20080505 Ver 1_Application_20080320

e,,. Sgij n~
+A~~
~ ..:,~
,Q~N,,,.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIV~NT OF'I~~ANSPORTATION
MIQ~EL F. EASI.EY
GOVERiVOR
March 5, 2008
e~
r
v
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
~~1~
..~,; , r~'~'r
~l~j~ ~ ~~ ~~, "~ ~~
~~$
~ ~~i~~
Vr
k~fw~ TQ?k `~L`'iLll-
LYNDO TIPPETT
SEQLETARY
080505
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 Application for the replacement of Bridge No. 377 over
Waxhaw Creek on SR 1103 (Maggie Robinson Road) in Union County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1103(16), WBS Element 33815.1.1, Division 10, TIP No. B-4649.
Please see the enclosed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concurrence Letter, permit drawings and design
plans for the above referenced project. A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (signed 6/14/2007) has been
completed and distributed for this project. Additional copies are available upon request. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 41-foot, single-span bridge with
a new 95-foot, single-span bridge over Waxhaw Creek. The new bridge will be replaced at the location of
the existing bridge, and traffic will be maintained on an off site detour. There will be <0.01 acre of wetland
impact for this project, and no permanent impacts to Waxhaw Creek.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description:
The water resource spanned for project B-4649 is Waxhaw Creek. Waxhaw Creek is located in the
Catawba River Basin and is approximately 25 feet wide and 1-2 feet deep within the project area. The
DWQ Index number for this section of Waxhaw Creek is 11-139, and the Hydrological Cataloguing Unit is
03050103. The DWQ classifies Waxhaw Creek as "C". Within the project area, Waxhaw Creek is not
listed as a 303(d) water. There are no 303(d) waters within a mile downstream of the project area. No
High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WSII), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
occur within one mile of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts:
There will be <0.01 acre of riverine wetland impact due to the wider shoulders requiring a ditch to be
relocated on the east side of the project. There will be no permanent impacts to Waxhaw Creek for this
project.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
159$ MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING,
2728 CAPITAL BLVD.
RALEIGH NC 27604

Temporary Impacts:
There will be no temporary jurisdictional impacts associated with this project.
Utility Impacts:
There will be no jurisdictional impacts associated with relocation of utilities for this project.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 377 was built in 1962. The bridge is constructed of timber and steel and should be removed
with without any temporary fill falling into Waxhaw Creek during demolition. All guidelines for bridge
demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the
Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 31, 2008, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists three federally protected species for Union County (Tablel).
This project is located in designated critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).
An onsite meeting occurred November 7, 2006 with NCDOT, USFWS, and NCWRC to examine bridge
structures, constructability, and demolition. Per discussions at this meeting, due to the large amounts of
sediment and poor habit, NCDOT, in informal consultation with USFWS concluded this project May
Effect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect the Carolina heelsplitter. NCDOT is in receipt of a letter
dated June 11, 2007 from FWS concurring with those findings. A copy of this letter is attached to this
application.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Union C'.~unty
Common Name cientific Name Surve Notes Last Surve Biolo 'cal Conclusion
arolina heelsplitter asmigona decorata Habitat Present 7/14/2005 MANLTAA
ichaux's sumac hus michaicxii Habitat Present 10/30/2006 No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower
1 ITl TT T elianthus schweinitzii Habitat Present 10/30/2006 No Effect
ivir,i~i.1 ~= ivlay ~Irect, ivot L1ke1y to Adversely Affect.
All species for Union County are classified as "Endangered."
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters of the
United States." The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impact. In addition, Best Management Practices will be followed as
outlined in "NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities".
• Traffic will be maintained on an off site detour eliminating the' need for construction of a temporary on-
site detour.
• Water will not be directly discharged into Waxhaw Creek via deck drains.
• The new bridge will be longer, allowing for better hydraulic connectivity for Waxhaw Creek.
• Design Standards for Sensitive Waters will apply to this project.
8-4649 Nationwide Permit Application Page 2 of 3

Miti ation:
NCDOT proposes no mitigation for the <0.01 acre of wetland impact due to the minimal amount of impact.
PROJECT SCEHDULE
The project schedule calls for a September 16, 2008 let date, and a review date of July 29, 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit:
It is anticipated that the permanent impacts to the wetland adjacent to Waxhaw Creek will be authorized
under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide
Permit 23.
Section 401 Permit:
We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3701 will apply to this project. All conditions of the
General Certification will be adhered to, therefore we are not requesting concurrence from NCDWQ. In
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this application to the North
Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact Michael Turchy at maturchy ~r dot.state.nc.us or [phone].
Sincere .y,
- ~,d ,
.~.
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
W/ attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ, 2 Copies
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Cc:
W/ Electronic Attachment (via website)
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Barry Moose, PE, Division Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, DEO
Mr. John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
8-4649 Nationwide Permit Application Page 3 of 3

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 11, 2007
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
-__, .~_ .~, .e
,~_~
~6 :.o 'Vna ~... ..
~- r':'i5h.~~
JUN ~ _ Dui
T' n'^
'i: 3~t~'
r~ ~, _ '
RE~E~ E~ D
JUN I4 200)
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 ppFq.OF ~~~~N OF HIGHWAYS
. ICE OF.NgN~ ENVIRpNMENt
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for the Replacement of Bridge No. 377 on SR 1103
over Waxhaw Creek, Union County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-4649)
As requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), we have reviewed
the permit request and biological conclusions for federally protected species for the subject
project. Our comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The NCDOT is proposing to replace the existing 41-foot-long timber bridge with a 95-foot-long
concrete box-beam bridge that spans the creek and eliminates direct deck drain discharge to the
creek. The old bridge will be demolished by removing the superstructure and by cutting the
timber piles and vertical abutments off at the normal water surface.
Waxhaw Creek supports one ~f seven populations ~f the federally endangered Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), and the proposed project area is in federally designated
critical habitat for the species. The project area was last surveyed in July of 2005 to determine if
the Carolina heelsplitter was present there. Previous surveys as well as the latest surveys found
few native freshwater mussels in the project area, and no heelsplitters or their shells were found.
Given the negative survey data and poor habitat conditions in the project area and provided the
commitments agreed to at the November 7, 2006, field meeting (meeting notes dated
December 5, 2006) are strictly adhered to, we concur with a conclusion that implementation of
this project is "not likely to adversely affect" the Carolina heelsplitter in the project area. In
view of this, we believe the requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not

previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log No. 4-2-07-227.
Sinc ely,
~ ~/~CC
/ire.-~_
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Chris Militscher, c/o Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Terry Sanford Federal Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206,
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ms. Polly Lespinasse, Mooresville Regional Office, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

-L- 27+56 RT

Structure
Size !Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
<0.01
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac
<0.01
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac
<0.01 an
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)

TOTALS: <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Permit Drawirq
Sheet ~ of ~~
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
WBS - 33815.1.1 (B-4649)
ATN Revised 3/31/05 1Q 29 207

°`
~\
Property Owner Contact Report ~ ~;
:;
~~~..a.~.o~
TIP # B-4649
Owner last ----- ------ --- _--
Name/ Owner ContacU Home Contact
Business First Name Address City/Town State Zip Code Relationship Phone Contacted By Date How Contacted Comments

Allen Larry Don & 9212 Maggie Waxhaw NC 28173

Karen Mary
Robinson Road 4-22-05 Letter
Aoyagi Harry K. & 9011 Maggie Waxhaw NC 28173 4-22-05 Letter
Mary Ann Robinson Road
Bass, Jr. John E. ~ 9224 Maggie Waxhaw NC 28173 4-22-05 Letter
Barbara L Robinson Road
Davis Charles C. P.O. Box 184 Waxhaw NC 28173 4-22-05 Letter
Georges William P. & 3140 Carmel Road Charlotte NC 28226 4-22-05 Letter
Ann C.
Gore Jeffrey S. & 1667 Scotland Charlotte NC 28207 4-22-05 Letter
Elizabeth E. Avenue
Jackson Richard H. & 9012 Maggie Waxhaw NC 28173 4-22-05 Letter
Bonnie P. Robinson Road
Wall James O. & P.O. Box 3251 Monroe NC 28111 4-22-05 Letter @ 142 Triple C
Ruth E.
Wolfe David L 9304 Maggie Waxhaw NC 28173 4-22-05 Letter
Robinson Road
Permit Drawinfl n
Sheet 7 of
Friday, October 26, 2007
Page I of 1

P
d
P
m
c
0
c
T
m
Q
~~
~~
Noy
m~e
o ~.
~.
~ M
00~
O;Q
aD~
~ o~
ode
z~a
1 ..d
ore
V\
\~
V
O

! ~ 107
ao7
.I
I10
0(11 I CHURCH RD.
!
~4
103 ~
1236

~ ~ OPERATION R 12.7
117,8 ~ \ 1
PROJECT ~ ~.
! ~ H=464 --
1238
O!C y~
0 1103~~

o!o F IIO
'~
~
v~ ~
11
! 1103
02 «
0
o
~~ ~
~.
VICINITY MAP
OFFSR'E pETIXIR
O
V
"DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR SAG VERTICAL CURVE
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
50 25 0 50 10o ADT 2005 = 100
ADT 2030 = 200
PLANS DHV = 60 %
50 25 0 50 100 D = 10 %
T = 3 %"
0 PROFILE (HORIZONTALS y 60 MPH"
10 5 0 10 YO FUNC CLASS = RURAL IOCA
eeneu a n~eenru~ ~ TT$T 1% DUAL 4%
U~I011~ COUII~TY
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.377 ON SR 1103
(MAGGIE ROBINSON ROAD)
OVER WAXK4W CREEK
TYPE OF WORK; GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND
STRUCTURE
rtm mn nmucr uroaa xa ~* Toro
Na wam
•c• 8-4649 1
R•1f nO1.R6 FYIFOl1Y r,p~nyp
~u
~~ 83
1
`\
HEGrx BRrOGE END BRrpGE
-L- STA25+A7 -L- STA26+g5
i

E ro Lartnsler, SC
-~ \ ~ - -
L ro Wox/nr
-

_ _ _ - - YaA6iE I~pBIRSOR PA 77GR..

- - - - - - - - - -
/ _

- - -
"~&Yf RDRINS(W RQ 22' CR
-'
Kl7
$R -~-~ -
SR IOW

~V
r~
END TfP PROJECT
? 8-4649
-L- STa3f+Op,00
BEGIN TfP PROJECT B-4649 ~
-~- sra2z+so.oo
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4649
IENGTH OF STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8-4649
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 8-4649
PreDOrtO In !h OIRce d,
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1@@@ Blrtb R!J@~ Dr„ 8al"t@k NC, 1761@
aow arumeRB am~rnaxa
0.143 MILES
141GR7' OP R'AY IJASB: G.E. BREW PE

= 0
018 MILES SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 P"~ dNGOi®`
.
161 MILES
= 0 L61T7NG DAlB: D. WILLIAMS
. SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 r1p~r aanw mmva~e
IiYDRA[JLICS FJ~GJ]YJQLBR
ROADWAY J9BSIGN
SNG]N138R
J)PYJSION OF JHGHWAYS
STAT13 OF NORTH CAROLJ7YA
~o
0
ra' TM'F~
i

r

~o
.~
y
L"~
V
a1
~~
~~
a c
N
0
r
a
0
J
O
m
~~
~~
~~
~I
~~
V
w
0

O
V
~ f~
0
F
~ r`
3 v
E
L
aQ
~Q
ON
[N
r
s
9F-
P=
~a
0
U~
nN
L~
~o
DD
T~
ro
iy
i~

"DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR SAG VERTICAL CURYE
GRAPHIC SCALES
5 25 0 50 1
PLANS
25 0 10
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
]0 5_ 4 !9 20
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2005 = 100 _____
ADT 1030 = ZDO _____
DHY = 60 %
D 10 %
T = 3_ %"
V = 60 MPH"
FUNC CLASS = RURAL LOCAI
' T15T 1% DUAL 2°oL

UNION COUNTY
LOCATION; BRIDGE N0.377 ON SR 1103
(MAGGIE ROBINSON ROAD)
OVER WAXHAW CREEK
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, A11iD_ _
STRUCTURE
RATt RAIL IlMGI YR1W41116 ~I
„o i'R'LL
,~,
•C• B_-4
- 649__ _ _
-- 1
R it r~Ol96 fiAa1.W OIIClVIAN
338151,]_ BR3-]103 P,E~----
_ 33~~,2,]--- -QRj-11031 _ -~'LSL-- -
---------- ------------ ----------

__________ ___________ __________

NAD 83
ETLANDiSURFACE WATER PERMIT DRAWINGS
4
1~
BEGIN BRIC;E ~ END BRIDGE
-L- STA25+A~ -L- ST0.c'S+85
t
3
r
E ro ~ozosr~r, k -L - f -L - ro woxlax ~
- - - - -MALLIf R17BlxGON R0._?2'GR _ - NAGJf /K~Ix50N RD. 7~'GR
SR rqJ
SR ~q3
~t
~/
A$~~ END T!P PROJECT 8-4649
-L- STA3l+DO 0
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4649
-L- STA.22+50.00
GLI
PROJECT LENGTH Prelwre4 in rrn Olflce ofr HYDRAULICS ~ S A~ 0 NORTH CAROYI.Il~IA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1009 BIroA R{drr Dr., R°Gt,b NC, 2761@ f ° Y
~`° '
u-e srtim~an sracm>Cdrroxs -----------------------
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT 8-4649 = 0.143 MILES rs
RIGHT OF WAY DATE: G E BREW PE _ '
SEPTEMBER 7 2007 ~°~G7 ROADWAY DJ3S/GN *,•y I°~,`
LENGTH Of STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT 8-4649 = 0.018 MILES - r SNGI~SR or ~~Ms
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 8-4649 = O,lbl MILES LSTTAI'G DATE; _ _ D. WILLIAMS _
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 PAO~`T°B'4'°'v mvcn~aa -----------------------
OFFSlTE DETOUR

nOI
4 V~
O`'
•~ 1
- ~
al.
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
1
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I i
I 1
I t
I I
I I
I I
I I
i I
1 I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I ~
I I
1 I
1 I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
a
"m
E
cu
o-
Nq
svECDIC`20T~Irnl
Iwpt 10 e0eti.
1
I rd.
_L. ,~•
D ~
Wn. D• IA !/.
~rtASS.w Aso,eo4>7
S~~ELA110N5~1 NL~Nf rf i~fl~;l ^NOM.377r
mE-lu N rrrE-lu
nu u
/ TYPE~II
~•
9
,n
/4S~
~j
/ oD
o~
~M
+ ,X
,o
~ -
=o
/ 'aa
I--I vm~oo
1 x-x-„'-
r- r I x~'---x a8~ rv ISBM
s ,
- ~ cA ~,1 B x PT Sta 20+2313 -L-
RN I ~ (a
/. KI I % +
~ ~ i~ •c I
/ eD ssrEes I I
,yyO~~ I gl
L~' ~ I ~} ~ s'r +x w
I ~ 98'wN ISBN
I ooooe~~s-o . ocioo 'cSooo~~4~db~S obi
- ~ - ------ --- ---i= - N 419
- • .. --- - ~.R A~y7 Y.GGE RO&TTNSUV R0.71'D9 --. ---.------
I~~LASfIC - - - -
/r /
/ /
/ ~
/ ~
/ ~
/ O
r fug 1
~%
A~
DAPPLE RACE LLC
08 1120 PC 20
~ 1857 RC 77S
_ FAONCTSSFE
p(J~~ p~
IAfT~AI 1ti~ptCH TAI A
SPECIA LA A
'V' DITCH
e. a
~ /M 1 I
E L
i Wf to Saa41 ~
I~~ m
woos
' \/~ L IpADWAY DE:
7
W ~.
0 ~ iS NGIN@S
1
~k~ D• vunET
o !e
e• T °"'e Z~ p u°°e
.
.
~ siA
i i ~ w to rtA
Nq
•
,
7s.ao pLT) D 83 ~- rtA 74+0o ro rtA 7s+so
~_ tyA ~e.m m erA ~e~m ~
• ADLYTKAYAL w1pTH '
f i fU4 114NNAGE T1T!-III
. ~,,~ t, Z
` 5T
rau \ (~ `~
~__ `~.~ N
..,I
1 ,.
0 BE N BRIDGE ~
LARRY DON ALLEN 1.. ,~ BL-II
-L- A25+~.00 8L- PINS
AAREN uARY uLFN $~ I -L- POT 26
oe ~ vo ~' BEGIN APP!>~7 H SLAB w
-L- STA 25+76
._X--x---X X-
K,~X~X~X x /B' 1111 ITEM i )_
1 ~I ~\u~N1
Y DSTAII { ~
~i~ ~
as ^v 6ew ~ ^C ` ~' ~ uFClA~II
DAAU SSD
SPECUL IA7ESAl ^P DRCN-~
R! OrtAI A
BBi1N SHDUIDFS IBVA GUfllw-~
a,- RA 74+70
!ND RIDUIDE! SESM DUriES
k rtA 73+M
~xl . R\w
BEG1N STATE PROJECT 8-4649
-C- STA. 22+50.00
DETAIL ~
STANDARD BASE DITCH
INOh la Scdel
auq D 3 aMq
u
wln. D = ig Fr,
~LLL~~~' D=3.0 Ft.
Ft
'

PLAN VIEW r~ .
_5_
L =JD_Ft.
-L
PRaFILE vlEw PSRAI Pr Sto r8+45A9 Pr Sto 25+36.37 PI Sto 28+4IB5
m«ffa8e' p = rl'ST'0871'(LTI ~ ° 2'00'r12(RT1 p = fl2'45.5fRT1
D = 500' 00.0' D = 448' 532 D = 448' 532
°'°~ d"~ "I W ~Iwr~~el _
~'w L = 359A5' L = 41b4 L = 2519' loo•
e ~~ana
r = rBiAr
r = 2oa2'
T = rz5g n
r~"~'k' aches'" R ' !146.00' R = r19O.0o' R = IJ90,00' (_
-L- Sin 25+50 TO Sin. 5«80 IRi)
~L- STA. 25+SO TO STA, RS t it ~ SUIfl
-L- STA. 29+03 TO STA. 9+50 ILTI
@AIOY!'
n°~
;'IAS! OIN
o•
.( y~ PTSto.25
T.
ty
~~
iltl
N0.
sll@T N0.
6vGINF@
/+/ II 1 . / I \//
1 r ~ SEE SHEET 5 fOR PROFflF OF -L-
% I
0 1 I
~ ~ ~ WETLANDySURFACE WATER PERMIT DWG.
~+ ~X 1 1 1 M ~
1\ ~ TAI
~ Ilk, ,e
'ND BRIDGE __I_
I ~'
\ .. N~I~d
•L- STA26+85.00 ~ D
` Yln D= LS Ft.
END APPROACH S 3 `~ + rtA 79+oD ro rtA so+es Om
-L- STA.26+99,00 O ~
I CHARLES C.OAYtS f,3 ~
OB MT PO ND ~E^0 \~
DBSOJNED
~UTOW. BATE DffCw
Hil SXOUIDE ~ g ~~ S!E DCTAO. D 64 DEUTNI A@u M DRCH
~- R•4 tMT+00 I A A i O L!
+
OE FwOTECDON ~ \
. ~@ D@AIL C ~ t \
60 6QYDS. FF. ~ CHARLES C. DAVrS
:s Tows CIASS a uF sAF \
I ~ 1 e~wrt~nar~a eLSA+ Dlrttls oa ,aT rC 4so
3 T~ t 1 S` CY NV! ELIOWS \\ t AFE~E OBSNPEO x__>
750. F.~ A t ~~{ fW~G `W ~ A t 11
~``` \ ~ 1 PTSto.28+54.44 -L- ~ * 1
+
~~r F i 3 ~ 1\ e ~ + ~ t 1,
t \ ~
~ ~ ~ ~'~ ,'~ ~ €ND STA\ E OJE
- I ~ ~ r . r ~ ~ _ _ ~ A.+31+0 00
~ ~/ ~ Y
A t s t+ ~ A s l
t * t t ~i
.. / + - - Y
'I t + ~ ~
/~~t ~ ~ ,,,,.
z t i ~ ~ ~
~ /
~4~r~/`~ R T ~,:
Nlm SEE ENLA GEMEN l I
loo• 200• ToD•
0
ION
1 Not fa Scdel
~+~ i5bpe ~'.
Nofu'tl P
aow.a
a
Lp F Iter
GS.O Ff. D Faerk ~~
Type of llner• CLASS R Rip-Ro0
.~.. STA 1T+00 TO rtA 27aAD Sltl
N Olrg•E
e`er
I ' ~~~~~~
\ \
+\ \
\ \+
l )
srAtlDAw r BASE DRa~

;~ \
s@ DrtuL e \
'e.
~ ' ~ D~E'rACJI~F ~ \~' ~r-mil/".

+
E%IST. w ti \ ~y
~\ \
\ \ uTL 0

-
C

~i -'~
~ ~
} \ n7E
1---~'~'
~ F
• ITbM

AWI I ' [Lp IIV~
, ~ I
a N Y e - - sR I,w ~~ ' - - -
MI6'X V RQ QI
~ C
---- - ---.-- J
.f^rJ^ Ce _ -- --~ -~- x SRI1
0 }

I I
II
I I'
I I'
II
II
II
II
DENOTE~EHECN~MOZEO
~DENOi~S FI~L IN
4t ILAEN
® DENO[N M E%LANDTION

' ~ ~ +/ t^ T1 ~ ((} 141O1ECi REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
.. ~y{yw,r`rryr1.'~w~ 'iK~l(f~ 'r(~JN(i ~Iff~l/l~~"~'~~r ~{F~l r1~Y1~WwGlln . SPECIA LAAI A,Y'DITCH ~••~~9 4
Y \ MV 6FlR ND.
: m SPilu1 [111 iIIII.H f , /~, Ji~(11'i,IJJ' iJ F .r Nn~ ~ GLI Iwt ~ i°°~~ _•
ROADWAY D[9GN rDORAULIC!
' I ~,~ - ` , h FI ww d F ~ rti~r ~ ~ FR ENOIN!!R ENGINEER
g"~-,.~, ~-,~ me-m nn,ul Sal ..°• NYllli o,.,a ~, D ~'
,~ R• Lo r,.
Wn. II• Ip 11. IH 1A1 1 r, ~
` ul^. D= L0 FT.
J,T'fA nib ra hA. l0.w Dd ~I ~ ~ fRe 1+.M fe hA U.ao eEn - NAD 83_. ~-erA U+DOro iTA a+so
„} >; i a. S0. 3e+DD tG iTA r+oo
/~ _ 1 k RA 71+00 TO STA 1l+60
pd
/ \ ~~ ... F • K rrilAAM rryn" 1Y/1-111 ~
d 4 tr~i IwAwAV ~ I r r l \/
O ~ ~ ~ ^~' ' t v ~A r, ~ ~ 1 ~ SEE SHEET 5 FOR PROFILE OF -L-
~ ~ "~,r r 1. ~ ~ D x~ ~ WETLANLISURFACE WATER PERMIT DWG.
m r h ~ , ~ ~ ('~-----
~ ~ ( l ,r 1`~ tal
x
1wt ro swa
1
,., ~ ~ ~ ENO a OGE f TtT
N I rmt
2 BE N BRI ~ Bl•II -L- A2 85A0 ~~ ~" p A
5 ~~ ~ • L Dori fii -L- A + D ~ t - L- PINC + - '~ 3 ~~ ulno= Ls FT.
`,~~--I~~", y AARtH r AL a..: $Y~ l- POT Z + .90 - ND PROACN~ `
~~ .. I ~ a ro Tel BEGIN APPRO SL ` -L- A26t99A0 `~ ~ -I.iTA2F+DOTO c1Al0+50 Pm
`w° i ~ ~ II ! -L- STA25+76 - Cxu+IES L. ~ •
' a + I I 1, oe roT Fc ~
i_ _ m o o `i ~1 x x x__x_x x..--xie':w ~. xY x " 4 ~ ., ~\~~~ {.\\~ '
I~ x_ ~ 1
- E I x ~ _-
r '~ T x ~•1 ~ ~ ~ Y ~ RE T uDVE TqN X • ~ ~
\ Mo EA I ~ ' g pe w TSfG. 2CJ+2 3 - - t x 1 \ ~ /urc cn -
~ - r ~
1 ~~
_ ~ ~ ,:~
1' ~ a + ~ .
I~ ~ ~:1 x ~' a 4 +~ p
~~ 1
srp AN ; ~ OIT01 , \
~` K1 I ~~ • i'w II IARAAI'WDITCX'~.• ~. ~ } _ ~ 1- ~'b.,. !T DAAD 7'116E DRC ~ .
_ ~ ~I~ ,I 1 t ~ 1 AILA ru,~, o ~t ~ d ']5' !@ A
~~ ra
w0 STEP9 al ~ +,: ~~' ,i~
ro ~ • " ECFLL CUT ~ \ _/
e ~~
~ , ' u ~ N r / SEE DETAIL F b ~ 9 'l
,yy~~ i ,
i x N I . ' ~ ~
4?' I ~ ~ + w
I '
r i
Q ICwM 19Ew FEN C8 mx IST. w
~ uL
~"~ 1 .. .. --...'
`I fl flc>00 000 ~flOO fl~ © 0~ 0 ~ ~ ,. _.......:.
~-- r cE3q N. 4, W ° ------~--- ~.
N se uu ueoDE xo~N
..
a, _ _ ,,,'
_: _ _ -
..
.. ~ :. ~ csew ,ABM r I .. .. ..
Y
,~ ~ r ~ n@ Q _ F g_ +.
~/ ~ 0
~, SFECLLL uTEUU M DD EAMD N YS! ~ TCH UIEi A TIAU WF ORU1
', A R °~` sPFtVl uTE1K'V Drt
~'~ lFIOIADEA 19LH ~ A # (;Y TO~HIS zm fX E } } ~ DETAIL D +
G i@ DETAIL A Ulf DRC11
/~' RA 24+10 7!r GF ~ 7 !O•YOE F eTA 2 + I } } °' _.: O SE E '
~ ~/ kRAULO SA OUIiHI IIOD ~ MV rp~~ +
/ \
,...
/' ~~~ + ~~ @ DRAM C r } ~
(rrP .. ~ 60 6O.YDi. F.F. / CHARLES C. DA
~i ~ r ~' + \N ~~_:= N.. k -:'; 1! TONS CIAAS CIAI~F ~ } \1 ~DR~WL ~ AIAM GUii[A DB 1e1 PO 1!0
7 - A C 2~0~5. } } h ~ EMf OBS x ~~x x-max 29R
_ ,
De Pc m ~ R 4 F.~ } } I~o ~cA KR ~ } # } ,
;` oe T x !T! ~ ` C /~._ '~ } 28+54,44 L ,l } } 1,
\ } I~ Sta. ~ }
,1 - u~-05, e I } ~ i
j 01 } \, ~ } } "A } } 1
EGiN S ATE PRO EC 8-46 9 4 25+5719 L- I } } *~ .. ~' } EN~ }STA% E OJ T B-4649
}
} } } } ,,
TaIL a -- /'-~ ; ,~ f + - - } } } , , , , ,
- TAND RD DeS~01TCH - - - / ) /pW~k ~~ } } .~ ~ ~ i
,~
o °'°'° m a~ ~ v 'Ji J
~~ +~ ~. ~ E RGEM N
~1:...J
um. o =1.o Fr. V `el 1, .
w= 5 Ft.
°i PLAN VIEN L - 10 Ft. - I I '•
oral I I
_.:._ IoH I I
v
p .. ;
= INOt rw s .I
E ~ ~ II
H ~
to PSRAI tr
PROFILE VIEW PI St0 18+45A9 PI Sta 25+36.37 PI Sta 28+4185 a ~i '~ ~ DENOTfiS H6CHaN12F0
z Frearproq - f!'S7'0871'(LTJ p = 2'OO'112(RTJ p = f!2'45.8'(RTI ~ - CLEakING
oQ oiFd+ Pade Q ' DDS. FT. D FaDrk
Nn ~ ~ w ~ 0 = 50p'00A~ Q =4'48'532 0 = 448'532' rp°° of Liner: toss a RI°-A°pDENOTES FI~L IN
_~ °°• ~~+_, ~~. ~r~e1- L = 359A5' L = 41b4 i = 2519' roo• o• loD• zoo• 300• uEETTLaN
GroiiO T = 181Ar' T = 20.82' T = 1259' -ice srA v+oD ro !TA 27+lo IAn
ONq -fuck alslaes' R ° IJ46A0' R = Ij9O1~J R = IJ~7A0' xlm-~s~ ®DENOtES ~zCavgTI~J
oa -L- Sig 25.50 TO Srp, 25~B0 1PTl SCAIFf I'= 100' 790' IN Y LRND
zr ~L- STA. 2550 TO STp, 25 7gg tLLi7
-L- STp. 29~03 i0 Sip, 29+56 ILiI
o~

4~ernit Drawing
Sheet, pt ?~~..-
FILL IN WETLANDS DUE TO
PLACEMENT OF RIP RAP

® DENO~N 4ETLANDTION
F F DENOUETLariDL ]N ~DENOTF~LEaFINGNI2E0
1026®
ON IN WETLANDS DUE
H CONSTRUCTION
GLI
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 33815.1.1 (B-~649)
BRG X377
OVER WAXHAW CREEg
ON SR1103

.~
~''~AA
Y/
0~' 1
~ 1111 III~X IY11 I
i 111 11 ~: •I it Al N
~~~~ NII NY it 1X1 I I
I I 1 1 1 ~~~r ~~~E NG. {H~ ~.
~~

1 1111
1111 1111
1 x 1111
1 11 l
11 II1 1Non
11 1" ilo 1X11
I N ~1 lXll
IX9Y 1111
1111 ljl
1111 II
11 II
1 1
1 _
4
~ iii/ u1~ i ili
i Dili r ' 'n1 rut 11+
~ ~ i
1 1111
1 1 1 ~~
l u IIII
111 lii
1 ry
ry
I ~ I~1Y
1 1 1 y
~~
~~ I~V~
9 fil ill fill
I I 1111
1111 11
1 I
WADWAY DEIGN
HYDMtACi
~
I ~

I 1111 1 1 1
1 1
i I i i i

1 i ~~ i i' 1
~1 ~
11V11 999
9
" x'
Y 4 1uN w i 'y l
1 I ~ u
11 I n l
1111 l i
I
I
1 ?IGIN@Il INGININ
I
1 I
1 11

I~~i lls
1111
1111 1
1111
1111 11
I
1~ 111 1111
( 11111
~I 1114 X111 1111
'ld1 4u11
~i i~ a n1 1Y11
tYMI
Ilrl 111
111
i nl 1111
1111
1111 11
ii 1
1
i I 1
In 1111

II 11

.
I ~
11
1 ~
I Ilrl
i1 1111
1
"" f n1
Irn 111

1 1111

I
ii
::
I
I i H
i l
i "'! "" ""
l i i 11 «« INCOMPLE E PLANS
i ~ I I I I i i i i I I i 1 i
i i I I I I
l I I I W NOl' U9t PO& /v wCY10L411'ION
~ ~ li 1~ I~fI fiI l
!II i
~;; ~
; "1 i
f1i~ ~ PRELIMIN RY PLANS
11.
1, 1 1 11
I ;
1 111'
1 1 1 1 1
I
I 1
I 1
1
~ ~T ~~ ~
mlvsixlxTlal
11
ill
" 11
11 i
1 1
1
' 1111
1111
i
i I
, I
I
X111 I .11
I 111 II IIII Ills
I
ii 1111
111 I

i I
I I 111
11111 II IIII
1111 I 1111
1111 II
II I
II i
11 11 111 11 III
1 111 1 111 II
'
I I
1
1
1 1

11 I '
I I 1
II I
1 1
11 11 1
11 1 I III 1
' II
- II
I

530 530

520
520

~
510 510

4

47 4

m
n
u

E
a

t
~

r~
m~
n~
~u
O~
NQ
~-
~T
~%
27

o 21 22 2 3 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
~

A.
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-4649
8.2693601
33815.1.1
BRZ-1103(16)
RECEl10ED -
~ JUN 20 2001
N H~HWAY~
IEA-~ ~ RONMENT
~ingK ~ ,,
~t~,. ~ ~~0~'8
'~'~as~,,;~ sf~~QUgc>>y
O ~
0
Th ose of this ro ect is t 1 U C Bnd e N 377
e pure p ~ o rep ace mon ounty g o. on
SR 1103 over Waxhaw Creek. Budge No. 377 is 41 feet long. The replacement
structure will be a bridge approximately 95 feet long providing a minimum 30
feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two 11-foot lanes with a 3 foot
offset and a 5 foot offset. The bridge length is based on preliminary design
information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The roadway grade of the new
structure will be approximately two feet higher than the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 400 feet from the southeast end
of the new bridge and 300 feet from the northwest end of the new bridge. The
approaches will be widened to include a 22-foot pavement width providing two
11-foot lanes. Four-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (7-foot
shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural
Local Route using standard guidelines with a 60 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B
Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 377 has a
sufficiency rating of 31.6 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered structurally deficient due to structural appraisal of 2 out of 9 according
to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for
FHWA's Bridge Replacement Program.
The posted weight limit on the bridge is 14 tons for single vehicles and 17 tons for
truck-tractor semi-trailers. The bridge is approaching the end of its useful life.
Replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
~~

C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes.
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.

6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of
right-of--way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or. reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
. mitigation sites.
14.. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil.
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.

D. Special Proiect Information:
The estimated costs, based on 2005 prices, are as follows:
Structure $ 248,000
Roadwa A roaches $ 437,000
Structure Removal $ 6,000
Misc. & Mob. $ 233,000
En . & Contin encies $ 129,000
Total Construction Cost $ 1,050,000
Ri ht-of-wa Costs $ 57,000
Total Pro'ect Cost $ 1,107,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 100 vpd
Year 2030 - 200 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and
found no accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project.
Design Exceptions: There is a design exception for sag vertical curve.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 377 is constructed of timber and steel and should
be possible to remove with no resulting debris in the water based on standard
demolition practices.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build -The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the
road which is unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by SR 1103.
Rehabilitation -The bridge was constructed in 1962 and the timber
materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour -Bridge No. 377 will be replaced on the existing
alignment. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the
construction period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours
for Bridge Replacement Projects considers multiple project variables
beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would
include SR1107, SR 1106, SR 1104, and SR 1102. The majority of traffic
on the road is through traffic. The detour for the average road user would
result in 10 minutes additional travel time (6.4 miles additional travel). Up
to a 12-month duration of construction is expected on this project.
4

Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that the preference of
an offsite detour but with now stronger evaluation of other project
variables. In this case, Union County Emergency Services along with
Union County Schools Transportation have indicated that an offsite detour
is acceptable. NCDOT Division 10 has indicated that the condition of all
roads, bridges and intersections along the detour are acceptable without
improvement and concur with the use of the detour.
Onsite Detour - An ofsite detour was not evaluated due to the presence
of an acceptable offsite detour.
Staged Construction -Staged construction was not considered because
of the availability of an acceptable offsite detour.
New Alignment -Given that the alignment for SR 1103 is acceptable, a
new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in
standardized letters provided a request that they prefer any replacement structure
to be a spanning structure. Waxhaw Creek is classified as C waters which is
designated critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter.
Response: While Waxhaw Creek is critical habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter,
none were found during surveys. Informal consultation with USFWS resulted in a
commitment to design standards for sensitive watersheds.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality had no special concerns for this project.
Public Involvement:
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected
directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments
have been received to date.

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any

unique or important natural resource? ^
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? x

(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? x
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely

impacted by proposed construction activities? ^
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water.
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States

in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ^
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage

tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ^
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any ^
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will.the project result in the modification of any existing ^
regulatory floodway?
NO
x

x
x
x
x
x
NO
x
x
x
x
6

(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ^
changes? x
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned ^
growth or land use for the area? x
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or ^
business? x
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? x
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ^
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? x
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ^
x
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ^
x
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ~ x
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ^
x
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? ^ x
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? x
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the

bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? ^
x
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? ~ x
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? x
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ~ x
7

a
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? ~ x
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ~ x
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? ^ x
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? ~ x
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 2: Critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter is present in
Waxhaw Creek. A mussel survey was conducted on July
30, 2005. None were found at the site during the survey
therefore, a biological conclusion of "May Affect -Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" was determined. Special
project commitments are included in the attached Project
Commitment Sheet.
A survey for the Michaux's Sumac was conducted October
30, 2006 by NCDOT biologists. They determined that the
project area contains potential habitat but no species were
found. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was
determined.
Potential habitat for the, Schweinitz's sunflower is present
in the poject area but no species were found. A survey
conducted on October 30, 2006 by NCDOT biologists and
determined a biological conclusion of "No Effect"
8

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4649
State Project No. 8.2693601
W.B.S. No. 33815.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1103(16)
Project Description:
The purpose of this~project is to replace Union County Bridge No. 377 on
SR 1103 over Waxhaw Creek. Bridge No. 377 is 41 feet long. The replacement
structure will be a bridge approximately 95 feet long providing a minimum 30
feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two 11-foot lanes with a 3-foot and
a 5-foot offset. The bridge length is based on preliminary design information and
is set by hydraulic requirements. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately two feet higher than the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 400 feet from the southeast end
of the new bridge and 300 feet from the northwest end of the new bridge. The
approaches will be widened to include a 22-foot pavement width providing two
11-foot lanes. Four-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (7-foot
shoulders where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural
Local Route using standard guidelines with a 60 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
x TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Da e
a
D to
~~1 01
Date
Analysis Branch
ect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects nly:
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division
Federal Highway Administration
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Union County
Bridge No. 377 on SR 1103
Over Wazhaw Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1103(16)
State Project No. 8.2693601
W.B.S. No. 33815.1.1
T.LP. No. B-4649
Division Ten Construction, Resident Engineer's Office, SCDOT - Offsite Detour
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, Union County Schools should
be contacted at [phone] at least one month prior to road closure.
Union County Emergency Services needs to be contacted at [phone] at least one
month prior to road closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary
response units.
Special coordination with SCDOT was needed in order to utilize SR 1107 (Old Church
Rd) in South Carolina.
Hydraulic Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Resident Engineer -
Sensitive Watersheds
Waxhaw Creek is classified as "C" waters and will be subject to all Design Standards for
Sensitive Watersheds since it is designated as critical habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter.
Carolina Heelsplitter is a federally endangered species which concurrence on "May
Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" has been received. Letter of concurrence is
attached.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
June 2007

r ~y
~,~ ~~ •
~ N6ZTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~
~ TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~. ~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT' &
~~\ ~~~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
UNION COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.377 ON SR 1103
OVER WAXHAW CREEK
B-4649

Figure 1

i I
1~
`..
~.
~~.
r--~
1 I
~-'. JI 1
I i
.~ i
I
~. i
~ 1 1
II
1 I Q Q
I I
Q ~ ~ ~ Q
I 1
I I ~Opoc> fl OO~Ofl00~ Ofl ~ ~ ~ Op e~t?C
J! !~ - ----- -----
_ _ _ SR 1103 (Maggie Robinson Ra
r^~, -----------1-~-------------
1 ~
I ~
~~
ii
,~
i~
i~
~~
i~
ii
~i
ii
ii
i~
~..
~~
.~
. ~
~~
~~
~~
~ ~
~ ~~\~•-
~ -
• ~
• ~
~ `
~ ~
` \ ~
~ ~~
~ ~
y `\\
~ `
~ \
•~
c _ ~~
~~

03i12i2007 09:10 REST+SURUE`(+PLANNING-HPO ~ 919 715 1501
•
• s ,Ya~SLVrs
' dY
~~~~
Midssel ~. E~lry, GovetnCr
Lisbrllr C• Evm~s, Set:rttary
Jei$ry J. Crow, Dcpttty Setxrctvy
August 12, 2004
MEMdRANDUM
C~Qitz of ArcAiva and history
birision oiH"tamvit~tl Resottrm
David 8roo14 Director
TO: Gregorp Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development arld Eawitonmental A~.lysis Branch
NCDOT Division ofHighways -
FROM: Peter B. Sasldbeck~~~l0ec.~.
SUBJECT: 2004 Badgc Projects, including B_3492, B-4408, B-4409, B-4410, $-4446,
B~466, B4469, B-4518, 8-4545, B-4573, B-4631, B-4423, B-4424, B-8454,
B-4520, 8-4538, B-4540, B-4548, B-4549, B-45G7, B-4578, B-4648, B-4G64,
B-46G5, B-4504, B-4560, 8..4587, B-4618, B-4644, B-4649, B~651, B~4658,
B-x}671, B-3G24, B-3819, B-~~~1, B-44x4, B-4552, B~613, B-4646, 8-4675
B-31G9, B-3606, B-3802, B-38G3, B-3804, B-4523, B-4524, B-4525, B-4526,
Multi-county, ER 04-1280-ER 04-1330
Oa Julj- 28, 2004, Sarah McBride, out preservation specialist for transportation projects, met arith the Noah
Caroiina'Dcpartment of Transportation (NCDO'I~ stafffot a meetiap of the minds coacetning the above
projects. 'SR7e reported on our available infoauation oa histoxic architectural and archaeological suzveps and
resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project desmptions, azea photographs, acid
aerial photographs at the meeting,
' Based oa our sevieov of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, me have iacllided our
comments for each bridge project on a spreadsheet attached to this letter. These eommen ~ rr nrp~,,fOF
li pioje as prop" ose~-" -- -
rf an archaeological survey is requested on the spreadsheet, a separlte memozandurn fzom the Office of State
Archaeology, explaining mhethei a general survey is required or if the survey is predicated upon an off-site
detour or near loca.tioa, is attached
Having provided this information, rove look fotvvard to receipt of either a Categorical, Exclusion oz
L-nviroxunenta], Assessment Which indicates how NCDOT addressed ouz cornmcnis.
The above comments aze made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic T'reservation's Regulations for Compliance vrith Section 106 codi5ed at 3G CFR
Part 300.
London Ma,1in6 Addrrs TelepboadFy,r
ADi~tiN157RtT10N 507 N. B1e~.it Saar, R+lsi9b NC 4617 )vj,,~ ~~ Cermr, itatogh NC 27699-A617
AESTORA710N 51S N.Dlount Strut Adeigh NC 4617 Mtl Service Cenler.ItaleigltNC 27699-(617 (914)733.{763/133-86s3
SVR~'EI' & tLAlVPIWG S1S N, Htoant Stn>e~ ltakigf4 NC qEl ~ Mail Seroim Cerra 1iNeigl, NC 27699.1617 (9l9)J33iS47r713-9801
(919)733~63asl115a801
N0.752 D02
North Carol~aa Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office -
Patet'$. 5andbed~, Admiruatntor

03/1/2007 09 10 REST+SURVE`f+PLANN ING-HPO y 919 71 5 1501 N0.752 D03
TIP BRIDGE COUNT( QIVISIClN BUILT PDE Architecture Ar~haeoto
`~.~ ~ B-3492 580056 McDaWELt 13 1962 Hancock Yes No
~aja~J 1 8-4408 030265 ANSON 10 1961 Hancock No Na
~c~ B~409 030308 ANSON 10 1922 Hancock No
N
,~ ~8 10 030307 ANSON 10 1931 Hancock Yes o
N
~~ 130 8-4446 100227 BUNCOMBE 13 1956 , Hancock No o
N
~~ • 6-4466 210004 CLAY 14 1952 Hancock No o
o~j I8-4469 ZZD219 CLEVELAND
}~2 12 .1952 Hancock No N
,
. ~;b~ t•~S 8-4518 , 350110 GASTON
12
1962
Hancock
Na 1
N o

No •
~~ B..45q~5 440072 HENDERSON 14 1963 Hancock o
N No
B-4573 540163 LINCOLN 12 1965 Hancock o Na
~y I B-463i 800526 RUTHERFORD 13 1970 Hancock No ~
N
Lc~e~ B-44Z3 060067 BEAUFORT 2 1965 Ca s No o
~~ ~ 24 ~ 060068 BEAUFORT 2 196 Ca s No No
N
~~ @-4454 150043 CARTERET 2 1963 Ca s Na o
No
.~ S~52D 360032 GATES 1 1952 Ca Yes No
~d538 +
N 410025 HALIFAX a 1965 Ca s Na
Yes Yes
l ~$ 8-4540
~ 410142 HALIFAX 4 1962 Ca s Yes
30 8.4548 450002 HERTFORD 1 1960 Ca No
~~ 30~ 8-4549 450042 HERTFORD 1 1960 Ca s Yes. Yes
Y
'
' y I 8-4567 530069 LENOIR 2 1971 Ca s Yes es
~~ - 8-4578 570008 h1ARTIN 1 1974 Ca s No No
~ i3 648 880017 TYRRELL 1 1977 Ca s No No ~
e q
•Y
~f 1317 8-4664 920025 WARREN S 1957 Ca s Yes e
Y
s ~'
~c~ ~ -4665 920036 WARREN 5 1955 Ca s No e
Ye
SD4 320052 EDGECOMBE 4 1964 Johnson No s
Yes
~ iB~4560 600102 JOHNSTON 4 1956 Johnson Yes
9 8-4587 630082 NASN 4 .. 1961 Johnson No N

gp~ X618
•770445
~ROBESON
6
1955
Johnson
Yes o
~~ 8-4644 630057 STANLY 10 1961 Johnson No No
' B~6a9 890377 NION ~ 10 1962 Johnson No No
No
~ 13-4651 890251 IJNiON 10 1957 Johnson No
may ~ -4658 910345 WAKE 5 1980 Johnson No No
~~ I B-d671 950035 WAYNE 4 ~ 1961 Johnson No Yes
-~~ 8-3624 130190 CALDWELL 11 1981 PI kln No • No
N
~ -3819 130184 CALDWELL 11 1962 PI kin No o
N
~~ -3911 850038 ISUR Y 11 1923 PI kin Yes o
8-4404 000102 ALAMANCE 7 1968 PI kin Yes No
No '
3 8.4562 480100 IREDELL 12 1963 Pi kin Yes
X813
~ 750415 RANDOLPH B 1959 Pi kln No Yes •
~
~~ -~ 8-4646 850132 SURRY 11 1962 P1 kin .Yes No
i 8=4675 960034 W I LKES 11 1960 Pi kin No No
.j i~93 8-3169 310158 DURHAAA 5 1960 Williams Yes No •
•
($0 8-3606 040070 ASHE 11 1963 WIIIIams Yes No
~ 6-3802 040229 ASHE 11 1960 Williams ~ No No
- -- •B-3803-
• -040334•- ASH •J96 IlaAa ~--..
~ ..,~ _ . .,e f1 76RA n.~n~oa ecuc ~1 '1A[i.4 Williams Yes No
~~ ~ 8-4525 360133 GFiANV{l.Lt 5 ~aou
' ~ B-452fi 38D200 GRANVILLE. 5 1957

•
~~~o
~e ~_~
~~~~~~
.._~.,~.
:.;.
t(I~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
' Pear A. Sandbeclti Adminiatnuor
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Iarbeth (;. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 18, 2006
MEMORANDUM
Office of Archives and Flistory
Division of Historical Resourtee
David Brook, Director
TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck pp~~ ~~ -~u~C~1~--
F~j~Q~'
SUBJECT: Design Change NotifiVVcation, Bridge No.~ 377 on SR 1103 over Waxhaw Creek, B-4649,
Union County, ER 04-1324
Thank you for your letter of.December 30, 2005, concerning the changes in the above referenced project.
We concur with your assessment that no archaeological survey is warranted for the project as proposed.
The above comments ate made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations fox Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have, questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Location MaihngAddreas Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Alount Street, Ralcig}t NC 4617 Mal Sm~ee Center, Raleigh NC 27699~G17 (91'733-47G3/73Y1SG53
RESTORATION 515 N. Alount Strcrt, Raleigh NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC. 27G99~17 [phone]/715-4!1(11
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Alount Street, Raleigh, NC 4Gt7 A4a,1 Serrticc Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (91~77N545/7(5-4ti(It

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 11, 2007
SA: s.
JUN ~ 4 ~ ~G7
_7
Proje;:; .:°nd;;t and
t~nvirc~;n;~, , _. , ,;:r,E~i~ BranL~~
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for the Replacement of Bridge No. 377 on SR 1103
over Waxhaw Creek, Union County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-4649)
As requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), we have reviewed
the permit request and biological conclusions for federally protected species for the subject
project. Our comments aze provided in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The NCDOT is proposing to replace the existing4l-foot-long timber bridge with a 95-foot-long
concrete box-beam bridge that spans the creek and eliminates direct deck drain dischazge to the
creek. The old bridge will be demolished by removing the superstructure and by cutting the
timber piles and vertical abutments off at the normal water surface.
Warhaw-Creek supports one of seven pgpulations of the federally endangered Cazolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), and the proposed project azea is in federally designated
critical habitat for the species. The project area was last surveyed in July of 2005 to determine if
the Cazolina heelsplitter was present there. Previous surveys as well as the latest surveys found
few native freshwater mussels in the project area, and no heelsplitters or their shells were found.
Given the negative survey data and poor habitat conditions in the project area and provided the
commitments agreed to at the November 7, 2006, field meeting (meeting notes dated
December 5, 2006) are strictly adhered to, we concur with a conclusion that implementation of
this project is "not likely to adversely affect" the Carolina heelsplitter in the project area. In
view of this, we believe the requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not

~ ~
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
' our Log No. 4-2-07-227.
Sinc ely,
~~~
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Chris Militscher, c/o Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Terry Sanford Federal Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206,
Raleigh, NC 27601
Ms. Polly Lespinasse, Mooresville Regional Office, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301, Mooresville, NC 28115
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field. Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006

•
~ ~ ;
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.377 ON SR 1103
OVER WAXHAW CREEK
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4649
STATE CONTRACT NO. A304259
STATE PROJECT N0.8.2693601
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1103(16)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
OCTOBER 2004

TIIj 8-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PURPOSE ...................:............................................................................................................. 1
1.3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ........................................................................... 4
1.5 TERMINOLOGY .............................................................................................................:........4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................5
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 5
2.2 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 6
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ....................................................................... 6
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification ......................................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Water Quality .....................................................................................................:..... 7
2.3.3.1 Nonpoint Source Discharge ............................................................:....... 7
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ...........................:............ 7
2.3.3.3 Point Source Discharge ........................................................................... 8
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ............................................. 8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................8
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest ...........................................................:............................... 9
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest ................................................................................ 9
3.1.3. Piedmont Bottomland Forest ..........................................:....................................... 10
3.1.4 Maintained/Disturbed Community ...................................................................:..... 10
3.1.5 Pasture/Hayfield Communities ............................................................................... 11
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................. 11
3.3 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................................... 12
3.3.1 Terrestrial Fauna .................................................................................................... 12
3.3.2 Aquatic Fauna .......................................................................................:................ 12
3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS ............................................. 13,
3.5 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED AQUATIC IMPACTS ...................................................... 13
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...............................................................................................14
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .................................................................................. 14
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .................................................... 14
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................... 15
4.1.3 Permits ..............................:.................................................................................... 15
4.1.4 Mitigation ......................................................................................................:........ 16
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ............................................................................................. 16
4.1.4.2 Minimization ......................................................................................... 16
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ..................................................................... 17
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES .................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State-Listed Species ............................................ 20
5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................22
ii
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

.
TIP 8-4649 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ..................................................:.....................................................2
Figure 2. Study Area ........................................................................................................................3
TABLES
Table 1. Study area soils and characteristics ................................................................................. ..5
Table 2. Study area terrestrial communities and area coverage .................................................... 11
Table 3. Anticipated impacts to surface waters within the study area ........................................... 15
Table 4. Anticipated impacts to wetlands within the study area ................................................... 15
Table 5. Federally-protected species for Union County, North Carolina ...................................... 17
Table 6. Federal species of concern for Union County, North Carolina ....................................... 21
APPENDICES
Appendix I. USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
Appendix II. NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix III. USACE Wetland Data Sheets
Appendix IV. NCDWQ Wetlands Rating Worksheet
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

' TIP 8-4649
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project consists of the replacement of Bridge No. 377 on State Route (SR)
1103 (Maggie Robinson Road) over Waxhaw Creek in Union County, North Carolina (N.C.)
(Figure 1). The current bridge is a one-lane wood and steel structure approximately 15 feet (4.5
meters (m)) wide and 35 feet (10 m) long with wooden safety railings. The design. of the:
proposed bridge has not been determined.
The proposed project is located in a rural area of Union County (Figure 2). Surrounding
land use is generally forestland, agriculture and rural residential areas. Waxhaw Creek is
approximately 20 feet (6 m) wide at the bridge with a substrate of sand and silt. The study area
also includes 2 unnamed tributaries to Waxhaw Creek, a small farm pond and a wetland area in
the floodplain of Waxhaw Creek.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this NRTR is to inventory, catalog and describe the various natural
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to identify and
estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need to be
conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Data sources utilized. in the pre-
field investigation of the study area included:
• United States (U.S.) Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. map
(Van Wyck, S.C.-N.C., 1968).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
soil survey for Union County, North Carolina (1996).
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for
7.5-minute Van Wyck; S.C.-N.C. quadrangle (2004).
• N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the study area (1:200
scale).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ 1999 and
2004).
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

cf ~~ ~~
~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
`~ TRANSPORTATION
') DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'~ ~' PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
UNION COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.377 ON SR 1103
OVER WAXHAW CREEK
B-4649
I Figure l I

TIP B-4649 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study
area was obtained from the USFWS list of protected species and candidate species (25 February
2003), the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Proposed
Critical Habitats for aquatic species.
General field surveys and wetlands investigations were conducted within the study area
by biologists on the staff of Dr. J.H. Carter III & Associates, Inc. (JCA) on 3 March and 15
September 2004. The corridor investigated extended 250 feet (75 meters (m)) upstream and
downstream from the centerline of the existing bridge and 1500 feet (450 m) east and west from
the bridge along SR 1103. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following observation
techniques: active searches and capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identification of
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, nests and burrows).
All wetlands subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899 were identified and delineated according to methods prescribed in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USAGE 1987) and the USACE's 6 March 1992
Clarification and Interpretation of the -1987 Manual.
1.4 Qualification of Field Investigators
Investigator: Tracy E. Rush
Education: B.S. Biology (Botany Option), The Pennsylvania State University
M.S. Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University
Experience: Senior Biologist/Botanist, JCA, July 2000-Present.
Botanist, Washington State Natural Heritage Program, April 1997-June 2000.
Biologist/Botanist, JCA, January 1993-January 1996.
Expertise: Protected species surveys for flora and fauna, native plant identification, biotic
community identification, wetland delineation, restoration and monitoring, forest
management, vegetation monitoring and GPS/GIS.
Investigator: Halli Harris
Education: B.S. Biology, University of Georgia
Experience: Wetland Biologist, JCA, November 2003-April 2004.
Contract Biologist, self-employed, October 2001-November 2003.
Wetland Biologist, ENSR International, June 1999-October 2001.
.Expertise: Wetland delineation, protected species surveys for flora and fauna, plant
identification, biotic community identification, vegetation monitoring, GPS/GIS
and use of ArcView software.
1.5 Terminology
The definitions used for area descriptions contained in this report are as follows:
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
• Study Area (Study Corridor) -denotes the bubble area for the proposed project (area
indicated on the aerial photograph by DOT).
• Project Vicinity -denotes an area extending 0.5 mile (mi) (0.8 kilometers (km)) on all
sides of the study area.
• Project Region - is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS topographic
quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources located within the study area are discussed below.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Union County lies in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. The
county ranges in elevation from approximately 300 to 780 feet (90 to 237 m) above mean sea
level (MSL). Waxhaw Creek is the dominant hydrologic features in the project region. Land use
within the project region is dominated by forestland interspersed with agricultural and rural
residential areas. The Town of Waxhaw is located approximately 6 miles (9 km) north of the
study area.
Elevations within the study area range from approximately 490 to 540 feet (150 to 165
m) above MSL. Waxhaw Creek ranges from 15 to 35 feet (4.5 to 10 m) wide in the study area
and has a bank height of 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 1 m): Its floodplain extends approximately 30 to 100
feet (9 to 30 m) on either side of the creek. The study area also includes 2 unnamed tributaries to
Waxhaw Creek, a small farm pond and a wetland area in the floodplain of Waxhaw Creek. Land
use within the study area is dominated by pastureland with a few rural residential sites.
2.2 Soils
Four major soil types occur within the study area (USDA 1996): Appling sandy loam,
Cecil gravelly sandy clay loam, Chewacla silt loam and Helena fine sandy loam. All study area
soils, their drainage characteristics and hydric classifications are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Study Area Soils and Characteristics.
Map
Unit
Specific Map Unit Percent
Slope
Drainage Class
Hydric Class Hydric
Inclusions
S r~bol
A B A lin sand loam 2 - 8 Well drained Non-h dric No
CeB2 Cecil gravelly sandy 2 - 8 Well drained Non-hydric No
cla loam
ChA Chewacla silt loam 0 - 2 Somewhat poorly Hydric No
drained
HeB Helena fine sandy 2 - 8 Moderately well Non-hydric No
loam drained
5
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Appling sandfoam: Appling sandy loam is a well drained soil on smooth uplands. The
seasonal high water table occurs more than 6.0 feet (1.8 m) below the surface. The flooding
frequency for Appling sandy loam is none.
Cecil rgravell~andy clay loam: Cecil gravelly sandy clay loam is a well drained soil on ridges
that are dissected by intermittent drainageways. The seasonal high water table occurs at more
than 6.0 feet below the surface. The flooding frequency for Cecil gravelly sandy clay loam is
none.
Chewacla silt loam: Chewacla silt loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil on floodplains. The
seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet (15 to 45 centimeters (cm)) below
the surface. The flooding frequency for Chewacla silt loam is frequent.
Helena fine sandkloam: Helena fine sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil on ridges in
the uplands, on toe slopes, and at the head of intermittent drainageways. The seasonal high
water table occurs at depths of 1.5 to 2.5 feet (45 to 75 cm) below the surface. The flooding
frequency for Helena fine sandy loam is none.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of
the resource, its relationship to major water systems, DWQ Best Usage Classifications, and the
"quality" of the water resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as
are means to minimize those impacts.
2.3.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Waxhaw Creek, its tributaries and a small farm pond will be the only surface
waters directly impacted by the proposed project. Waters in the project vicinity are part
of the Catawba River Basin, USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050103. The
Catawba River Basin contains 9 subbasins. The study area is found in the Sixmile Creek,
Waxhaw Creek and Twelvemile Creek DWQ Subbasin 03-08-38. Study area waters
drain to the southwest eventually flowing into the Catawba River (NCDENR-DWQ
1999). The proposed project is not subject to the Catawba River Buffer Rules since it is
not located on the Catawba River mainstem (NCDENR-DWQ 2004a).
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Waxhaw Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of Class "C" (index
#11-139) by the Division of Water Quality (NCDENR-DWQ 2004). A "C" classification
designates waters that are for aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary
recreation. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominantly undeveloped watersheds) nor
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the study
area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the study
area. Potential impacts to water quality from point and nonpoint sources are evaluated.
Water quality assessments are based upon published resource information and field study
observations.
2.3.3.1 Nonpoint Source Discharge
Nonpoint source runoff from agricultural lands and timbering operations
are likely to be the primary sources of water quality degradation within the project
vicinity. The surrounding vicinity is mainly used for agriculture and timber
production. Nutrient loading and increased sedimentation from agricultural
runoff and forestry operations affects water quality. Inputs of nonpoint source
pollution from a few private residences within the study area may also contribute
to water quality degradation.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a
list of waters not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. A
review of the 303(d) list for North Carolina indicates that Waxhaw Creek in the
Catawba River Basin is not listed as an impaired waterway (NCDENR-DWQ
2003).
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality
management. for the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the
DWQ collects biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in
basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every 5 years.
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality
management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (managed by the
DWQ) assessed water quality by sampling for Benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
Many Benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can
last from 6 months to a year; therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic event will
not be overcome until the next generation. Different taxa of macroinertebrates
have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long term changes in water quality
conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to
pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the
population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long term water quality
conditions. The bridge crossing was the location of a biological assessment
site for Benthic macroinvertebrates in 1992 and 1983. In 1992 Waxhaw Creek
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

1 ~ TIP 8-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
was assigned aGood-Fair bioclass with an EPT (Ephemeroptera+Plecoptera+
Trichoptera) taxa richness value of -/14 and a biotic index value of -/5.53. In
1983, Waxhaw Creek was assigned a Fair bioclass with an EPT taxa richness
value of 38/6 and a biotic index value of 6.82/5.39 (NCDENR-DWQ 1999).
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program.
Any discharger is required to register a permit. There are no point dischargers
located within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the study area (NCDENR-DWQ 1999 and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2004).
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of the proposed bridge replacement will impact water resources.
The estimated impact is the length and width of the study area since the project is still in
the design phase. Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface
waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and vegetation
removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
groundwater flow from construction.
• Increases in nutrient loading during construction through runoff from temporarily
exposed land surfaces.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic
spills and increased vehicular use.
• Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface water
and water supplies must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during construction must also
be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section describes those
communities encountered in the study area as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these communities. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the
study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and follow descriptions by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

T!P B-4699
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are
described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and the common names (when applicable) are included for each
described plant and animal species. Plant taxonomy follows Radford et al. (1968) and Weakley
(2004). Animal Taxonomy follows Conant and Collins (1998), Webster et al. (1985), National
Geographic (2002) and Rohde et al. (1994). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an
asterisk (*). Spoor evidence or tracks equate to observation of the species. Published range
distributions and habitat analysis were used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the
study area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
3.1.1 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest
The Dry Oak-Hickory Forest occurs on ridgetops, upper slopes, steep south-
facing slopes and other relatively dry upland areas (Schafale and Weakley 1990). This
community type comprised approximately 25 percent (%) of the study area (Figure 2 and
Table 2). Canopy vegetation included white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata).
Understory species included red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Ater rubrum),
flowering dogwood (Corpus jlorida) and American holly (Ilex opaca). The herb layer
was sparse and included pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), rattlesnake plantain
(Goodyera pubescens), cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor) and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica).
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest occurs on mid-slopes, low ridges and upland
flats (Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community type comprised approximately. 5%
of the study area and has been highly disturbed by adjacent agricultural use and timber
harvesting (Figure2 and Table 2). Canopy vegetation included only weedy species such
as sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra) and red cedar.
Understory species included red maple and American holly. Japanese honeysuckle was
the dominant ground cover in most areas.
In one area this community type had been clearcut. As a result of clearcutting
and/or other disturbance, the area has become a wetland with pockets of standing water
and an abundance of hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation. Dominant species within this
area includes red maple and sweetgum saplings and herbaceous species such as soft rush
(Juncus effusus), bushy seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), shallow sedge (Carex lurida),
annual sumpweed (Iva annua) and broom panic grass (Dichanthelium scoparium).
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.3 Piedmont Bottomland Forest
The Piedmont Bottomland Forest occurs on floodplain ridges and terraces
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community type comprised approximately 10% of
the study area (Figure 2 and Table 2). Canopy vegetation included sweetgum, water oak,
American elm (Ulmus americana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), hackberry (Celtis
laevigata) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Understory species included
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple, American holly and river birch (Betula
nigra). Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and cane (Arundinaria gigantea) were the
dominant shrub species. Vine species included muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and catbriers (Smilax spp.). The herb layer was
sparse to moderately dense and included Japanese honeysuckle, Nepalese browntop
(Microstegium vimineum) and river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium).
In one area this community type had been clearcut. As a result of clearcutting
and/or other disturbance, the area has become a wetland with a large area of open water
that eventually flows into Waxhaw Creek via a small ephemeral drainageway. Dominant
species within this area included ironwood and red maple saplings and herbaceous
species such as cane, soft rush, river oats and annual sumpweed.
3.1.4 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed communities, approximately 20% of the study area,
consisted of road shoulder, roadside/field ditches and residential landscapes (Figure 2 and
Table 2). Road shoulders and ditches are irregularly maintained, receiving only periodic
mowing and herbicide applications. Residential landscapes receive more frequent
mowing, general maintenance and disturbance.
Road shoulders and roadside/field ditches act as buffers between the roadway and
surrounding communities by filtering stormwater/agricultural run-off and reducing runoff
velocities. Herbaceous vegetation located in the road shoulder consisted of mowed
fescue (Festuca spp.), wild geranium (Geranium carolinianum), wild strawberry
(Fragaria sp.), wild carrot (Daucus carota), hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) and
vetch (Vicia sp.). Roadside ditches contained a mixture of woody and herbaceous
vegetation including blackberry (Rubus sp.), sweetgum, red cedar, Japanese honeysuckle,
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Brazilian vervain (Verbena brasiliensis) and dog fennel
(Eupatorium compositifolium).
Residential landscapes included mainly unvegetated areas and vegetated areas
with grasses such as fescue, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and crabgrass (Digitaria
sp.). A few trees and shrubs were also located in the residential landscapes including
Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), loblolly pine, Chinese privet and various ornamental
species.
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

T!P 8-4649 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.5 Pasture/Hayfield Communities
The pasture and hayfield communities comprised approximately 40% of the study
area (Figure 2 and Table 2). These areas consisted of mowed or grazed grasses and herbs
including .fescue (Festuca sp.) and common broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus).
Table 2. Study Area Terrestrial Communities and Area Coverage.
Terrestrial Communit Area Covera e
D Oak-Hicko Forest 8 acres 3.2 hectares ha
D -Mesic Oak-Hicko Forest 2 acres 0.8 ha
Piedmont Bottomland Forest 4 acres 1.6 ha
Maintained/Disturbed Communi 7 acres 3 ha
Pasture/Ha field Communities 15 acres 6 ha
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Several aquatic communities will be potentially impacted by the proposed project. These
include Waxhaw Creek, 2 unnamed tributaries to Waxhaw Creek, a pond and a wetland within
the floodplain of Waxhaw Creek. Physical characteristics of a water body and the condition of
the water resource influence the faunal composition of aquatic communities. Waxhaw Creek has
a streambed width (bank to bank) of 15 to 35 feet (4.5 to 10 m) and a bank height of 1 to 3 feet
(0.3 to 1 m). The main channel width was 15 to 30 feet (4.5 to 9 m) and the water depth was
approximately 2 to 3 feet (0.6 to 0.9 m). The channel substrate was composed primarily of sand
and silt. The flow of the creek within the study area was moderate (Appendices I and II).
A large unnamed tributary (Tributary 3) to Waxhaw Creek occurs within the southeastern
quadrant of the study area. This tributary has a streambed width (bank to bank) of 10 to 15 feet
(3 to 4.5 m) and a bank height of 3 to 4 feet (1 to 1.2 m). The main channel width was 8 to 10
feet (2.4 to 3 m) and the water depth was approximately 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6 mj. The channel
substrate was composed mainly of sand and silt. The flow of the tributary was moderate to slow
(Appendices I and II).
A small unnamed tributary (Tributary 2) to Waxhaw Creek occurs within the northwest
quadrant of the study area. This tributary has a streambed width (bank to bank) of 2 to 10 feet
(0.6 to 3 m) and a bank height of 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to l m). The main channel width was 1 to 5 feet
(0.3 to 1.5 m) and the water depth was 1 to 6 inches (2.5 to 15 cm). The channel substrate was
loamy and the tributary had a moderate flow (Appendices I and II).
A small farm pond is located within the northwestern quadrant of the study corridor.. The
pond had open water with no aquatic vegetation. The pond edges were vegetated with willow
(Salix sp.), silky dogwood (Corms amomum) and soft rush.
The wetland area is described in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 above (Appendices III and IV).
11
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

'~
TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.3 Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate or exploit the entire range of
biotic communities located within the study area. Each species fills its own ecological niche and
there are often complex interactions between the species present. Examples of these
relationships include symbiotic, competitive and predator/prey relationships. The following
sections list terrestrial and aquatic fauna that occur or may occur within the study area for the
proposed project.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Fauna
Mammals that may commonly occur within the study area include: raccoon*
(Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus). Other mammal species that may exploit the forest edge and open habitats
within the project area include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes), eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), white-footed mouse*
(Peromyscus leucopus) and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) (Webster et al. 1985).
The forest and forest edge habitats located in the study area provide shelter and
forage for a variety of avian species. Birds that may be found in these habitats include
the northern harrier* (Circus cyaneus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), eastern
bluebird (Sialia sialis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), eastern towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern cardinal* (Cardinalis
cardinalis) and Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus) (National Geographic 2002).
Some of the reptiles that can be expected to utilize the terrestrial communities
within the study area include Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis), five-lined skink*
(Eumeces fasciatus), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), eastern
hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) and the
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) (Conant and Collins 1998).
Terrestrial areas provide habitat for amphibians such as red-spotted newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens), spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum),
eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrookii), Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousei fowleri) and upland chorus frog* (Pseudacris triseriata feriarum) (Conant
and Collins 1998).
3.3.2 Aquatic Fauna
Representative species of fish that may be found in the study area include
American eel (Anguilla rostrata), rosyside dace (Clinostomus fi~nduloides), brown
bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanzcs), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
holbrooki) (Rohde et al. 1994).
12
NCDOT ~ OCTOBER 2004

TIP 8-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Waxhaw Creek within the study corridor provides habitat for a variety of reptiles.
Species which may be present in or near the creek include snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), common musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon sipedon), spring peeper* (Pseudacris crucifer), southern leopard frog (Rana
utricularia) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (Conant and Collins 1998).
Invertebrates that would be expected within the study area include: crayfish
(Camaridae), nymphal and larval stages of dragonflies (Odonata) and caddisflies
(Trichoptera) and snails (Gastopoda).
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Terrestrial Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. These impacts cannot be quantified at this time since the
specifications of the project are not yet known.
Plant communities found in the proposed study area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife species. Project construction may reduce habitat for wildlife species,
thereby diminishing their numbers. Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of
refuge, thus causing some species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and
starvation.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Increased traffic noise and reduced habitat will displace some wildlife
farther from the roadway, while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early
successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate
areas suitable for the species. This temporary displacement of animals may result in an increase
of competition for the remaining resources.
3.5 Summary of Anticipated Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work
can affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct construction impacts may
be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term
or irreversible effects.
Alterations in the aquatic community will result from the installation of bridges or
temporary arched culverts. Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include
increased channelization of water and scouring of stream channels. Water movement through
these structures becomes concentrated and direct, thereby increasing the flow velocity.
In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside vegetation.
Disturbances to the substrate will destroy aquatic vegetation and produce siltation, which clogs
13
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP B-4649 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-
feeders), fish and amphibians. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of
sediment. These organisms are slow td recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity reduces light
penetration, thus decreasing the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction
site alters the terrain. Alteration of the stream bank enhances the likelihood of erosion and
sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil, thus slowing or stopping these
processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into
aquatic communities at and downstream of the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering
water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight
penetration and to elevations of water temperatures, which may impact many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to 2
important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) promulgated the definition of "Waters of
the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most interstate
and intrastate surface waters, tributaries and wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils
are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs and similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into
Waters of the United states falls under the jurisdiction of the USAGE and must follow the
statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (USAGE 1987). The 3 parameter approach was
used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics
must all be present for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland.
One large wetland (Wetland A/B) in the study area, occurred partially in the
floodplain of Waxhaw Creek. Hydrophytic vegetation in this area included soft rush,
bushy seedbox, shallow sedge, broom panic grass, river oats and green ash. The soil was
a sandy loam, generally saturated to the surface and had a Munsell color notation of
l OYR 3/3 over l OYR 5/3 (Appendix III). This wetland had a wetland value score of 25
(NCDENR 1995) (Appendix IV).
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

e ~ TIP 8-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
One very small wetland (Wetland C) occurs along a tributary to Waxhaw Creek.
Hydrophytic vegetation in this area included cane, ironwood, red maple and river oats.
The soil was a sandy loam, saturated to the surface, with some ponded water and had a
Munsell color notation of lOYR 5/1 (Appendix III). This wetland had a wetland value
score of 11 (NCDENR 1995) (Appendix IV).
Jurisdictional surface waters present within the study area include Waxhaw
Creek, 2 unnamed tributaries to Waxhaw Creek and a small farm pond. A detailed
description of these surface waters is presented in Section 3.2 and Appendices I and II.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated impacts to surface waters were derived from aerial photographs of the
study area onto which surface water locations were mapped. in the field (Table 3). The
study area width and length were used in the calculations. Usually, project construction
does not require the use of the entire study area, therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Table 3. Anticipated impacts to surface waters within the study area:
Site Im acts within Stud Area
Waxhaw Creek SOO linear feet 152 linear m
Unnamed Tributa 3 2001inear feet 601inear m)
Unnamed Tributa 2 3001inear feet 90 linear m
Farm and 0.69 acres (0.28 hectares (ha)
Wetlands were delineated in the field and mapped using a Global Positioning
System (GPS). Estimated impacts to wetlands were calculated using GPS and the study
area width and length (Table 4). Usually, project construction does not require the use of
the entire study area, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 4. Anticipated impacts to wetlands within the study area:
Site Im acts within Stud Area DW Ratin
Wetland AB 0.45 acres 0.18 ha 25
Wetland C 0.01 acres 0.004 ha 11
4.1.3 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23 from the USACE is likely to be applicable for
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined that pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation
1VCDOT OCTOBER 2004

c ~
TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. A
Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 33 maybe required if temporary construction
including cofferdams, access and dewatering are required for this project. The USACE
will determine the final permit requirements.
A DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior to the
issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide No. 23. Section 401 Certification allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulations.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the CEQ, a wetland mitigation policy which
embraces the concept of "no net .loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters
of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these 3 aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA and the USACE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable
impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those
impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light
of overall project purposes. Impacts to Waters of the United States will likely not
be avoided due to their close proximity to the existing bridge.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation
of these steps will be required through project modifications and permit
conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the
proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of--way (ROW)
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to
minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project
include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of
surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams,
reduction of runoff velocity,. re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas,
judicious pesticide and herbicide usage, minimization of "in-stream" activity and
16
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
litter/debris control. Impacts to Waters of the United States can be minimized by
replacing the bridge on the existing location with an off-site detour on U.S.
Highway 521.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken
in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. It is anticipated that no
compensatory mitigation will be required for this project although final
determination rests with the USACE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are in decline either due to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, requires that any action, likely to adversely
affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the USFWS. Other
species may receive additional protection under state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened. (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) or Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA, as amended. As of February 25, 2003, the USFWS lists
the following federally-protected species for Union County (Table 5). A brief description
of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 5. Federally-Protected Species for Union County, North Carolina.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS I
Aster georgianus Georgia aster C
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range).
"C" denotes candidate species (a taxon under consideration for which there is sufficient
information to support listing).
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP 8-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Aster georgianus (Georgia aster) Candidate
Family: Asteraceae
Federally listed: June 13, 2002
Georgia aster is found from southcentral North Carolina to central Georgia, west
to central Alabama, apparently disjunct on the Coastal Plain of southwest Georgia and the
eastern Panhandle of Florida. There are currently 60 known populations in the
southeastern United States. Most of these populations are small consisting of colonies of
only 10 to 100 stems.
Georgia aster is a perennial, colonial herb with 1, sometimes 2 stems,
approximately 17 to 31 inches (4.5 to 8 decimeters (dm)) tall from underground
rhizomes. The leaves are thick, lanceolate to oblanceolate, scabrous and clasp the
scabrous stem. The species has large flower heads 2 inches (5 cm) across with dark
purple rays up to 0.8 inches (2 cm) long.. Flowering occurs from early October to mid-
November. Disk flowers are white with purplish tips on the- corollas, anthers are purple
and the pollen is white. Seeds are produced between November and December and is a
ribbed achene up to 0.15 inches (4 millimeters (mm)) in length (USFWS 2002).
Georgia aster is a relict species of post oak savanna communities that existed in
the Southeast prior to widespread fire. suppression and extirpation of large grazing
mammals. Most remaining populations survive adjacent to roads, utility ROWS and other
openings where current land management mimics natural disturbance regimes. Existing
populations are threatened by woody plant succession due to fire suppression,
development, highway expansion/improvement, and herbicide application (USFWS
2002).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of forest openings does exist in the study area even though the
area has been severely degraded by agricultural and residential development. A species
specific survey was conducted on 15 September 2004. No Georgia aster was located
within the study area. A 27 February 2004 review of the NCNHP database of threatened
and endangered species also revealed no known populations of Georgia aster within 1
mile (1.6 km) of the study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No
Effect" on Georgia aster.
Lasmigonia decorata (Carolina heelsplitter) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Federally listed: July 30, 1993.
This species was historically known from several locations within the Catawba
and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Saluda, Pee Dee and Savannah
River systems in South Carolina. Only 6 populations of the species are presently known
18
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
to exist. In North Carolina one small population occurs in the Catawba River system in
Waxhaw Creek, Union County and another population occurs in Goose Creek, a tributary
to the Rocky River in the Pee Dee River system, also in Union County. In South
Carolina, there are 4 populations, 1 each in the Pee Dee and Catawba River systems and. 2
in the Savannah River system (USFWS .2004).
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoid-shaped, unsculptured shell. The
shell of the largest known specimen of the species measures 4.6 inches (114.8 mm) in
length, 1.56 inches (39 mm) in width, and 2.7 inches (68 mm) in height (Keferl 1991).
The shell's outer surface varies from greenish-brown to dark brown in color, and shells
from younger specimens have faint greenish-brown or black rays. The nacre (inside
surface) is often pearly-white to bluish-white, grading to orange in the area of the umbo.
However, in older specimens the entire nacre may be a mottled pale orange (Keferl
1991).
Because of its rarity, little is known of the biology of the Carolina heelsplitter.
Historically the species was reported from small to large streams and rivers, as well as
ponds. The "ponds" referred to in historic records are believed to have been millponds on
some of the smaller streams within the species' historic range (Keferl 1991). Presently,
the species is known to occur in only six small streams and one small river and is usually
found in mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates along stable, well-shaded stream.
banks (Keferl and Shelly 1988, Keferl 1991). The stability of stream banks appears to be
very important to the species. Like other freshwater mussels, the Carolina heelsplitter
feeds by filtering food particles from the water. It has a complex reproductive cycle in
which the mussel larvae (glochidia) parasitize fish. The mussel's life span, fish species
its larvae parasitize, and many other aspects of its life history are unknown (USFWS
2004).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION UNRESOLVED
Waxhaw Creek. is designated Critical Habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter
and stream habitat with substrates including mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel are
present within the study area. A 27 February 2004 review of the NCNHP database of
threatened and endangered species, revealed no known populations within 1.0 mi (1.6
km) of the study area. Consequently, a biological conclusion of "Unresolved" is assigned
for the Carolina heelsplitter pending stream surveys.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Federally listed: May 7, 1991
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of the Carolinas, where it is
currently known from 10 populations. in North Carolina and 6 in South Carolina. The
North Carolina populations are located in Anson, Cabarrus, Davidson, Gaston,
19
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Mecklenberg, Montgomery, Randolph, Rowan, Stanly and Union Counties. The species
has been extirpated from Stokes County in North Carolina (USFWS 2004).
This rhizomatous perennial herb grows from 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 m) tall from a
cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. The following combination of characters separates
H. schweinitzii from all other eastern North American species in the genus: heads small
(the involucre less than 1 centimeter across), stems at least sparsely strigose or hirsute
below the inflorescence, leaves sessile to short-petiolate (petiole less than 0.6 inches (1.5
cm) long, very rarely to lanceolate, broadest near base, 5 to 10 times as long as wide
(Weakley and Houk 1992).
The species occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish
clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have high gravel content and are
moderately podzolized. It is known to occur on a variety of soil types, including Iredell,
Enon, Badin, Cecil, Misenheimer, Gaston and Zion soil series. Schweinitz's sunflower
usually grows in open habitats not typical of the current general landscape in the
Piedmont of the Carolinas. The habitat of this sunflower tends to be dominated by
members of the aster, pea, and grass families, an association emphasizing affinities of the
habitat to both longleaf pine-dominated sandhills and savannas of the southeastern
coastal plain and to glades, barrens, and prairies of the Midwest and Plains (Weakley and
Houk, 1992).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Schweinitz's sunflower is known to occur on the Cecil soil type which does exist
in the study area. A species specific survey was conducted on 15 September 2004 during
the flowering period for the species. No Schweinitz's sunflower was located within the
study area. A 27 February 2004 review of the NCNHP database of threatened and
endangered species also revealed no known populations of Schweinitz's sunflower within
1 mile (1.6 km) of the study area. Consequently, the proposed project will have "No
Effect" on Schweinitz's sunflower.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State-Listed Species
There are 7 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Union County as of 25
February 2003. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. These species were formally
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered,
Threatened, Significantly Rare or Special Concern on the NCNHP list of rare plant and
animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
20
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

;~
TIP B-4649
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 6 lists the Federal Species of Concern, species state status and the existence
of suitable habitat for these species within the study area. This list is provided for
information purposes because the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A 27 February 2004 review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the study area.
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern for Union County, North Carolina.
Scientific Name Common name NC Status Habitat
Dacrylocythere peedeensis* Pee Dee crayfish ostracod W3 Yes
Etheostoma Collis lepidinion Carolina darter SC Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe E Yes
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort SR-L Yes
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil SR-T Yes
Toxolasma pullus savanna lilliput E Yes
Villosa vaughaniana Carolina creekshell E Yes
"E" -Any native or once-native species whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora
or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes
(animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be
sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct
exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"-L"-Range of the species is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states.
"-T"-These species are rare throughout their ranges.
"W3"--A Watch Category 3 species is a species that is poorly known in North Carolina, but is not
necessarily considered to be declining or otherwise in trouble.
"*"--Historic record (last observed in the county more than 50 years ago).
(Amoroso and Finnegan, 2002; LeGrand, Hall and Finnegan 2001).
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

T!P B-4649 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
6.0 REFERENCES
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. Afield guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and
central North America. Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2004.. EnviroMapper website
(http://maps. epa. gov/enviromap~er,).
Franklin, M.A. and J.T. Finnegan. 2004. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, N.C.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 51 pp.
Keferl, E.P., and R.M. Shelly. 1988. The final report on a status survey of the Carolina
heelsplitter, Lasmigona decorata, and the Carolina elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta. Unpublished
report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 47 pp.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., S.E. McRae, S. P. Hall and J.T. Finnegan. 2004. "Natural Heritage Program
List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, N.C.
National Geographic. 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. Fourth Edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2004. Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS) webite
(http•//h2o enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html).
NCDENR-DWQ. 2004a. NCDENR-DWQ "Redbook" surface waters and wetlands standards,
N.C. Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B.0100, .0200 & .0300. Amended effective 1 August
2004.
NCDENR-DWQ. 1999. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2003. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List.
(2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm)
NCDENR. 1995. "Guidance for rating the values of wetlands in North Carolina". Fourth
Version. North Carolina Department of Environment and .atural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

~, ~ .
TIP B-4649 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the.
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
N.C.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North
Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDEHNR, Raleigh, N.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss..
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Soil Survey for
Union County, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Form for
Georgia Aster (http://southeast.fws.gov/es/candidate%20forms.htm).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. "Recovery Plan for Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) Lea". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. "Recovery Plan for Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii)". U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. North Carolina Ecological Services website (h ://nc-
es.fws.gov).
U.S. Geological Survey. 1968. Van Wyck, S.C.-N.C. Quadrangle [7.5 minute Topographic
map]. Washington, D.C.: US Geological Service. 1 sheet.
Weakley, A.S. 2004. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia and Georgia. Working draft; online
version March 24, 2004. UNC Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, N.C. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm.
Weakley, A. and R. Houk. 1992. Technical Draft Recovery Plan for Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 37pp.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
23
NCDOT OCTOBER 2004

APPENDIX I:
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets
}

,JSAC$ AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map),
„~„ ~ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: •~
1. Applicant's name: NGDbT 2. Evaluator's name: ~~AC~ IZUSN
3. Date of evaluation: 3 ' 3 ' Oy 4. Time of evaluation: 3 ~ D0 Vm
5. Name of stream: ~-~ X N 14tU ~ 12EE K 6. River basin: C/~tTl4 W B Q
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order. y
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~~ -~Q:2.~ 10. County: ~~ iJ1 Dtit
11. Site coordinates (if kno`wn): prefer1 i~nrd~ecimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ~ C u E
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3y , g310~ y L 7 d N Longitude (ex. -77.556611): X30 • ~9 180 (n~ ~ W
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note near y roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):.
B~IDtrE Iso 3~~ ov- S1211p3
14. Proposed channel work (if any): pJl2t D(TE ~ PLA[ ~ m E t3T
15. Recent weather conditions: P/~ Q'
16. Site conditions at time of visit: RELEtd7 SNO~Ff}~ ~C
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-N)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ~% Residential ( % Commercial O % Industrial ~7 % Agricultural
S~ % Forested ~ O % Cleared /Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: I Jam' ~ ~P..t.'~' 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~ - 3 T~ ~-
24. Channel slope down center ofstream: -,Flat (0 to 2%) 1~Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: StraightOccasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within .the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ~0 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature ~ Date .3 -Jr -~`I
This channel evaluation form is inte ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the nited States Army Corps of Engineers to make. a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval .and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
" E
ECOREG DINT
ION P RANG SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastsl Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow /persistent pools is stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 1•••,
1 no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max oints
Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5
2
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints I
Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0- 5 3
3 no buffer = 0• Conti uous wide buffer = max oints
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4 t...,
4 extensive dischar es = 0• no dischar es = max oints
Groundwater discharge 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4
5 no dischar e = 0• s rin s see s wetlands etc. = max oints
Presence of adjacent floodplaip
0-4
0-4
0-2 3
~ 6 no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 3
a+ ~ dee 1 entrenched = 0• fre uent floodin = max oints
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0- 6 0- 4 0- 2 2
8 no wetlands = 0• lar a adjacent wetlands = max oints
Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3
9 extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 Z
10
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints ,
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5 2
11 fine homo enous = 0• laz e, diverse sizes = max oints SAw~
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
12 dee I incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5
"'
a 13 severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5 3
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu hout = max oints
F
~ Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
1 S substantial im act ~• no evidence = max oints
Presence of riffle-pooUripple-pool complexes 0 - 3 0 - 5 0 - 6 ~
16 no riffles/ri les or ools = 0• well-develo ed = max oints ~~
~
17 Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6
H little or no habitat = 0• fre uen varied habitats = max oints
Canopy coverage over streambed 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5
18 no shadin ve etation = 0• continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0- 4 0- 4 l
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5
~ 20 no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
O Presence of amphibians 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 2-
C 21 no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints

22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4 3
~ no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints
~
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) ~"d
>z
* These characteristics aze not assessed in coastal streams.

it jl'~. __ •f' = ~t`•'~` ,`~ r ~''t~ -
1 ,' ' j ;
- '; =--^;
., ~ ~f• Ir ~. r,
_ ~~ ~ _ '~ ,tom ~ _ _ ~ -
f~ ~ -
i ~ __ -
,,,,,~~ ~~ Imo. ({` ~ ' + /. ~ .may',
f, `,
,r, j; `, -
\\ i
/ ~ " • -~.
~, ^ ~ `` ~
.. L
..
~ -
• r~
~ `1. •~ jj f
Name: VAN WYCK Location: 034.8353399° N 080.7906889° W
Date: 4/28/2004
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet

iJ,SACE AID#
DWQ#
Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,~„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i i2t ~, U Ti4-Q.'~ Z-
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ~ 1~ L D b T
3. Date of evaluation: 3 '- 3 ` 0 y
5. Name of stream:TY ~ ~dr•t `~r ~d.'f; ~~ Cry ~C
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:Jrt~~ -FP~~
-'~
2. Evaluator's name: ~~~ ~~ ~ U S N
4. Time of evaluation: ~ ~ ~ ~ P Yn
6. River basin: C /~ TFF W P~ p!
8. Stream order:
10. County: ~ tJ (!, N
11. Site coordinates (if know1n): prefe4r~in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ~] q 4 ~i 1 '
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3T • ~ ~ ~~ "t ~ o ~ Longitude (ex. -77.55661 t): ~ ~• T L ZZo T3 4 V~1
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note near y roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
100 ~e~-~ cSrul~ns~r ~~ of gric~Q.Z Na 3~-~ cn ~~ ll D3
14. Proposed channel work (if any): R r i ~ 6rE ~ P ~~4CF_ n'1 E tai T' ~ P~T¢.E.4 -'t'1
15. Recent weather conditions: ~~~ ~ N T X13 ~ -,c) F A t_L _
16. Site conditions at time of visit: p 14122 l.`~ LD v t7 y ~ t"I 0 Ytrl I n ~ ~ ~
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:. -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed yy (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: I AGp~
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ~% Residential D % Commercial ~ % Industrial g© % Agricultural
~% Forested d % Cleared /Logged _% Other ( 1
22. Bankfull width: V'dYL Q,5 2 ` (~ -t Po7 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~ ` 3 ~ ~
24. Channel slope down center ofstream: -Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ~~J
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature. n _ Date ~ "~P _ ~
This channel evaluation form is inte ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required 6y the nited States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
E:COR~G ON POINT
T RANGE
. .
COR
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmb~t Mountain E
S
1 Presence of IIow /persistent pools in stream 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 'Z
no flow or saturation = 0• stron flow = max oints
Evidence of past human alteration 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 Z
2 extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0 -- 5 Z
no buffer = 0• Conti ous wide buffer = max oints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 Z
extensive dischaz es = 0• no dischaz es = max oints
Groundwater discharge ~ 0- 3 0- 4 0- 4 '
5 no dischaz e = 0• s rin s see s wetlands etc. = max oints
~ Presence of adjacent floodplsin
0-4
0-4
0-2
i
~ 6 no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max oints
~ Entrenchment / floodplain access: 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2
A, dee 1 entrenched = 0• fre uent floodin = max oints
Presence of ~d jacent wetlands 0 - 6 0 - 4 0 - 2 '
8 no wetlands = 0• laz a adjacent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0- 5 0- 4 0- 3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max oints
10 Sediment input 0- 5 0- 4 0- 4 y
extensive de osition= 0• little or no sediment = max oints
1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0 - 4 0 - 5
I fine homo enous = 0• lar a diverse sizes = max oints
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
~ 12 dee 1 incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
'F"' 13 Presence of major bank failures 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion stable banks = max oints

14 Root depth and density on banks 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu hout = max oints
~ Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5
1 S substantial im act =0• no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool completes 0- 3 0- 5 0- 6 Z
no riffles/ri les or ools = 0• well-develo ed = max oints
E
~
1 ~ habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6
~ little or no habitat = 0• fre uent varied habitats = max oints
Canopy coverage over streambed 0- 5 0- 5 0- 5 2
18 no shadin ve etation = 0• continuous cano = max oints
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0 - 4 0 - 4 '~,
dee 1 embedded = 0• loose structure = max
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 ~
20 no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max ints C
~
~ 21 Presence of amphibians 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 2.
O no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints

22 Presence of fish 0- 4 0- 4 0- 4
no evidence = 0• common numerous es = max oints

23 .
.. Evidence of wildlife use
0 - 6 ~
0 - 5
0 - 5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max oints

Total Points Possible 100 100 100 .
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on firstpage) J~J~
* These characteristics aze not assessed in coastal streams.

.54
a~
a~
U
0
..
.-.
N
.~
....
+.+
a-r

~ ~ .l f
''1`_, ~~ r_~ ~, ~*.~~ ^°', s . R~ mss` mot' ~'
g' ~r., r~ ~ r,.~ a ~ i '~g ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~
i!
_, .;
a
,.
t' ,,, 6'
.
e. e
V /
. n
r ! s~ Y ~ f' ~ IrJ _ _ __
r rn`S '"'~.. =a~ +_ t ••-y r'• ~~. ~ ~~ -~i ;tea + r ~ .,4
t • ~` ~ •}'=yam fir, e t e ~fi •,,,_: ° ~'!' ~ _ ` .~• ~ -- .. m ~ -..__
,.
~~
o
,'
~.r.. -' ~ ~ ..
9 . _• _
.. ~~
• _ ,:
,.
. e_, s ~ ' l
~..
t
,~
~.
~+.
~;
• ~ tl ~ ~ e
`~ ~f
1c
4 .,
~ - ~ ~ , S~
~ ...
~~ `'
1 ~
~ - ~ ~sw4
~ ~ ~ ti ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~
t'~ 4 •~.~ .' `..
y_
_ ~'_.
'+~..
4 ~ ",. ~. 3
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,
wY
~ { ~h "
,. 1 ~•
2 a - -~.~, .~ ,.. w.
• ~ ~ ~_
~+ a '~ a •"
__ ~' rat, +~t4 j~ /~ 1E. ~ _.
,-
• i/ f ~, i `444 ! i = I f ~ ~( t~ ~ a `'
It ~ • ~ ~~a~Ki ~ ~ ~`a. ~ e ( ~
t ~ "`~
/ 7
~ ~~.
0.~~ ~
ti
Name: VAN WYCK Location: 034.8353399° N 080.7906889° W
Date: 4/28/2004
Scale: 1 inch equals 7000 feet

' , ~ , USAC~ AID# DWQ # Site #,
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ~ CD OT
3. Date of evaluation: ~J ~3 "Oy
5. Name of stream~t't ~U~ ru ~ ~'~~ ~ C~"P-~
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: ZD~ -~Pn '~'
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
2. Evaluator's name: ~IZl4 Cy ~ U S Fr
4. Time of evaluation: Z= D O P M
6. River basin: l' FtTi4 ~ Q A
8. Stream order:
10. County: ~~ ~ i a IJ
12. Subdivision name (if any):
2~1 ° Sr; ~i! Z~c~`~
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3'+ • 8 ~ ~n ~ ~ (o(Q ~ ~ _ Longitude (ex. -77.55661 t): .r
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note near y roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
~ 00 ~ ee,} "-' 1-^ . ~ - e~ Pew tats IJ a 3~-~- on `~12 l10 ~
14. Proposed channel work (if any): ~ ~? 1 O (sE IZl~ ALA-C~ha E Al l ~D1.~9 tJST IZt t4r''1
15. Recent weather conditions: YL.EC_E fJ C S (~ Ott9 F/~ t_l.
16. Site conditions at time of visit: P~ 121. LN ~ ni ~ i~4 H UM l L~ ~'~
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
----Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters ,_ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO Z0. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ~% Residential O % Commercial O % Industrial ~% Agricultural
9 Q% Forested Q% Cleared /Logged _% Other ( rr 1
22. Bankfull width: I a f P.¢.~ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 - ~ T~~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided charuiel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate. each
reach.. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Sig~iature ~ Date ?J "5' ~
This channel evaluation form is inte ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by •the nited States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please ca11919-876-8441 x 26.
(indicate on attached map)
,i„ .STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
mil, ~~ ~~~~~ 3

Perennial Tributary (#3) to Waxhaw Creek upstream of SR 1103.

r "r`'4 ~°~ : t' ~ t, i e J t , e'" 4 ~~ ~ .I Y } ~ ~^,^ ~~,rr
~" ~ '` of ~ .f R ~ ,..-~ ~~~' -."..~~~~'k ~ ~ ~ ~ `~: ~ ~ ~ /~ ~~ ~t ~` i"
rJ~ rf~`,i~ ~r K. t / ._ ~ ,e"`°,; t. '~*/y 19 ° r ~'~~'" `+A'^ i .\~`.
a k ~ ; , - _ ~' ~ ,
:' ` • 6
~ I
z. { .-
_: °
.. ~ • r1 '.
, ,~ ~~ ~4
_ `• • 1 1 E -
t ,
..
__~_ .:
" L .. . ~ i~c.P a ... _ ~.'
r • ti
~ ~ L
~L• f i y~ ~ Ir ' ~ ' J r
t ~ ~'.
y, t
I . ~ t. ~.a~ ['qty , ~ ,,. "~
b ~_ ~ ~!!
~ ~ ~ i f ,. ~ O ~ f ~~ ~~
° _ e .at
1 1y p { t •~ ~
a
. t
~'
f
., `•. _ _
/. .
t
Y
~.
.
. r
~, a -<" • • °
r ~-,_, .
. ': C
'"~ .0..• ' 1 1. ~ (,1 K'a ~ + <~ '4a Y~ ~* ,
~~ K rt C' ~ ~M1 ~' S y fin. f~ , ~ y !J 7ti
'-. I -.i 4
„ti „ - • l •~
' ~ 1~ ,
~' ~.=
~ ~~` ~ ~ r.^r ... "4.~~ J ..JO ~ sr` ~~ ~.A: ~r __ •"yfi.
~~'i • f ~ ''1 ~
Name: VAN WYCK Location: 034.8353399° N 080.7906889° W
Date: 4/28/2004
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet

APPENDIX II:
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms

NCDW Stream Classification Form W RXN ~4 ~u Cl-E~El~i
Pro ect Name: River Basin: Coun 'Evaluator:•-~-
~w~6~ ~-FaP~rnEaT ~Tfl~u)gA ty~ ~ u I bt\1 1 12AG~ p.USN
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stre Latitude: 3+~ ,$3tq}'!25 uSignature;~
Date: ~ - 3 " d ~ USGS QUAD: ~~.~ ~y CK Longitude:, ~q 1 gpb~}1~cation/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: if evaluator and landowner agree that the feature fs a man-made ditch, then use of thts form is not 5~- ~~~"~
necessary. Also, if In the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural
stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
~waTE~2 LEVEL ?Da H~6-HwTo b~SE~vt
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
f'NOTE• IfBed & Bank Caused By DitchinY And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0'1
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated ~~~ _ • ^
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR
II HydroloQV Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater ~
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:~_ Known -fie occ..~r
nom a bse.~vecl
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2 3
f"NOTE• IlBed & Bank Caused By Dit b:no end WITHOUT inuosity Then Score 0.1
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORI'HOLOGYIIVDICATOR POINTS:
II. HvdroloQV Absent Weak Moderate Strom
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIM,4RY
INDICATOR POINTS:~_
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:~_

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number PerLineJ
II Hvdrolo¢y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter _ ~
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)= Z~'(IfGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent) .
..~ .....~.. _-r-a--r-v ---
Natural Drainatte Way? 0 5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:~_
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 -1
Last Rnown in? E: Ditch ndicdted In # A ove Ski a And #S Bel +
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mos~BL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly r'AC;u mosey urL
(" NOTE: IjTotal Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .S 0 0
As Noted Above Ski is Ste UNLESS SAV Present+
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:

',
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPgpLOGYINDICATOR
II Hydrology Absent Weak .Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter r-,.w _ ^
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:,
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV ~ Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: /jTotal Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Ski This Ste UNLESS SAV Present* .
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
TOTf~L P~~7'.S (Primary + Secondary--~{l (IfGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent)

4) Is Water In Channel And>48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 I 1.5
Last Known Rain? *N TE: I itch Indicated In # A ove Ski This St And #S Bel w*
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5

APPENDIX III:
USACE Wetland Data Forms

f ~
SOILS
Map Unit Name 'IM odor
(Series and Phase): ~ yn Drainage Class: w ~ - ',tip
` 1 Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): -f -~ wm i - ~a i~ 1"ir~D I itc-~~ ~ ~~ s Confirm Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
ches Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Hansel Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure.ete.
n
0 -I ~ D tz 3 ~~ l i o~m
I~Z''-F _~ I b ~2 4 r oar,,:
~ Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moishue Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
~`1012tC SDit_ -~~EI~T
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~
Hydric Soils Present? Yes o ~ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes
Remarks:
WETLIhIJD -.10T p12E5E1.IT

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
' ~ ',
Project/Site: IJCDdT ~r iaa~ 1.10. 3~-~
Applicant/Owner: iJ LD DT
Investigator: Dr. J.H. Carter III '~ Y.-r~ USN
Date:
3-3 --04
,:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant tratum for (Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. ~ 9.
2. ov Z 10.
3. - 1 L
4. ~ 12.
S. 13.
6. (14.
7. I15.
8. 116.
1=tree (overstory) 2= sapling (midstory) 3= shrub (understory) ~ herb layer (ground cover) 5= vines
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) ~ d tf o
Remarks:
Ny 6~~oPt-IYZt~ VEC3ETA~TIo^1 ~p~SE n1T
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
I Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water.
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:

_ (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicator.
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in
Upper 12 inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
W E T L~} 1d~ Hy D Ie.Ol.a 6-y 185 E 1ST
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es ~ Comnntnity ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) es o ~ Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No ~ Plot ID: W E~
(if needed, explain on reverse) UP 1_f4111~ Pal l~T

SOILS
Map Unit Name
( ) C~P.wzcla ilk ~ s°m~`'ti'a'
Series and Phase : m Drainage Class: _j-d„i
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): "I~h ~ V M 1 L F ( ti~~q t ~ ~ n ~ j C. , Confirtri Mapped Type? Y No
ay5+ro~ ~+S
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
ches Horizon (Manse- ll Moist) (Nuns- el Moist) Abundance/Contrast Stru_ c{ure.etc,
.~_t a Id11p y z iaam cl~ d-~ur
- ~ 2-~ P~ ~ 5 I ~ ~ ~ mn '~+
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime fisted on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions ~isted on National Hydric Soils List
~Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ .Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks. HyD121G ~IL
P ~E5 E 13T
WETLAND DETERMIdVATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y No ~ (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? es No ~
Hydric Soils Present? es . No ~ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?~ Yes No
Remarks:
W E"C L~4 ND Pp-ESEIJT

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site• ISL'
Applicant/Ownei:
Investigator.
~Date• 3 -3 `0~1
County: (~'I,1,-e tJ
~ State: 1e a.TH ~A ~N ~ u q
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No ~ Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) Yes No ~ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o ~ Plot ID: W ~t_t41~ID ~_
(if needed.exvlainonreverse) tt~ETt d-~n prit-1T
VEGETATION
Do t t S Stra I ' a (Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. 9.
2. 10.
!3. 11.
4. 12.
S. 113.
6. 114.
7. I15.
8. 116.
1 =tree (overstory) 2= sapling (midstory) 3~ shrub (understory) 4= herb layer (ground cover) 5=vines
li Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) ~'~ ~p
Remarks:
~-}yple.oPHyTtL VE6-ETp~Tldl~ p12ESE13T
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
~No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
Remarks:
i~iET>.aND
~Z (~•)
~ (in.)
~_ (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indica~r.
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
,Oxidized Root Channels~in
Upper 12 inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
1-ly D 120 l.o ~y !~ ~E5 E tST

sous
Map Unit Name ~r
(Series and Phase): I Dt~_h'1 Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~ Confirm Mapped Type? Y No
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
ches Horizon. (Mansell Moist) (Manse- 1 Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure.etc.
a-~'' -~- ~~ ~`~ dr 5~ low,.,
$+" ~ ~ ~ ~
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chmma Colors
Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
~y D~1c. v Dtt~ A~~,St/ +~1T
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Pmsent? y~ o
Remarks:
1N ~TL~IJD NbT
~ (Circle)
~ Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes (~o
P~sE~T

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMIlVATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
~~
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owne7:
Investigator:
Do Nom~al Circumstances exist on the site? ~ o ~ Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) Yes No ~ Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes o (Plot ID: W ETLA-W fl l4/,~
(if needed, explain on reverse)
t an ~ Stratum nd'c mominant Plant , ties Strat mu Indicator
9.
I.
2. L 10.
3. -~l 1.
4. X12.
5. -13.
6. ~ 14.
7. X15.
8. 116.
1=tree (overstory) 2= sapling (midstory) 3= shrub (understory) 4= herb layer (ground cover) 5= vines
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 28~C
Remarks:
~`IDr~OPH`ITIL bE(~ETY+TIO+J ,A-~3SEIl1T
Recorded Data (Describe in Rerrmrks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations: ~
I
Depth of Surface Water. '-'-' (in.) ~
Depth to Free Water in Pit: - - (in.) ~
I
Depth to Saturated Soil: .__._ (in.) ~
I
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicator.
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in
Upper 12 inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WE`T~/}rJD ~Iyp1~oL0~y A'~fiEIJT

SOILS
Map Unit Name ~ ~~ ~
(Series and Phase): _ C h _tt ~ a ~ ~ a ~~ I Qrl yn Drainage Class: ~c~.1
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ~~ u Q,vt-~ jL Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color
ches Horizon (Mansell Moist) Mottle Colors
(Hansel Moist) Mottle Texture, Concretions
Abundance/Contrast Struchire.etc.
~ d 12 b
d Z" Organic. leafy
_ h-yrk
~1-}~_ ~ S ~ Sd~Ura~t,c~ ~bi+..rrty
D

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol
Histic Epipedon
Sulfidic Odor
Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors
/ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_~~.isted on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks.
~`1Dp-lC ~olL P12-~5~~3T
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? es No
Remarks:
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland Yes No
W ~"[ ~~ N A P12~ E IJT

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ,~.1
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator:
~nate• ~ -3-~
County: iJ
~ State: ~11t l ~ p
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No ~ Commwuty ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) Yes ~ ~ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ~ Plot ID: (,~~~¢ U p Arl
(if needed, explain on reverse) W ETI~IU D _PD l IJT
AT1U1V
minant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
8. 116.
1 =tree (overstory) 2= sapling (nudstory) 3= shrub (understory) 4= herb layer (ground cover) 5= vines
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) ~ 60~D
Remarks:
~y D n.o P~t`l T ~G V t E:£TI4T~r7 rJ P 12EsEIJT
Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
_~1o Rewrded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water:
Depth to Free Water in Pit:
Depth to Saturated Soil:
~ -~ (m.)
~ ~ drea.S
(in.)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indira or:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in
Upper 12 inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
~^Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
_~Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
W ET LA N D 1-~`J ~ 1R.~ 1..0 6-y ~ 12.E5 E NT

APPENDIX IV:
NCDWQ Wetlands Rating Worksheet

_ WETLANDS RATING WORKSHEET W ET~~I rJ D ° /,B
,?
Project name Id C D O T g' y ~4 q Beet D b-E - l~lt"_l~. Nearest road 5 ~ 1 ~
County Wetland area Q. y 5 acres Wetland width feet
Name of evaluator I 15 N ALL 1 141~121~ Date - -
Wetland location
^ on pond or lake
^ on perennial stream
~ on intermittent stream
^ within interstream divide
~`J other i~1o~~nC~_~~- o~
. ~l~eXed hydra 1 °g~ dram I X99` ",
Adjacern land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius) •
[~forested/natural vegetation ~_%
[agriculture, urban/subwban ,~~%
[~'unpervious surface _~%
Dominant vegetation
Soil series ~' hP,,~~ ~a ~a Si ~~ ~ Ozvr1
. ^ predominantly organic -humus,
muck, or peat
predominantly mineral. non-sandy
^ predominatly sandy
Hydraulic factors
^ steep topography
^ ditched or channelized
^ total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
(1) Sod rush ~7~u•nw4 e~sos)
(3) ~ODm A~niL Allc~SS ~i~hdrt}~n..(ionn
9co ~aviv rn
Flood"ang and wetness '
6~' Bottomiand hardwood forest ^ ~ sawanoa
^ Headovater forest ^ Freshwater marsh
0 Swamp forest ^ Estuarine fringe forest
^ wet t]at ^ Ephemeral wetland
^ Pocosin ^ Carolina Bay
^ Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
[seasonally flooded or inundated
^ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
^ no evidence of flooding or surface
water
^ Bog forest
^ Bog/fen.
Seep D1lE Tb HyDp~1..Db-~L
^ Other ALTEIeAT1~1~
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or braclash marshes ~ stream channels.
weight
R Water storage ~ x 4.00 ~_
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization ~ x 4.00 = _~ Wetland Score
T Pollutant removals J_
I Wildlife.habitat
N Aquatic life value 2-
G Recieation/Education 2
x5.00= ~ ~~'
x 200 a 2.
x 4.00 = OO
O
x 1.00 = Z.
*Add 1 point if insensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %: mile upstrearnr upslope, or radius.

Wetland A!B near Waxhaw Creek east of SR 1103.

~. !
M ,.
f
,.
,.
k ~ ~ ~ : 4 t ~ ~ ~ ti~
~~ ,. ~ - ,~ ,,,r-~ Q ~g ,~. ~~ ~. ~ _ ~~,4p^, _.
~.. _.
,~ , ..~
b ~
! ,
,. ~ a ..i d ..:_ ,.~
.:~
,,... r ~ ;. ~,
t 6 '" s
'" ~ 1 e ~ ~1e ~ v
p' ~ ..._ r' 1~ 0
. ~ ..
•.
.~ "
.-
~' '`1
1." '
,
F
. J)~
, i e ~ ..
. e. e 4 e w ~.~ ,lv~y ! "..fe~~ of ~ ~
-. 1 s".
~ ..
,.~ ,,- ,
~,
~ ~ " '<, ~~
~ _ a 1~4 - ~ f rf ii ~ "~ ~ , ~
._
_,
•~
... 4
.
•.
~ .~ ~a i
c
_ i ~ ~ ~ ~,, .~ v~ ~',
. ' y .,- 1
.» "`-~ "
f~ , r, ti;T ~. _.t,, ~ f~.
tt •'
. ,.. ., •
' r `R
" ~ ,; ~ ~
Name: VAN WYCK Location: 034.8353399° N 080.7906889° W
Date: 4/28/2004
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet

., , ~ ~ WETLANDS.RATING WORKSHEET Fourthvetsion
. ~ W~T~~u~r/
Project name ~ 1C_11~T F~--y1~4q ~_ _ r~it~E ~Ep~ ~•~E . Nearest road S~ ~ I ~ 3
County 1 o Wetland area D, O I acres Wetland width feet '
Name of evaluator N Date 3 -3 - d'-j
Wetland location
^ on pond or lake
^ on perennial stream
© on internuttant stream
^ within interstream divide
^ other
Adjacem land use
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
or radius)
(~orested/natural vegetation ~~%
[v~agriculture, urban/suburban ~~%
[impervious surface ~_%
Dominant vegetation
Soil series G~]ew~C:alz sr Ij- (~rr-
^ predominantly organic -humus,
muck,. or peat
~predominairtly mineral -non-sandy
^ predotninamly sandy
Hydraulic factors
^ steep topography
^ ditched or channelized
^ total riparian wetland width > 100 feet
Wetland type (select one)*
(1) C~nr ~Arond~rt~r-z 5ic~dn~~
(2) lrov-wood ~~~~-~r~inds ~drdlivli~Ka~
Flood"ing and wetness
^ Semipermanently to permanently
flooded or inundated
[~seasonaily flooded or inundated
^ intermittantly flooded or temporary
surface water
^ no evidence of flooding or surface
water
G~Bottoniland hardwood forest ^ Pme savanna ^ ~8 forest
^ Headwater forest ^ Freshwater marsh ^ Hogffen.
^ Sip ~~ ^ F.sd~ariae fringe forest ^ Seep
^ Wet flat ^ Ephemeral wetland ^ C~hcr .
0 Carolina Bay
^ Pocosin
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or bracadsh marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage a x 4.00 ~ _Q_._
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization ~ x 4.00 = _~ Wetland Score
T Pollutant removals _~ x 5.00 = '' ~ I
I Wildlife.habitat ~_ x2.00 = ~_
N Aquatic life value ~ x 4.00. _ ~,_
G Recieation/Education _~ x 1.00 = ~_ •
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within'/: mile upstream upslope, or radius.

~- •r
•~
Wetland C, adjacent to Intermittent Tributary (#2) to Waxhaw Creek.

rte. ~ t', ~ c~
i.~{Y ,t°: F ` •4 ^ 'i ~~~y,F~gvy''+. 1 .''ENV' ~ 70~
frC. ~r" •a ~,~, t~ .., ,fit .~
.r...' 4b a~ti... ~
~ ~ ~ •..`
! "} ~~
rv Y ~ ` .~
r`~ ~ - '~ ~~.~
--
- '. . e.
• ~ ... - f
~ s
.,.
..w ~
... ., .Yi '~.ri/ ,~'~'
~~1 .. ~._ ~ ~ ~.,., t
e ~; ~, ^ ~ ~/" ~~
~! .. ti,. ....,. }r
e..
..
• / ~ ~ .-- - a ~~ r = ~
1 i ~ M a , ~, `~,s ~ ~1 ~ .,w +,'~~
i - ~ x 4,~~ a ~Il i tt~ ~, ~ i d ~ r ~ ~ ~ _
_ ~ ~ 4 ~' ~ ~~~~ ~Jljq~~Il ~~
.~~ , . ~,
°~,.~ ~ ~. ~~ /~7
1 `~ R l '' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• Ott y \ E .~ ~ //JJ//'~~~+~`^a~ ~ •• ,
~1
., ~
a
~ .
• ~ '. ~ '~.
1,M ... ti • :... y~
'~ • 5 `-1
~~ ~i,~~~'~a.
t
w ~' - ! f .
1 .°+
~ r
~~ .,~~~ ~~ -.~! ems. "s`ti'"~~ <~,~~~ ~ ~ o ~,~ .
. _~ ~ llll. ~ ~ .. S .t~ ~ L+- / ~~~ ~~ y
. r~
'~
Name: VAN WYCK Location: 034.8353399° N 080.7906889' W
Date: 4/28J2004
Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet