20231668 Ver 1_BP10.R022_CoverLetter_With_Attachments_20231211

Tnr�M
O�
qq�
'u C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.R. "JOEY" HOPKINS
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 8, 2023
Mr. Steve Brumagin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
SUBJECT: Pre -Construction Notification Pursuant to Regional General Permit 50
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge No. 92 on SR 1903 over Beaverdam Creek (Class WS-V), Union County, NC
WBS Number: BP10.R022
Dear Mr. Brumagin:
We are requesting a Section 404 Regional General Permit (RGP) 50 for work associated with the
replacement of Bridge No. 92 with a new bridge at the same location over Beaverdam Creek (Class C) on
SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) in Union County. The project will temporarily impact 43 linear feet of
Beaverdam Creek for impacts associated with the bridge replacement and necessary roadway
modifications. There will be 78 linear feet of permanent stream impact needed for stream bank
stabilization along Beaverdam Creek. There will be 130 linear of permanent stream impact needed for
channel change along Stream A, an unnamed intermittent tributary of Beaverdam Creek (Attachments A
and B). There will be no wetland impacts. Mitigation for the minor permanent stream impacts associated
with the project is not proposed at this time. As part of the environmental review, a Minimum Criteria
Determination Checklist was completed for the project (See Attachment Q.
The approximate 20-foot wide bridge will consist of two lanes including two 10-foot travel lanes and four
foot paved shoulders on either side of the bridge. The proposed structure would be lengthened from
approximately 31 feet to approximately 45 feet. There will be bank stabilization installed along
Beaverdam Creek. Overall drainage patterns will be maintained around the ends of the project with new
ditches being constructed as they approach the bridge from the left. On the east bridge side, there will be a
channel change to the existing side stream. On the east side of the bridge, a catch basin placed on the curb
line of the roadway approach on both sides of the road will pick up runoff from the bridge and will
discharge into a roadside ditch or the side channel then ultimately to the stream.
Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ
website lists Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) as endangered, Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) as
threatened and Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) as proposed endangered within the study area.
There is habitat in the study area for Schweinitz's sunflower, Michaux's sumac, Atlantic pigtoe, Carolina
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax: [phone] WEST MAIN STREET
DIVISION 10 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001 Website: www.ncdot.gov

heelsplitter, and Tricolored bat. No Schweinitz's sunflowers or Michaux's sumac were found during the
plant by plant field survey of the study area conducted on September 7, 2022. No Atlantic pigtoe or
Carolina heelsplitter were found during October 25, 2022, field surveys. A search of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database, accessed November 1, 2023, found no occurrences of
Schweinitz's sunflower, Michaux's sumac, Atlantic pigtoe, Carolina heelsplitter, or Tricolored bat, within
one mile of the study area. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for Schweinitz's
sunflower and Michaux's sumac. A biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" was reached for Atlantic pigtoe and Carolina heelsplitter. On September 14, 2022, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service announced a proposal to list the Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus - PESU) as
endangered under the Endangered Species Act. If listed, NCDOT will resolve Section 7 prior to let as
appropriate. Construction activities for this project will not take place until NCDOT (in coordination with
our lead federal agency) satisfies Endangered Species Act compliance for PESU. Due to the anticipated
future listing the project has a biological conclusion of `Unresolved' for Tricolored bat (Attachment D).
Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A desktop-GIS assessment of
the study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits
was performed. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding
sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the
NCNHP database on November 1, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of
the study area. Due to no nests or eagles being identified during the survey, no known occurrences within
a mile, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not
affect bald eagles (See Attachment D). Additionally, a Bat Survey Project Questionnaire is included in
Attachment D.
Section 106
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed
the project for Historic Architectural and Archeological Resources. A Historic Architecture and
Landscapes No Survey Required Form was provided by a NCDOT Architectural Historian on December
16, 2021. A No Archaeological Survey Required Form was provided by the NCDOT Archaeologist on
January 16, 2022. A letter was sent to the Catawba Indian Nation informing them of the proposed bridge
replacement project on January 26, 2022. A response from the Catawba Indian Nation Letter was received
on February 25, 2022 (Attachment E).
If you have any questions, comments or need additional information after reviewing this material please
contact me at [phone]. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Joel Howard,
PDEA Engineer, NCDOT Division 10

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

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 92 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment A
Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan

Highway
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program)
6FOR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021)
NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: BP10.R022.3
TIP/Prof No: County(ies): Union Page 1 of 2
General Project Information
WBS Element:
BP10.R022.3 ITIP Number: I Project Type: JBridge Replacement Date: 11/3/2023
NCDOT Contact:
Garland Haywood, PE
Contractor) Designer:
STV Engineers, Inc. / Carlos Owens
Address:
716 W Main St.
Address:
900 West Trade Street, Ste. 715
Albemarle, NC 28001
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone:
[phone]
Phone:
[phone]
Email:
garland. haywood(o).stvinc.com
Email:
carlos.owens(o).stvinc.com
City/Town:
Marshville
County(ies):
Union
River Basin(s):
Yadkin -Pee Dee
ICAMA County?
No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
No
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
460 Feet Surrounding Land Use: Rural, Wooded Agricultural
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
0.9 lac.
0.6 Jac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Bridge: Two 10' lanes, 4' paved shoulders Approach: Two
Bridge: Two 8.5' lanes, 0.5' paved shoulders
10' Lanes, 4' paved shoulders
Approach: Two 8' lanes, 0.5' paved shoulders
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hrlday):
I Design/Future: 2200 1 Year: 12025
1 Existing: 1 1100 1 Year: 1 2011
General Project Narrative:
The project is on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) located approximately 3.5 miles southwest of Marshville, NC. SR 1903 is classified as a Rural Local Roadway and this project fall under
(Description of Minimization of Water
NCDOT's Subregional Tier guidelines. The surrounding land -use is rural and agricultural land. The existing single span is a 31' long structure being replaced with a proposed 45'
Quality Impacts)
long single span box beam. The bridge will be super -elevated at normal crown with two 1 U travel and a 4' shoulder on each side. The existing bridge structure and abutments will be
removed. Overall drainage patterns will be maintained around the ends of the project with new ditches being constructed as they approach the bridge from the left. On the east
bridge side, there will be a channel change to the existing side stream. On the east side of the bridge, a catch basin placed on the curb line of the roadway approach on both sides of
the road will pick up runoff from the bridge and will discharge into a roadside ditch or the side channel then ultimately to the stream. Class-11 rip rap abutment protection will be placed
around the approach roadway embankments to prevent future erosion. Class-1 rip rap will be used at the ends of both ditches and along the channel change of the side stream.
Gutter spread will be contained within the shoulder width and therefore, no deck drains will be required.

I lighway North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stormwatc r jm
Highway Stormwater Program \
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: BP10.R022.3 TIP/Pro' No.: Count ies : Union Page 2 of 2
General Project Information
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1): Beaverdam Creek
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
13-17-40-11
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Water Supply V (WS-V)
None
Supplemental Classification:
None
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
No I Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Yes
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer INo
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer? INo
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
No
I
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body (2): 1
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) I
Surface Water Body (3): 1
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:
Aquatic T&E Species?
Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)

r,.
E
0
a
E
L
N
N
0
E
L
E
0
0
E
E
0
c
w
w
See Sheet t A For Index of Sheets
See Sheet t 8 For Standard Symbology Sheet
MPp5R�g5"I
5
Pm
D
RJ F?i
i
I
O
30
A�v
BEGIN
P
"m
oa
sg19 ROJE
03
EN
PR JECT
m
F*�SR 1947CH RD
��ii�
GZ R09o0
�d}
VICINITY MAP
•--�• DETOUR
N.T.S.
� � �IMDEN RD
BEGIN PROJECT WBS BP10.R022.3
—L— STA 12 + 70.00
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 10 0 20 40
PLANS
20 10 0 20 40
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
4 2 0 4 8
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
DESIGN DATA
ADT 2019 = 400
ADT 2025 = 800
DHV = N/A
D = N/A
T = 6%
V = 55 MPH
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
LOCAL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE #92 OVER BEAVERDAM CREEK
ON SR 1903 (GILBOA RD)
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURE
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
BEGIN BRIDGE
—L— STA. 15 + 43.34
M
I SITE 1 1
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS BP10.R022.3 = 0.078 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS BP10.R022.3 = 0.009 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS BP10.R022.3 = 0.087 MILES
NCDOT CONTACT: GARLAND HAYWOOD, PE
Division Bridge Manager
I SITE 3 1
END BRIDGE
—L— STA. 15+90.67
6-
BTATB PR.- RRPRR- NO
N.C.
BP10.R022.3
BTATB PROl.NQ
P.A.PROl.NO.
OR6CRIPTION
BP10.R022.1
P.E.
BP10.R022.2
ROW & UTILITY
BP10.R022.3
CONSTRUCTION
O
C"
�o
END PROJECT WBS BP10.R022.3
—L— STA 17+30.00
OLD PAGELAND _
---_--- MARSHVILLE RD
SITE 2
PLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY.
STV Engineers, Inc.
9oa west Trine Engineers,
,11 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
s7h NC License Number F-0991
2024 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE
RIGHT OF WAY DATE.
JANUARY 18, 2023
PROJECT ENGINEER
STEPHEN L. SAUCIER
LETTING DATE.
DECEMBER 6, 2023
PROTECT DESIGNER
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
P.E.
SIGNATURE:
DESIGN
ENGINEER
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 5

PARCEL NO.
fl
2
M-
I
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
WALTER F. &
KATHY D. CO LSTON
GERSAIN G.1PEREZ &
MARIBEIL L. RAMIREZ
MARYY JUE1L ]PIERCE
FRANK E. &
JO SHARED
Permit Drawing
Sheet 4 of 5
1811 1FAU]LKS CHURCH RIB
MARSHVIILILE, NC 25103
3806 GI1LBOA RIB
MARSHVIILILE, NC 25103
3514 GIILBOA RD
MARSHVIILILE, NC 25103
3907 GIILBOA RD
MARSHVIILILE, NC 25103
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: BP10.R022.3
BRIDGE # 92 OVER
EEAVERDAM CREEK
ON SR 1903
(GI]LEOA RD)
SHEET 4 OF 5 11 % 16 % 2023

WETLAND AND SURACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1
15+37.58/15+79.84
BANK STABILIZATION ONLY
0.009
78
2
16+00.49/17+30.00
CHANNEL CHANGE
0.009
130
3
15+36.81/16+19.92
BRIDGE
0.034
43
TOTALS':
1 0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
1 0.000
1 0.018
1 0.034
1 208
1 43
0
'Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
Temporary impacts, 121 ft, 78 of which is accounted for within the permanent impact totals.
Revised 2018 Feb

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 92 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment B
Delineation Materials

yynNn,,
WQr�E
dJ
it l7
i
49
I u%SC>a�RCHR4
fA —4-
k e
_ - Br�YPrdd�1 rrr
17
o son 00o 2,000
Feet
DF µoR7H Division 10
Legend Bridge Replacement
1P
% SR 1903 over Beaverdam Creek
Study Area 4.4 acres) BRIO.R022.1
m�9 v Bridge No. 092
of n+n*Union County, NC
A* Friday, November 17, 2023
Wingate Quad FIGURE 1
STV Engineers, Ina Proj ect No.
4020105 Ref. USGS 7.5 Minn te Topography USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Quadrangle Map [Wingate, NC] MAP
cis JLK JLK US GS The National Map Topo Base Map

Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Nonhydric (0%)
Predominantly nonhydric (1 to 32%)
Partially hydric (33 to 65%)
Predominantly hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (100%)
Not rated or not available
.f.
GsB
GoC
A ►� •., eK
e
ChA
GC
Cdac�
eaJe
6
s
GsB I
Mapped Soil Units Within the Study Area
CmB Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
B d B 2
ChA Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
0 100 200 400
GoC Goldston very channery silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes
Feet
µoerp ego
Legend
aticc- •--L d
Division 10
Bridge Replacement
Study Area (- 4.4 acres)
SR 1903 over Beaverdam Creek
ez
BRIO.R022.1
p
.n.�. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Bridge No.092
i.�.:,,,,oe i,�•,.._-.,..• i,
Union County, NC
on+PN`'��
Friday, November 17, 2023
StN
Union County, NC
FIGURE 2
NRCS SOIL SERIES
STV Engineers, Inc ProjectNo.
NC Center Sources:
eon Anay
,
NC 911 Board; NRCS Soil Series Data
Union County, (2014)
MAP
Drawn By:
I Checked By:
3
Approved By:
CJS
JLK
JLK

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
Bridge No. 092 over Beaverdam
1. Project name (if any): Creek
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:
7. River basin:
NCDOT
Union
Yadkin-PeeDee
2. Date of evaluation: 3/29/2022
Assessor name/organization
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Josh Kotheimer
Beaverdam Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 34.942362,-80.399746
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Beaverdam Creek 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 231
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 22 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version
2.1
Stream Site Name Bridge No. 092 over Date of Assessment
3/29/2022
Beaverdam Creek
Stream Category Pb3 Assessor Name/Organization
Josh Kotheimer
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
user rvianuai version d.,i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
Bridge No. 092 over Beaverdam
1. Project name (if any): Creek (Stream A)
3. Applicant/owner name: NCDOT
5. County:
7. River basin:
Union
Yadkin-PeeDee
Date of evaluation: 3/29/2022
Assessor name/organization
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Josh Kotheimer
Beaverdam Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 34.941957 ,-80.399662
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream A 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 454
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ❑Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A El
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes ®No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
®B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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

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

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

Draft NIC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Bridge No. 092 over
Stream Site Name Beaverdam Creek (Stream Date of Assessment 3/29/2022
A)
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization Josh Kotheimer
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
LOW
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
LOW
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
LOW
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Stream A
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3/29/2022
Project/Site: Bridge No. 92 over
Beaverdam Creek
Latitude: 34.941957
Evaluator: JoSh Kotheimer
County: Union
Longitude:-80.399662
Total Points:
28.25
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Wingate
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemer n ermit a Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
r r
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10.0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
0
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
0
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
0
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
0
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
0
3
8. Headcuts
0
1)
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1 0.5
1
1 <=:)
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0
Yes = 3 El
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
<=>
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =71
C. Biology (Subtotal = 4.75 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
CiD
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
<1CW =�OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.•
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Bridge 92 over Beaverdam Creek City/County: Marshville/Union Sampling Date: 3/29/2022
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Josh Kotheimer, PWS Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 34.942068 Long:-80.399308 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Point taken on the north side of Gilboa Road (SR 1903)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
—Surface Water (Al) —True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
—Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3) —Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131) —Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
30
Yes
FACW
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Liquidambarstyraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3.
Juniperus virginiana
10
Yes
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Ulmus americana
10
Yes
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
5.
Celtis occidentalis
10
Yes
FACU
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 37.5% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
70
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
35 20% of total cover:
14
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30x30
)
FACW species 40 x 2 = 80
1.
Ligustrum sinense
50
Yes
FACU
FAC species 20 x 3 = 60
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
10
No
FAC
FACU species 90 x 4 = 360
3.
Celtis occidentalis
10
No
FACU
UPL species 10 x 5 = 50
4.
Column Totals: 160 (A) 550 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.44
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
70
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
35 20% of total cover:
14
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5x5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Lonicera japonica
10
Yes
FACU
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Lamium amplexicaule
10
Yes
UPL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Carex 2 No
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
22
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
11 20% of total cover:
5
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30x30 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4
10YR 3/2
100
Loamy/Clayey
4-10
2.5Y 5/4
100
Loamy/Clayey
10-16
2.5Y 5/4
80
10YR 5/6 20 C M Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11:
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
—Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
—Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions(F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 092 on SR 1903 over Beaverdam Creek
Aprii 26, 2022
Photograph 1 — A view of the SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) bridge over Beaverdam Creek looking to
the southeast.
Photograph 2 — A view of Beaverdam Creek at the SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) bridge, looking
upstream to the south.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 092 on SR 1903 over Beaverdam Creek
s;t
Aprii 26, 2022
Photograph 3 — A view of Beaverdam at the SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) bridge, looking downstream
to the north.
Photograph 4 — A view of Stream A from Beaverdam Creek looking to the southeast.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 92 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment C
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-136D2-A91 FB91 C562C
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
WBS No.: 17BP.10.R.022.1
Project Location: Bridge No. 92 carrying SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam
Creek in Union County
Project Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Division 10 plans to replace Bridge No. 92 carrying SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over
Beaverdam Creek in Union County.
Constructed in 1963, the existing bridge is approximately 20-feet wide with two 8-foot
travel lanes and two approximately 2-foot wide paved shoulders. The length of the
existing structure is approximately 31 feet. There are no existing sidewalk or bicycle
facilities along SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) and the existing right-of-way is approximately 60
feet. Bridge No. 92 has a posted single vehicle weight limit of 7 tons and a truck tractor
semitrailer weight limit of 7 tons. SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) is classified as a Local Route
with a 55-mile per hour posted speed limit.
The project proposes replacing the existing two-lane bridge structure with an
approximately 30-foot wide structure that includes two 10-foot travel lanes and 4-foot
paved shoulders on either side of the bridge. The proposed structure would be
lengthened from 31 feet to approximately 47 feet. The approach roadway would extend
approximately 273 feet to the west and approximately 140 feet to the east of the proposed
bridge. The roadway approaches include two 10-foot travel lanes with 4-foot paved
shoulders. The total length of the project is approximately 460 feet or 0.087 miles.
The proposed right-of-way width would be approximately 90 feet at its widest point and
the project would require approximately 0.16 acres of right of way acquisition.
Residential and business relocations are not anticipated. The project is scheduled for
right-of-way in January 2023 and has a LET date for December 2024. An off -site detour
of approximately 3-miles is required for the full duration of construction. The detour
route will take travelers on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road), SR 1947 (Faulks Church Road), and
SR 1937 (Old Pageland-Marshville Road).
Purpose and Need: NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 92 is
structurally deficient with a bridge sufficiency rating of 23.39 out of a possible 100. The
bridge's status is identified as Functionally Obsolete in the Structure Safety Report
published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on October 8, 2020. The
purpose of the project is to replace the functionally obsolete bridge.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: A Section 404 Regional General
Permit (RGP) No. 201902350 (RGP 50) is most likely to be applicable for the proposed
project. This RGP authorizes NCDOT permanent impacts of up to 500 linear feet of
stream and/or up to one acre of wetlands/open waters for each single and complete linear
project.
01 /27/23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-136D2-A91 FB91 C562C
Cultural Resources: On December 16, 2021, a Historic Architecture and Landscapes
"No Survey Required" form was provided through ETRACS by a NCDOT Architectural
Historian. Additionally, on January 16, 2022, a "No Archaeological Survey Required"
form was provided by a NCDOT Archaeologist.
Threatened and Endangered Species: STV conducted field reviews of the study area
on March 29, 2022, and September 7, 2022. Prior to the field reviews, STV reviewed
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) online databases for information related to the occurrence of federal and state
protected (threatened or endangered) species in Union County. The USFWS IPaC
protected species database, reviewed January 4, 2023, lists four federally protected
species as occurring or having the potential to occur in the study area including the bald
eagle which is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The federal
protected species include Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), Michaux's
sumac (Rhus michauxii), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masom), and Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata). Additionally, the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) has been
proposed endangered and is included although the species is not currently protected. Per
NCNHP protected species occurrence records obtained on April 5, 2022, there are no
known occurrences of federally protected species within one mile of the study area.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area along roadside
shoulders and woodland edges. Plant by plant field surveys for the presence of
Schweinitz's sunflowers were conducted on September 7, 2022, during the flowering
season and USFWS-designated optimal survey window. Suitable habitat was found but
no sunflowers were observed. Review of the NCNHP records on April 5, 2022, revealed
no documented occurrences or populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the study area or
within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and field survey
conducted during the flowering season, it is determined that the project would have `No
Effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along roadside
shoulders. Plant by plant field surveys for the presence of Michaux's sumac were
conducted on September 7, 2022, during the USFWS-designated optimal survey window.
Suitable habitat was found but no Michaux's sumac were observed. Review of the
NCNHP records on April 5, 2022, revealed no documented occurrences or populations of
Michaux's sumac in the study area or within one mile of the study area. Based on the
literature review and field survey conducted during the flowering season, it is determined
that the project would have `No Effect' on Michaux's sumac.
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group or a qualified consultant will conduct habitat
assessment and survey, as needed, to render separate biological conclusions for the
Carolina heelsplitter and Atlantic pigtoe. A review of the NCNHP database on April 5,
2022, indicates no known occurrences of either species within 1.0 mile of the study area.
01 /27/23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-136D2-A91 FB91 C562C
Project commitments to resolve separate biological conclusions for the Carolina
heelsplittcr and Atlantic pigtoe arc added to the Greenshect on the final page of the
MCDC document.
Review of the NCNHP records obtained on April 5, 2022, revealed no known
occurrences of tricolored bat within the study area or within one mile of the study area.
Currently there is not a protocol for the tricolored bat as it is proposed for listing and is
not yet afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act. The tricolored bat was
proposed for listing as endangered by the USFWS in September 2022. If required, the
tricolored bat will be revisited under new guidance set forth by the USFWS. NCDOT is
committed to completing a bat assessment of appropriately sized structures within 30
days of removal. Due to the anticipated future listing the project has a biological
conclusion of 'Unresolved' for Tricolored bat.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act: The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do not nest in North Carolina. Habitat for
the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large bodies of open
water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within
1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius
of the project limits, was performed on March 31, 2022, using the latest color aerials. No
water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources
were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of
the project study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not
conducted. Additionally, a review of the NHP database on April 5, 2022, revealed no
known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to the lack of
habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been
determined that this project will not affect this species.
Special Project Information:
Floodplain: This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA-
regulated stream, Beaverdam Creek, which is classified as an AE floodway and is at high
risk of flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program. Due to this, the Hydraulics
Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) to determine the
project status regarding applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement, or
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter
of Map Revision (LOMR).
Farmland: According to Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil -survey,
approximately 13.78 acres of "Prime farmland if drained and either protected from
flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season" and 20.57 acres of
Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Project Study Area.
Preliminary design plans indicate that the proposed right-of-way acquisition would
impact approximately 0.16 acres of soil classified as "Prime farmland if drained and
either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season."
01 /27/23 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-B6D2-A91 FB91 C562C
Faiming operations near the structure may be affected temporarily during construction by
using the approximately 3-mile offsite detour route. NCDOT Division 10 will coordinate
with the owners of the agricultural lands that are temporarily impacted by the off -site
detour.
Environmental Commitments: Greensheet Commitments are located at the end of the
checklist.
Estimated Costs (FY 2023):
Utility $100,000
Right -of -Way $250,000
Construction $900,000
Total $1,250,000
Traffic Information:
Current (2019) 400 vpd
Year (2040) 800 vpd
T 6%
D N/A
(Source: 1711P.10.R.022.1 Preliminary Roadway Design Plans, June 2022)
Design Exceptions: There are design exceptions required for minimum vertical K-value
and stopping sight distance.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: There are no existing pedestrian or bicycle
facilities along SR 1903 (Gilboa Road).
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build — The no build alternative would not replace the deficient bridge, and thus is
not a viable option.
Rehabilitation — Rehabilitation would only provide a temporary solution to the
structural deficiency of the bridge.
Onsite Detour — An onsite detour was not considered feasible for this project due to
the proposed alignment of the new bridge; an offsite detour will be used.
New Alignment — Given that the alignment for SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) is acceptable,
a new alignment was not considered as an alternative.
Offsite Detour — An off -site detour of approximately 3-miles is required for the full
duration of construction. The detour route will take travelers SR 1903 (Gilboa Road),
SR 1947 (Faulks Church Road), and SR 1937 (Old Page] and-Marshvi I I e Road).
Other Agency Comments:
01 /27/23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-B6D2-A91 FB91 C562C
A Local Planner Input Form was received from the Union County Planning & Zoning
Director on January 4, 2023. The Union County Planning and Zoning Director did not
have any special concerns regarding the project.
A Local EMS Input Form was received from the Interim Director and Chief of the Union
County Emergency Medical Services on September 6, 2022. No special concerns
regarding the project's potential impacts related to EMS mobility and access during
project construction when the offsite detour is in effect.
A Local School Transportation Input Form was received from the Union County Public
Schools Transportation Department on September 6, 2022. The Union County Public
Schools Transportation Department indicated that four school buses make six daily trips
along the corridor. No special concerns regarding the project's potential impact on school
transportation or access were expressed.
Tribal coordination letters were sent out on January 26, 2022 to the representative of the
Catawba Indian Nation, per NCDOT Tribal Coordination Guidance (dated June 26,
2019). A response was received from the Catawba Nation on February 25, 2022. The
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer stated that the Catawba Nation did not have any
immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties, sacred sites or
archaeological sites within the boundaries of the Project Study Area.
Public Involvement:
Public involvement has not been requested by NCDOT Division 10 for this project.
01 /27/23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-B6D2-A91 FB91 C562C
PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
Item ]AM completed by the Engineer. YES NO
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under ® ❑
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If yes, under which category'? #9 (Reconstruction of existing crossroad or
railroad separation and existing stream
crossings, including, but not limited to,
pipes, culverts, and bridges.)
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
Items 2 mpletedljffidffi Engineer. -'
YES
NO
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
❑
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts'?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
❑
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
❑
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
Divisio YES NO
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on ❑
wetlands; surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries;
parklands; prime or unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized
scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical value?
6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the ❑
Department of interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use ❑
01 /27/23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-B6D2-A91 FB91 C562C
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on ❑
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Items 9-�mpleted by ivirg fficer. Mk YES NO
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its ® ❑
habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent ® ❑
fill in waters of the United States?
11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of ❑
fill in high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as
mountain bogs or pine savannahs?
12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental ❑
Concern, as defined in the coastal Area Management Act?
Items 1 — mpleteMe Engine YES NO
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes? ❑
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the ❑
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of ❑
way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
01 /27/23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-B6D2-A91 FB91 C562C
Response to Question 9:
The USFWS IPaC protected species database reviewed September 15, 2022 lists four
federally protected species and a single Proposed Threatened species as occurring or
having the potential to occur in the study area.
Protected species include the Schweinitz's sunflower, Michaux's sumac, Atlantic pigtoe,
Carolina heelsplitter, and bald eagle. Additionally, the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia
masoni) is listed as "Proposed Threatened" and is expected to be listed as "Threatened"
before the project is completed. As of April 5, 2022, the NCNHP lists no occurrences of
federally protected species within one mile of the study area.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area. Plant by plant
field surveys for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflowers were conducted on September
7, 2022, during the flowering season. Review of the NCNHP records on April 5, 2022,
revealed no documented occurrences or populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the
study area or within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and field
survey conducted, it is determined that the project would have `No Effect' on
Schweinitz's sunflower.
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area. Plant by plant field
surveys for the presence of Michaux's sumac were conducted on September 7, 2022; no
species were observed. Review of the NCNHP records on April 5, 2022, revealed no
documented occurrences or populations of Michaux's sumac in the study area or within
one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and field survey, it is
determined that the project would have `No Effect' on Michaux's sumac.
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group or a qualified consultant will conduct habitat
assessment and survey, as needed, to render separate biological conclusions for the
Carolina heelsplitter and Atlantic pigtoe. A review of the NCNHP database on April 5,
2022, indicates no known occurrences of either species within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Project commitments to resolve separate biological conclusions for the Carolina
heelsplitter and Atlantic pigtoe are added to the Greensheet on the final page of the
MCDC document.
Review of the NCNHP records revealed no known occurrences of Tricolored bat within
the study area or within one mile of the study area. Currently there is not a protocol for
the Tricolored bat as it is proposed for listing and is not yet afforded protection under the
Endangered Species Act. If required, the Tricolored bat will be revisited under new
guidance set forth by the USFWS. NCDOT is committed to completing a bat assessment
of appropriately sized structures within 30 days of removal. Due to the anticipated future
listing the project has a biological conclusion of `Unresolved' for Tricolored bat.
Response to Question 10:
A Section 404 Regional General Permit (RGP) No. 201902350 (RGP 50) is anticipated.
Based on current Right -of -Way Plans (dated September 2022), it is estimated that there
will be approximately 250 linear feet of temporary stream impacts associated with the
demolition of the existing bridge and dewatering during construction of the proposed
01 /27/23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-B6D2-A91 FB91 C562C
bridge. No jurisdictional wetland areas were identified or delineated within the study
area. Potential permanent fill impacts due to bridge construction may occur to Beaverdam
Creek but will be avoided if possible and minimized if necessary. Stream relocations
and/or channel modifications are not anticipated.
01 /27/23

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-B6D2-A91 FB91 C562C
DocuSigned by:
[451A63EQ92B74FR
"'^"'P
Prepared by:___Date: 2/1/2023
Jacob Elliott, AlCP
STV Engineers Inc., Transportation Planner
DocuSig�Lned by: t
Reviewed by: f�6WA4 Date: 2/1/2023
D F 9485A34 ..
Joe owar
Environmental Program Supervisor I
Docuftned by:
qht„ V300a
J Date: 2/1/2023
Gar an aywood, PE, CPM
Division Project Development Engineer
01 /27/23 10

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-136D2-A91 FB91 C562C
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Bridge No. 92 carrying SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over
Beaverdam Creek in Union County
BP10.11022.1
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masons)
The biological conclusion for the Atlantic pigtoe must be resolved before design
completion; this will be coordinated through NCDOT Division 10.
Agricultural Land Use
Farming operations in the vicinity of the bridge may be affected temporarily
during construction by using the approximately 3-mile offsite detour route.
Continued coordination should occur between NCDOT Division 10 and with the
owners of the agricultural lands that are temporarily impacted by the off -site
detour.
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorate)
The biological conclusion for the Carolina heelsplitter must be resolved before
design completion; this will be coordinated through NCDOT Division 10.
FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program
(FMP), to determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S
Memorandum of Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This project
involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to the
Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the
drainage structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-
year floodplain were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally
and vertically.
Property Owner Coordination
Continued coordination may be required with property owners to ensure property
access during the construction phase.
Section 404 Mitigation
A Section 404 Individual Permit may be required if the project impacts can't be
reduced below the permitting threshold. If mitigation is required, then it is
anticipated that the Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) will be used.
Stormwater
NCDOT "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters" will
be utilized throughout the life of the project. Erosion and sediment will be
controlled through the specification, installation, and maintenance of more
stringent erosion and sedimentation control methods.
Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus)
The USFWS IPaC protected species database reviewed on January 4, 2023 lists
the Tricolored bat as Proposed Endangered and is not yet afforded protection
under the Endangered Species Act. The Tricolored bat was proposed for listing as
Endangered by the USFWS in September 2022. If required, the Tricolored bat
01 /27/23 11

DocuSign Envelope ID: 262784D3-2723-4185-B6D2-A91 FB91 C562C
will be revisited under new guidance set forth by the USFWS. NCDOT is
committed to completing a bat assessment of appropriately sized structures within
30 days of removal.
01 /27/23 12

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 92 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment D
T & E Supplemental Information

Threatened & Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
NCDOT Division 10 —Bridge No. 93 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam Creak
Project Number WBS BP10.R022.1
STV Engineers, Inc. (STV) conducted field reviews of an approximate 4.4-acre study area on
March 29, 2022 and September 7, 2022. Additionally, a mussel survey was conducted by
Transystems on October 25, 2022. Prior to the field reviews, STV reviewed U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online databases for
information related to the occurrence of federal and state protected (threatened or endangered)
species in Union County. The USFWS IPaC protected species database, reviewed November 1,
2023, lists four federally protected species as occurring or having the potential to occur in the study
area including the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) which is protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act (Table 1). Additionally, the Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus)
has been proposed endangered and is included although the species is not currently protected. Per
NCNHP protected species occurrence records obtained on November 1, 2023, there are no known
occurrences of federally protected species within one mile of the study area. A brief description of
each species, including habitat requirements and physical characteristics, and biological
conclusion rendered based on surveys of the study area follow. Habitat requirements for each
species are based on current USFWS guidance and available literature.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species potentially occurring within the Study Areal
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Fusconaia masoni
Atlantic pigtoe
T
Yes
MANLAA
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
No Effect
Lasmi ona decorates
Carolina heels litter
E
Yes
MANLAA
Perim otis sub avus
Tricolored bat
PE
Yes
Unresolved
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Yes
No Effect
' IPaC data checked on November 1, 2023.
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
PE — Proposed Endangered
MANLAA — May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Atlantic pigtoe
USFWS optimal survey window: March 1 — November 1
The Atlantic pigtoe is a small freshwater mussel with a sub -rhomboidal shaped shell. The Atlantic
pigtoe rarely exceeds two inches in length, except in headwater stream reaches where specimens
may be elongated. Valves are compressed, the hinge ligament is relatively short and prominent,
and the umbo is positioned slightly anterior of the of the middle valve and is elevated above the
hingeline. The posterior ridge is angular and very distinct. The outer surface of the shell is yellow
to dark brown and parchment -like, while the inner layer is iridescent blue to salmon, white, or
orange. Young individuals may have greenish rays across the entire shell surface. Atlantic pigtoe
has interlocking hinge "teeth" on the inside of the shell to keep the two valves in proper alignment.
Historically, this species ranged from the James and Chowan River basins in Virginia and the
Supplemental Information — Union 92

Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear, Pee Dee, and Catawba River basins in North Carolina. The
preferred habitat of the Atlantic pigtoe consists of coarse sand and gravel. Previously, the best
populations were found in creeks and rivers with excellent water quality and silt -free substrates.
A mussel survey was conducted by Transystems on October 25, 2023, and a Freshwater Mussel
Survey Report was prepared in April 2023. The results of the mussel survey indicate that the study
area is suitable habitat for freshwater mussels, however no mussel species were observed during
the survey. Based on the survey results it was determined that impacts to the Atlantic pigtoe are
unlikely to occur in the study area and the recommended biological conclusion is `May Affect,
Not Likely to Adversely Affect'.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS optimal survey window: Late August - October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant species limited to the Piedmont regions
and counties of North and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall originating
from a cluster of tuberous roots. The plant's flower consists of yellow disk and ray flowers formed
on small heads less than 1.5 centimeter (cm) in diameter. The petals, or modified leaves, are two
to three cm long. The lanceolate leaves are arranged in an opposite pattern within the lower two-
thirds of the stem transitioning to alternate within the upper third. The typical habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower includes periodically maintained roadsides and utility line rights -of -way
(R/Ws), old pastures, edges of upland woods, and other disturbed open areas. Soils associated with
suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat generally include thin upland soils clayey in texture (and
often with substantial rock fragments) which have a high shrink -swell capacity. Flowering occurs
from August to the first frost of the year.
STV Environmental Scientists Joshua Kotheimer, PWS and Chris Sheldon conducted plant by
plant field surveys for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflowers on September 7, 2022, during the
flowering season and USFWS-designated optimal survey window. Suitable habitat was found
along the SR 1903 roadside and woodland edges, but no sunflowers were observed. Review of the
NCNHP records on November 1, 2023, revealed no documented occurrences or populations of
Schweinitz's sunflower in the study area or within one mile of the study area. Based on the
literature review and field survey conducted during the flowering season, it is determined that the
project would have `No Effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Bioloizical Conclusion: No Effect
Carolina heelsplitter
USFWS optimal survey window: March 1 — September 30
The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel species with an ovate, trapezoid -shaped shell. The
outer surface of the species' shell is yellow -green to brown in color with green -black rays, and the
inner shell is iridescent to mottled pale orange in color. The average size (width) of the shell is 78
millimeters (mm) across. The species is found in small to large streams and rivers with cool, clean,
well -oxygenated water and silt -free bottoms. Individuals are typically found in undercuts among
buried logs and rocks along well -shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots. Per the
USFWS's Carolina Heelsplitter Five -Year Review: (2019), eleven populations of Carolina
Supplemental Information - Union 92

heelsplitter are known to exist, three of which occur within North Carolina. Specifically, two small
remnant populations exist in Union County within the Catawba River system including one within
Waxhaw Creek and one within Sixmile Creek. Another small population is known to exist in
Union County within Goose Creek, a tributary to the Rocky River, located within the Pee Dee
River system.
A mussel survey was conducted by Transystems on October 25, 2023, and a Freshwater Mussel
Survey Report was prepared in April 2023. The results of the mussel survey indicate that the study
area is suitable habitat for freshwater mussels, however no mussel species were observed during
the survey. Based on the survey results it was determined that impacts to the Carolina heelsplitter
are unlikely to occur in the study area and the recommended biological conclusion is `May Affect,
Not Likely to Adversely Affect'.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Tricolored bat
USFWS optimal survey window: Undetermined
The Tricolored bat is one of the smallest bats native to North America with a body length of 3-3.5
inches. The Tricolored bat is distinguished by its unique tricolored fur that is dark at the tip and
base and lighter in the middle. Tricolored bats often appear orange to a pale yellow but may also
appear black, chocolate brown, or silvery -gray. Young Tricolored bats appear much darker than
the grayer adults. The range for the Tricolored bat stretches from Central America to Canada
including central and eastern United States. During the winter, Tricolored bats are found in mines
and caves. Where caves are sparse like the southern United States, Tricolored bats have been found
roosting in road -associated culverts, tree cavities and abandoned water wells. During the fall,
summer, and spring Tricolored bats are found in forested habitats. Tricolored bats primarily roost
among dead and live leaf clusters of live or recently dead deciduous hardwood trees. In the
southern portion of their range Tricolored bats will roost in Spanish moss (Tillandisa usneoides);
other roosting spots include, eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), barns, beneath porch roofs,
bridges, and concrete bunkers. Female Tricolored bats often return to the same summer roosting
locations year after year. In early evenings Tricolored bats forage at or above the tree level. Later
in the evening the Tricolored bat is more commonly found foraging over waterways and forests
edges.
Review of the NCNHP records obtained on November 1, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of
Tricolored bat within the study area or within one mile of the study area. Currently there is not a
protocol for the Tricolored bat as it is proposed for listing and is not yet afforded protection under
the Endangered Species Act. The Tricolored bat was proposed for listing as endangered by the
USFWS in September 2022. If required, the Tricolored bat will be revisited under new guidance
set forth by the USFWS. NCDOT is committed to completing a bat assessment of appropriately
sized structures within 30 days of removal. Due to the anticipated future listing the project has a
biological conclusion of `Unresolved' for Tricolored bat.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Supplemental Information - Union 92

Michaux's sumac
USFWS optimal survey window: May -October
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont,
grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well -drained sands or
sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or
submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings
along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of -
way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage; small
wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or
pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings
undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, the plant occurs on clayey soils derived
from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g.,
mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
STV Environmental Scientists Joshua Kotheimer, PWS and Chris Sheldon conducted plant by
plant field surveys for the presence of Michaux's sumac on September 7, 2022, during the
USFWS-designated optimal survey window. Suitable habitat was found along the SR 1903
roadside and woodland edges, but no Michaux's sumac were observed. Review of the NCNHP
records on November 1, 2023, revealed no documented occurrences or populations of Michaux's
sumac in the study area or within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and
field survey conducted during the flowering season, it is determined that the project would have
`No Effect' on Michaux's sumac.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is enforced by the USFWS. Golden eagles do not nest
in North Carolina. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to
large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites,
typically within one mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0 mile radius of the
project limits, was performed on March 31, 2022, using the latest color aerials. No water bodies
large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since
there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study area and the area within
660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NHP database on
November 1, 2023, revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study
area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this
project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species.
Supplemental Information - Union 92

BP10.R022) Questionnaire:
Existing Structure:
Can the existing bridge/culvert be removed during the winter months November 16 - March 14 ?
According to the contract time, the existing bridge should be able to be taken out by Winter Month. However,
it is up to contractor choice to do it outside of winter months as well.
Trees:
Can the trees in the project footprint be cut during the winter months (November 16 - March 14)?
Yes
Blasting:
Will blasting be used for thisproject? If so, will it occur between March 15 and November 15?
Not Anticipated
Percussive Activities:
What type of percussive activities will occur? (e.g., pile driving, guardrail installation
Piles Driving during bridge construction and Guardrail installation
Lighting:
Will temporary lighting for nighttime construction be necessary between March 15 and November 15?
Does permanent lighting exist in the project area and if so, will it be removed, or will new lighting be
added as a result of theproject?
No lighting is proposed for this project.

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
WBS# BP10.R022.1
Bridge No. 890092 Replacement on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam Creek
Union County, North Carolina
View of Bridge # 92 over Beaverdam Creek facing downstream.
Prepared For:
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Jared Gray
Biological Surveys Group -Environmental Analysis Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
[e-mail]
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
April 2023

Prepared by:
TRktNSYSTEMS
1 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27603
Contact Person:
Chris Sheats
[e-mail]
919-417-2732

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1
2.0 Waters Impacted................................................................................................................1
2.1 303(d) Classification........................................................................................................1
2.2 NPDES Discharges...........................................................................................................2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Description.................................................................2
3.1 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni).................................................................................2
3.1.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................2
3.2 Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)...................................................................2
3.2.1 Species Characteristics............................................................................................2
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements...................................................................3
4.0 Survey Efforts.....................................................................................................................3
4.1 Survey Methodology.......................................................................................................3
5.0 Results................................................................................................................................3
6.0 Discussion/Conclusions......................................................................................................4
7.0 Literature Cited..................................................................................................................5
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Locations
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge # 92
(BP10.R022.1) on Gilboa Road (SR 1903) over Beaverdam Creek in Union County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) GIS planning tool (IPaC Access date: November 30, 2022), the
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) are
identified as species that could be affected by this project. The Atlantic Pigtoe is listed as
Threatened and the Carolina Heelsplitter is listed as Endangered by the USFWS under the
Endangered Species Act and designated critical habitat has been established for both species.
The nearest designated critical habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is located in the Little River of the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin approximately 76 river miles (RM) away. The nearest designated
critical habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter is located approximately 50 RM away in both Goose
and Duck Creek of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin.
According to the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP, Access date: November 30,
2022), the nearest current Atlantic Pigtoe element occurrence EC) (ID # 22093) is in Lanes Creek
of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, approximately 11 RM away from the project (Figure 2). This
record was observed in September 2002. The nearest Carolina Heelsplitter EC) (ID # 21454) is in
Goose and Duck Creeks of the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, approximately 50 RM away from the
project (Figure 2). This record was first observed in August 1987, and was last observed in
March 2017.
SEPI was contracted by the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group to conduct surveys targeting both
the Atlantic Pigtoe and the Carolina Heelsplitter as part of the federal permitting process that
requires an evaluation of potential project -related impacts to federally protected species.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Beaverdam Creek is a tributary within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin (U.S. Geological Survey
[USGS] Hydrological Unit Code 03040105). Beaverdam Creek flows into Lanes Creek
approximately 9 RM downstream of the project.
2.1 303(d) Classification
The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 2022 Final 303(d) list was reviewed to
better understand water quality upstream of the project. Beaverdam Creek is on the 303(d) list,
within the survey reach, for exceeding copper thresholds(NCDEQ, 2022a).
Beaverdam Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report April 2023
Page 1

2.2 NPDES Discharges
There is no permitted discharge at the project site (NCDEQ, 2022b). The closest permitted
discharge is The Quikrete Companies, permitted for stormwater discharge into Wild Mouth
Branch, a tributary to Lanes Creek downstream of the project, approximately 14 RM away
(Permit # NCG070160) (Figure 3).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTION
3.1 Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a freshwater mussel reaching up to 60mm in length. This species is
characterized by having a sub -rhomboidal shaped shell with a distinct posterior ridge. The
umbo is elevated well above the dorsal margin and the beak cavity is shallow. The periostracum
is yellow to dark brown and has a parchment- like texture (Bogan 2002, Bogan and Alderman
2008). Pseudocardinal and lateral teeth are well developed except for the anterior
pseudocardinal tooth in the right valve, while the interdental tooth is absent in the left valve
(USFWS 2018b).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic breeder, gravid females have been found from late June to
early July (Fuller 1973). Fish hosts for this species include Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis
macrochirus), Shield Darter (Percina peltata), Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Rosefin
Shiner (Lythrurus ardens) and Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) (Watters and O'Dee 1997,
Wolf and Emrick 2011).
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Atlantic Pigtoe is endemic to the southern Atlantic Slope and is found from the Ogeechee
River Basin in Georgia to the James River Basin in Virginia. In North Carolina, this species is
known from the Catawba, Yadkin -Pee Dee, Cape Fear, Neuse, Pamlico and Roanoke River basins
(Johnson 1970, Bogan 2002). This species can be found in medium to large streams with clean,
swift waters and a stable gravel or sand and gravel substrate. Individuals are often found on the
downstream edge of riffle areas.
3.2 Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
3.2.1 Species Characteristics
The Carolina Heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel with an average length of 78 mm, an average
height of 43 mm and a mean width of 27 mm (Keferl and Shelley 1988). This species is
characterized by having an ovate trapezoid shaped shell with a distinct step down from the
umbo. The presence of an upturned dorsal shell margin, a double ridge along the posterior -
dorsal shell margin and an overall relatively thin shell are also distinguishing characteristics for
this species.
Beaverdam Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report April 2023
Page 2

The Carolina Heelsplitters' reproductive cycle includes a larval stage in which the glochidium
will act as an obligate parasite on a host fish to continue development. Host fish of this species
include several species of minnows and some sunfish species (Eads et al. 2010).
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The Carolina Heelsplitter was first described by Lea, 1852 as Unio decoratus from specimens
collected in the Saluda-Wateree River System in what was formerly known as the Abbeville
District in west -central South Carolina. The Carolina Heelsplitter is endemic to the southeastern
Atlantic Slope and historically occurred in Piedmont streams and small rivers in the Carolina and
Charlotte Slate belts. Currently, 11 extant populations are known including 5 from the Santee, 2
in the Pee Dee, 2 in the Savannah and 2 in the Saluda basins. These populations are believed to
be small and highly isolated from on other by impoundments or other extensive reaches of
unsuitable habitats. Carolina Heelsplitters' occur primarily in small to mid -sized streams with
stable, vegetated banks and substrates ranging from muddy sand to muddy gravel (Clark 1985,
Keferl 1991). Prior research on Carolina Heelsplitters is limited and has primarily focused on
aspects of reproductive ecology, habitat ecology and distribution (Bogan 2002, Ward et al.
2007, Bogan et al. 2008, Eads et al. 2010, Bogan and Raley 2012).
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Field efforts were conducted by SEPI personnel Chris Sheats (ES Permit # 22-ES00558, 22-
SF00249) and Tori Fowler on October 25, 2022. Beaverdam Creek was surveyed for a total of
three person hours.
4.1 Survey Methodology
A freshwater mussel survey was conducted from 100 meters upstream of the bridge to 400
meters downstream, totaling 500 meters. Visual and tactile surveys were completed using
bathyscopes.
5.0 RESULTS
The project vicinity was under "abnormally dry" drought conditions. Beaverdam Creek was dry
throughout majority of the survey reach, with sand, silt, cobble and bedrock dominated system
with riffle/run/pool habitats. Portions of the survey reach were dry in riffles and runs, but had
water interspersed in pools with no flow. Pool depths ranged from 0.1— 0.5 meter. The stream
width was between two to four meters. Riparian buffers were nearly absent on the left
descending bank in the downstream portion of the survey, with surrounding land -use being
residential. The riparian buffer along the upstream portion was narrow to moderate, with
surrounding land -use mainly composed of agricultural and rural areas. There was no evidence
of freshwater mussels throughout Beaverdam Creek. There were observations of two species of
snails; the bladder snail (Physid sp.), and the two -ridge ramshorn (Helisoma anceps). The
Atlantic Pigtoe or Carolina Heelsplitter was not observed during the survey efforts.
Beaverdam Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report April 2023
Page 3

6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
Physical habitat conditions such as defined stream channel and substrate composition that are
associated with both target species were present, but the survey efforts resulted in no
observations of the Atlantic Pigtoe or Carolina Heelsplitter in Beaverdam Creek. No evidence of
freshwater mussels was observed. The survey efforts detailed in the report serve to update
species information within Beaverdam Creek.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Atlantic Pigtoe: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect
Although there were portions of the survey reach with appropriate habitat, there were no
Atlantic Pigtoe individuals found. Based on the presence of habitat in Beaverdam Creek, the
project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Atlantic Pigtoe.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Atlantic Pigtoe Designated Critical Habitat: No Effect
Designated critical habitat for the Atlantic Pigtoe is not identified in Beaverdam Creek. The
nearest designated critical habitat is located 76 RM away in the Little River, of the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River Basin. The proposed project will have "No Effect" on the designated critical habitat
for this species.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Carolina Heelsplitter: May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Although there were portions of the survey reach with appropriate habitat, there were no
Carolina Heelsplitter individuals found. Based on the presence of habitat and the results of the
survey, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Carolina Heelsplitter.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for CH Designated Critical Habitat: No Effect
Designated critical habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter is not identified in Beaverdam Creek.
The nearest designated critical habitat is located 50 RM away in Goose and Duck Creeks of the
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The proposed project will have "No Effect" on the designated
critical habitat for this species.
The federal action agency, or its nonfederal designee (NCDOT), must render a biological
conclusion for each species.
Beaverdam Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report April 2023
Page 4

7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Bogan AE (2002) Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Bogan AE, Alderman JM (2008) Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of South Carolina.
North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, North Carolina Freshwater Bivalve
Conservation Partnership.
Bogan AE, Raley ME (2012) Comparison of Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata (Lea,
1852)) populations (Molluscs: Bivalvia: Unionidae). Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC pp 1-32.
Clarke AH (1985) The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology pp 1-75.
Eads CB, Bringolf RB, Greiner RD, Bogan AE, Levine JF (2010) Fish hosts of the Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a federally -endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:
Unionidae). American Malacological Bulletin 28:151-158.
Fuller, SLH. 1973. Fusconaia masoni (Conrad 1834) (Bivalvia: Unionacea) in the Atlantic drainage
of the Southeastern United States. Malacological Review 6:105-117.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Molluscs: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology
140(6):263-449.
Keferl, E.P. and Shelly, R.M. 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. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Keferl EP (1991) A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
freshwater mussels endemic to the Carolinas. Report prepared for US Fish and Wildlife
Service and North Carolina Wild Resources Commission pp 1-29.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)a. Division of Water Resources.
2022. 2022 North Carolina Final 303(d) List. https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/water-planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files (Accessed November 30, 2022.)
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)b. Online GIS NPDES Stormwater
Permits. https://data
ncdenr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/aec2efd41f844be499db8adef43f9fd3 0 (Accessed
November 30, 2022.)
Beaverdam Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report April 2023
Page 5

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2022. Natural Heritage Element
Occurrence. (Accessed November 30, 2022.).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation. Online Linkage:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (November 30, 2022).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat Designation for
Atlantic Pigtoe. 50 CFR 17: 83 FIR 51570, 51570-51609 Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2018-
0046.
Ward S, Augspurger T, Dwyer FJ, Kane C, Ingersoll CG (2007) Risk assessment of water quality in
three North Carolina, USA, streams supporting federally endangered freshwater mussels
(Unionidae). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 6:2075-85.
Watters, G.T. and S.H. O'Dee 1997. Identification of potential host: Elliptio fisheriana (Lea,
1838), Fusconaia masoni (Conrad, 1834), Fusconaia flava (Rafinesque, 1820), and
Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819). Triannual Unionid Report No. 13:38.
Wolf, ED and Emrick V. 2011. Propagation and Culture of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Beaverdam Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report April 2023
Page 6

APPENDIX A
Figures
Beaverdam Creek Freshwater Mussel Survey Report April 2023
Page 7

741,,rti
k ;f
* i r # �• `
_*tir • ` Souses: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
i,
_ UWS, intamap, INCREMEN7 P,
NRCan, ESFi Japan, MELI, EsriChina
(Hang Kong), ESFi Korea, Esri
. z _
4.
4 4 }
* % !.
00
lk
CA
.41
x s
{
.' W .*
R �
Bridge # 89009,
Survey Reach
Streams
Prepared By: Prepwed For BP10.R022.1 Bridge #890092 Replacement x_der_ Figure
on SR 1908 (Gilboa Road) over i- GMS
TI H iTE1 -rl Beaverdam creek Ek�0 ` MO 400
Mcinity Map and Survey Locations Feet
rn� Union County, North Carolina Mar .2423

�-0GUM1,j G +
I
ti
C I YI'�I I
West Fork
Little River
Little
[ ngobid
River
kil.fi:�k•y �
'P�YI I'I'
' ! AIIr'na:k.
I
�y.� .. .. •��It.
Iv '.mod �.
Duc k C reek {
G4 eCreek
'ol6r}I
ks
+
p
x
r
t k��
5 '
Lanes Creek`frt
} Y
Bridge IF 9009 `-+'.r,rk,rry
£r.
r
Atlantic Pigtoe (EO 409) r:"I I—' ., r.rlatl�n r
Carolina Heelsplitter (EO 4 1454)
Atlantic Pigtoe Critical Habitat Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, inQernent PCarp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAD, NPS, NRCAN,Geo9ase, IGN, Kadpster NL, Ordnance Surrey, ESFi
=Carolina Heelsplitter Critical Habitat R.d Japan, METI, EsriChine (Hong Kong), (4 OpenStredrylap LDntributur, and
the G IS Use Community
Prepared By: F•spa•-c Far: BP10.R022.1 Bridge #890092 Replacement {huc:,A!d!3y Figure
on R 1908 (Gilboa Road) over °� OMD g
Beaverdam creekTRAWMEMS
* .11
x USFWS Element Occurrences and Critical Habitat �'•'a=�
Tfl� Union County, North Carolina _ . _._-

PrEaarEd By: F•e.r H BP1 O.R022.1 Bridge #890092 Replacement Figure
on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over
Beaverdam Creek
� T(�7 OF HPDES Discharges
rA Union County. North Carolina - t.=-

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 92 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment E
No Archaeological Survey Required Form;
Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form;
Tribal Coordination Letter, Catawba Indian Nation Response Letter

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
21-11-0025
G�1►t HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
BP10-R022
County:
Union
WBSNo.:
BP10.R022
Document
T e:
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
X State Federal
Federal
Permits):
X Yes No
Permit
T e(s):
USACE
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 92 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam
Creek (no off -site detour specified in review request).
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
DESCRIPTION OF REVIEWACTIVITIES, RESULTS, AND CONCLUSIONS: HPOWeb reviewed on 16
December 2021 and yielded no NR, SL, LD, DE, or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects
(APE). Union County current GIS mapping, aerial photography, and tax information indicated
an APE of woodland and cultivated fields, containing four residential properties dating from the
1930s to the 2000s (viewed 16 December 2021). Pre-1970 resources are unexceptional and
altered examples of their types. Built in 1963, Bridge No. 92 is not eligible for listing in the
National Register as it is neither aesthetically nor technologically significant according to the
NCDOT Historic Bridge Inventory. Google Maps "Street View" confirmed the absence of
significant architectural and landscape resources in the APE (viewed 16 December 2021).
No architectural survey is required for the project as currently defined.
WHY THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION PROVIDES A RELIABLE BASIS FOR REASONABLY PREDICTING THAT
THERE ARE NO UNIDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL OR LANDSCAPE RESOURCES IN
THEPROJECTAREA: APE extends 500 feet from either end of the existing bridge (NW -SE) and
100 feet to either side of the SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) centerline (NE -SW) (see attached). The
comprehensive architectural survey of the county (1982) and later additions record no
properties in the APE (Suzanne S. Pickens, ed., 'Sweet Union "-AnArchitectural and Historical Survey ofUnion
County, North Carolina Monroe, NC: Union County Board of Commissioners, Monroe -Union County Historic Properties
Commission, and Union County Historical Society, 199o)). County GIS/tax materials and other visuals
support the absence of significant architectural and landscape resources. No National Register -
listed or -eligible properties are located within the APE.
Should the project limits or design change, please notify
NCDOT--Historic Architecture as additional review may be necessary.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
X Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
NCDOT Architectural Historian
• December 1
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.

i
n
qk
Project Location
SR 1903—Gilboa Road 0
BP10-R022 Bridge No. 92 Replacement Union County
W BS No. BP10. R022 Base map: H POWeb, nts
N CDOT — H i stor i s Ar c h i tertu re
December 2021
PATrack ngNo. 21-11-0025
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEYREQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.

IiIIA
BP10.R022 Gilboa Rd study area
M
M
N
2
50
_ 500 100
Total study area:
1000 ft length x 200 ft width
from CIL structure
1119/2021, 2:04:26 PM
Override t
Signs
Ff Pedestrian Bridge
Other Structures
Cantilever Sign
Tunnel
Ferry Ramp
Overhead Sign
Railroad Bridge
V Pavement an Piles
T-Pole Sign
Culvert
Private Structure
Pedestrian Structures
ir� Pipe
e P
r� Vehicular Underpa5s
FJPedestrian Walkway
Bridge Structures
" Pedestrian Underpass
li Bridge
Ef
1-2.257
0 0.01 0.03 0.06 mi
0 0013 005 0. 1 +m
NC00T GAS Llryl Sau Q Eft, AvW. 6S, uSGS, WA NASlk CGIAR %
Rchnxn. NCEAS. NLS, OS, KINA Geodaac>] ,m, ICik:waur =t
G^Sk G[dmW, FEwN Lap and i.c GiS — corms 0. f m
Cora rif wps Cansbumri, Lkl� CouneJ, S=k Of N&.Ch Carolm DOT,
19 NCOCT 2015
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.

Project Tracking No.
21-11-0025
A°° �� . N O ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
`Ypa t `� This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this
�` a °' project. It is not valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must
w`���` consult separately with the Historic Architecture and Landscapes Team.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
County: Union
WBS No: BP 1 O.R022 Document.
Federal Aid No: Funding:
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No
Project Description:
State Minimum Criteria Checklist
® State ❑ Federal
Permit Type: USACE;
NCDWR
Replace Bridge 92 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Rd.) over Beaverdam Creek in Union County. The Area
of Potential Effects (A.P.E.), based upon the study area provided by the project manager, is
approximately 270 meters (900 ft.) long and 60 meters (200 ft.) wide. The project is state funded
and will require federal permits. Easements will be required. Since the proj ect will require federal
permits, this review is conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The review included an examination of a topographic map, the Union County web soil survey, an
aerial photograph, and listings of previously recorded sites, previous archaeological surveys, and
previous environmental reviews at the Office of State Archaeology (O.S.A.). SR 1903 is oriented
approximately east -west.
The topographic map (Wingate) shows the study area is located in a wide creek valley. The
landform on the east side of the bridge is a wide, level floodplain. Much of the landform is depicted
as cleared land (agriculture?), although the northeast quadrant is wooded. A seasonal drainage
runs along the south side of the road in the southeast quadrant. The landform on the west side of
the bridge is a ridge toe or terrace. It is depicted as cleared land. No structures are shown in the
study area. In this region, level landforms near streams have a moderate to high potential for
rehistoric archaeological sites, depending upon the distance from and elevation above a stream.
The Union County web soil survey shows Chewacla silt loam (0-2% slopes), frequently flooded,
a poorly drained soil found on floodplains, occupies most of the study area on both sides of the
bridge. Goldston very channery silty loam (4-15% slopes), a well drained soil found on ridge
slopes, occupies the west end. Cid channery silt loam (1-5% slopes), a moderately well drained
soil found on ridges (interfluves), occupies the east end.
The aerial photograph shows the land use in the study area is a mix of wooded, cleared and
residential yards. The northwest quadrant is a cleared yard. The southwest quadrant is wooded
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM `NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
1 of 6

Project Tracking No.
21-11-0025
next to the bridge, and residential yard/driveway at the west end. The southeast quadrant is cleared
(pasture/hay?). The northeast quadrant is wooded (hardwoods).
A review of information at the O. S.A. shows there are no previously recorded archaeological sites
near the study area. The study area is not within any previous archaeological surveys. There are
no projects within or adjacent to the study area that have been reviewed by the State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO).
(This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized
tribes have expressed an interest: the Catawba Indian Nation. We recommend that you ensure that
this documentation is forwarded to these tribes using the process described in the current NCDOT
Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.)
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably
predicting that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
Most of the study area is occupied by landforms with poorly drained soils. The northwest and
southwest quadrants appear to be residential yards. Much of the southeast quadrant appears to be
occupied by a seasonal drainage.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST: NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED
Caleb Smith
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST II
1 / 16/2022
Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM `NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
2 of 6

Project Tracking No.
21-11-0025
BARR
STANLY
MONTGOM RY
t
�MECKLINIEWR(l
4
rF kklvhy
RICH ONO
L P2Fk Rd u0myrile
indfan Trail,
4L
WbddJnqMn
4ro
N11 i..T,
Waslay CWpd 7;1
,74
Polklon
Mmrdw
R
eiitiro
AN
Wad Na am
o
litL
Scmxces, F-sr i.
HERE, C armin. IJ SGS, ntL-F rrsp,
INC R EMEWF P. R RCan. Fs ri Japan, ME Tl, FSF I Gtn(n'911.,
CcHTnTw n 4
2020 PROGRAMUA TIC AGREEVIENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM WO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
3 of 6

Project Tracking No.
21-11-0025
r
:y
-- Wingate Marshville k•_
41
n
ti,x �_—_r. - =.+,' Ili ..l�.'.�. �.i � .+� .. I �'k �/.: •.♦�`�+Sy .-'. I ,j+y.. I
`'
mml
_
'ri fir' ,
2020 PR OGRAARIA TIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM `NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
4 of 6

Project Tracking No.
21-11-0025
F %�W I x
y
xljp—
jdm
-� �r-
=�
�'� ■ c 1 lvativrel Gec�iaphic�ad2ty�
2020 PROGRAMNI4TIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAM `NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
5 of 6

Project Tracking No.
21-11-0025
- , >r
i 'tom-, ',� y'I� � r+•� -+ r�� ; .��. . -�
.+ • `'h .fit � � }- X w
iy T . ti
'r
1 _
yIN,yi
�p r
A
46
2020PROGRAMUATIC AGREEMENTARCHAEOLOGY TEAM `NOARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED" FORM
6 of 6

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVFRNOR
January 25, 2022
Dr. Wenonah Haire
Catawba Indian Nation Eastern
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Dear Dr. Haire,
J. ERIC BOYETTE
SFCRFT,ARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is starting the project development, environmental, and
engineering studies for the replacement of Bridge No. 890092 on SR 1903 (Gilboa Road) over Beaverdam Creek in
Union County as project BPI O.R022.I. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead federal agency and a
Permit is anticipated under the Section 404 Process with the USACE. A project vicinity map is attached. The
coordinates of this project are approximately 34.942081,-80.399784.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential environmental
impacts of the project including recommendation of alternates to be studied. Your comments may be used in the
preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Environmental Document.
In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, we also request that you inform us of any historic properties of
traditional religious or cultural importance that you are aware of that may be affected by the proposed project. Be
assured that, in accordance with confidentiality and disclosure stipulations in Section 304 of the NHPA, we will
maintain strict confidentiality about certain types of information regarding historic properties.
Please respond by February 25, 2022 so that your comments can be used in the scoping of this project. If you have
any questions concerning this project, or would like any additional information, please contact me at
[e-mail] or [phone].
Thank you,
QcrculSigned by:
woola
Gara d aywooJd, P.E.
NCDOT Division 10 - Bridge Program Manager
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Project Manager
Mailing Address: Telephone: [phone] NCDOT Highway Division 10 Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 716 WEST MAIN STREET
HIGHWAY DIVISION 10 NDOT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 ALBEMARLE, NC 29001
716 WEST MAIN STREET Wehsite: www.ncdot.gov
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
Office 803-328-2427
Fax [phone]
February 25, 2022
Attention: Garland Haywood
NC Department of Transportation
716 West Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
Replacement of Bridge No. 890092 on SR 1903 over Beaverdam Creek in Union County
2022-193-87 as project BP10.R022.1
Dear Mr. Haywood,
The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.
If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer