20170834 Ver 1_Bridge 17 Cover letter PCN_20170706

, �o-�,:s?nreaA;
fa�y��Aigg',
�r�;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART'MENT OF 'TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER
GOVERN02
Jll�Y 6� 2� I %
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mx. David Bailey
3331 Heritage Trade Dr., Ste. 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
JAMES H. TROGDON, III
SEC2ETARY
NC Division of Water Resources
Transportarion Permitting Unit
Atfi: Ms. April Nmton
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Nationwide 3 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 17 on SR 2351 (Witty
Road) over the Haw River, Rockingham Counry, North Carolina, TIP B-57,15, WBS Element
No. 45671.1.1
Dear Mr. Bailey and Ms. Norton:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace the subject bridge.
The project proposes to replace a functionally obsolete, three span, steel plank deck on I-beams supported
by concrete caps on steel and timber piles bridge over the Haw River with a new tlu'ee span, cored slab
bridge. An off-site detour wi11 be used to convey traffic during construction. The project will also include
some minor approach work on the existing roadway.
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration (EPR) biologists conducted fieid studies for both Echinacea laevigata
(Smooth Coneflower) and Isotria »iedeoloides (Small whorled pogonia) on May 24, 2017. While habitat
occurs at the project area for these species, no individuals were observed. A review of NCNIIP records
(September 2016) indicates no known occurrences twithin 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, the biological
conclusion is 1Qo Effect; Habitat Present. "
EPR biologists also reviewed the project for Percina rex (Roanoke logperch) and Pleurobema co[lina
(James spineymussel). Both species only occur in the uppex Roanoke River Basin; this project is located in
the Cape Fear River Basin. A review of NCNHP records (September 2016) indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, the biological conclusion is No Effect.
Bald eagle is protected in every county in North Carolina under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
No suitable feeding/water source is ]ocated within one mile of the project study area to support Bald eagle
habitat. Fm�ther, Mr. Gary Jordan (USFWS) recently released the Programmatic Conference Opinion (PCO)
for the recently ]isted Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB). This opinion, states in part, that "... it is the
Service's conference opinion that NCDOT ach'vities in eastern North Caroliraa (Divasions 1-8), as
proposed, are not lihely to jeoparclize the co�2tinued existence of t/ve NLEB. "
This project was reviewed by NCDOT's Human Environment Unit in 2015 and early 2017 for potential
affects to historical architecture and archaeology. It was deteimined there would be no eligible architectura]
or archaeological resources present within the project study area.
The project shtdy area is comprised mostty of hardwood forest. There are approximately 2 acres of wetland
areas (both forested and emergent) within the project study area, however, the project limits on(y
encompass approximately 0.05 acres of wetland area. The only other jurisdictional feature within the
MarlingAddress: Localion:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Telepkane: (33G) 487-0000 1584 YANCEVII,LE STR��T
DIVISIONOFHIGHWAYS CustarrerService: 1-877-368-4968 Gi2LENSBORQNC27415�4996
DIVISION 7 OFFICE
P.O. BOX 14996 Websi(e: www.ncdot.gov
GREENSBORO, NC 27415-4996

project boundaries are the Haw River. Tl�ere is a UT to the Haw River just off project, however, its
associated riparian area is within the project limits.
NCDOT best inanagement practices (BMPs) will be used to minimize and control sedimentation and
erosion. The construction foreman will review the BMPs daily to ensure erosion and sedimentation is being
effectively controlled. If the foreman determines the devices are not functioning as intended, they will be
replaced immediately with better devices.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
The Haw River (DWR Class: WS-V; NSW) is shown on the USGS topographic map as a perennial sh�eam.
The channel is well defined with a substrate primarily composed of sand and is 15-20 feet in width. From
the project site, the Haw River flows to its confluence with Jordan Lake and then the Cape Fear River. The
Cape Fear River meets the definition of a Traditional Navigable Water. For these reasons, we believe the
Haw River is a Relatively Permanent Water and is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Coxps of
Bngineers. In order to constiuct the project, it wil] be necessary to impact watexs of the United StaYes in the
Cape Fear River Basin (HiJC 03030002). Specifically, NCDOT is requesting to replace Bridge No. 17
with a new, triple span, cored slab bridge on the samc alignment. The impacts are listed in the table below:
Structure Size / Type
Roadway
Bridge
Perm. Fill in Temp. Fill in
Wetlands (ac) wetlands
�....,
0.01
Excavation in Mechanized
Wetlands (ac) Clearing in
Wetlands (ac
Jordan Lalce Buffer Impact Summary
11�
SCation Type Zone 1(ft2) Zone 2(ftz)
-L- 13+18 to 15+17 Bridge 4,631 962
-L- 13+18 to 15+17 Road Crossing 761. 1,052
-L- 12+94 to 13+42 Parallet Impact 0 410
Total 5,392 2,424

Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to proceed with the
construction project outlined above. We are also requesting authorization under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act and Jordan Lake Riparian Buffer Authorization from tl�e North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Divisiou of Water Resources (DWR).
If you I�ave any questions or need additional information, please contact Jerry Parker at [phone] or
j arker(a�ncdot �ov. Your review and consideration are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
��V//G%j'�/IX�
J.M ills, PE
D' ision Engineer, Division 7
Enctosures
cc: Tim Powers, NCDOT (electronic copy)
Aaron Harper, Fie(d Operations Engineer, Div. 7&8 Roadside Environmenta] Unit, NCDOT
Jeremy Wairen, NCDOT �
Jason Julian, District 3 Engineer, NCDOT
File

o�Op WATFqOG
`—" c
>
o �
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWR proJect no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval soughtfrom fhe Corps: � Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permlt
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 3 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? � Yes ❑ No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DW R(check all that apply):
� 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express � Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record For the record only for DWQ For the record only for Corps Permit:
because written approval is not required? 401 Certification:
❑ Yes � No ❑ Yes � No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-Iieu fee program proposed for mitigation � yes ❑ No
of impacts7 If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. "
1 g. Is the project locafed in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h ❑ Yes � No
below.
1 h. Is fhe project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concem (AEC)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Project Informatfon
2a. Name of project: Bridge No. 17 over the Haw River
2b. County: Rockingham
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Summertield
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state g_5715; WBS No. 45671.1.1
project no:
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: NC Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if NIA
applicable):
3d. Street address: PO Box 14996
3e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27415
3f. Telephone no.: (336) 3343297
3g. Fax no.: (336) 3343637
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 11
PGN Form — Version 1.4 January 2Q09

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent � Other, specify: NC DOT Highway Division 7
4b. Name: Division Engineer NC DOT Division 7, Mr. Mike Mills, PE
4c. Business name NC DOT
(if applicable):
4d. Street address: PO Box 14996
4e. City, state, zip: Greensboro, NC 27415
4f. Telephone no.: [phone]
4g. Fax no.: [phone]
4h. Email address: [e-mail] *note: please also copyMr. JerryParker, HighwayDivision7Environmenfal
Supervisor on all correspondence — jparkerd�cdotgov
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Mr. Jerry Parker
5b. Business name NC DOT Highway Division 7, Division Environmental Supervisor
(if applicable):
5c. Street address: PO Box 14996
5d. City, state, zip: ` Greensboro, NC 27415
5e. Telephone no.: [phone]
5f. Fax no.: [phone]
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 11

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A - Bridge replacement
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.250377 Longitude: - 79.838696
1 c. Property size: N/A - Bridge replacement acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water to proposed project: Haw River
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: 16-1; WS-V; NSW; 03-06-02
2c. River basin: Cape Fear (Jordan) — HUC 03030002
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project area consists of existing maintained right of way surrounded by forested land.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: Within the study area, approximately 2 acres;
however, the project itself (PDE to PDE) encompasses approximately 0.05 acres of wetland area.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: —100 LF
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project proposes to replace a functionally obsolete, three span, steel plank deck on I-beams supported by concrete
caps on steel and timber piles bridge over the Haw River with a new three span, cored slab bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Traffic will be detoured off-site. Erosion and sedimentation control meas�res will be installed. The old bridge will be removed.
The proposed stucture, a three span cored slab bridge, will be replaced on its existing alignment. Equipment to be used
includes a track hoe, dump truck, paving equipment, pumps, and various hand tools.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the � yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / Comments:
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made? � Preliminary 0 Final
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: Ecosystem Planning &
Restoration
Name (if known): Amy James and Tom Barrett Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
USACE and DW R staff visited the site on February 22, 2017; DWR issued an "Onsite Determination Letter" (attached)
while the USACE deferred to the time of permitting to issue the JD.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for � yes � No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes � No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1, Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
� Wetlands ❑ Streams-tributaries � Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then compiete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type ofjurisdiction
number Type of impact Type of Forested Corps (404, 10) or Area of impact
Permanent (P) or wetland DWQ (401, other) (acres)
Tem orar T if known
Bottomland
W1 P Fill Hardwood Yes Corps 0.01
Forest
Bottomland
W2 P Land Clearing Hardwood Yes Corps 0.04`
Forest
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.05
2h. Comments: Please note tliat the "land clearing" impacts are proposed mechanized clearing and of the 0.04 acres,
approximately half is to a depressional wetland characterized by scrub/herb vegetation rather than foresed area. Fill slopes
have been reduced to 2:1 to avoid wetland impacts as much as is feasible and practical.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perenniai or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3 b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type ofjurisdiction Average stream Impact
number (PER) or width length
Permanent (P) or intermittent (feet) (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? feet)
S1 Choose one Choose One Choose one -
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 0
3i. Comments: This project proposes no stream impacts.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individuall list all o en water im acts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number- waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or (if applicable)
Tem orar T
01 Choose one Choose One Choose
4f. Total open water impacts 0
4g. Comments: This project proposes no open water impacts.
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If ond or lake construction ro osed, then com lete the chart below.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.4 January 2009

5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond Exc
Flooded Filled avat Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
ed
P1 Choose One
P2 Choose One
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list ail buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Neuse � Tar-Pamlico � Catawba � Randleman
� Other:Jordan Lake
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number — Reason for Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or impact Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Tem orar T re uired?
B1 P Bridge Haw River No 4,631 962
B2 P Road Crossing Haw River No 761 1,052
B3 P Parallel Impact UT to the Haw Yes 0 410
River
6h. Total buffer impacts 5,392 2,424
6i. Comments: There is a UT to the Haw River that is off project, however, iPs associated Riparian Buffer is within the project
limits. Due to constructability issues, long term maintenance and stability concerns, NCDOT was unable to tighten the slope
any steeper and therefore, the project proposes a small amount of Zone 2, parallel impact to the Riparian Buffer. NCDOT
understands mitigation is required for the unavoidable impacts (DMS acceptance letter attached). The impacts associated
with the bridge and roadway approaches fall under the "potentially allowable" category per the Jordan Lake Buffer Rules Table
of Uses {15A NCAC 026 .0267 (6)}
Page 5 of 11

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed project is to remove and replace a structurally deficient bridge and replace it with a new bridge on the same
alignment. Roadway approach work is minimized as much as is practical to reduce the overall project footprint. Impacts
to the associated protected riparian buffers have also been reduced by promoting sheet flow as well as providing grass
shoulders to promote infiltration. An off-site detour will be employed to avoid the need for a temporary parallel structure.
The project proposes no stream impacts and a minor amount of wetland impact for the widened fill slopes, which have
been set at 2:1 to minimize impact to practical extents. There are no deck drains on the bridge; rather the stormwater is
collected in 2 drop inlets and outlets to a rip rap pad where it discharges to a wooded area outside the buffer at non
erosive velocities. The remaining stormflow will be discharged as sheet flow, as this project is in a fill section, over
grassed shoulders and wooded areas before entering the buffer at non erosive velocities.
1 b. Specificaily describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Erosion and sedimentation BMPs will be installed prior to construction. Impacts will be minimized by strict enforcement
of Best Management Practices for the protection of surtace waters, restrictions against the staging of equipment in or
adjacent to waters of the US and coordination (including a pre-construction meeting) with the Division Environmental
Supervisor.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ❑ Yes � No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check ali that apply): ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
❑ Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ❑ Payment to in-lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
Type: Choose one Quantity
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type: Choose one Quantity
Type: Choose one Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastai (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
Page 6 of 11

4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. W ill the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires � Yes ❑ No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 3(2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 Parallel Impact (fill slope) 410 1.5 615
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 615
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
See attached DMS acceptance letter.
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 11

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. DifFuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified � yes ❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
Comments: The project is replacing a functionally obsolete bridge with a new one at
the same location. There is a slight increase to impervious surface but treatment is � Yes ❑ No
not required. Additionally, storm discharges from the bridge are to wooded areas
outside the buffer at non erosive velocities and roadway surface runoff will
discharge over grassed shoulders to wooded areas prior to entering the buffer.
2. Stormwater Mana ement Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? � Yes ❑ No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Pian, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
See attached plan.
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? DW R
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local governmenYs jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW
apply (check all that apply): ❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Pro ram Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwafer management programs apply � ORW
(check all that apply): ❑ Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ❑ Yes ❑ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? � Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? � Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project invoive an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the � Yes Q No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. if you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation ot an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ❑ Yes � No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surtace Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes � No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 26 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ❑ Yes � No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumuiative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in � Yes � No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Per the NC DWQ April 10, 2004 Version 2.1 Cumulative Impacts policy, small scale public transportation projects — such
as widening projects, bridge replacements and intersection improvements — have a"low potential for cumulative impact
since little (if any) new impervious surface is added and the projects are usually in already developed locales." This
proposed project is within a somewhat developed landscape, this is not a road on a new location (i.e, there is an existing
road and bridge structure and thus, the area already contains impervious surfaces) and the project drains to the Haw
River which is Class WS-V; Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW )(i.e. not ORW or 303(d) listed waters). We anticipate the
NC DW R will advise us if a qualitative or quantitative analysis is needed.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requiremen4)
4a. Cleariy detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
It is not anticipated that this project wiil generate any wastewater as it is a roadway project.
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Criticai Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or � Yes � No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act � Yes ❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. Raleigh
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Ecosystem Planning & Restoration (EPR) biologists conducted field studies for both Echinacea laevigata (Smooth
Coneflower) and Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia) on May 24, 2017. While habitat occurs at the project area
for these species, no individuals were observed. A review of NCNHP records (September 2016) indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, the biological conclusion is No Effect; Habitat Present.
EPR biologists also reviewed the project for Percina rex (Roanoke logperch) and Pleurobema collina (James
spineymussel). Both species only occur in the upper Roanoke River Basin; this project is located in the Cape Fear River
Basin. A review of NCNHP records (September 2016) indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project.
Therefore, the biological conclusion is No Effect.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes � No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site wouid impact Essential Fish Habitat?
This bridge replacement project takes place in Rockingham County which is not near any coastal or tidal habitat that
would support EFH (i.e. salt marshes, oyster reefs, etc.).
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation � Yes � No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NCDOT's Human Environment Unit reviewed the project for Historic Architecture in late 2015 and for Archaeologicai
resources in early 2017. They determined no surveys were required for either (see attached letters).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year fioodplain? � Yes ❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: MOA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Mr. Mike Mills, PE
A licant/A enYs Si nature �� at�
ApplicanUAgenYs Printed Name PP 9 9
(AgenY signat e is valid only if an authorization leiter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 10 of 11