20190233 Ver 1_17BP10R107 FINAL MCDC - Signed_20190225

MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
The following questions provide direction in determining when the Department is
required to prepare environmental documents for state-funded construction and
maintenance activities. Answer questions for Parts A through C by checking either "Yes"
or "No". Complete Part D of the checklist when Minimum Criteria Rule categories #8,
12(i) or #15 are used.
TIP Project No.: N/A
State Project No.: 17BP.10.R.107
Project Location: The proposed project is located on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) in Union
County, North Carolina. The project limits are shown on the Study Area Map in the
appendices.
Project Description: Project 17BP.10.R.107 proposes to replace Bridge No. 159 (Union
Bridge) on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) over Polecat Creek in Union County, North
Carolina. The purpose of the proposed project is to replace a deficient and functionally
obsolete bridge. The latest inspection report, performed in August of 2014, classifies the
condition of Bridge No. 159 as "fair." The bridge replacement will be constructed on the
same location and alignment using an offsite detour. The current bridge is small, and the
replacement is likely to be larger in width. The proposed length of the new bridge is 500
feet. The new bridge will overlap the existing facility and will be constructed over
previously disturbed soils. No new right of way (ROW) is required, though easements
may be required outside of the existing ROW for construction.
Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to
authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required, then a corresponding
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the North Carolina Department of
Water Resources (NCDWR) will be also be required. A Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3 and
corresponding WQC 4085 will likely be required.
Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may be required
because 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
findings of this document.
Waters of the U.S. (WOUS): There appears to be WOUS in the project area that may be
subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The waters have been delineated,
and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable.
The signed Jurisdictional Determination (JD) is appended to this checklist.
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018 Page 1

Endangered Species Act (ESA): As of June 27, 2018, the USFWS lists three federally
protected species under the ESA for Union County. The Natural Resources Technical
Memorandum (NRTM) is appended to this checklist.
Suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter exists in the study area, so a mussel survey
was performed on September 25, 2018. No freshwater mussel species were found during
the survey, so it was therefore determined that the biological conclusion is "No Effect"
on the Carolina heelsplitter.
The USFWS lists Michaux's sumac as a historic record for Union County. However,
suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area. Therefore, surveys for
Michaux's sumac were conducted on September 5, 2018, and no plants were found. A
review of the July 2018 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
indicates no known Michaux's sumac occurrences within one mile of the study area. It
was therefore determined the biological conclusion is "No Effect" on Michaux's sumac.
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present within the study area. Therefore,
surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted on September 5, 2018, and no plants
were found. A review of the July 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known
Schweinitz's sunflower occurrences within one mile of the study area. It was therefore
determined that the biological conclusion is "No Effect" on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Since this project is state-funded, the USACE will act as the lead agency for issues
related to the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Therefore, Section 4(d) of the ESA does
not apply. The USACE has developed a Standard Local Operating Procedure for
Endangered Species to address NLEB, which NCDOT will follow.
Cultural Resources: There are no recorded archaeological sites or cemeteries within the
Area of Potential Effects (APE). A previous environmental review of the APE did not
result in a recommendation for an archaeological survey. The No Archaeological Survey
Required Form is appended to this checklist.
There are no National Register of Historic Places-listed properties or districts in the
vicinity of the proposed project, and all work will occur in existing ROW. The Historic
Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form is appended to this checklist.
Floodplains: According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map
3710540000J effective 10/16/2008, the project is located in Zone AE.
Please see attached documentation:
• Study Area Map (Appendix A)
� Signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (Appendix B)
• Natural Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix C)
� No Archaeological Survey Required Form (Appendix D)
• Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form (Appendix E)
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018 Page 2

PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
Item 1 to be completed by the Engineer. YES
1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under �
the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not
required?
If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a
minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required.
If yes, under which category? 9
If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist.
PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
Items 2— 4 to be completed by the Engineer.
2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality
impacts?
3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative
impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact_to human health
or the environment?
4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed
activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern
for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department?
I�
�
YES NO
❑ �
❑ �
❑
Item S— 8 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; ❑
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or
unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational,
archaeological, or historical value?
(. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the
Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list?
7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
ground water impacts?
❑
❑
�
�
�
�
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018 Page 3

$. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on � �
long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their
natural habitats?
If any questions 2 through 8 are answered "yes", the proposed project may not qualify as a
Minimum Criteria project. A state environmental assessment (EA) may be required. For
assistance, contact:
Manager, Environmental Analysis Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Fax: [phone]
PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Items 9-12 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its habitat,
likely to be impacted by the proposed action?
10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent fill in
waters of the United States?
11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of fill in
high quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as mountain bogs
orpine savannahs?
12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental Concern, as
defined in the Coastal Area Management Act?
Items 13 —15 to be completed by the Engineer.
13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?
Cultural Resources
14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of way
from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?
YES NO
❑ �
� ❑
❑ �
❑ �
❑ �
❑ �
� ��I
Questions in Part "C" are designed to assist the Engineer and the Division Environmental
Officer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource
agency may be required. If any questions in Part "C" are answered "yes", follow the
appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project construction.
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018
Page 4

PART D: (To be completed when either cate�ory #8, 12(i) or #15 of the rules are
used.
Items 16 — 22 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer.
16. Project length:
17. Right of Way width:
18. Proj ect completion date:
19
20
21
22
Total acres of newly disturbed ground
surface:
Total acres of wetland impacts:
Total linear feet of stream impacts:
Project purpose:
If Part D of the checklist is completed, send a copy of the entire checklist document to:
David B Harris, PE
State Roadside Environmental Engineer
1557 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1557
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
DocuSigned by:
L'�YLVI i4.vL'A `�YLU W OO�A
J
568D887B80E4404...
Reviewed by:
Lead Engi f �' �
Di �� r�� vironmental Officer
r'
��
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018
Date:
11/8/2018
Date: 11 /08/ 18
Page 5

Appendix A
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018 Appendices

� �i . L ` # � . �� . . ' . .
,� `6 V�.- �'iQ'�y`z -,�, 'ui �g� d�.. .-y �,y . l`.. . . ,
h� �^, �'"..�: � .+:j.� � . Y � T.. u
.iTM��j + ''' �M,��'.,ti a '�� �5..�� � � k �'t� � �4� - � � .. .,y,,"r�°,� '��` .:F"t� � � � - . ., a" ` . � � �.�_ � . . , - �
.
Preliminary & � .;� c, � � �� � � ' ti ' ., �� �' �� � � ���;�r , - �� `� f� - ,,.��. y
q � ��- � � 7 ,`� l� �� i .M� �� .� � t � -
,, � ", ��r w,�• � •�1, ,� ` -� ��y � , - _ �� .+ `sj ; %' 1� .
.
C . /1 w (
V������ �� C� ..�°�M�I~A . �� � ,Y.r p ti y'� ;_ {,,i �.' � i° a.tb �� y '`�� p�_ +` . ,.
�j"� � ' � ' �
. . f ; � 4, � , i ��° V"�'16'�. �i � {�` r {�j,� } `�,��. a�� Y���,�k , a�.. _ ' ��` � � � ���.i �r� . � + � ��, �, - .
�.— ... � , • � �ry • w � �'�k ' 9 ! '� y � t �y ` k . t} ' ,��d � -
,� , . {
� � �'` ,,�
� . ...:. , ,., � � r ;l' � i � � .s 3r•' 4 '�
k�� �.�r,,; � �:.t ..' ^Y>'xi . f `,a'�s.,�.. "If.1,. •.� I.��:'� i .., ��i�a .,.+1��Ilr': .' y� •,.�. ..�. .sa ..`'�V �. .�._4` ��,���. da. ,,�. - �+�.�
i . � •
_ . . _ . . �, .. .
�n
�. �y
�
�„_ . .,� ,j � � , e �� M . . ,���.� 5� � n � �i� k� " � NI � �. .�". :' � Ar � , „ k .'l. {
i . � .. . . t�, �. `� � �E�,,� .
� � ry
.. . � . ;, , � � A . ;k � '�_ F ,,,. ��ii , ' , �;yR �. . � ' Jw� '�ti.+ �. . y �i� ' � . � _ . " � r�'; .'t � �#� ' 1 . . _.t..�"" ..
• . � .:.. � ..,' . � . ' ; "- ' �� 1�e ^ � ��. .�.diu �.. � �,,� . _. ' _... �� •,�� ��:f�1. ,J�,� , 4 ��. . - .
, � �� ,� �� 5} �
" y.�. - . "-. � ,' ' : . k 'l o- . ki .« .: . Qy r �l -• x^. ♦ !1 .,� � ' �' y..' H � •Y'� , .w' ,
�
�..
�' . � ��f.. 1 . ... � �., f .... ' . �� tt. -. f�. {�� � 1•r . r . . ,- ,. , _ 1 � � .x „� �. � ry. ' .t,, t. ' �,i .. - iti �. '�y. �-{ .
_ �
� Y •
_. . , i_ ,a. .�� , �. . � �' �fi-. s :r; v ..T. �_�M �� � ,,�'�t ..y�. •�:" � � .. ��� " �". gY� FC. .` �I � _
� + � i �
� . v � �' . ��� �0. �' �� . . \ , . i �It�r �. . .�. �,� �,�. y . , � " . � , g� . � . .. -
. . -,. ..:. o
s . "
, . _ i. , `
�}('' �i' � . _ ^,� � �:3 .�- ,�1 �"q .��. ti' k ?��� �. ,\ °`�4 ����;ti` � k - V�r y, }x �I _ t 5.".
r� ,•:' �� �y � ' ,' . 'W 'i.. � � .s .l� . -.k 1� t':;ii} . y .y � 59 � ,1i , ..� ..� . � .. ',��'
� 1��;.�`.. �, _ � �a . yti � .hw�y� k' �f.+ ,, 1� � �, � � �` � �` ;:,n � •-'
.• ,
' ��'. ,,_L ,p,�`�11i` �.�. ; �i�. : � ,�4� � .. , r.
. � . , .. . , a� � � �: �;;..
, 1' � � ,�1� :.y`�,� � '�. .r; � �, � ` , L,�4 � 4 c t, °4 °'�' �� '�ti x' , � � � wi� � i
.. . � . ' � , . L • ..4� .
. + r+ � ' y � � Y .
�
, • '�,1 f_ ' 1 � 1 '�' � � , � . '. . � ' 1 ' 4 , � �* � .y y � '� �f'� , s ,,_ r i r ,� {r +-" - � . hr , , r +- •
. �
� _. _ . . ` �
� �� � � - �
� .i u .f. � . . , � _ 7 . . .+- r i t �. . � � .�. +.E �y �. '� +�� . 1 �� x _ ' ...i � ' �'r � � lk �� , i� fti :�,,.�Y.. . .R Sf
. -
�,1y1 + �}A_ ' J .i �a� r � � � �- . ,�` .1� . _ _ .� 1 . L _ iF�u+ � �M . ,� � ''' . .
� • �
� 'L
, ^ ? .� � r�r , `. �� '4 `3 x'y � tix.. �]4 . . j , �` . . �
i , . ,� .�� r ,a. , �' _�4��.�`4 .44� ev.ti. �' �v ��e � '�' '�4. �.��
,
� �
. � � : ;.•. -- � . .. - . .. .
^ .
�
: � .. . .� .. � •� . . .. �. � . �� -
_ � ,.-� 4� �.. _
�..
_� - - � �� �� �
_ .:�., - .,. �. , �
, . . � � . �. . - -' �1ti1.°' ..�� . ��':S .� �i � "'�9;': . -� '! . i �� .�..� 4�.a. • � � ' �s�. � , , �-�" ek;5�4 � r�'. •..�� , .
�. ,
� . . „
. � ' �
--�. � , . �, . 4 •`" , .
_ -'ti.. � . : �. � y ,' '4 � t . � , . . "��K� ,• J '' "'r , .:u : k , `,, � � ,�
. ; _ .r � � M\ . +"r - y _ r. I�r ", . �
\ � �. . � - ! ! My d..
�
r� 1
r i
' . � '��„'.�, i"�' 'I ' � . ' . ��' � r=' ' � �.; 1'i' � i+.fi� 3 . ,�
, , . i ��, �� .i" 1 � i f �.ri,:_ ti.�',_�,^ � ' y� �� „i ? � . ,� j `
� : . . ` . ., ..
, : . ��
.
y
, , �• �x , ��f �+� ��� *
. a ,''}* F 1 1 �� � • �, �` � - ' ' � r ' � �!1�Fr �
.
. ' y�
L� . �R"�`',�'_ _ , Y �
� " + ' � „ �,- ..'' eaF 4 .*
�°s . ;�. _ �� . .., �:x• ,. . � ; � ., Road
� . � ,�
.., ,
� .�.
, �
'�
: _ � � . .� .
� � � ,� �. . . _ �; - - - �
,
.
�., � � . . � ; � .. � , �.� . � 1 spe
,,�. �� t
PC° G '�'�+�
__ ..
_
`
. :
� �, . w , _ _
, ( h � �
{ ,� a %+����� •� ��� f ��V . � i�^ •
��, " �' � � e � . �� ',
_ , y : ��./�� �
• � • � - t�' -"� � .'�` ._ ''.r .-
.. `,.
. _
� � t, , , , �' � 4' � ; " • t. �� .
�
� T� Start of Pro�ect , , , , • • • �+�` ``m� ' .
�
_
, , , .. .
.
. . - , � .,_ . . � ,
.
_
_ ,
,
• = � � _,��.. � . �� :_.,._ ,. , . : �- r.e �� ,.�
. .. �
.
�.
� - a�
,"
w
.�
. . _. .. , . ,. - .� _ S -
.. ;�
. � : , r „ . � �,. . , �, . _�. �--_ . , � . t . ,. . � �
. - ,� , . _
. , , : h __ � . . . d- �m� , r �. . , �;�
,;
; �, f .�. '�� -'K' . �� , f9T R ' .
" �
•
"� -.-�°�.`r�`�"� �'r��". _ r� °� a�e ""� - nd of Project
_ ,
1 �r �. � .. . #I� L
. . - ,r . E ,
_ �
�,
. ,
� � -.
�' . , . .f �� . , : , , { � � � .� ' r �
�.
. . .
_ - . ,. _. - . .(. , , .
�: � ,
,+�, t , -
.,
�
,
. . ,��, -� �• � ;�,. . ., , � .
�. 1�
� � '
�
�
, .
. ,
,. . .� - �� � a ti,��
� ' �
, �i
, . , -_ _:. ..
�- . ��� , !: •.-i' S. . � ti''y: � - � � �.
. ' . f: . � ' . . �.► � �� . �++� �f � .7 �.
r �y,� �
- . ,�' = M1 , . • � _
. , . , . , .
� l ' � �,�;�: a , �� � � I ' � '4l ' ,
,
* r . � , �. �� ` ���� 'r s. ' y . '� � 7 � Fl � f , - - ' , � �k
�`„ y � � �,, f� �,•_- ��� � � � '���-� �� � �.
. � - .� , . .
. , • �' { . '��� �5,.�'� �--��..y � .,�- - . . , # ��: �� r - � ��' � � ��
.vY, � � • � !'i �
.. ��,� � w. .j . ` ��s � �`4. - �' ''�
.�` j � }xyr'�!� ' . ` .�`� � �. �.
. . �T' j� j�
- . 1 � ,•1° �'`�,�. . .. . *�,� "'• �. � V}� ,.� .. . . , " � � � ,yr�`.r�4���h� � }J ..
f
>, `.�f`w . r � _f �"�`� r . . 1 �x�,'. a r� .� �" � - . .. . Y . . � .... � } , : , . . � , � �.; � "t'a .� -. �:�}� - _�/,,,�. 'J�'.. �_. ''} .
., s � ` . a �. �' ���� � v ��•r��*. � ' ,�' '.. I ,. `��l� ' �"" . I�
� " �« A I
F`4� P, ' � �� , �r,. � y � . . . � � . � � I ��s y � I�, I .
i � �_ _
r.
i
T' ^ j':%n � . -" � ^PI� . .. .. ..' =^� ���, ' �+f- .
`s'
' '�
,,
�' . -' � _ �. � . . ..
, . � .� . `� .� T � _ .
• �.. . � � . �' . I � � {` ' ��. � . . 4� �� �� ` `� � t
�
4.. , � ,,r:. �..V� . �.�_,�f' '4 - Y � tl . y, � •�! tl �r. i � :.
. „ � �r � , .- . .
,r •
��y ��� , - � � ° ' • , . ` , � : . . ' l .w�
� . "�.+ ' _ ' ��4
,
. � � . . * '-' i�- . ' .. . -� ' • tl� r , .
�,;�' .. , r � - ' { � e 3 �;f '�
, � , , _ " '_ � . ' �_.__ f
�.
. 3 - _ .
.�,�. �°."� - ` " � �� *
�'�"' d• �.., �,, �., �
,
. ,
,.,.� �,.,; , ....�-w *�•�`'`�,�'Roa� � . , , ��,� ,w.,�,,
� ,: �
.�,., _ .
.. , . . , �
.. � .. Spec �. .. �. , � � :.;�:;.�, f: ;
,
Pr° �_ . - _ i� '#
_ , ,
. � ,� _
_. . ,
��
.
�. ,
� ' F , _ �, ,. Y � L
� .rR;���/' `' .. ' � �� � . , ''ra .,,�,j%'%_ �..,, �� . � �. , .. .+��'�f �� ��
� M �,
. � i �
.
� . �... ' . . ., . y ` .
..� __. . . . ^
, . . . ' . ; .e.-h�s� .," .- .- -� � y'� -��,` ,� . �
��
� � .
� � ,� ,
V ` ', .
. ._ �-- •,c#
� - �`� �
_� � � � r .�Y . , � .� } �
R � " � � . . . \ . �MY ; ��.. .,
�.�.��; i�'' ' , .. ,�.L �r
��° - ., ��y=- 'r � .�.. � . . J�'r..�1,
� � - T�. `'` � ,� ,
,..:i"� .�.z:-a�"�1Vf18
,�w: Department of Transportation � gridge No. 159 � TIP No. 17BP10R107 Study Area
' r-. � NCDOT Division 10
Bridge No. 159 Replacement TIP No. 17BP10R107 Project Limits Union County Parcels
over Polecat Creek
NCDOT TIP No.17BP.10.R.107 Rivers & Streams
Union County, North Carolina
Study Area Map 0 125 250 500
November 2018 Service La er Credits: NC Center for Geo ra hic Feet
�
. x��� �
�f
, � .
, +����
i - *•'�`' , �r'���� . �. a
f wl �
,,' - ,
,
.,r �gy ``
. �
� a .. ����, .
N

Appendix B
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018 Appendices

Appendix C
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018 Appendices

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2018-01931 County: Union U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Tradesville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mr. Larry Thompson
Address: 716 W. Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
Telephone Number: 704-301-4881
E-mail: lthompson(a�ncdot.�ov
Size (acres) 12 acres Nearest Town Waxhaw
Nearest Waterway Polecat Creek River Basin Lvnches River
USGS HUC 03040202 Coordinates Latitude: 34.854258
Longitude: -80.721111
Location description: SR 2169 (Prospect Rd.) and Polecat Creek, Bridge 159, Union Countv, NC.
Indicate Which of the Followin� Applv:
A. Preliminary Determination
� There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation maps, Figures 1-3 dated
8/1/2018. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including
determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other
resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that
would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters including wetlands, on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters including wetlands, at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters
including wetlands, on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters including wetlands, on the above described proj ect arealproperty subj ect to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters including wetlands, on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2018-01931
❑ The waters including wetlands, on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters including wetlands, have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Ms. Nicholle Brasuennicl� at 704-510-0162 or
Nicholle.M.B rasnennickx(�a,usace. armv. mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary iurisdictional determination
form dated 10/15/2018.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals InfOrmatiOn (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an �^ F--m'� the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
� M'A'TfHEW9netlby
5 MONTE K 1 i8686]633
� .�'+'°"d�'^' DaIU5018n10M1510A5!9-W'OOEUK1�i8686]633
Corps Regulatory Official: e�
Date of JD: 10/15/2018 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2018-01931
The Wilmington District
continue to do so, please
is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http: //corpsmapu.usace. army. mil/cm_ape�f?p=13 6:4:0

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: North Carolina Department of � File Number: SAW-2018-01931 � Date: 10/15/2018
Attached is:
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permissi
n PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of nermission)
PERMIT DENIAL
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
See Section below
I�
:
0
0
�
SECTION I- The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.armv.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulato ,r�gramandPermits.aspx
or the Corns reeulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
autharization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accardingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer far final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

SAW-2018-01931
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - RE UEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons far appealing the decision ar your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
recard of the appeal conference ar meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
PO1NT OF CONTACT FOR UESTIONS OR 1NFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Ms. Nicholle Braspennickx CESAD-PDO
Charlotte Regulatory Of�ice U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers 60 Farsyth Street, Room 1OM15
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262 Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of an site investi ation, and will have the o ortunit to artici ate in all site investi ations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Ms. Nicholle Braspennickx, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, P�^offered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal
Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 10/15/2018
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Mr.
Larry Thompson, 716 W. Main Street, Albemarle, NC 28001
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, NC DOT/SR 2169 (Prospect Rd.)
and Polecat Creek, Bridge 159, SAW-2018-01931.
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SR 2169 (Prospect Rd.) and Polecat Creek,
Bridge 159, Union County, NC.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Union City: Waxhaw
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 34.854258 Longitude: -80.721111
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Polecat Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
� Office (Desk) Determination. Date: October 9, 2018
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Estimated amount of Geographic authority to
Type of aquatic
aquatic resources in which the aquatic resource
Latitude (decimal Longitude (decimal resources (i.e.,
Site Number review area (acreage "may be" subject (i.e.,
degrees) degrees) wetland vs. non-
and linear feet, if Wetland waters) Section 404 or Section
applicable 10/404)
Polecat 34.854258 -80.721111 606 linear feet Non-wetland 404
Creek
Wetland A 34.853658 -80.600277 0.01 acre wetland 404
(WA)
Wetland B 34.854944 -80.601111 0.01 acre wetland 404
�WB)
Pond A 34.853825 -80.602777 1.05 acres Non-wetland 404
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official

determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated far all checked items:
� Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Figures 1-3,
prepared by Three Oaks Engineering, dated August 2018
� Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
� Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:

� Otherinformation (please specify):
Polecat Creek is an interstate water of the U.S. Corps of Engineers regulations at 33 CFR Part
328.3(a)(2) assert Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over interstate waters of the U.S.
Wetland A(WA) and Wetland B(WB) are adjacent to Polecat Creek. Corps of Engineers
regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a)(7) assert CWA jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to waters
of the U.S. Therefore, WA and WB may be waters of the U.S.
Pond A is an intrastate water of the U.S. Corps of Engineers regulations at 33 CFR Part
328.3(a)(3) assert CWA jurisdiction over intrastate waters of the U.S. Therefore, Pond A may be
a water of the U.S.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarilv been
verified bv the Corus and should not be relied upon for later iurisdictional determinations.
Digitally signed by
,,,���ggg���''' MATTHEWS.MONTE.K7 28486763
� 3
DN: r—U5, o=U.S. Government,
ou=DoD,ou=PKl,ou=USA,
� F rn=MATTHEWS.MONTE.K.128486
' �� 7633
Date: 2018.10.15 10:4624 -04'00'
Signature and date of Regulatory
staff inember completing PJD
10/15/2018
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable) i
� Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. Ifthe requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.

����61tlEfRly��
o � �
, p
� � , ,,,�
�N�b�3�i�a
Prepared For:
R
,� o
� �
.-- t �
�. 4ti�
9p 540
s�*¢
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
Project Vicinity Map
Union County, North Carolina
oate: August 2018
Scale: Q 200 400 Feet
I i I
Job No.:
18-601
Drawn By: Checked By:
NMS NDH
Figure

���������i,y��
o � fi
�� : �
`�'�'�lJ�3l11��''�
Prepared For:
��
��
. � � _
�
� R
F t
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
176P.10.R107
Topographic Map
Union County, North Carolina
Date: August 2018
Scale: 0 50 100 Feet
I i I
Job No.:
18-601
Drawn By: Checked By:
NMS NDH
Figure

- �� •• :e � . ,..,. .. r ` ' � ;^ �+ti • .. -...
� � � ,, ' � s '� `_ dt�%S' � • -
.��2°+. ��• �.'� � ��'45` ��'�� �
�� � J' `���'� ,.+4'"C� es '�r � � � y . ' � ��� I - �,; � �� .
�'� � . �. ' � .'' ,^F" � �' y��
�fli"f � -�. '� � � '�.. ,.�..U`.. ' . L YS... P ^• !
� ; �� '• 1� ''�' �-Y�; � 'S .n.5��•� • p -�' .'�: .��"y�•�=�` ..
._ ���N��� 1�!!' 4 .� �3••��� � �}��.� s�+ . � � ,,�.' � �. ��` .
��` i��.,'� 1.' . CM1 � .' "'� . r . 5, r' .
R � �F� ,` .i � , [�r+► ' y •: ?� � i ` ��r� .
� ����`�� :, ,. K4 � �'.
��`' ' `" ��'' ' � �'#�� . -�; � r .
.. `` .y1 . ' �` M1
* ,� � ;��.y • � ~ ���,�17�4. 7iq' r•��
5�.�.�ti Yi � -4.. ' '.'��' � �}Id:' � � , c .
' Y'I � .�� '` �`. .�� 1',: �I �,• ' '/�9� S
..� ��d; �. - e c 4 � '� 4.1 � . =� � � � ,�.. -
�` . ,� � ...C' , � ^C's �� � 1 �y � ��
�� ;,,;' • �':` � '� ' • .'� ' , ; �; . � r.
'�; ,, i . ; �- .,. : ;��..x'. . ' . • -
► , � " : , , . . ,�; ��'.:.� �•', �*� -
�' ;; _� �, -.;� : � `���'�' �h � + . � '
:�� , :; �'''�[ ,'� f ,
�,� q S ' P'��. . ,. �� . r . �!C�� � �
� '� 1' ' ;�.'. • 3e.:..-� � . ' 'i: � •. - R�
' �� :t •''+�. 1. - � �i'•' .ti • { . ►.�. .y r r �� � - . . '�.
� ' .F _:.:', ..f ..�: �k ';;{. �; !'S+i�Vy�„ � � } � -x�
�
..j,,,�', �
- ' �;
� • �^ � i
k�• � .,� ►
��' � �� � #
��
�
ti eg, ; . a. .. n .,, .... �... ;a � � :3�� � • ` 'T � t
y�. �. . �...,�. . t •� �i>�.. Xd�` �i• .. . � �,•j"� .
' � ,r. ^tt3" 1 • � 3�' 3+y �� � _
. . :4�,�_1� �b',i���� � r�l� r.: �.._ �;� -� r !�.
�^�, i ,- � � .. ,'' ,�?�`T .':` ,:. ;�,� ~ > a_, ..-� . . r � j
w ' � ,•`.,�.�;. 4_ _ �"� . , �,. • � ti�
.� `; ' �'•,�" •,`';�C.' S ti.. . ti , �:- �t4 � - i _ �& � ..
_ $.�� '��" a �y� ..�'��s. �+ . R ti ���� 1 �r'_� � �
! .< ��. . �.� Y �: ; �,/' } � �.`. �r ; . �� .. �t Rd �
� +�. �.�� ' • �< , �:; . "' .. � •�- � Prospe - .
, WB.
-it � � . � . � • . ,K�a►- : -
L ' Polecat Creek�, r""" i
�S 1�a
� �' Bridge 159 ���� � -�^ I�
. � 4��� y �� .�n_' ��..�'�x ��R , � �
� .� ` �� . `� � ��wA �
� PA
� ' .. �,- . :=�d�
� _ �.7r-' �
- ." ' �s�..�<
� �,-.� ; : -..
� ����.
� :
�,. , ��. � .
� a ;��: ,* �,
.•']�`.:' h '��.�
����3�: .
���,. .���:: � - �- '� t ���,� '� •
�• .. �•���. �� �' '
�;..�r � _ .
,•*k'. �'� . • • i .
�"���.T' �• _.-2 l .•. t Je�►
�' �y ,�. - .. -±�.�.` � . ���
. � . _� \ 4
�.. y� • �� ����'•�� '��
` � �, �,7 '�'�
^ e:.' .;,���,
_;� . ��,h� ,, :.��� . ��. . � .
� Bridge 159
— Potential Perennial Stream
— Road
Potential Wetland
Potential Pond
� Study Area
_ _ �. ;. , _
`� .ii�'.��
i�
r
!�,..�,.L��.�+ 4i'!�i.i }'b��t1��'-n��
•'�.� � - Dx .1 . a`�ei:• • -
`�;�'`'�r�. .. y�•. �` '1:1�i ;..
��. + �� ;�a'; :t:: _,�. �,;;i.
;^. ,
.,} ;.�.a.� , :� : � .. ;.:,' m �►
'te�r fo�Ge.ographic'Information{&�,aly:sis
,, ..
� ���RI/y�, �
v �� �
� v
� �
`�N��33N1`���'
Prepared For:
ROAry �
� � 9
�`�` `�
e � �f=
9R r �o
�ey� 9F lA��S4a
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
Jurisdictional Features Map
Union County, North Carolina
- � �7 `.k
�� .ti. �
�',_,, �. ` ��,�''`�;,:
.. � ��.-�� : � ��.�F� .
��'�'' ; �:; :;��_k �r `r..
�.� ,.e ;,�,�1,�`:.
, � y�;i�' `r .
� ���� '
�; ,-;�.��:+L:���.
oate: August 2018
Scale: 0 50 100 Feet
I i I
Job No.:
18-601
Drawn By: Checked By:
NMS NDH
Figure

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Replacement of Bridge No. 159 (Union Bridge) on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) over
Polecat Creek
Union County, North Carolina
WBS Element No. 17BP.10.R.107
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Division of Highways — Highway Division 10
October 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................1
3.0 PROTECTED SPECIES ........................................................................................................1
3,1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ....................................................................1
3.2 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................2
4.0 WATER RESOURCES AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..............................3
4.1 Water Resources ...............................................................................................................3
4.2 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S ................................................................................3
4.3 Construction Moratoria ...................................................................................................4
4.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules .........................................................................................4
4.� Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters .................................................4
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................5
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map
Appendix B. Qualifications of Contributors
Appendix G Mussel Survey Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Union County .........................................1
Table 2. Potential streams in the study area .............................................................................. 3
Table 3. Potential surface waters in the study area .................................................................. 3
Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area ....................... 3
Table 5. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area ..................... 4

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of
Bridge No. 159 (Union Bridge) on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) over Polecat Creek in Union
County, NC (Figures 1-2). The following Natural Resources Technical Memorandum
(NRTM) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a State Minimum Criteria
Determination Checklist (MCDC) in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
2A METHODOLOGY
This investigation was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental
Coordination and Permitting's (ECAP) Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports
Procedure and references the latest ECAP NRTR Template (November 2017). Field work
was conducted on January 16, 2018, September 5, 2018, and September 25, 2018. Potential
jurisdictional areas identified in the study area are expected to be veriiied by the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR). It is anticipated that the USACE will cover the potential features associated
with this project under a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD). The principal
personnel contributing to the iield work and document are provided in Appendix B.
3.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
3,1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of June 27, 2018, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally
protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Union County (Table 1).
For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along
with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Union County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Yes No Effect
Rhus michauxii* Michaux's sumac E Yes No Effect
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E Yes No Effect
E — Endangered
*
Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)
Carolina heelsplitter
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter exists within the study area. Therefore,
surveys were conducted by Three Oaks biologists Tom Dickinson and Nancy Scott
on September 25, 2018. Please see the attached mussel survey report (Appendix
C) for survey details.
October 2018

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
Michaux's sumac
USFWS optimal survey window: May-October
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The USFWS lists this species as a historic record for Union County, NC. However,
suitable habitat (e.g., dry, clayey, early successional roadsides and utility rights-of-
way) for Michaux's sumac is present within the study area. Therefore, surveys for
Michaux's sumac were conducted on September 5, 2018; no plants were found. A
review of the July 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known Michaux's sumac
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS optimal survey window: late August-October
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat (e.g., dry, clayey, early successional roadsides and utility rights-of-
way) for Schweinitz's sunflower is present within the study area. Therefore,
surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted on September 5, 2018; no
plants were found. A review of the July 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known
Schweinitz's sunflower occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Northern long-eared bat
Since this project is state-funded, the USACE will act as the lead agency for issues related
to the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Therefore 4(d) does not apply. The USACE has
developed a Standard Local Operating Procedure for Endangered Species (SLOPES) to
address NLEB when they are the lead agency, which NCDOT will follow for this project.
The requirements of the SLOPES for NLEB will be completed prior to Let and will be
submitted to USACE. Survey/assessment data will be provided by Three Oaks; additional
project- and design-related information will be provided by Division 10.
3.2 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and enforced
by the USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity
to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting
sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on January 15, 2018, using the most currently-available
orthoimagery. No water bodies large enough or sufiiciently open to be considered potential
feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review
area, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not
conducted. Additionally, a review of the July 2018 NCNHP database revealed no known
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
October 2018
2

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
4.0 WATER RESOURCES AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin (U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrologic Unit [HUC] 03040202). One potential stream was
identified in the study area (Table 2). The location of this stream is shown on Figure 3.
Table 2. Potential streams in the study area
NCDWR Bank Bankfull
Best Usage Depth
Stream Name Map ID Index Height width
Number Classification (ft) (ft) (in)
Polecat Creek Polecat Creek 13-49-1 C 3-4 6-10 3-24
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supply Watersheds (WS-I or WS-II), trout waters, designated anadromous iish waters,
Primary Nursery Areas (PNA), or impaired streams listed on the North Carolina 2016 Final
303(d) list of impaired waters within or within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
One potential surface water (i.e., tributaries, ponds, or basins) was identified in the study
area (Table 3).
Table 3. Potential surface waters in the study area
Surface Water Jurisdictional Map ID of Area (ac) in
Connection Stud Area
PA No None 1.05 acres
4.2 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
One potential jurisdictional stream was identified in the study area (Table 4). The location
of this stream is shown on Figure 3. Polecat Creek is shown as a named blue-line channel
on USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle mapping. Therefore, a NCDWR stream
identification form was not completed. A North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
(NCSAM) form is provided in a separate PJD Package. Polecat Creek has been designated
as a warm water stream for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 4. Characteristics of otential 'urisdictional streams in the stud
Map ID Length Classification Compensatory
(ftl Mitigation Reauired
Polecat Creek 606 Perennial
Total 606
Yes
area
River Basin
Buffer
Not Subiect
Two potential jurisdictional wetlands were identiiied within the study area (Table 5). The
locations of these wetlands are shown on Figure 3. All wetlands in the study area are
located within the Yadkin — Pee Dee River basin (USGS HUC 03040202). North Carolina
Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) forms and USACE wetland determination forms
for the site are included in a separate PJD Package.
October 2018
3

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
Table 5. Characteristics of jurisdictional wetlands in the study area
Map ID NCWAM NCWAM Hydrologic
Classification Ratin Classification
WA Flood lain Pool Hi h Ri arian
WB Flood lain Pool Low Ri arian
Total
4.3 Construction Moratoria
No moratoria are recommended at this time.
4.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Area (ac) in
Study Area
0.01
0.01
0.02
This project is located in the Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin; therefore, streamside riparian
zones within the study area are not currently protected under provisions of any Riparian
Buffer Rules administered by NCDWR.
4.5 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
There are no streams within the study area designated by the USACE as a Navigable Water
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
October 2018
4

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory.1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory.1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual,
memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.
NC Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources.2018.
Fina12016 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%
20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2016/2016 NC_Category 5_303d list.pdf.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP).2018. Natural Heritage Data Explorer
[Web Application]. NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC. Available at www.ncnhp.org.
(Accessed September 13, 2018).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Version 2.0, ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS).1996. Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina.
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).2017. Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States, Version 8.1 L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz
(eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for
Hydric Soils.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).2006. Optimal Survey Windows for
North Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/plant_survey.html. (Accessed September 13, 2018).
USFWS. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Union County. Updated
June 27, 2018. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/union.html.
USFWS. Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).2011. Updated November 2012.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/listed species/Carolina heelsplitter.html.
USFWS. Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).2017.
https://www. fws. gov/raleigh/species/es_michauxs_sumac.html.
USFWS. Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).2017.
https : //www. fws. gov/raleigh/species/es_schweinitz_sunflower.html.
October 2018
5

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
United States Geological Survey (USGS).1971. Tradesville, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (1:24,000 scale).
Weakley, Alan S. (Working Draft of September 2015). Flora of the Southern and Mid-
Atlantic States. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina
Botanical Garden. Chapel Hill, NC. 1,320 pp.
October 2018
6

Appendix A
Figures
October 2018

��,�1tLEfRj�,��
��
� �
� �
y�; ��
�H�ar�3���a
Prepared For:
�
9 r -09
f� P`
� �
��- �. f ` ��e
F �
RF �
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
Project Vicinity Map
Union County, North Carolina
oate: August 2018
Scale: 0 200 400 Feet
� I �
Job No.:
18-601
Drawn By: Checked By:
NMS NDH
Figure

�
�� 1���,r�
I
� � .
� �„ �
�� ,
�
�
I�
J
� t
� I.
i �
�
,'`".—�,
�
�
� F
�
�f
/
�;,
` _—� r_.__ ��L1"�j
�w . ,
, � �., �.
�
� f �
.�
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, National
Elevation Dataset, Geographic Names Information System, National
Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National
Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; U.S. Census
Bureau - TIGER/Line; HERE Road Data
��,�1tLEfRj�,��
��
� �
� �
y�; ��
�H�ar�3���a
Prepared For:
�
9 r -09
f� P`
� �
��- �. f ` ��e
F �
RF �
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
Jurisdictional Features Map
Union County, North Carolina
oate: August 2018
Scale: 0 100 200 Feet
� I �
Job No.:
18-601
Drawn By: Checked By:
NMS NDH
�
�_..
Figure
�"� �
�
�a
I
J
�t
�y
�
,� I
i
� e� �

�c-i'. 4
f w;.
; r . �. ' °� � � �� d� • � ` ' , r
:�6^ n � J 7..� .
�; * r `
� � t�
. �'� � ti `{�� �1 ��� - .. � � r . � � ,
',� �r . � !r ' , �'�
' 1 �, �� ^ �� ,.. �,, � . . .�i'�. -..,
� �� ' ��^ �S, �` : - �: `. "
'N,�i: f'e... M9 'i�:, ~Y ��,�r �
�� ' .� . .. . . ' �
��,,s �.� ,,. . . ��� ��+'� t . �� I '�` �
�: �. � ' r.:i.� - . . M ; .
� �'�. � �.- � , - � � -�
� �,s,�,� � yr .� ,�, -,� � A�,,
�. ����' ��` ,� �` �'�k'� �►�'��•' � � �—� �
S � � i:
.... .� �T: 1 V. .,. �� i`� � �'1� 15 '�� �7� .. F " � - �:�' �
i � '�1 y � � � r „�
�`�•�'y� , ,, s `� "��,��`� y '�.�� ��, � -' � •`� '- �, =
�' R �. '�
��►� "�"; ,;+ , "� � M�. � s �' � � r - :� � � - .
'�► 1'��� 1 s� � � �� ' 1� . ', i� ��y- � + �f` * ..
t ��.� x4 - �'i'A . . . � � . . ��' „y "d'�., a ti.'� + r�: i �
� •* Y k�A� , � �.� �� * ect Rd ' � a
�a �;'"'�, �,�, � � prosp ---.�----� _.
� � � - 4l F*� ���*� '~�' �.
•�► �PolecatCreek .
,� �} � i'
� �• Bridge 159 �
�`',� ��;• � � '' ' ,.�' 4�� � �
: y - � W , ^� FA + WA � ' — _ i
� _ � .•. _- - ._.
�r • .
, . , > . ...: ��.
PA . ,�, �. - �- �
�� ;`�� -�M' . p�
� . -� � � � . # i:` ,
y •`f . ' F�a�' k.M1` .`��Y�� a.. . . . � - �
¢� 1��� � � .. _ r�.
y
^ �,
sfy.4"� ' rt -
_ . . �' �n ��� - � t�!'M �� � 4 4"�
�, �l - � �
�, "i�#� , . .
, � • � � _ �
`�, ,'�; ,�' � ` .
,d -4, 1 3 4. '
� y i 1� �Y
� � ■ 4• .• ' A '
I `
� .. � _ . f G'1-,Y .
b
i�
, � ' �
� Bridge 159 ' -
,� .
Potential Perennial Stream ; � �%� - � ���
. , , . � . . �"'6�.. � � �
°' ° v ,
Road = "
r; ;!.
%//, Potential Wetland • �� , . ' *��`t ��
Potential Pond �r`{' T '�� `��` • ��`'
�� . �. 3• �
0 y ' �i i � 5
�*��'��' �
StudyArea �,p�Y,. x } r-� N,C'Cenferfor c
` ,���
�
;�iP-
L��+��E fR'�C. Prepared For:
L� x
� � � -09
P`
y 4 ,� � ¢
r� : �� �
�H�ar�3���a f QF � `
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
Jurisdictional Features Map
Union County, North Carolina
oate: August 2018
Scale: 0 50 100 Feet
i � �
Job No.:
18-601
Drawn By: Checked By:
NMS NDH
Figure

Appendix B
Qualifications of Contributors
Principal
Investigator:
Education:
Experience:
Responsibilities:
Investigator:
Education:
Experience:
Responsibilities:
Investigator:
Education:
Experience:
Responsibilities:
Investigator:
Education:
Experience:
Responsibilities:
Investigator:
Education:
Experience:
Responsibilities:
Chris Sheats
B.S. Botany, North Carolina State University, 2002
Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-March 2018
Environmental Biologist, The Catena Group, 2005-2015
Staff Scientist, Arcadis G&M, 2003-2005
Wetland and stream delineations, T&E surveys
Nathan Howell
B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina
State University, 2013
M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University,
2015
Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-Present
Wetland and stream delineations and document preparation
Lizzy Stokes-Cawley
B.S. Conservation Biology, St. Lawrence University, 2011
M.E.M. Water Resources, Duke University, 2016
Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, April 2017-Present
Document preparation
Kate Montieth Sevick
M.S. Natural Resources Sciences, University of Rhode Island, 2004
B.A. Biology, Reed College, 2000
Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, April 2015-Present
Environmental Specialist and Graphics Coordinator, The Catena
Group, 2004-2015
GIS mapping
James Mason
M.S. Biology/Ecology, UNC-Charlotte 2004
B.A. Biology, Colby College, 2000
Environmental Senior Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, Apri12018-
Present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2006-2018
Document review and preparation
October 2018

Investigator: Jacob Rosemond
Education: B.A. Environmental Science Western Carolina University 2017
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, June 2018-Present
Responsibilities: Document review and preparation, T&E surveys
Investigator: Mary Frazer
Education: M.E.M Resource Ecology, Duke University
B.S. Zoology, University of Wisconsin
Experience: Environmental Specialist, Three Oaks Engineering, July 2015-Present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2000-2015
Environmental Specialist, Wisc. Coastal Mgt Program, 1996-2000
Water Regulation Specialist, Wisconsin Dept Natural Resources, 1994-
1996
Biologist, Soil and Environmental Consultants, 1992-1994
Responsibilities: T & E Surveys
October 2018

Appendix C
Mussel Survey Report
October 2018

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 159 on SR 2169 (Prospect Road)
over Polecat Creek
WBS Element # 17BP.10.R107
Union County, North Carolina
Polecat Creek during the survey ef'forts
Prepared For:
NC Department of Transportation
Contact Person:
Larry Thompson
Environmental Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways — Division 10
lthompson(a�ncdot. o�v
716 W Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
October 1, 2018

Prepared by:
����
� �
�
�� �
"'���
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
tom.dickinson(a�threeoaksengineerin _ .�
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Waters Impacted .................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 303(d) Classification ........................................................................................................ 1
2.2 NPDES discharges ........................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions ................................................................ 2
3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter) .................................................................... 2
3.1.1. Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 2
3.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Other Target Species Descriptions ....................................................................................... 5
4.1 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe) ................................................................................. 5
4.1.1. Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 5
4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 5
4.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 6
4.1.4. Species Listing .......................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Survey Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Polecat Creek ...................................................... 6
5.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6
5.2.1. Mussel Surveys ......................................................................................................... 6
6.0 Results ..................................................................................................................................7
6.1.1. Mussel Survey Results .............................................................................................. 7
7.0 Discussion/Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 7
8.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix A. Figures:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach
Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of bridge
No. 159 over Polecat Creek on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) in Union County (Appendix A, Figure
1). The project will impact Polecat Creek of the Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin. The Federally
Endangered Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) for Union County. The Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) is being
considered for listing by the USFWS and is also known to occur in Union County.
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) for the targeted species in approximate river
miles (RM) from the project crossing. Data are from both the NC Natural Heritage Program
database (NCNHP 2018) most recently updated in July 2018 and the South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources (SCDNR 2017) (Figure 2).
Table 1. Element Occurrences
EO Distance from First Last EO
S ecies Name EO ID Waterbod crossin river miles Observed Observed Status*
Carolina Heelsplitter 8399 Lynches 17.5 June 1997 June 1997 �
River
Lanes September September
Atlantic Pigtoe 22093 Creek �50 2002 2002 c
*: C: NCNHP Current; �: SCDNR does not designate
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted by
NCDOT to conduct aquatic surveys targeting the Carolina Heelsplitter and Atlantic Pigtoe.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Polecat Creek is located in the Upper Lynches River subbasin (HUC# 03040202) of the Yadkin
Pee Dee River basin. Polecat Creek flows approximately 7.2 river miles (RM) to its confluence
with the Lynches River.
2.1 303(d) Classification
Polecat Creek is not on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) -
Division of Water Resources 2016 Fina1303(d) list of impaired streams (NCDEQ 2016). There
is one 303(d) listed stream within a five-mile radius of the subject bridge (Waxhaw Creek), but
that stream is not within the same Hydrologic Unit as Polecat Creek. The closest 303(d) listed
stream within the same Hydrologic Unit as Polecat Creek is Hills Creek, which is approximately
12.3 RM downstream of the subject bridge (in South Carolina). Hills Creek is impaired for
biology (SCDNR 2016, Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES discharges
There are no NPDES dischargers upstream of the Polecat Creek survey area. There are no
NPDES discharges within a five-mile radius of the subject bridge (USEPA 2018, Figure 3).
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 1

3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter)
3.11. Species Characteristics
The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), originally described as Unio decoratus by (Lea
1852), synonymized with the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) (Conrad 1835, Johnson
1970), and later separated as a distinct species (Clarke 1985), is a federally Endangered
freshwater mussel, historically known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee
River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee, Savannah, and possibly the Saluda River
systems in South Carolina.
The Carolina Heelsplitter is characterized as having an ovate, trapezoid-shaped, un-sculptured
shell. The outer surface of the shell ranges from greenish brown to dark brown in color, with
younger specimens often having faint greenish brown or black rays. The shell's nacre is often
pearly white to bluish white, grading to orange in the area of the umbo (Keferl 1991). The hinge
teeth are well developed and heavy and the beak sculpture is double looped (Keferl and Shelly
1988). Morphologically, the shell of the Carolina Heelsplitter is very similar to the shell of the
Green Floater (Clarke 1985), with the exception of a much larger size and thickness in the
Carolina Heelsplitter (Keferl and Shelly 1988).
Prior to collections in 1987 and 1990 by Keferl (1991), the Carolina Heelsplitter had not been
collected in the 20th century and was known only from shell characteristics. Because of its
rarity, very little information of this species' biology, life history, and habitat requirements was
known until very recently. Feeding strategy and reproductive cycle of the Carolina Heelsplitter
have not been documented, but are likely similar to other native freshwater mussels (USFWS
1996). Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage
(glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish.
Many mussel species have speciiic fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle.
Until recently, nothing was known about the host species(s) for the Carolina Heelsplitter
(USFWS 1996, Bogan 2002). Starnes and Hogue (2005) identified the most likely fish host
candidates (15 species) based on fish community surveys in occupied streams throughout the
range of the Carolina Heelsplitter. McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be
consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Currently, the Carolina Heelsplitter has a very fragmented, relict distribution. Until recently, it
was known to be surviving in only six streams and one small river (USFWS 1996); however,
recent discoveries have increased the number of known populations to eleven:
Pee Dee River Basin:
1. Duck Creek/Goose Creek — Mecklenburg/Union counties, NC
2. Flat Creek/Lynches River — Lancaster/Chesterfield/Kershaw counties, SC
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 2

Catawba River Basin:
3. Sixmile Creek (Twelvemile Creek Subbasin) — Lancaster County, SC
4. Waxhaw Creek — Union County, NC and Lancaster County, SC
5. Cane Creek/Gills Creek — Lancaster County, SC
6. Fishing Creek Subbasin — Chester County, SC
7. Rocky Creek Subbasin (Bull Run Creek/iJT Bull Run Creek/Beaverdam Creek) —
Chester County, SC
Saluda River Basin:
8. Redbank Creek — Saluda County, SC
9. Halfway Swamp Creek — Greenwood/Saluda County, SC
Savannah River Basin:
10. Little Stevens Creek/Mountain Creek/Sleep Creek/Turkey Creek (Stevens Creek
Subbasin) — Edgefield/McCormick counties, SC
1 l. Cuffytown Creek (Stevens Creek Subbasin) — Greenwood/McCormick counties, SC
Habitat for this species has been reported from small to large streams and rivers as well as ponds.
These ponds are believed to be millponds on some of the smaller streams within the species'
historic range (Keferl 1991). Keferl and Shelly (1988) and Keferl (1991) reported that most
individuals have been found along well-shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or muddy
gravel substrates. However, numerous individuals in several of the populations have been found
in cobble and gravel dominated substrate, usually in close proximity to bedrock outcroppings
(Savidge, personal observations). The stability of stream banks appears to be very important to
this species (Keferl 1991).
3.1.3. Threats to Species
Habitat degradation, water quality degradation, and changes in stream flow (water quantity) are
the primary identified threats to the Carolina Heelsplitter. Specific types of activities that lead to
these threats have been documented by the USFWS in the Recovery Plan, Federal Register and
other publications (USFWS 1996, 2002, 2007, 2012). These specific threats include the
following:
• Siltation resulting from poorly implemented agricultural, forestry, and developmental
activities;
• Golf course construction;
• Road construction and maintenance;
• Runoff and discharge of municipal, industrial and agricultural pollutants;
• Habitat alterations associated with impoundments, channelization, dredging, and sand
mining operations; and
• Other natural and human-related factors that adversely modify the aquatic environment.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 3

These threats, alone and collectively, have contributed to the loss of the Carolina Heelsplitter in
streams previously known to support the species (USFWS 2002). In addition, many of the
remaining populations occur in areas experiencing high rates of urbanization, such as the
Charlotte, North Carolina and Augusta, Georgia greater metropolitan areas. The low numbers of
individuals and the restricted range of each of the surviving populations make them extremely
vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (USFWS 1996). The
cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, water quality degradation, habitat
modification (impoundments, channelization, etc.), urbanization and associated alteration of
natural stream discharge, invasive species, and other causes of habitat degradation have
contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range (USFWS 1996).
All of the populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated
streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving
populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or
activity, much like the endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (DWM, Alasmidonta heterodon, Strayer
et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as
well as human influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways, railroads, or
industrial-municipal complexes.
Siltation resulting from substandard land-use practices associated with activities such as
agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations. Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental
to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to
other pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979).
Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most
mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a
population of the DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery of
mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent.
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a,
Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in
changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely
affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which could eliminate
possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in
northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of
Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of
the river basins within the Carolina Heelsplitter's range have been impounded and this could be a
major factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 4

United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting populations of
the Carolina Heelsplitter. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food
and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and
Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black,
Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes
in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those
of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food
resources and space with native mussels and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least
20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United
States (USFWS 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known from any river supporting
Carolina Heelsplitter or the Pee Dee River Basin.
4.0 OTHER TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
4.1 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe)
4.11. Species Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe was described by Conrad (1834) from the Savannah River in Augusta,
Georgia. Although larger specimens exist, the Atlantic Pigtoe seldom exceeds 50 mm in length.
This species is tall relative to its length, except in headwater stream reaches, where specimens
may be elongated. The hinge ligament is relatively short and prominent. The periostracum is
normally brownish, has a parchment texture, and young individuals may have greenish rays
across the entire shell surface. The posterior ridge is biangulate. The interdentum in the left
valve is broad and flat. The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the posterior
half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored, while
nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In addition
to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent aperture. In
females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season. When fully
gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014).
4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements
The range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extends from the Ogeechee River Basin in Georgia north to the
James River Basin in Virginia (Johnson 1970). The general pattern of distribution indicates that
the species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages with most populations
represented by a few individuals. In North Carolina, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope
river basin with the exception of the Waccamaw. Except for the Tar River, it has not been found
in the mainstem of these rivers in recent years (Savidge et al. 2011). It is listed as Endangered in
Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and as Threatened in Virginia. It has a
NatureServe rank of G2 (imperiled).
The Atlantic Pigtoe occurs in medium size streams to large rivers but has experienced major
declines throughout its entire range. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and
coarse sand, usually at the base of riffles, however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates
and habitat conditions.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 5

4.1.3. Threats to Species
Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are similar to those described above for the Carolina Heelsplitter.
All of the remaining Atlantic Pigtoe populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to
short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of
most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single
catastrophic event.
4.1.4. Species Listing
This species was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended within the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the
Southeastern United States by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD 2010) and is listed as
Endangered in North Carolina by NCWRC.
5.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # 18-ES00343) and Nancy Scott conducted the
survey on September 25, 2018.
5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Polecat Creek
Habitat in the surveyed portion of Polecat Creek consisted of a sequence of shallow run/riffle
and pool habitat with water depth ranging from a few inches to 2 feet deep. Substrates were
dominated by sand and silt, with areas of gravel, cobble, and bedrock. The channel ranged from
5 to 10 feet wide with stream banks 3 to 8 feet high, which were significantly eroded and scoured
throughout the surveyed reach. The water was slack in many sections and showed signs of
eutrophication. The reach was surrounded by agricultural iields, pasture, and a coniined animal
feeding operation (upstream), with a small buffer of trees. It was noted during the survey that a
pasture on the right descending bank of the stream had grazing cattle, which appeared to have
access to the stream. This has contributed to the eroding banks and allowed cattle manure to be
directly deposited in the stream.
5.2 Methodology
5.21. Mussel Surveys
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream of the
bridge crossing to approximately 328 feet (100 meters) upstream of the crossing for a total
distance of approximately 1,640 feet (500 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat were
searched, concentrating on the habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team spread
out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using bathyscopes. All
freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate. If present, the timed survey
efforts would provide Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each mussel species encountered.
Relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the
following criteria:
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 6

➢(VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter
➢(A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢(C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢(U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
➢(R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢(P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
6.0 RESULTS
6.1.1. Mussel Survey Results
No freshwater mollusks were found during 1.0 person-hours of survey time in the reach.
7.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
No freshwater mussel species were found during these surveys. Instream habitats were
significantly degraded from surrounding animal agriculture use. Based on these results, it
appears that freshwater mussels, including the targeted Carolina Heelsplitter or Atlantic Pigtoe,
do not occur within the surveyed portion of Polecat Creek.
Based on these survey results, impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter or Atlantic Pigtoe, are not
anticipated to occur as a result of project construction. Strict adherence to erosion control
standards should minimize the potential for any adverse impacts to occur to the aquatic
community of Polecat Creek. Biological conclusions on potential impacts from the project to the
target species are provided below.
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.
Biological Conclusion Carolina Heelsplitter: No Effect
While the following species are not currently federally protected and biological conclusions are
not necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if these species were to receive federal
protection, appropriate biological conclusions are as follows:
Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: No Effect
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 7

8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC, 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland
Species from the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act. Apri120, 2010, 1,145 pp. Available online at:
https://www. fws.gov/southeast/pdf/petition/404-aquatic.pdf
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoolo�y, 399: 75.
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls.
Conrad, T.A. 1835-1840. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh
water bivalve shells) or North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone from
nature. 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. Dobson.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents
on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. "A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). A
freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas." Unpublished report to US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Keferl, E.P. and R.M. Shelly. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta robusta),
Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 47.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 8

Lea, I. 1852. Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as
an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H. Thorpe and
A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates.
2"aedition. Academic Press.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2016. 2016 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2018. Biotics Database. Division of Land and Water
Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
July 2018 version.
O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J.
Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols,
A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010
Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in
North Carolina. Unpublished report of theScientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 9

Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2016. 2016 South Carolina 303(d) List.
www. scdhe c. gov/homeandenvironment/water/impairedwaters/overview/mindex. htm
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2017. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered
Species in South Carolina. Accessed September 20, 2018.
https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=lpDPB402GWRHyPS SyvGeiorNdtU
4qtXm65vdOvvk #map:id=3
Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue. 2005. Investigations into potential fish hosts for the Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 29 pp. plus appendices.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). JN.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit type.
NPDESPERMIT_WMERC. Accessed September 19, 2018.
https://watersgeo. epa. gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered
Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule, Dept of
the Interior. Federal Register 67(127):44501-44522.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Draft Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 34 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-
Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 31 pp.
https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/iive_year review/doc3992.pdf
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 10

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.Conservation
status of the freshwater mussels in the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 11

APPENDIX A
Figures
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 12

��G1H�EEAI�r��
�� �W �'.
� � ��
`��'��33�1`��A
Prep�ared For:
��
� �
� e�
�� ti^'
t
F
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
tProspeet Rdj over Pofecat Creek
1�BP.10.R1£]7
Protect Viciniky Map
Llnion County, North Cardina
ofl`eSeptember 2D18
Scale: p 2p0 400 Feet
I � I
Joh Na - ,� �-�a,�
Drawn 6y: Checked By
P�MS TE❑
Figure

�
� i
Sf
r
� Bridge 159
CDNR Element Decurrence
C�rolina HeelsplEtler
CNHP Element Occurrence
Carolina Heelsplitter
A#fantic Pigtae
— NHD Stream
�y ; Caunty Bounriary
Brid�e 159
, z � � �Ek. �
� �an Br`an�� � �
�t��n m
'^�e ^ �
5�'
�'v � � �
�i--.
E�'1a:.2797 ED ID: 8399
� �f �
''� E� I Ci: 199
.
�(3 I�_ 1�26 �`
�� ED'ID:5942
� � �f
�., E� 1��566$ Ep�l�:•fi535
`- '�r--;
�
E❑ I❑ 42fi � 1 ��•ID 3245�"
� Puyr�i nd
4a� �r
x� ��
�' m �
�� '" o°r
�
�� � �
� � t
�� �� . ��,�� � EQf�D: 9�•
ED I�: 538 • : k ED I�: 7382 _f � '��
� G�� � { � EO 1�:.2T96
ED ID: 7253
� . � � i ^r t�i�ne� treetM�s��lanc
z
0
�
z�
¢'
��G1H�EEAI�r��
�� �W �'.
� � ��
`��'��33�1`��A
Prep�ared For:
��
� �
� ,�
,� . o�
t
F
Repla�cement of Bridge 159 on SR 21fi9
(Prospect Rdj over Pofecat Creek
17BP.10.R1 �7
NGNHP Element ��c�arrences
Linian County, North Carolina
oate:�eptember 2018
Scale:
d , 2 M�I25
1 I
doh Na .
18-661
Drawn 6y: Checked By
NM5 TE€3
ED ID:22093
l�
�'�
�
�1
r
3
� .
Figure
� � �� � �
'r �iihle� �
�'.� S �
r �
��� � �
�� >>��.�. � i �

��G1H�EEAI�r��
�� �W �'.
� � ��
`��'��33�1`��A
Prep�ared For:
��
� �
� ,�
,� . o�
t
F
Repla�cement of Bridge 159 on SR 21fi9
(Prospect Rdj over Pofecat Creek
17BP.10.R1 f)7
303[dj Listed Streams and
NP❑ES ❑ischar�es
Linian County, North Carolina
oate:�eptember 2018
Scale:
d , 2 M�I25
1 I
doh Na .
18-661
Drawn 6y: Checked By
NM5 TE€3
Figure

Appendix D
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018 Appendices

Project Tracking No.:
18-04-0016
,�� ���� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM �'�'��.�
���Q 4' This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not `�;' �� �
��;'rr�.��'���i :��.. ;-._ '�
��.,, g's ��i� valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the -
: �: ._..
x .. �+ � Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. ��� �� �, -"�.� .
:�..:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No:
WBS No:
Br. No. 159
County:
Document
Union
F.A. No:
17BP.10.R.107
Federal Permit Required?
MCC
Funding: � State ❑ Federal
� Yes ❑ No Permit Type: usace
Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 159 on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) in place
over Pole Cat Creek 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, in width for example. The
proposed length of the new project is 500 feet. Preliminary design plans were provided which guide
establishment of the Area of Potential Effects (APE). For purposes of this review, the APE is 500 feet in
length with consideration of 50 ft to either side of the existing SR 2169 and current Bridge No. 159, or 100
ft total width. 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 with woods and agricultural fields adjacent to the APE. USGS
mapping (Tradesville) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). Neither Google or Bing
streetview tool was available at this location. Agricultural fields, fallow or pasture at the time of the aerial
review, extend to the current ROW on all but the extreme northeast quadrant where there exists a residence.
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 SR 2169 road in the same vicinity but taking a
winding approach west to east across the landscape. Prospect Road, in its current alignment, is a twentieth
century roadway.
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. No environmental reviews for archaeology or
surveys are closeby.
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. No
new ROW is required, though there may be easements in place outside of the existing ROW for
construction. The new bridge overlaps 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
"No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEYREQUIRED ` form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4

Project Trackzng No.:
18-04-0016
replacement project. For archaeological review, this federally permitted undertaking should be considered
compliant with Section 106.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: � Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photos
❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
lG.�/'?' ��r'�� —� _ —
�OT A CHAEOLOGIST
❑Correspondence
10/12/2018
Date
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUTRED " form for the Amended Minor Trarasportation I'��ojects as Qualified in the 20l5 I'��ogrammatic Agr�eement.
2 of4

Project Tracking No.:
18-04-0016
r �?3 � r J f� - i , , �� � Q � : ,
� �� 4
M1� � 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
� �.{ ���, �..� . . - �i . 73� --- '�` 9� � � .�" . �r . r \. �
\ _ � � �.�^C � _ �' _ _ � � T ` y��� V [ ! � • ~� �' J^'4w''. ' `r `• _ r �
�Qi�'� �, � }e ` � � + L� �-��`� '. � �f�' �` 6 ��` � j � �
�l �� � • �,, + � . O O � 1� ` � � � �
fs, � � `�`• I G, �' �- � - � -
. '� .
P .
. ' `
_ . . ,
_.� 1 , � • - -
�.� � B� y� ` � - �j , . �
i • �' r-' t • � _ '
� � � � .
� �� ` ,9 ��� ' �''�,��,,�
�� . ..' 1� _ ��� �. � �� %� `�� �f : ��-ua'��w4iib
� � . I �. � L,. 7pp.-...''.. -�.�^ • �_ '�,
s . �� — �_� .' �k .d N 1 � ..��i; � ���._ 69. ^ �i . . � •. ~�3,Sp ^ i � ��
� � , 'y�Te7 F; . �I 9 I �J 4
� .i. ��,.� � r . ' � .�� � h �Lsy"-�
-�i ` �-� _ -_ �'�:, r �... - . � �, � � =
.
. _,
---.., _ �,�
- • -
. � . � - �
• � , sa� � -'��, t ,`t .�s ` .z � �'n ,�� ,
` , ,:;, e�+s . ater Tank �� ' 1 ' , �� � �Lr. -�
� ,1 � � '� ! • ' .. 9 t 5`7 � . rQ . _ .. ,r ' • � '. } 1 . �\� � � '�� . . �__ j
r �
, .
'. S.. r�-4 �! F'ru.imci �� 55�" Pi 4 1 L � ` ti.S
' '
` _� {. tiCit � -' i � `'� ! . 4 � �' , q ` - /�
.
,- .-, �' y Bri! 6Gd � ; _ �\� ��!y r
• �'■' S3'_ Y � ' ',ey` ��� `�r�� r�.� 4 '� �Q�� ,�- �'-n`�''
� NION. � `� � _,� radesvi � .1 � � �- �f', .�� ,
+ � ,
� - `�� t� + %� �' -'� , ,-� �,�'�-- _ � �'� � . ✓` ,
�,*�� �` : � - ` - �ti' ��' �` n - � ';, � �- - - �
i - • .
.
� I � ` � r • }�,; * e,$', ',�- 1 J =�� _ 7 F ,
t�: } -� � � +�s� . , _ , � " f r;�
, � , �
] � ' � � A I , r 890A5' w. �'� , . . '� �.. �
r
_
" -
, , •A ` _ � ;.— f _
.
. '
� � i �.
. �
, �'' 1 ,, �� -___, _ . —� f ' o-
�, . � ` *- ti^� .� ,� �,t � C �•-� I � � �. � ? _ 't l ! ��
�' �'� . ' � �~ + �' `�" �' ` titd �� .�,.�_ ,r 1 n �.�+ _ . _
' � ��4; � _ �
�.� �: . � -= Y . � �; �,,� � . �., _
- t '� �, h�� � �
� v,� � •��4t... _ _ � .4�� ` .. t � . � -,\. �yry��._�'
�, ,
, '
`� � �. � � 5 , � . � z � � ." � :
,.., 'ti� ;� ' .� � � , " � i� �t�'�sa� `� ' C' . ..�\ � PS�`P �
r. _.
: •
� :�{t�� . � . -�.�_ ._.. . ' � -•.� .. '_"�' _ � ��� . ��+ y �.' .
• ��� . �
� �� � . . . a„ ' �
r • ���
.., ,; �'.�,�..�� - - .�l ..\ . 1 f I� . �; � ��wc�u�%C1 '�- ' . � y [ �+.s"'
r
. � �` b
- � - -. - . C� i A.,.J � ,. s �s
�� i 5 � � . �� �
- , ,_ �.�'��p �,l'A. / . _ -. � ' 1� - �
� � � . � = � v + , � ';yl } �� .. -�� ` �i � /1 % •�y� I �
y �
�.,'�� � % V _ � ` ' '_ � . � � Y _ !c. .. �A "'J`E;Ai y ..`. • - ``JI
y! �� �'6di: '- �a� - �� 4��'E 't IGI b��,.F E rlh t G h' , NES/A'� DS US�A. USGS AEX, Gef A d.IGN IGP � t d th GIS User ,
. !" � �, t,�. } l •• . 9 i �. �, 9 P i � i PP 9 �9 . . � P mm � r �
��, C� ` C-o�u ty C yy'g�it02013 N t !I Geograpli c Soc ty� b d Es HERE G rm OO OpenS�re �M e contrib� rs antl Ihe GIS unily Gonlen� may not �
1 reflect N t I G g ph' t map pol'cy Sourc - N t I Geog pH Esr �D Lorme HERE UNEP'WC-ME USGS, NASA, ESA METI IJRCAN, GEBCO.
r BN • �.-r �84034� � Nonn � e�� a co�v. ��� . ,� r�i. L !, �1 � �
Figure 1. Vicinity of PA 18-04-0016, the replacement of Br. No. 159 on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) over Pole Cat Creek in Union County, shown
on USGS mapping (Tradesville). The APE is shown in yellow.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED`form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
18-04-0016
shown in yellow.
"No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED`form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 4
Figure 2. Aerial map of the proposed replacement of Br. No. 159 on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) over Pole Cat Creek. The approximate APE is

Appendix E
17BP.IO.R.107 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
November 2018 Appendices

Proj�tTmrkinyNa. (Innrna( Ue )
18-04-0016
-� �.
��� ��
a�� .,
PROJECT
Project No:
WBS No.: 17BP.10.R.107
Fed. Aid No: N/A
Federal � Yes No
Permi[ s :
Proiect Descriotion: Replace Bridge No. 159 on
/:f�ii
Road) over Pole Ca[ Creek.
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on April 27, 2018. Based on this review, there are no existing N$ SL, LD, DE, or
SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which 300' from the end of each bridge and 75'
from the centerline each way. Aerial imagery and tax data indicate that there are no proper[ies
over fifty years of age within the APE (6159 Prospect Road, within APE northeast of bridge,
built 1976). Bridge No. 159, built 1959, is not eligible for NR listing. There are no National
Register listed or eligible properties and no survey is cequired. If design plans change, additional
nrea:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the
Union CounTy survey, Union County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered
valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of his[oric resources being present. There
are no National Register listed or eligible properfies within the APE and no survey is required.
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only per[ains [o Historic Mchitecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Mchaeobgical Resources. You must consul[ separately with the
Mchaeology Group.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
❑Previous Survey Info. ❑Photos ❑Conespondence ❑Design Plans
FINDING BY
NCDOT Architectural Historian
ARCHITECTURAL HI5TORIAN
NOSURVEY
County: Union
Document MCC
T e:
Funding: State
Permit USACE
Date
N�.aoricArahircorvre aMLondempeeNO5U2V/iYNFQUIRIiD/nrn�JarMinor ]lnnaprea0an Pro/eotr aeQmlpeJ�n rFe ]OWPmgron�niailoAgreemen�.
Page 1 of 3

�r ' �a
�ae �
Prospecl "+q
Elertienlary SchoolQ 3�oq
°r-'-'� ProsPeclUni�ed�
wx+""�� MetM1od�stChurtli
PmspettChurch� ���
0
59
v . �
P;e
i
�
�
�
�
' ,�ae
C2f0• BIOk�
\ �
"z
�
&
&
Project Location.
e,none aamien��rc �nec�e,�av�':NosureverreePm�'nf m,hr,wmo. �m,�,c�nou� r� ie��=as L��! e m me zoon•.�a,o.,���ma�ns�eemene
Page 2 of 3

er,mn� arnu<n�ormrdi.onaanpe.� NosmrverecPmim'nf m�l ��,w�nor rmn.ronoimn r� leau a.,Q.oil em me �omr�ns.a,������rz�nsre=��em
Page 3 of 3
State Historic Preservation Of£ce GIS.