3/ EXj '
Pl = l6+lOAO +��- PROPOSED GRADE /
EL = 520.75'
vc = 3sa � � 5�-''
DS = 25 MPH / / / lk��\ `Li
� �.
_ _ �,.
— — — — — — - — — — — � EXISTING GROUNQ.-� Pl =n�
�
� � E� _
lk�l`�2 • ��� ��
_ (+)JQQ� ---------- ..
��
PROPOSED DITCN GRADE
�- PROPOSED CULVERT P/ =n+/0.00 LT
El = 523.0
EXIST BRlD6E � Pl =16+/OAO U NOTE:
TD BE REMOVED El = 522A �'� '� '' ' THE DESIGN SPEED SHOWN FOR VERTICAL CURVES
-- --- -- - ARE UP TO 20 MPN LESS THAN THE OVERALL
- I - : _: .- DESIGN SPEED PER THE SUB-REGIONAL TIER
DESIGN GUIDEUNES.
16+00 17+00 18+00
534
530
526
522
518
514
510

�
� LEGEND
m
�DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
I AREA (AG I LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY 0.07 105
SW IMPACTS
�
�
�
JERRY D. �YI�_l.l�?SS
C3 55� PG 8i2
� SEE
�i�� FIGURE
SITE 1
EXISTING R/W , -- - � --- �����—
.., . .. .. -- .-��.;.- , .:..,,�-4, � _,.,..;- , ..� .. _ , , w _��
. .... . - � �-, -_:
— _ � � � - � � � � � � — — — �
_ -. -�.. .. � . / F � � . _. . .. _. .. ._
- , . _.---------_ .__
-- - --
— � � _ __---- � - . �
. -_-- -- -. _- �I .
� - � � � —L— I - ��►
��~ GqpD15 ROA� -- — — — _ _ _ _ _
�" SR 1218 _---- ��___—
— -- �
�Yi�///�9/��I-�
'�I
, •, : ���'1 I
_ _...._- F � �
� � \
%' I , , . �-Tri
� -- - - - — � . �,.. _ n-:= � "- -
%' _ . � i `c , ��c� a� ,.. ,;>. .r,. �.,.,.� .
_ '-
— � � � , ,_:f'^ '�.:.-v„�... r�-.
' _ . .o ,�rC'ns^, r`-�^-' , . � �'
� ��� ��, j o
5 � --- ^��eV� JERRY �, t°�Il.'_��hhS �
� � DB 650 PG &32
9 \ �E
--- _.. � � .� � �� '-_
---- - --- � � \ �,. .. � �..,..\ - .
546 eM-i
—L— 15+73J4, /3.65'RT
ELEV. 530.00
RR SPIKE lN BASE OF 24" OAK
542
538
�
� 534
�
a
E
� 530
��
s
`E 526
�
�
� 522
G
�
�
V
E
� 518
0
�
w
U
� 514
�
°
�� 510
M=
�:
� � � � � � �
�_._ _,__ ; _
\ -
��
�
�
� �X/ST . .
BEGIN GRADE
STA/4+30.00
EL = 530.63'
14+00 15+00
BEGIN CULVERT
-L- STA 15t7g.69
STV LI1gIl7CC7S� IttC. PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
STv , 1009oa W i � s���e �15 /7BPJO.R.87 4A
eazl- cn- �i t�s, Nc 2bz`o'2
f� Li) _ �C L s N� ber F� �0991 WW SHEET NO.
� ROADWAY DESIGN HYOR.4ULIC5
S I TE � i O � ENGINEER ENGINEER
z
CW �E,_s �r�i ve sf aeki�w� 0
�/ AP1U WIFL N
G�!vE`✓fi HO�JEYCUTT BEAChl,4ta
�..... ' � OB 1309 PG 524, �
, `
,� � �
�
UE
� � Q
- PUE �� P�E — PUE — — Z� DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
PUE P�E UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
� PUE _
R. _ , �;;�;-_..,, ._�.1� w�`vr`�✓�"��'Vk3E�-`-� PUE � �,� � 4, �,n-�,n,
�;�.wr�,. ��- ., -�, -�r �
;r�;�
'� � -' .vT'-1 N � a
��' ��. �
�
EMSTING R/W . .
_ _ _ - � - - - - --
�— '— — \ \
— f — � _ , � . . � .
—���� F � .� ..- /;,..
---� --_ - � _ _. .l _-------==-----
-----------. _ � ._. _. .
�y �
-- -- � -- — _ _ ----�— -- _ _ --
� �
�
_—� _
_ F
F _ F � � .. . � - -
� _-
���±,s.�, �;r-�r ,r�,_�c`�,. .��. ..�,_.>- �-, , ,.__�.. �r=� ..r.�., � � __:_ . :.� . . ._ _-
*/ o
w
� CJANNY L�UVS FsL1RWiS, SR.
D6 980 PG 662
END CULVERT
L— STA 16+20.3/
1 EXISTING R/W — -
I m m
� �il I � i -�_� �
. ��I ��n � I I � � � I � I� I � PUE �
> � �Il�i�l
4 0' 0' 4 0'
, Permit Drawing
Sh9At _ Of _ GRAPHIC SCALE
546
END GRADE
sran+so.00 T'� i � 542
EL = 534.65' �
/
/
/
a � � i � 538
� � � � � ��
EXi
Pl = l6+lOAO +�—'�- PROPOSED GRADE / '� ' —
EL = 52075' , �� ,
vc = 3sa �25�-'
� �
DS = 25 MPH i�/ lk�" --
� �, �, �, �, �,
�' --' _ ��� �� �� � ����� � �
- - - - - — — � � Pi -n+so.00 r
r EXISTING GROUNQ.-
� �+SI • �2/ � El = 5320
I 4 l �,- ��
��--------� � �
LOW POINT / \ '
STA 15t79.57 � �
ELEV 526.53' - � / - -
EXIST BRlD6E P� _
TD BE REMOVED E�_
16+00
------- (+1JQQ� ----------- '" � � �
PROPOSED DITCN GRADE
�- PROPOSED CULVERT P/ =n+/0.00 LT I � I I , I �
El = 523.0
NOTE:
J LT ' ,, THE DESIGN SPEED SHOWN FOR VERTICAL CURVES
-- --- -- - ARE UP TO 20 MPN LESS THAN THE OVERALL
- I - _': .- DESIGN SPEED PER THE SUB-REGIONAL TIER
DESIGN GUIDEUNES.
17+00 18+00
534
530
526
522
518
514
510

LEGEND
�DENOTES TEMPORARY ,uE
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC) LENGTH (FT) —
TEMPORARY 0.07 105
SW IMPACTS
�
JERRY U. WILLiA�A� �
DB 650 PG 832
r ' ir�".��'-�r�ah���✓— `vr�+_ -...T�t��f ��
F �
— — — — — � /
STONY RUN � � �
� crk
�
—L—
GADDIS ROAD '
� SR l2/8
— — — — — — F � �
�
\
\
F��� ;_
�
C,
JERRY D, t�riLtC;�P,aS
�9 650 Pa �:i2 �\ _
�E
Permit Drawing
Sheet of
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER
�11�� Jl
2 0' 0' 2 0'
GRAPHIC SCALE
PUE PUE PUE�
, :; �
H:d36LS WAYNE BEACr:Ct�:i
��� J AND WIFE a2
G�fv�.�✓,a. HONEYCUTT BE�f'ti�;�a �
U�� 1309 PG 524 �
W
\
N
O
�TEMPORARY IMPACTS v �
IN SURFACE WATER
i ; _:
I �
� yI �
I �
' rn
f rn
F
,.::,, .� � .r., ��
__.. ....�,..._ ..._.._
�7
��
� �tk�P,-Y V_C�J PURh?1S, SR.
� C�� 93'� a � c62
E

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fillln Fillln in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No. (From/To) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 -L- 15+7g.69 to 16+20.31 40'X4'-0" Three sided 0.07 105
TOTALS: 0.07 105
I�[�]I�i

NCDOT Division 10 Low-lmpact Bridge Rep/acement March 9, 2017
17BP.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Attachment D
No Archaeological Survey Required Form and Historic Architecture
and Landscapes Mo Survey Required Form

Projec! Tracking No.:
17-02-0011
���� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM y'
° �.��` „,•..
{��'� This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not ��5; ��
ti,,�� qo i�' valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the y,�•�,� �� ,,�
ti�;,�� Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. �,t��.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: Bridge 156
WBS No: 17BP.10.R.87
County: Stanly
Document: MCC
F.A. No: Funding: � State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? � Yes ❑ No Permit Tjrpe: NWP3 & GC3886
Projeci Descrip[ion: Replacement of Bridge No. 156 over Stony Run Creek on SR 1218 (Gaddis Road)
in Stanly County, North Carolina. The archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) measures 600ft in
length (300ft from each bridge end-point) and 150ft in width (75ft from each side of the SR 1218 center-
line).
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review nc�ivi�ies, resu!!s of review, nnd concJusions:
Permitting and funding information was reviewed for determining the level of archaeological input requir.ed 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 306 of the National Historic Preservation Act will apply.
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 APE was designed to capture any
federal permit areas.
Once an APE was outlined, a map review and site file search was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) on Tuesday, February 28, 2017. No previously documented archaeological sites are located in 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 rela[ed to a perspective construction
impact area. A cross-check of these mapped resources concluded that no meaningful historic properties with
possible contributing archaeological elements were located inward of the archaeological APE margins. In addition,
historic maps of Stanly County were appraised to identify former structure locations, land use patterns, 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 NRHP listed properties, previously
recorded archaeological sites, or cemeteries are located within the APE. eased on cultural-historical factors, the
APE is considered to have a low potential for the documentation of archaeological resources.
Further, topographic, geologic, flood boundary, and NRCS soil survey maps (BaF, OaA, GoC) 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.
"Na ARCHAGO/.OGY SURVBY R/iQUIRBD "forin jor Ihe Aruended Mina• 7ranspor�a�ion Nrojecrs a,rguolified in rhe 10/5 Progranimalic Agreenrenr.
1 of2

Projecl Tracking No.:
17-02-0011
Brief Explannlion of wky [he avnilRble informa[ion provides a reliable basis for reasonnbly predic[ing
lhat lhere are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
No documented cultural resources are contained within the current APE limits for this bridge replacement project
in Stanly County, North Carolina. Environmental and cultural-historical factors do not suggest a heightened
potential for archaeological resource recovery. Intact NRHP archaeological sites are unlikely to be present or
preserved within the currently defined APE. No further consultation is advocated. A finding of "no archaeological
survey required" is considered appropriate.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: � Map(s) � Previous Survey Info
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
IVC).�RCHACf�LOGY SURYEY REQU1'RED
❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
`C �... �L��,r- 3 '� Z�l �'
NCDOT
"No ARCHAIiO/.OGY SURV&Y R8QU1RIiD "forni jnr �he Au�ended Minor 7ran.rporrario�� Projecrs asihml jed fn Ihe 20I5 Progranunalic Agree��ienr.
2 of2

Pro�ec! Trackiug No. (I�iteneal Use)
1%-�2-��11
HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: County: Stanly
WBS No.: 17BP.10.R.87 Document MCC
T e:
Fed Aid No: Funding: State Federal
Federa[ Yes No Permit NWP 3
Permit s: T e s:
Proiect Descrintion:
Replace Bridge No 156 on SR 1218 (Gaddis Rd) over Stony Run Creek.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Descrrn�ion of review rrcfivities, resr�lts, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, relevant background reports, historic designations roster, and
indexes was undertaken on February 23, 2017. Based on this review there are no NR, DE, LL, or
SL in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). There is a standing structure in the APE which is
greater than 50 years of age; one residential structure constructed in 1965. The house is not
individually eligible for National Register listing and is not part of a larger district. Stanly
County Bridge No. 156, built in 1963, does not exemplify any distinctive engineering or
aesthetic type and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No survey is
Wiev_.the availceble inl'ormoti�n urovldes ar reliahle 6usis far reasanablv trredictinP thtrt there
are no uni�lenrlired siPnifrcant hrstoric arcl�itectural or landscane resnurces in the nralect
area:
Using HPO GIS website and county tax data provides reliable information regarding the structures in the
APE. These combined utilities are considered valid for the purposes of detertnining the likelihood of
historic resources being present.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
�Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. �Photos [lCorrespondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
Hisloric Airhilech�re and Landscape,s NO SURVIiY RIsQU/RIiU jorni ja• Mi�ia• Ti•anaporlalion Projecls as QualifieA in Uie 1007 Prograwnmlic Agreemenl.
Page 1 of 3

NCDOT Division 10 Low-Impact Bridge Replacement March 9, 2017
176P.10.R.87 SR 1218 over Stony Run Creek - PCN for NWP #3
Attachment E
Bat Habitat Assessment Form

� Bat Habitat Assessment Form
''�� NCDOT Bridges
Observers: B- �'�����PS TIP or DOT project number: 17BP.10.R.87
Date/Tirne: October i0, 20�E - 11:00 a.m. Road Name/SR Number: SR 1218 (Gaddis Road)
County: ���Y Bridge Number: 830156
Waterbody: Stony Rur� Creek
9�� Surro�tr�ding habitat w/in 1 mi. �lrban/commereial �Q%
of p��jecE faotprint �approxj
Nat�ra!/rural �Q°�
Suburban/residential ��°f�
Agricultural 2�Q�O
Ar�y irees >�°' dB�[ �rtrithin pro�ect fooiprint? yes no
/�r��/ s�aggy trees or snags >5" DBH? es no
ff �es ta sha�g/srtag, ho� rrtiuch sunlight do tk�ey receiwe d�xring the day? 1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
If yes ta sh�p,�sna�, list species of habitat trees >�°` dbh �u9`/arzs nrgra, Liriodendmn tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua
if snags �S"DBH are preser�t in sanlit areas, pr�ide phQtos and IocatFan.
if �arge h�lo�r trees are present, pravide photos ar�c� Iocation.
�r�ser�ee �f_ Iru praject fooiprint !n vieinty (0.5 mi)
C�ves yes no yes no
Ataa��or�ed rni�es yes no yes nQ
tf'yes'tv any af t'he abave, provid'e prhotos, deseriptian, and 1o�ation.
I�a��� �rater so��c� i�o project footpri�t: r6�er tream/cree pond lake
S��t�b�e e���nkir�� hab�tat ��n the farrri eaf r�on-sta��antf s�xsooth ar s[ack water? � nQ
��arc! rai�s o�or�e c�ncrete �
DecCc type c�rrcrete n�etai rnbe
Beam type none eoncrete tee
Er�e�/b�ack wafl type con�r�t� im6er rr�asonry
Crec�sQte evicfence
S�a[[ow vertieaf top sea[ed cre�iees ('r� -�'/<" wide, 412" deep}
�3eep vertieaf unsealed erevices (� -1�" wPci�, ���"E6 deepj
Max F�eight �f bridge deck above graund/waier (ft): 3�
f�ight roost ha�bitat protected es no
Bridge alignrnent: N/S �
Haurs of sun expose�re to bridge Q-1 2-3
Hurr�an d�sturbance ur�der bridge F�igh fow
Err�ergence caunt performed? (ff yes, complete forrr� next pageJ
Evic#er�ee of bats using bird nests, if present?
Evidence� of bats using bridge? (photos needed)
Bat species present:
Additionat Comments:
Fiaoding of the bridge appears to be frequent, unsuitable for roosting.
NW/SE
�3
on
yes
yes
yes
metaf
open grid
timber
es
yes
yes
NE/SW
swa�p
no
no
no
NCDOT Bat Bridge HabifatAssessment Form
Updated 3/18/15