20241502 Ver 1_BP10-R008 Permit Cover Letter_With_Attachments (002)_20241104

►${RTFro
aSF S
u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER J.R. "JOEY" HOPKINS
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 1, 2024
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. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Rd) over Little Richardson Creek (WS-IV;CA)
Union County, NC
WBS Number: BP10-RO08 (Formerly 17.BP10.R.127)
Dear Mr. Brumagin:
We are requesting a Section 404 Regional General Permit (RGP) 50 for work associated with the
replacement of Bridge No. 146 with a new bridge at the same location over Little Richardson Creek (WS-
IV;CA) on SR 2102 in Union County. The project proposes replacing the existing 42-foot two-lane bridge
structure with an approximately 100-foot structure that includes two 10-foot travel lanes and 3'-11" paved
shoulders on either side of the bridge. There will be bank stabilization installed along Little Richardson
Creek at the end of a drainage ditch. There will be 15 linear feet (LF) of permanent stream impacts for
bank stabilization and 69 LF of permanent stream impacts for a channel relocation and armoring. There
will be 150 LF of temporary impacts for construction and demolition related to the bridge replacement
(Attachments A and B). Due to the minor permanent impacts associated with the project, mitigation is not
being proposed. As part of the environmental review, a Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist was
completed for the project (See Attachment Q.
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
7, 2021. A No Archaeological Survey Required Form was provided by the NCDOT Archaeologist on
January 4, 2022 (Attachment E). A letter was sent to the Catawba Indian Nation informing them of the
proposed bridge replacement project on September 27, 2024 (Attachment E). No response was received
from the Catawba Indian Nation.
Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 10
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001

Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ
website lists Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) and
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorate) as endangered within the study area. There is habitat in the
study area for Schweinitz's sunflower and Michaux's sumac. No Schweinitz's sunflowers or Michaux's
sumac were found during field surveys of the study area conducted on October 3, 2018, May 22, 2019,
June 21, 2019 and September 12, 2024. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database, accessed October 1, 2024, found no occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower or
Michaux's sumac within 1.0 mile of the study area. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached
for Michaux's sumac and Schweinitz's sunflower (Attachment D).
A mussel survey was conducted on September 10, 2024, and a Freshwater Mussel Survey Report was
prepared on October 24, 2024. The results of the mussel survey indicate that the study area contains low
quality habitat for freshwater mussels, 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 for the species is `May Affect -Not Likely to Adversely
Affect'.
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. The study area, crossing over Little Richardson Creek, falls within 500 feet of the border
of Lake Monroe, a 250-acre class WS-IV; CA surface water. Due to the close proximity of the lake to the
project limits it was determined that an eagle survey was necessary. A survey of the study area and the
area within 660 feet of the project limits was conducted on June 21, 2019. There were no nests or eagles
observed during the eagle survey. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP element occurrence records
obtained on October 1, 2024, revealed no known occurrences of bald eagle within one mile of the study
area. Based on the desktop review and NCNHP element occurrence records, it is determined that the
project would have no effect on bald eagle.
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,
,7odM. ffbwY
Joel Howard,
NCDOT Division 10 PDEA Engineer

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 — Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form; No
Archaeological Survey Required Form; Tribal Coordination Letter

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over Little Richardson Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment A
Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan

°�
k it ZIV North Carolina Department of Transportation (_07,
Highway Stormwater Program STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,,
(Version 2.08; Released April 2018) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 17BP.10.R.127 TIP No.: B-5120 Count ies : Union Page 1 of 1
General Project Information
WBS Element:
17BP.10.R.127 ITIP Number: SF-890146 Project Type: Bridge Replacement Date: 10/15/2019
NCDOT Contact:
Marc Shown
Contractor / Designer:
STV Engineering, Inc. / Tiffany Preddy
Address:
1020 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Address:
900 West Trade Street, Ste. 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone:
[phone]
Phone:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
tiffany.preddyastvinc.com
City/Town:
Monroe,NC
County(ies):
I Union
River Basin(s):
Yadkin -Pee Dee
ICAMA County?
I No
Wetlands within Project Limits?
No
Project Description
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
0.122 Surrounding Land Use: Wooded
Proposed Project
Existing Site
Project Built -Upon Area (ac.)
0.36 ac.
0.3 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description:
Bridge : Two 10' lanes, 3'-11" paved shoulders
Approach: Two 10' lanes, variable paved shoulders
Bridge: Two 9' lanes, 3' shoulders
Approach: Two 9' lanes, 6' grassed shoulders
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Design/Future: 1800 Year: 2025
Existing: 900 Year: 2013
General Project Narrative:
(Description of Minimization of Water
Quality Impacts)
The existing 42' double -span bridge over Little Richardson Creek on SR 2102 (Medlin Road) is being replaced with a 100' double -span bridge with a span arrangement of 1 @35'
and 1 @65' (24" cored slab). The bridge will have 1.5:1 sloping abutments. Impervious dikes will be used around the existing southern abutment and central pier to prevent the
sediment from entering the stream during the removal of existing bridge and will be dewatered using filter fabric sediment bags as needed. Overall drainage patterns will be
maintained. There are roadside ditches that flow towards the bridge on both sides of the structure. The proposed design will interfere with two of the existing ditches flow
patterns. Proposed ditches will be used to maintain flow to the bridge. On the end side of the bridge, a traffic bearing grated drop inlet with double frame and grates (2GI) was
placed on the right side of the roadway in the shoulder berm gutter to pick up runoff from the bridge. Class -II riprap abutment protection on the south bank of the stream and
around the northern abutment are proposed to prevent future erosion and stream migration. Deck drains are needed. No dissipater pads were used because the Class -II riprap
will prevent erosion and dissipate flow.
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body (1):
Little Richardson Creek
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
13-17-36-4- 2
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Water Supply IV S-I
Supplemental Classification:
Critical Area
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
No Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Yes
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? iYes
Dissi ator Pads Provided in Buffer? INo
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
No
(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)

E
L
Q
O
0
0
1=
E
E
L
O
c
E
L
0)
a
U
S� ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
STAR 9TATH aaaecr RHPHRHNCH NQ TOTAL
NnT 9HHHT9
See Sheet to For Index Sheets
17BP.10.R.127
See Sheet i B For Standardrd Symbology Sheet
DIVISION (OF HIGHWAYS
srwTe exa.Nn n. w. nRa.Nn ecua�rrwN
N
17BP.10.R.127 P.E.
1
/
17BP.10.R.127 W & UTILITY
•
_
BEGIN PRO(sJaEuCsTel
UNIONCO TY
O
I
VI
' 8
LOCATION: BRIDGE #890146 OVER LITTLE RICHARDSON CREEK
ON SR 2102 (MEDLIN RD)
NORTH cAROLINA
l�
END PROJECT
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, & STRUCTURE
�
• •
a
ry ��Ra
SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
°
VICINITY MAP N
•--�� DETOUR N.T.S.
nSRs
V
'
I
I�
BEGIN PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.127 /
/ / \ �s j / END PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.127
STA.13 + 70.00 l
W
— — — — — — —�
—L— �- —L— STA. 20+I5.00
1
------'
—SITE
2
BEGIN BRIDGE
—L— STA. 15+99.1
r---------
SITE 1
/
BEL WNI CHURCH RD
—
—
AW
I_L_
t
-----
SR2102 (MEDLIN RD)
—_
I t
s
2106)
/RDSON
RICHA /'
.._—s—...
/ /
LITTLE :
=REEK END BRIDGE SITE 4
—L— STA. 17+01.87
SITE 3 t t
/�.
t t
l t
l i
!
I'll
1
40' 0' 40,
L•
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
Permit Drawing
Sheet 1 Of 7
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
�I
TO
THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD H.
V
"HYDRA
GRAPHIC SCALES
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTH
PLANS PREPARED FOR THE NCDOT BY:
STV Engineers, Inc.
STv1 1�0 900 west 1rade St.. Suite 715
ULICS
ENGINEER
20
10 0 20 40
ADT 2013 = 900
��2��. NC cdarlafl
ee se e Nc
Number2B20F-o9e1
ue,
p esoerp
LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R.127 = 0.122 MILES
4 e
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
ADT 2025 = 1800
14
PLANS
DHV = N/A
LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS 1711P.161.R.127 0.019 MILES
—
PE
20
10 0 20 40
D = N/A
TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS 17BP.IO.R.127 = 0.103 MILES
J
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
NIKKI T. HONEYCUTT, PE
a
.4
srGNATURE:
ROADWAY
T = 6%
APRIL4,2019
DESIGN
•��� a®4@
PROJECT ENGINEER
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
O
= 45 MPH
ENGINEER
°� TRI,
VV
4
2 0 4 8
NCDOT CONTACT: GARLAND HAYWOOD, PE
LETTING DATE:
CLARK E. GROVES
PROJECT DESIGNER
FUNC. CLASSIFICATION:
Division Bridge Manager
JANUARY 15, 2020
t
MINOR COLLECTOR
�%
)�
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
P.E.
SIGNATURE:

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
LEGEND
\ I
®DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER \ \
® SURFDENOTES ACE WATERTS IN \ Jsf\ + MES RANDY MULLIS x
\\ \ DB 606 PG 268
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC)
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.09
150
SW IMPACTS
PERMANAN ET
0.01
84
SW IMPACTS
JAMES RANDY MULLIS
SUSAN W. MULLIS / // TEMPORARY IMPACTS
DB 595 PG 465 // // IN SURFACE WATER =S1
142 LF
/ / c
PUE PUE PUE PUE
PUE-4UE
d __------ SOiL � OPUE—
1
_F F F ((��
—L—
(MEDUN ROAD)
�>
/ c c
L ts
j 15
JS
K
LITTLE RICHAROSON CREE
DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6"
5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+00
/ TO STA. 16+20 RT AND FROM
1S / STA.16+60 TO STA.16+85 RT
40' 0' 40'
GRAPHIC SCALE
Permit Drawing
Sheet 2 of 7
STV6TV Engineers, Suite
1 1QQ 900west Trade 20 suite 715
Charlotte, NC 28202
NC License Number F-0991
83
HSRS 2
00�
CO
RN/ SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER I ENGINEER
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
GRADY RREEID HILL
JUDY F. HILL
DB 507 PG 384
[INSURFACE"�
ANENT PACTS
ATER =S2
PUE
'
—PUS JS
C E——Js—.PIE../
C
PUE O
—X X
X
X X—X
C
T < -
-L—
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER
69 LF
DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6"
5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+00
TO STA. 16+20 RT AND FROM
STA. 16 + 60 TO STA. 16 + 85 RT
O
CITY OF MONROE
DB 130 PG 138
DB 130 PG 150
ZZ
_ (MEDUN ROAp)
----- F — F ---
Js
s �
Js�
JS� JS ,S .. 2- 24'CMP
I
TEMPORARY IMPACTS ( BST
IN SURFACE WATER =S4 1 1
8 LF 1 /
1 1
=S3 /
ZZ
1 1
1 1
/ 1
1 /
/ 1
1 1
1 /
1 /
1 /
/ 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
/ 1
/ 1
1 /
/ 1

�A —'1STSTVEngeInc.
s
900 West �BP.IO.RJ27 3adSt,,SLEGEND Ch ad Otte, NC 28202
NC License Number F-0991 PW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
® DENOTES TEMPORARY \ \�� `� \ _N
— i / / >' /J /// ENGINEER ENGINEER
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER � � � � // /
® DENOTES IMPACTS IN — w�}�� ^
SURFACE WATER '"� \15� \ + M S RANDY MULLIS /// �� 8i3 /
v� DB- GOr P - 268
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC)
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.09
150
SW IMPACTS
PERMANANET
0.01
84
SW IMPACTS
// / 00�
B,r 11�,
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
/�
GRADY REID HILL
JUDY F. HILL
e55— i / / v
WDB 507 PG 38�
—JAMES RANDY' MULLIS �� /' _ - vWe
SU,SAN W.MULLIS TEMPORARY IMPACTS
DB 595� PG 465- _ IN SURFACE WATER =S1 I /
� � � i � � i � v � 142 LF � — l / I � PERMANENT IMPACTS �
�v �� IN SURFACE WATER =S2
15 LF
PUBPUE )IE �UE P E PU� C
V A ��� PUE �� TS I
SOIL i� OPUE \ / / / --/� I5 �PU�
L _ m \ — ✓ / PUE is C PU Ste.
UE
V A _ �F —X X L_ �. "�
Jr' F A F — — — , _ A — X X- ..
X= X
1 — -
-L— -
-- _--------
// SR 2/02 / ' _ ------ — — — —
_— (MEDLIN ROAD) / / —L—
102
(UPC Al ROAD)
=5007` — _ F —
�s
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
R-- IN SURFACE WATER =S4
— �' i'�K ���� �/ 8 LF
—_ _ 555— _ k �iSON CREE �i ^50ID-1
-- _ �� RICHgR� �_' PERMANENT IMPACTS
v / -- _j LITTLE IN SURFACE WATER =S369 LF
r7=7
_
DECK DRAINS (TYP.)8"X 6"
— - 5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+00
i
JS — ^— — DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6" TO STA. 16+20 RT AND FROM
/ ��! —�>------- 5'CENTER FROM STA.16+00 STA. 16+60 TO STA. 16+85 RT
Z��l✓�-- --- TO STA.16+20 RT AND FROM
15���T, STA. 16+60 TO STA. 16+85 RT // // Z�
CITY OF MONROE
,DB I30 PG I38
DB 130 PG/ 150 /
fl
�IT—
40' 0' 40' � / �� — 1
GRAPHIC SCALE —ti--
Permit Drawing
Sheet 3 of 7
/ T,—

_ — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LEGEND — — —
®DENOTES TEMPORARY --------------
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER � i
® DENOTES IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WATER 1�M` M
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT
AREA (AC)
LENGTH (FT)
TEMPORARY
0.09
150
SW IMPACTS
PERMANANET
0.01
84
SW IMPACTS
/
PUE
pUE -
pUE -
POE
—L—
SR 2102
(MEDLIN ROAD)
i
JS�
LITTLE RICHARDSON CREEK
is
20' l
5� rf1'1
20' 0' 20'
GRAPHIC SCALE
Permit Drawing
Sheet 5 of 7
JAMES RANNDDY MULLIS
\ SUSAN W. MULLIS
pp} DB 595 PG 465
Q PUEQ t0
a a
chi UE PUE
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S6
15 LF
PUE PUE PUE PUE
R C3
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S1
142 LF
DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6"
5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+00
TO STA. 16+20 RT AND FROM
STA. 16 + 60 TO STA. 16 + 85 RT
STV En.-i I1C21'S, Inc. PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
STV100 900 West Trade Sl- Suite 715 17BP.10.RJ27 5
Charlotte, NC 28202
NC License Number F-0991 PW SHEET NO.
DES
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
3
tiSR�
2p07
J I l DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
O UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
GRADY REID HILL
C N JUDY F. HILL
/ DB 507 PG 384 (6UpF
UE PUE PU E - PUE - PUE
JS--""_ s JS_ PUE
is IS
_is
< --- c
X
'C X X-X X
DECK DRAINS (TYP.) 8" X 6"
5' CENTER FROM STA. 16+00
TO STA. 16+20 RT AND FROM
STA. 16+60 TO STA. 16+85 RT
Q
CITY OF MONROE
DB 130 PG 138
DB 130 PG 150
PERMANENT IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S5
69 LF
is -
is Js JS-,
TEMPORARY IMPACTS
IN SURFACE WATER =S4
8 LF
T

NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
ADDRESS
1 NAMES RANDY MULLIS 2307 MEDLIN ROAD
SUSAN W. MULLIS MONROE, NC 28112
2 CITY OF MONROE 300 WEST CROWELL ST.
MONROE, NC 28112
3 GRADY REIL HILL 2403 MEDLIN ROAD
JUDY F. HILL MONROE, NC 28112
\ffil-1110->"I�
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 17]BP.10.R.127
BRIDGE #146 OVER
LITTLE RICHARDSON CREEK
ON SR 2102
(MEDLIN ROAD)
Permit Drawing
Sheet 6 of 7
SHEET 6 OF 7
10 % 10 % 2024

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT 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+99.13 / 17+01.87
1 @ 35' (21" CORED SLAB)/1 @ 65' (24" CORED SLAB)
0.084
142
2
16+97.60 / 17+12.47
Bank Stabilization
0.002
15
3
16+60.48 / 17+29.32
Channel Change
0.008
69
4
17+28.63 / 17+43.31
Roadway
0.001
8
TOTALS:
0.01
0.09
84
150
Temporary impacts lengths in the main channel=157 ft (15 of which are covered under permanent impacts).

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over Little Richardson Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment B
Delineation Materials

I,ti It[) ..-- -
0
Lake Aronrve
i
"t F'J 74 ON F1 .
�ilNe Rirl7arrls�.:r ,
i
ie F
'e xlr
s
0 s00 1,000 2,000
. ~
Feet
%r
OF To
■
�
Legend
Project Study Area 3.5 acres)
Division 10
Bridge Replacement
SR2102Over
Little Richardson Creek
BP10-Ro08
Bridge No. 146
Union County, NC
M
roe
Friday, December 13, 2019
FIGURE 1
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
NIAP
Monroe Quad
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No.
4021477
ReE USGS ZSMinute Topography
Quadrangle Map [Monroe, NCI
USGS The National Map Topo Base Map
Drawn By:
.I1eI�
ked
Checked By:
Approved By:
NIAI

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
U� q
h
BaB
CmB
0 100 200
� ponm
a
N
C
OF 7R
StN ■
STV Engineers, Inc. Project No.
4021477
Drawn By: I Checked By: Approved By:
JLK BJP MAI
4W,
M
Ti B2
BdC2
BaC
Legend
Project Study Area (- 3.5 acres)
.�.- National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
BaC
CmB
BdC2
BdB2
BaB
s
dapped Soil Units Within the PSA
BaC Badin channery silt loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes
BdC2 Badin channery silty clay loam, 8
to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
ChA Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
CIIIB Cid channery silt loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes
01
Dh4sion 10
Bridge Replacement
SR 2102 Over
Little Richardson Creek
74 Monroe
BP10-RO08
- 7q
Bridge No. 146
,
Union County, NC
Friday, December 13, 2019
01
Union County, NC
FIGURE 2
Sources: NC OneNlap, NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis,
NC�+ SOIL SERIES
NC 911 Board; NRCS Soil Series Data
MAP
Union County, NC (2019)

t }.•�. kn,s U P .
Ar
�{
Potential Non -Wetland
Waters of the US
Little Richardson Creek 325 If)
I �.,. �►�`�1 �iS R j. .r '•I�t�aj"'. 'r'+R, .i .�. •� fir.. -
.: ; +%. � V ..., L� ya>Z 1. • •%6r• ` _
�.i Z'Q.Y'.N.CJ , �' .rV '.,J - - •�.a. 4j%y• � 1 %?I��. �_P'+f - �y..
y. .. _::�i. .f. r�1 : a ..r ';{aY, •i Nr.. .f p �•�:
d04 ry xrf _ fd r15�
Potential Non -Wetland
DF Waters of the US
Stream C 105 If)
Potential Non -Wetland
Waters of the US
Stream B 438 If) �,'• ;w�'..
Fn .x :� --� •� t.. �' _ '+may}..
X
_ f••' A.e �ae ff'�. •f."- "i
J] ri• -i-
0 75 150 300 .. •Y is
Feet ^tom r
Notes: Division 10
pORTh 1. Potential waters of the U.S. were delineated
by STV Engineers, Inc. during field reviews Bridge Replacement
t Legend conducted on May 22nd, 2019. Potential
q boundares have been marked in the field with SR 2102 Over
blue and white striped tape and mapped using Little Richardson Creek
a I? Project Study Area 3.5 Acres) aTrimble Geo7X hand-held GPS unit capable
y of subfoot accuracy. This map is intended for BPIO-R008
r
.�,— Perennial Stream planning purposes only. Bridge No. 1a6
pp TF 2. Boundaries of the potential waters of the Union County, NC
US have not been verifed by the U S. Army
Intermittent Stream
Corps of Engineers and are subject to change Friday, December 13, 2019
following verification.
■ Pipe/Culvert
StN 3. No potential wetlands were identified in the FIGURE 3
0 Data Point Location Project Study Area.
STV Engineers Inc. Project No. APPROXIMATE
402,1477 Photograph Location LGeogr�.e�
OneMa p, NC Center for POTENTIAL WATERS
OF THE U.S.
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: no++ Information and Analysis, AND WETLANDS
,ILK BJP MAI 0 Flow Direction NcvuBoard BOUNDARY MAP

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge 146 on SR 2102 over Little Richardson Creek - PCN for RGP 50
Photograph 1 — View of the SR 2102 bridge over Little Richardson Creek looking to the north.
Photograph 2 — View of Little Richardson Creek from the SR 2102 bridge, looking upstream to
the west.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge 146 on SR 2102 over Little Richardson Creek - PCN for RGP 50
Photograph 3 — View of Little Richardson Creek from the SR 2102 bridge, looking downstream
to the east.
Photograph 4 — View of Stream B looking to the south at two pipes conveying the intermittent
stream to Little Richardson Creek.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge 146 on SR 2102 over Little Richardson Creek - PCN for RGP 50
Photograph 5 - View of an Stream C looking upstream to the south.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Union Bridge 146 on SR 2102 over Little Richardson Creek (R.127)Monroe/Union 5-22-19
Project/Site: ity/County: Sampling Date:
Applicantl0wner: NCDOTDiv 10 State: NC Sampling Point: DP#1
Investigator(s): Brandon Phillips, CHMM Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): —2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 34.940216 N Long:-80.514646 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla silt loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic 1 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:
DP#1 is representative of upland areas adjacent to the Union Bridge 146 (See Figure 3 entitled Approximate Potential Waters of the
U.S. and Wetlands Boundary Map for approximate location of DP#1).
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 (04)
_ 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 (B4)
_ 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:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP41
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius }
1. Acer negundo
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Testworksheet:
% Cover Soecies? Status
Number of Dominant Species
60 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (AIB)
60 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 30 20% of total cover: 12
SaolinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: 10' radius )
1. Acer negundo 10 Yes FAC
2 Betula nigra 10 No FACW
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
20 = Total Cower
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter )
1 . Solidago rugosa
25
Yes
FACT)
2. Sonchus oleraceus
25
Yes
UPL
3. Pueraria montana
15
No
UPL
4. Smilax rotundifolia
15
No
FAC
5. Fragaria virginiana
10
No
FACU
6. Erigeron annuus
10
No
FACU
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
100 = Total Cower
50% of total cover: 50 20% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cower
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic vegetation is not present.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multioly bv:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3- Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greaterthan or equal to 3.28ft(1
m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

Sampling Point: DNI
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) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-2 10 YR 3/3 100 Silt loam
2-18 10 YR 5/4 100 Silt loam
e. l_=l_UIIC;eflndLIUfl, V=Ve IeL1011, KNI=KeUUC;eU IVIdU Ix, IVIJ=MdSKeU Jd1IU C71dlllb. LUC;dL1011. I-'L=1-'Vfe Llfllfl , IVI=IVldnlx.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A 10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRRN,
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Tvpe:
Depth (inches):
m
Hydric Soil Indicators are not present.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

Stream B (U.T. to Little Richardson Creek)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 05/22/2019
Project/Site Bridge ich rds n re k (R. over
Little Richardson Creek (R.127)
Latitude: 34.940115
Evaluator: Brandon Phillips
County: Union County
Longitude:-80.514792
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Monroe, NC Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 23.25
I
Ephemera ntermitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 orperennial if>_ 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 9 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
<=
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
<=
3
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
<Z 1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
CO.5 D
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
<R07= 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 9 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
0.5
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
CW = 0.7 OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perenn;^I ct., cmc me , c!cc tc ;.dC .t;f..Cd uc;ng cthcr mcthcdc SCC M. 35 cf mcn- w'.
Notes: RPW Stream B UT to Little Richardson Creek
was determined to be intermittent within
project limits.
Sketch:

Stream C (U.T. to Little Richardson Creek)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
05/22/2019
Projecoe No. 146 on SR 2102 ove
MDate:
Richardson Creek (R.127)
Latitude: 34.940109
Evaluator: Brandon Phillips
County: Union County
Longitude:-80.514424
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Monroe, NC Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 25.75
Ephemera Intermitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 orperennial if>_ 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 10 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
<=
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
<Z 1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
CO.5 D
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
<R07= 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 8.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
<=
2
0.5
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 7.25 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
0
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
<ZLLD
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
CW = 0.7 - OBI = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial ctraa me magi alcn ha irlantifiarl iicinn nthar mathnrlc CPP n 35 of mani mI
Notes: RPW Stream C UT to Little Richardson Creek
was determined to be intermittent within promect limits.
Sketch.

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
ies 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:
R.127 SR 2102 over Little Richardson
1. Project name (if any): Creek 2. Date of evaluation: 5/22/19
3. Applicant/owner name:
5. County:
7. River basin:
4. Assessor name/organization
6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 34.940330-1 -80.514837
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream B 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50'
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 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)
NCDOT Div 10
Union
Yadkin-PeeDee
B. Philli
Little Richardson Creek
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 A
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 A
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 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑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
❑ ❑ Sal amanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑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?
®N ®N
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
®F 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
R.127 SR 2102 over Little
Stream Site Name Date of Assessment
Richardson Creek
5/22/19
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization
B. Phillips/STV
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
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
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(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
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(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
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(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

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:
1. Project name (if any): R.127 SR 2102 over Buck Branch 2. Date of evaluation: 5/22/19
3. Applicant/owner name: NCDOT Div 10 4. Assessor name/organization: B. Phillips/STV
5. County: Union 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Yadkin -Pee Dee on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Little Richardson Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 34.940109-1-80.514424
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream C 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 50'
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): 4 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 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑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)
11 a. ❑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
R.127 SR 2102 over Buck
Stream Site Name Date of Assessment
Branch
5/22/19
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization
B. Phillips/STV
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
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
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
HIGH
(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
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
HIGH
(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
MEDIUM
HIGH

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over Little Richardson Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment C
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over Little Richardson Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment D
T & E Supplemental Information

Threatened & Endangered Species
Supplemental Information
NCDOT Division 10 — Bridge No. 146 on
Medlin Road (SR 2102) over Little Richardson Creek
Union County, NC
Project Number BP10-RO08 (Formerly 17.BP10.R.127)
STV Engineers, Inc. (STV) conducted field reviews of an approximate 3.5-acre study area on
October 3, 2018, May 22, 2019 and June 21, 2019. A separate mussel survey was performed by
Dewberry staff on September 10, 2024. An additional plant survey was conducted by NCDOT
staff on September 12, 2024. Prior to the field reviews, STV reviewed the 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 within the study area. The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaQ lists
three federally protected species as occurring or having the potential to occur within the study area
(Table 1) as well as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) which is protected under the Bald
and Golden Eagle Protection Act. As of October 1, 2024, the NCNHP lists no 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 available literature and/or the USFWS.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for the Study Areal
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
No Effect
Lasmi ona decorates Carolina heels litter
E
Yes
MA-NLAA
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac
E
Yes
No Effect
' IPaC data checked on October 1, 2024.
E - Endangered
MA-NLAA 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
T&E Supplemental Information — Union 146

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 conducted a plant survey for the presence of Schweinitz's
sunflowers on October 3, 2018, during the flowering season and USFWS-designated optimal
survey window. NCDOT staff conducted an additional plant survey on September 12, 2024.
Suitable habitat was found along the SR 2102 roadside and woodland edges, no sunflowers were
observed. Review of the NCNHP records on October 1, 2024, 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 surveys conducted during the flowering season,
it is determined that the project would have `No Effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological 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: (2012), eleven populations of Carolina
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 Dewberry on September 10, 2024, and a Freshwater Mussel
Survey Report was prepared on October 24, 2024. The results of the mussel survey indicate that
the study area contains low quality habitat for freshwater mussels, 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: Mav Affect -Not Likelv to Adverselv Affect
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
T&E Supplemental Information - Union 146

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 conducted plant surveys for the presence of Michaux's sumac on
October 3, 2018, May 22, 2019 and June 21, 2019, during the USFWS -designated optimal survey
window. NCDOT staff conducted an additional plant survey on September 12, 2024. Suitable
habitat was found along the SR 2102 roadside and woodland edges, no Michaux's sumac were
observed. Review of the NCNHP records on October 1, 2024, 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 eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act as regulated by the
USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests found in association with
rivers and other large bodies of open water utilized for foraging. Large dominant trees, typically
located within one mile of these waters, are used as nesting sites.
Prior to conducting field reviews, a desktop-GIS assessment of the study area and an area within
a one -mile radius of the project limits was performed. Specifically, aerial photographs were
reviewed to identify any areas of potential foraging habitat. The study area, crossing over Little
Richardson Creek, falls within 500 feet of the border of Lake Monroe, a 250-acre class WS-IV;
CA surface water. Due to the close proximity of the lake to the project limits it was determined
that an eagle survey was necessary. A survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the
project limits was conducted on June 21, 2019. There were no nests or eagles observed during the
eagle survey. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP element occurrence records obtained on
October 1, 2024, revealed no known occurrences of bald eagle within one mile of the study area.
Based on the desktop review and NCNHP element occurrence records, it is determined that the
project would have no effect on bald eagle.
T&E Supplemental Information - Union 146

Aquatic Species Survey Report
Replace Bridge No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Rd)
Over Little Richardson Creek
Union County, North Carolina
WBS # BP10.R008
Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Contact Person:
Matt Haney
Biological Surveys Group
North Carolina Department of Transportation
[e-mail]
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
October 24, 2024

Prepared by:
140a
Dewberry
2610 Wycliff Road, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact Person:
Tom Fox
[e-mail]
919-746-9632

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted............................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 NPDES Dischargers........................................................................................................................ 1
2.2 303(d) Classification......................................................................................................................2
3.0 Target Species...................................................................................................................................2
3.1 Carolina Heelsplitter (Losmigona decorata)................................................................................. 2
3.1.1 Description............................................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements................................................................................ 2
3.1.3 Threats to Species................................................................................................................. 3
4.0 Freshwater Mussel Surveys.............................................................................................................. 3
4.1 Stream Conditions.........................................................................................................................3
4.1.1 Little Richardson Creek.........................................................................................................3
4.1.2 Buck Branch...........................................................................................................................4
4.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................4
4.3 Mussel Survey Results...................................................................................................................4
5.0 Discussion/Conclusions.....................................................................................................................4
Appendix A Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Survey Location
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: NPDES Dischargers and 303(d) Listed Streams
Appendix B: Qualifications of Contributors

1.0 Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridge No. 146 on SR
2102 (Medlin Rd) over Little Richardson Creek in Union County, North Carolina (Appendix A, Figure 1).
Little Richardson Creek is located within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The Federally Endangered
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is
listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as potentially occurring in streams in Union
County. Furthermore, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)(Accessed September
2024) tool lists Carolina Heelsplitter as potentially occurring within the proposed study area.
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data explorer records, last updated
July 1, 2024, indicates current element occurrences (EO) do not exist for Carolina Heelsplitter (Figure 2)
in the immediate project vicinity. The closest current EO (EOID 21454) to the study area is located over
60 river miles (RM) downstream of the study area in Goose and Duck Creek. This EO had its first
observation on 8/26/1987, and its most recent observation on 3/8/2017.
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project -related impacts
to federally protected species, Dewberry Engineers Inc. (Dewberry) was contracted by NCDOT to
conduct the freshwater mussel surveys targeting Carolina Heelsplitter.
2.0 Waters Impacted
Little Richardson Creek is located in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Rocky River Sub -Basin (HUC #
03040105). Little Richardson Creek flows approximately 0.20 RM downstream of the study area before
emptying into Lake Lee. Little Richardson Creek then flows another 30.5 RM downstream before
reaching the confluence of the Rocky River. Lake Monroe Dam (34.94111,-80.518333) is located
approximately 0.2 RM upstream of the study area and Lake Lee Dam (34.966,-80.511) is located
approximately 2.0 RM downstream of the study area.
2.1 NPDES Dischargers
There are two dischargers permitted through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) located within a five -mile buffer of the study area (Figure 3).
Table 1. NPDES discharges
NPDES Discharger
Permit #
Discharge
Classification
Distance to
Direction to
Waterbody
Study Area
Study Area
Goulston Technologies
NCG500300
Bearskin
Minor
5.82
downstream
Creek
Monroe WWTP
NCO024333
Richardson
Major
5.72
downstream
Creek
BP10.R008 October 24, 2024
Aquatic Species Survey Report Page 1 1

2.2 303(d) Classification
There are two streams within a five -mile buffer of the study area that are listed on the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 2022 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams (Figure 3). Little
Richardson Creek is located within the study area and is listed for exceeding the criteria for water
temperature, pH, and Chlorophyll a. Richardson Creek is located approximately 2 RM downstream of the
study area and is listed for exceeding the criteria for benthic macroinvertebrate community.
3.0 Target Species
3.1 Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
3.1.1 Description
The Carolina Heelsplitter was originally described as Unio decoratus by Lea (1852). Clark (1985)
recognized the Carolina Heelsplitter as a distinct species, Lasmigona decorata, and synonymized Unio
charlottensis (Lea 1863) and Unio insolidus (Lea 1872) with Lasmigona decorata. The Carolina
Heelsplitter may grow to approximately 75 millimeters (mm) long and has an ovate -trapezoid shell
shape but can be highly variable (Bogan 2017). The shell is thin and light in weight when compared to
the common Elliptio and has a posterior ridge that is double and ends bluntly with a noticeable wing
often present (Kendig 2014). The periostracum is often yellow/brown or greenish and may have
greenish yellow rays on adults, with juveniles and smaller individuals often having striking rays (Keferl
1991, Kendig 2014). Lateral teeth and pseudocardinal teeth include two in the left valve, one in the
right valve, with an additional interdental projection in the left valve (Kendig 2014).
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Prior to 1987, the Carolina Heelsplitter had not been found since the mid-19th century (Keferl and Shelly
1988, Keferl 1991). Historically, the species was collected from the Catawba River, several streams and
ponds in the Catawba River Basin, one small stream in the Pee Dee River Basin, one "pond" in the Pee
Dee River Basin, and in both the Saluda and Savannah River basins in South Carolina (Clark 1985, Keferl
and Shelly 1988, Keferl 1991). There are currently 11 known extant populations of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, occurring as listed in the following river systems. In the Pee Dee River Basin, there is the
Goose Creek/Duck Creek population (Union County, NC) and the Flat Creek/Lynches River population
(Lancaster, Kershaw, and Chesterfield counties, SC). The Catawba River Basin has the Waxhaw Creek
population (Union County, NC and Lancaster County, SC), Sixmile Creek population (Union and
Mecklenburg counties, NC and Lancaster County, SC), the Gills Creek/Cane Creek population (Lancaster
County, SC), the Fishing Creek/South Fork Fishing Creek population (Chester County, SC), and the Bull
Run Creek/unnamed tributary to Bull Run Creek/Beaverdam Creek population (Chester County, SC). The
Saluda River Basin has the Red Bank Creek population (Saluda County, SC) and the Halfway Swamp
Creek population (Greenwood and Saluda counties, SC). Finally, the Savannah River Basin has the
Turkey Creek/Mountain Creek/Beaverdam Creek/Sleepy Creek/Little Stevens Creek population
(Edgefield and McCormick counties, SC) and the Cuffytown Creek population (Greenwood and
McCormick counties, SC). Although there are currently 11 known surviving populations of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, all of them are small to extremely small in size and their genetic health and viability is, at
BP10.R008 October 24, 2024
Aquatic Species Survey Report Page 1 2

best, highly questionable (USFWS 2012). On July 2, 2002, Critical Habitat for Carolina Heelsplitter was
designated. Critical Habitat included 6 units encompassing a total of 148.4 stream kilometers in North
and South Carolina. The Carolina Heelsplitter is found in shallow waters, typically in sand, gravel and
cobble substrate with little silt load (Kendig 2014). Suitable habitat consists of extensive riparian buffer
providing shade and cooler temperatures and stable stream banks. Suitable habitat for the Carolina
Heelsplitter appears to be extremely limited throughout the species' range, as evidenced by the low
numbers of individuals within each population.
3.1.3 Threats to Species
As with all aquatic species, there are a multitude of natural and anthropogenic factors that threaten the
long-term viability of the Carolina Heelsplitter. Invasive species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula
fluminea), the Flathead Catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), and Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) can create
competitive pressures on food resources and habitat availability. These species can decrease oxygen
availability, cause ammonia spikes, alter benthic substrates, impact host fish communities, reduce
stream flow, and increase sediment buildup (Belanger et al. 1991, Scheller 1997, NCANSMPC 2015,
NCWRC 2015). Extinction and decline of North American unionid bivalves can be traced to
impoundment and inundation of riffle habitat throughout the United States. The loss of obligate hosts,
coupled with increased siltation, and various types of industrial and domestic pollution have resulted in
the rapid decline of the unionid bivalve fauna in North America (Bogan 1993, NCWRC 2015). Dams, both
manmade and natural (created by American Beavers, Castor canadensis), are a barrier to dispersal of
host fish and attached glochidia. Contaminants and water pollution are a significant threat to all aquatic
species, especially mussels. Point source discharges from municipal wastewater that contains
monochloramine and unionized ammonia compounds are acutely toxic to freshwater mussels and may
be responsible for glochidia) mortality that results in local extirpation of mussels (Goudreau et al. 1993,
Gangloff et al. 2009, NCWRC 2015). Impervious areas in urbanized watersheds contribute to high water
levels, even during short rainfall events, which can result in flash flooding. These high or flashy flow
events contribute to increased sediment loads, turbidity throughout the water column, and stream bed
movements that stress mussel populations (Gangloff et al. 2009, NCWRC 2015). Climate change,
mining, hydraulic fracturing, natural gas pipelines, and other energy developments will bring additional
stressors that need to be evaluated for mussels.
4.0 Freshwater Mussel Surveys
A freshwater mussel survey was conducted in association with this project by Dewberry biologists Tom
Fox (NCWRC Permit # 24-ES00543), John Merritt, Brett Feulner, and Joseph McIver on September 10,
2024.
4.1 Stream Conditions
4.1.1 Little Richardson Creek
Little Richardson Creek is a small Piedmont stream with an average channel width of 10 meters (m). The
stream banks exhibited some erosion and undercutting and had an average height of 2.5 m. A narrow
riparian buffer zone was present on the left descending bank with active pastures and rural back yards
BP10.R008 October 24, 2024
Aquatic Species Survey Report Page 1 3

close to the stream. On the right descending bank was a wide riparian buffer in the form of a naturally
wooded landscape for about half of the survey reach, and a narrow riparian buffer with active pastures
close to the stream in the most downstream 200 m section. The water was lightly tannic and slightly
turbid with a depth ranging from 0.25m to 0.5m. There were no riffles present and this section had
duckweed growing on the surface and no flow since it is the backwaters of Lake Lee. This stretch of
Little Richardson Creek is located between Lake Monroe and Lake Lee. The substrate had a thin layer of
silt and algae on top of it and was composed of pebble and gravel as the dominant substrate, with
cobble as the subdominant substrate. There was a low amount of woody debris present and evidence
of American Beaver activity in the form of gnawed branches.
4.1.2 Buck Branch
Buck Branch is a small Piedmont stream with an average channel width of 8 m that is located
approximately 50 m downstream of the bridge crossing. The stream banks of Buck Branch exhibited
some erosion and undercutting and had an average height of 1 m. A narrow riparian buffer zone was
present on the right descending bank with rural back yards close to the stream. On the left descending
bank was a wide riparian buffer in the form of a naturally wooded landscape. The water was clear and
shallow with a depth ranging from 0.1m to 0.25m. There were several riffle/run/pool complexes
present in the survey reach with the dominant substrate being composed of cobble and boulder, and
sand and gravel serving as the subdominant substrate. There was a low amount of woody debris
present and no evidence of American Beaver activity.
4.2 Methodology
A freshwater mussel survey of Little Richardson Creek began 400 m downstream of the study area and
ended 100 m upstream of the study area. A survey of Buck Branch began at the confluence of Little
Richardson Creek and ended approximately 300 m upstream of the confluence. Biologists spread out
into survey lanes and worked from downstream to upstream, conducting a visual survey of the stream
with bathyscopes, as well as tactile search methods. All species of freshwater mollusks were identified
to species and recorded.
4.3 Mussel Survey Results
A total of 10 person hours were spent surveying both Little Richardson Creek and Buck Branch using
bathyscopes for visual surveys and tactile search methods with no freshwater mussels or Corbicula
being found.
5.0 Discussion/Conclusions
Based on the quality of the instream habitat and the survey results of no freshwater mussels or
Corbicula being detected during a survey of the study area, it does not appear this portion of Little
Richardson Creek, or Buck Branch contains a population of Carolina Heelsplitter. The little flow, cobble
substrate, and high silt load is not the ideal habitat for Carolina Heelsplitter. Given the low -quality
habitat and the large distance to the closest current EO, with several dams located between the study
BP10.R008 October 24, 2024
Aquatic Species Survey Report Page 14

site and closest EO, completion of this project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect the
Carolina Heelsplitter.
Recommended Biological Conclusion for Carolina Heelsplitter: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect
The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as such, it is
recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the finding of this document.
The federal action agency, or its nonfederal designee (NCDOT) must render a biological conclusion for
the species.
BP10.R008 October 24, 2024
Aquatic Species Survey Report Page 1 5

Literature Cited
Belanger, S. E. 1991. The effect of dissolved oxygen, sediment, and sewage treatment plant discharges
upon growth, survival and density of Asiatic clams. Hydrobiologia 218(2):113-126.
Bogan, A. E. 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): a search for causes. American
Zoologist 33(6):599-609.
Bogan, A. E. 2017. Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina
Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Clark, A.H. 1985. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anotoninae), Part II: Lasmigona and Simpsonaias.
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, (399):57-60. Smithsonian Institution Press, 75 pp., 22
figures, 14 tables.
Gangloff, M. M., L. Siefferman, W. Seesock, and E. C. Webber. 2009. Influence of urban tributaries on
freshwater mussel populations in a biologically diverse piedmont (USA) stream. Hydrobiologia
636(1):191-201.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1993. Effects of wastewater treatment plant effluents on
freshwater mollusks in the upper Clinch River, Virginia, USA. Hydrobiologia 252(3):211-230.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. A Status Survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a Freshwater
Mussel Endemic to the Carolinas. Unpublished report to the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service. 51pp.
Keferl, E.P., and R.M. Shelly. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina Heelplitter,
Lasmigona decorata, and the Carolina elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta. Unpublished report to the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 47pp.
Kendig, K. M. 2014. Freshwater Mussels of North Carolina (Atlantic Slope). North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Lea, I. 1852. Description of New Species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 10:253-294. (Reprinted in 1852 in Observations on the Genus Unio, 5:9-
50. )
Lea, I. 1863. Description of twenty-four New Species of Unionidae of the United States. Proceeding of
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 15:191-194.
North Carolina Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan Committee. 2015. North Carolina Aquatic
Nuisance Species Management Plan. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Data Explorer. Accessed September 2024
<https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/>
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2015. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Scheller, J. L. 1997. The effect of dieoffs of Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea) on native freshwater
mussels (Unionidae). Master's Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA. 30pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 32pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Carolina Heelsplitter Species Profile.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/listed_species/Carolina_heelsplitter.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. IPaC- Information for Planning and Consultation.
< https:Hipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/>
BP10.R008 October 24, 2024
Aquatic Species Survey Report Page 1 6

Appendix A
Figures
BP10.R008 October 24, 2024
Aquatic Species Survey Report Page 1 7

27
�l
` Survey Location
Minill-
Five Mile Radiuskd
Carolina
Taraw0Heelsplitter
(
Element/Occurence
Id�le�w'oRoad
Acrer
— River Basin
15Boundary
— Stream
IILW
�• 1
ti
I
`R
,e
WAI
nionvil
--T-
• Monroe
-\A
J
)Keswick
0
Ho on He° ti��a �S
inal
75 ings' \
/
207
Prepared By: Prepared For:
51�cp VIDA*P
OIN
$ DewberryVd
Po
OR TM�
Aquatic Species Survey
Replace Bridge No. 146
on SR 2102 (Medlin Rd)
over Little Richardson Creek
NCNHP Element Occurrence Map
Union County, North Carolina
Cieee
Bridge No. 146
Date: October 24, 2024
Scale: 0 1.25 2.5 Miles
I i JI
WBS No: BP10.R008
Drawn By:
JKM
Checked By:
TRF
rle�=
Figure
2

Survey Location
303(d) Stream
Five Mile Radius
Stream
0 Minor NPDES
♦ Waterbody
Discharger
— Road
Major NPDES
Discharger
Stream
O Dam
84
• • Mo I roe
n .
O
75
�.• r r 200
Y .%
Prepared By: Prepared For:
51�cp VIDAYP
OIN
$ DewberryVd
Po
OR TM�
rs Cheek
,Stewa
)1 \
200
31
NG0024333
)300 j
Wi gate
O �
74
e
'y
14 f10lI�WOOd
� b
4 � .
Keswick 10
�.�
jean Bridge NO. 146
e .
n B eaverdan Creek
s
OAIL-on t-
e �
r V
ti
�i
_ N
C�
co
Date: October 24, 2024
Scale: 0 0.5 1 Miles
I i I
WBS No: Bp10.R008
Drawn By:
IL—JKM
Checked By:
TRF
Figure
3

Appendix B
Qualifications of Contributors
Principal Investigator: Tom Fox
Education: B.S. Biological Sciences, George Washington University, 2006
M.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, NC State University, 2014
Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, Dewberry Engineers Inc., 2021-present
Senior Biologist, NV5, 2018-2021
Aquatic Wildlife Diversity Biologist, NCWRC, 2014-2018
Responsibilities: T/E species survey and identification lead, document preparation
Investigator: John Merritt
Education: B.S. Biological Sciences and Environmental Science, Trine University, 1992
Experience Senior Environmental Scientist, Dewberry Engineers Inc., 2020-present
Environmental Project Manager, NV5, 2018-2020
Environmental Scientist, RK&K, 2016-2018
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2006-2016
Responsibilities: T/E species surveys, document QA/QC
Investigator: Brett Feulner
Education: B.S. Forest Management, NC State University, 2001
G.C. Geographic Information Systems, NC State University, 2014
Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, Dewberry Engineers Inc., 2018-present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT 2003-2018
Responsibilities: T/E species surveys
Investigator: Joseph McIver
Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, NC State University, 2016
M.S. Biology (Aquatic Sciences and Aquaculture), NC State University, 2022
G.C. Geographic Information Systems, NC State University, 2022
Experience: Staff Environmental Scientist, Dewberry Engineers Inc., 2023-Present
Environmental Specialist Intern, TranSystems, 2021-2022
Aquatic Wildlife Diversity Technician, NCWRC, 2019
Environmental Scientist, Soil and Environmental Consultants, 2017
Aquatic Research Technician, NC State University, 2015-2017
Responsibilities: T/E species surveys, map preparation
BP10.R008 October 24, 2024
Aquatic Species Survey Report Page 1 8

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over Little Richardson Creek — PCN for RGP 50
Attachment E
Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form, No
Archaeological Survey Required Form, Tribal Coordination Letter

Project Tracking No. (Internal Use
18-10-0041
'S'Inow Updated
0 . %I HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
.17 NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
} iwi This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
County:
Union
"S No.:
BP 10-RO08
Document
T e:
MCC
Fed. Aid No:
Funding:
® State ❑ Federal
Federal
Permit(s):
® Yes ❑ No
Permit
Typ e s :
USACE
Proiect Description:
Replace Bridge No 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Rd) over Buck Branch.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
This project was originally reviewed in December 2018 as 1713P.10.R.127. Review of HPOGIS
web service was undertaken on December 7, 2021. Based on this review, there are no existing
NR, DE, LL, SL or SS properties in the project area. There are two structures in the Area of
Potential Effects (APE) which are greater than 50 years of age other than the bridge itself. Built in
1939, Union County Bridge No. 146 was included in the 2005 Historic Bridge Survey and found
not eligible. Neither of the houses, built in 1942 and 1955, warrant further evaluation. No Survey
required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predictin- that there are
no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the proiect area:
HPOGIS and County Tax Data provide reliable information regarding structures in the APE.
These combined utilities are considered valid for purposes of determining the likelihood of historic
resources being present.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
®Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. ®Photos ❑Correspondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architecture and Landscapes -- NO SURVEY REQUIRED
'Sn6bu rzeap
NCDOT Architectural Historian
December , 2022
Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQ UIREDform for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007Programmatic Agreement
Page 1 of 3

no"
1942 House .
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQ UIREDform for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007Programmatic Agreement
Page 2 of 3

1955 House
Union Bridge 146
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQ UIREDform for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007Programmatic Agreement
Page 3 of 3

Project Tracking No.:
18-10-0041
NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
4- a valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: B-5120 County: Union
WBS No: 17BP.10.R.127 Document: M C C
F.A. No: Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: usace
Project Description: REVISED 2022 after resubmittal. The project is essentially the same, with a proposed
project length of about 650 feet and a maximum width of about 125 though the APE considers a buffered
area for any necessary design changes. NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin
Road) in place over Buck Branch in Union County. An offsite detour has been identified for use during
construction. The current bridge is small and the replacement is likely to be slightly larger. [ Edit - Now
design plans are currently available showing a footprint of about 650 x 125 feet. The following text no
longer applies: {The proposed length of the new project is 800-1000 feet. Preliminary design plans were
not available at the time of the review, so a width of 75 feet to either side of the existing facility was
considered{. For purposes of this review, the archaeological Area of Potential Effects (APE) is 1000 feet
in length with consideration of 75 ft to either side of the existing SR 2102 and current Bridge No. 146.
Even though the project is likely a replace in place bridge construction on the same alignment with an
offsite detour, the APE allows for multiple options in design. This is a state funded undertaking with federal
action through USACE permitting, therefore Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act applies
for archaeological review.
SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The bridge to be replaced is in a rural setting. USGS mapping (Monroe) and aerial photography was studied
(see Figures 1 and 2). Google streetview tool was available at this location and used. The existing bridge,
built in 1939, is quite small. The surroundings are generally wooded through there is a fallow field to the
northeast. The water crossing appears to be channelized. Some utilities pass through the APE.
According to USGS mapping and GIS resources (data layer created by NCDOT archaeologist Paul J.
Mohler), no cemetery is present at the APE or immediately nearby. Historic maps were examined. The
1914 Soils Map of Union County (MC.097.1914d) shows that lake Monroe to the west had not yet been
constructed though a road on similar alignment as SR 2102 did exist. No structures or other notations were
depicted, though a soil road may have lead off from the project area towards the east.
The Office of State Archaeology was visited to review archaeological mapping and to reference any known
archaeological surveys and sites. This helps establish an archaeological context for comparison. There are
no recorded archaeological sites in the nearby vicinity. An environmental review for archaeology was
conducted of this same bridge by the Office of State Archaeology (ER 08-2642) which cleared the project.
No further investigation or action was recommended.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAMNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED FORM.
1 of4

Project Tracking No.:
18-10-0041
Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:
The bridge replacement will be constructed on the same location and alignment using an offsite detour.
The new bridge will likely overlap the existing facility and therefore over previously disturbed soils. The
majority of the APE is disturbed, a poor archaeological context. There are no recorded archaeological sites
or cemeteries within the APE. A previous environmental review at the APE did not receive a
recommendation for an archaeological survey.
The context doesn't indicate a high probabilty for archaeological sites within the small, altered APE. It is
unlikely that significant, intact archaeological remains would be present and impacted by the bridge
replacement project. For archaeological review, this federally permitted undertaking should be considered
compliant with Section 106.
This project falls within a North Carolina County in which the following federally recognized tribe has
expressed an interest: the Catawba Indian Nation. We recommend that this documentation is forwarded to
tribes using the process described in the current NCDOT Tribal Protocol and PA Procedures Manual.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SUR EY REQ UIRED
01/04/2022
CDOT A CHAEOLOGIST Date
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAMNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED FORM.
2 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
18-10-0041
r-� �r • RA 19 .1 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
4- A ti f
T f ' Ce ' .-
c#
y
UNIO
inga
' R
lok
So ' Esr, Dgt b GeoEtF E rth GogFap,C NEIS]AirbUsy S, SDA, S 53 A'EX, G t apging,A erogritl, GN, IGP, swisstopo, and he GIS User r
Comt Fnty} p�'g tJ 3�1a� O p c�S�occi�t i- ulietl, j, H�:2 ; Ga ©�pe��StreetMap contnb tors, a ad -the GIS user commu ity, Content may not
effect Nztiorp�G, grap map . SouFEes: stick, G fgraphic, E �oi , HE UNEP-WCMM SUS MSA, SA. METI, N CAN, GEBCO,
fJOAA, increm r P Corp , f r ` '-,
Figure 1. Vicinity of PA 18-10-0041, the replacement of Br. No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin Road) over Buck Branch in Union County, shown on
USGS mapping (Monroe). The APE is shown in yellow.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAMNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED FORM.
3 of4

Project Tracking No.:
18-10-0041
Figure 2. Aerial map of the proposed replacement of Br. No. 146 on SR 2102 (Medlin) over Buck Branch. The approximate APE is shown in
yellow.
2020 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT ARCHAEOLOGY TEAMNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYREQUIRED FORM.
4 of 4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Roy COOPER
GOVERNOR
September 27, 2024
Dr. Wenonah Haire
Catawba Indian Nation Eastern
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Dear Dr. Haire,
JOEY HOPKINS
SECRETARY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is starting the project development, environmental, and
engineering studies for replacement of Bridge No. 146 over Buck Branch on Medlin Rd. in Union County as project
BP 10.R054.1. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead federal agency for compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 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 34.562513,-80.305346.
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 October 18, 2024 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
ymaLnedot.gov or 704-983-4400.
Thank you,
Yanwei Ma, PE
Yanwei Ma, PE 2024.10.02
15:28:36-04'00'
Yanwei Ma, P.E.
NCDOT Division 10 - Bridge Program Manager
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT Archaeology Team Leader
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Project Manager
Mailing Address: NCDOT Highway Division 11
NC DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION Telephone: [phone] Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 10 NDOT Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 716 W MAIN STREET
716 W MAIN STREET ALBEMARLE, NC 28001
ALBEMARLE, NC 28001 Website: www.ncdot.gov