20140692 Ver 1_Application_20140708

!July 2, 2014
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: Mr. Steven Kichefski
151 Patton Ave, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28805
D
gH�ST,Iei ?Q(
ar04e -
Q/
20 1 40 692
Transportation Permitting Unit
NC Division of Water Resources
Attention: Ms. Sonia Carrillo
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Application for N" 14 and WQC 3886
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 90 over Brush Fork
East Wade Street in Anson County
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ -1127
TIP No. B -5009.
The Town of Wadesboro NC is scheduled to replace Bridge No. 90 over Brush Fork on
East Wade Street, Wadesboro, NC in Anson County. The Town originally proposed to
replace the bridge with a 10X10 box culvert and submitted a PCN to the Corps and DWQ
for approval (Action ID 2011 -1973) and DWQ (Action ID 2012 -0400) in 2012. As a
result of comments from DWQ, the Town studied alternative structures to replace the
existing bridge. Upon completion of the studies, the Town concluded that a 24 X 10
precast reinforced concrete three sided (bottomless) culvert would best minimize impacts
to the stream bed. An off -site detour is proposed. Please note; in the NCDOT Bridge
Inspection Report the stream is referred to as Moss Creek and not Brush Fork. Review of
USGS Maps and NCDWQ GIS Data confirmed that the stream name is Brush Fork
(Class C Waters). For the purpose of this PCN the waterbody will be referred to as Moss
Branch (Brush Fork) for consistency.
A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) Type HB was completed in March 2012
and approved by FHWA on October 10, 2013. A `no effect' was rendered in the PCE
document for the Section 7 listed species for Anson County. The NRTR and
supplemental addendum report for the Helianthus schweinitzii survey for this project is
included for your information.
There will be permanent stream and wetland impacts associated with this project. These
impacts include the fill of a 0.004 acre linear wetland (roadside conveyance), bank
stabilization, and the relocation of — 30 linear feet of intermittent channel which ties into
Brush Fork. A Corps of Engineers Stream Quality Form was completed for the 30 foot
intermittent section on April 16, 2014. Upon completion of the form it was noted that the
drainage scored a 39 out of 100 possible points.

Due to: 1) the minimal impacts to the tie -in tributary; 2) low quality nature of the channel
to be impacted; and 3) the decision by the Town to construct a bottomless culvert, the
Town does not propose to mitigate for the stream losses at this time.
Sincerely,
Mr. Philip Beach
SERI Engineering and Construction, Inc. for Town of Wadesboro, NC
Attachments:
PCN application
Permit drawings
Agent authorization form
Approved JD
Agency project scoping letters
USACE Stream Quality Assessment Form
Natural Resources Technical Report
USACE Wetland Data Forms

O�O�WATf9�G
T.
o ;c
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
® Section 404 Permit E] Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number. 14 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Bridge Replacement #90 over Brush Fork
2b.
County:
Anson
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Wadesboro
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
B_5009
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Town of Wadesboro, NC
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
Mr. Hugh James
3d.
Street address:
124 -126 East Wade Street -P.O. Box 607
3e.
City, state, zip.
Wadesboro, NC 28170
3f.
Telephone no.:
(704) 694 -5171
3g.
Fax no.:
NA
3h.
Email address:
towwaterplant @windstream.net
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
4d.
Street address:
4e.
City, state, zip:
4f.
Telephone no.:
4g.
Fax no.:
4h
Email address:
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Philip Beach
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
SEPI Engineering & Construction
5c.
Street address:
1025 Wade Ave
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27605
5e.
Telephone no.:
919 - 789 -9977
5f.
Fax no.:
919 - 789 -9591
5g.
Email address:
pbeach @sepiengineering.com
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
Not applicable
Latitude: 34.9661 Longitude: - 80.0639
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
(DD.DDDDDD) (- DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size:
Within Project area (0.277) acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Brush Fork
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class C
2c. River basin:
Yadkin Pee Dee
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project site includes an aging bridge in need of repair that spans Brush Fork. The bridges is adjacent to a residential
neighborhood. Surrounding landscape contains single family residential homes.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.004 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
155 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
Replacement of structurally deficient bridge
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves replacing a small bridge with a 24 X 10 precast reinforced concrete three sided (bottomless) culvert.
Structure will be of sufficient length to provide (2) 10 -foot lanes with 7 -foot shoulders and guard rails on each side Traffic
will be maintained using an offsite detour. Road building equipment, such as trucks, dozers, and cranes will be used
during top -down construction.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ® Final
of determination was made?
Agency /Consultant Company. SEPI Engineering &
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Construction
Name (if known): Phillip Todd, Philip Beach
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
20 December 2011
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
PCN submitted for approval to Corps (Action ID 2011 -1973) and DWQ (DWR) (Action ID 2012 - 0400).
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number –
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ – non -404, other)
(acres)
T
—Temporary
W 1 ®P ❑ T
excavation /fill
Herbacesous
roadside linear
El Yes
® No
®Corps
El DWQ
0.004
El Yes
El Corps
W2 El P El T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
El Yes
El Corps
W4 E] P F] T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.004
2h. Comments: Wetland impacts include excavation and fill of linear wetland (0.004 acres).
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g•
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
length
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ – non -404,
width
linear
feet)
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
S1 ®P ❑ T
Fill/ Relocation
UT to Brush Fork
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
❑ DWQ
3.5 ft.
25 -30"
S2 ® P [:IT
Bank Stabilization
Brush Fork
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
11.5
19.7
❑ PER
❑ Corps
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
❑ PER
❑ Corps
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
❑ PER
❑ Corps
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
❑ PER
❑ Corps
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
49.7"
3i. Comments:'` Permanent impact proposed to UT (25 -30 ft); Bank stabilization proposed to Brush Fork (19.7 ft).
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form – Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
impact number -
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments: Not applicable
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
number
of pond
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments: Not Applicable
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number-
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required?
❑Yes
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑ No
❑Yes
B2 ❑P ❑T
❑ No
❑Yes
B3 ❑P ❑T
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Bottomless culvert design and bank stabilization riprap placement above normal water surface will be utilized to minimize
impacts.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Sedimentation and erosion control best management practices will be in effect throughout the project construction.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments: Not applicable
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
❑ Yes ® No
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
26.1 %
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
® Yes ❑ No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project will be completed in
accordance with the NCDOT BMP manual to the maximum extent practicable. Construction stormwater management will
comply with NCS 000250.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan.
Not applicable
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
apply (check all that apply):
[-I NSW
❑ USMP
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
(check all that apply),
[:1 HQW
❑ ORW
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached?
Yes E] No
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes ❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA /SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ®No
letter.)
Comments: PCE document approved by FHWA on October 10, 2013.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s).
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The bridge replacement and associated work will not increase impervious surface beyond what is already existing.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
not applicable
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
® Asheville
'5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your'site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
See attached NRTR and Helianthus Survey Report. Field surveys conducted May and'Oct 2011, Natural Heritage
'Program GIS Data (February 2011).
6. 'Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑, Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether,your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http://sharpfin.nmfs.noaa.gov/website/EFH_Mapper/map.aspxt
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project -occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
F1 Yet, ® No
status (e.g., :National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did 'you use to determine Whether your,site would impact historic or archeological resources?
SHPO - see attached letter dated 15 April 2011.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
� Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Not applicable
8c. What source(s) did'you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA Panel 3710648400J
Beach
Philip
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovided.
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

ao
a
P v t Dr
Whee er St m
4 �o
St
r
w � ir9
v Syr
.0 s' 74 ��e
z ,
r1
e
t
lBridge No. 901
E Iorgaa St 4
er A
a o�,
Q s
> Q
L �
v, ' °' •
a l� '"
Aslte - v
Wade
4
r
n
A
s
0
O
s
s
/ N
r0
r,.
c
0
t
4
Sulli} an St
d Lilesville Rd
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
TM NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNENTOF
• TRANSPORTATION
�• DIvIsIoN OF HICHwAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Anson County
Town of Wadedwo, NC
Division 10
Municipal Bridge Replacement (Bridge #90)
On East Wade Street over Brush Fork
IP * B-5009
WBS # 41539.1.1
Federal Aid k BRZ -1127 (2)
Figure 1

z
U
�
m m n
o
L
-
c
00
O
,
Q
U d ....
N
V
,m
w U d
r
w
U
}
O U U
co N
O
V
Vi
� O
C > U
m> ca U
O
O
_
O
O
t U)
V
V
V
C
U
Q
) -
U
Q,
W
a
N
z
N C U
C '�
O
Z
Q
J
U)
(6 (6 � c6
L N
U v
O
W
U
c
a
o
2
o
Q
m c
o
Z
U N
x
g
W
w
cn
a
o_
o
E
� �
En
c c °c
o
0
co
E
0
0
LL a)
C)
a
C
C
O
O
N O_
-p
LL
06
U
O
_
N
N
T
C
C
O
N
(n
Cn
O
U
C
C
Y
C
X
W
(D
U
cu
m
J
J
J
O
co
C O
O ~
N
N
O
O
co
v
�}
+
N
00
+
J
O
N
()
h
O
� Z
H

EXCAVATE
OUTLET DETAIL
i
i
' IAIIAI/*- I A I A I I
NG
CLASS I RIP -RAP
EST. DDE 109 C.Y.
32 TONS, CL / Rip -Rap
GEOT EXT ILE= 53 sy

�' 24, As"',
a �
el
_7 i
t
i

Oct 12 2011 10:17AM HP LRSERJET FAX
DATE
p.l
'gown o f cWadesbm, Anth Canoe {na - 28170
11ILL THACKIR JOHN V. WITH9RaPOON
MAYOR TOWN RIANAaOt
TOWN COLJNaL
■D IMoRY LAWRWOI aATEWOOD JAMB DAVID LU
►AOLA TIM 10//Y YIRlY
FACSBM TRANMMAL SEEET
NUMER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS SHEET):-
PLEASE DELIVER TQ -2L I r ,� c-
FACSMME NUMERUNDING TO:,/ --9
FACSIl4M NU 13ERMNDING FROM: / - 7'v V '3 %
SPEQAL
FACSIMILE SENT
POST OFFICE SOX 907 • 124929 EAST WAOi STREET • PHONE [phone]

Oct 12 2011 10:17RM HP LRSERJET FAX
,SEPI
AGENT AU MORMATION FORM
All Blanks to Be Filled is By the Current Landowner or Municipal Official
Name: -F ow ro D 4 W A d C s 6 0 20
Address: � D,E� o X(,9-7
01idC S 60124>
Phone: 77 04 - 6`14 - s 12 l
Project Name/Description: Replacement of Bridge No. 90 on East Wade Street over Brush
Fork - Anson County
SEPI Project # : EN 11.0009
NCDBNR – Division of Water Quality
Attention: Ms. Airy Chapn�aa
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
Attention: MI& Liz Hair
151 Patton Ave, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28805
Re: Wetlands, Streams and/or Buffer Related Consulting and Permitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, The current landowner or municipal official, hereby designate and authorize SEPI Engineering
& Construction, Inc. to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of permit applications, to
furnish upon request kupplemental inf ation in support of applications, ctc. from this day
forward, this 12 *r day of C` Q b r a _ao) l
This notification supersedes any previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
Notice: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for
government officials to enter the property when accompanied by SEPI stun You should
call SEPI to arrange a prior to visiting the site. / 't —
BY: Q B .
Print N of Landowner's or Municipal Si �do�wnerr Municipal
Official's Name
1025 WADS AVR4M • RALEIGH, NC 27605 • TEL [phone] - FAX [phone] - SEPIE GP EER1NG.COM
p.2

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2011 -01973 County: Anson U.S.G.S. Quad: Wadesboro
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner /Agent: Town of Wadesboro, Attn: Mr. Hugh James
Address:
P.O. Box 697
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Property description:
Size (acres)
155 linear feet/ 0.001 acre Nearest Town Wadesboro
Nearest Waterway
Brush Fork River Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS RUC
03040201 Coordinates 34.96614 NI - 80.06391 W
Location description The proposed project site is located at the existing bridge #90 over Brush Fork, on East Wade
Street in Wadesboro Anson County North Carolina. 34.96614 N and - 80.06391 W.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be streams and wetlands on the above described property. We strongly
suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be
considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 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.
X There are streams and wetlands on the above described property subject 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 strongly suggest you have the streams and wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property
and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a
more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by
the Corps.
The streams and wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps.
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.
X The streams and wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the map labeled
Anson County TIP Project No. B -5009 dated January 2011 and submitted on October 17, 2011. 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 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.

Action Id. 2011 -01973
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Liz Hair at 828 -271 -7980.
C. Basis For Determination
The site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Eastern Mountain and
Piedmont Regional Supplement, and is adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary
high water marks. The stream channel on the property is an unnamed tributary to Brush Fork which flows into the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River and ultimately flows to the Atlantic Ocean through Winyah Bay.
D. Remarks
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 IOM15
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 February 20, 2012.
* *It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence. ** HAIR.SARAH.E
Corps Regulatory Official: A 1054 1 7 W- PK.ou.VSA m.H U1WRAXE
A105<693511
w«: n».�1�0 �osi:ioasroc
Date: December 20.2011 Expiration Date: December 20, 2016
The Wihnington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit http:// Rer2 .nwp.usace.anny.mil /survey.btml to
complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:
SEPI Engineering and Construction; Att: Mr. Philip Beach, 1025 Wade Ave. Raleigh, NC 27605
2

pa STAIZ o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Claudia Brown, Acting Administrator
Ulti<c of Archives and }li -aor}•
Bcecrly Favcs perdue, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary David Brook, Director
.Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
April 15, 2011
Phillip Todd
SEPI Engineering & Construction
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Re: Bridge 90 on East Wade Avenue over Moss Creek, Wadesboro, B -5009, Anson County,
ER 11 -0579
Dear 1\4r. Todd:
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 2011, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment oil the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above convnent,
please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919- 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above- referenced tracki ig number.
Sincerely,
(150�Claudia Brown
Location: 109 F st Jones Stree(, Raleigh NC 276111 Nailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 Telephone/Fax: ()17) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

June 2, 2011
Regulatory Division
Phillip Todd
SEPI Engineering and Construction
1025 Wade Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Todd,
Reference is made to your inquiry dated April 4, 2011 requesting information regarding
the evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with a NC DOT Division 10 bridge
replacement project known as TIP Project Number B -5009 for bridge #90 on East Wade Street
over Moss Creek, located in the Town of Wadesboro, Anson County, North Carolina. It is
anticipated that the project will be processed as Programmatic Categorical Exclusion.
The alternatives currently under consideration for the bridge replacement project are specified as
replacing the bridge with a cast in place 2- 10'x10' RCBC.
We have reviewed the maps provided and determined that, based upon a review of the
information provided and available maps, the construction of these projects are very likely to
impact streams and/or wetlands within the work corridor. Please be aware that impacts
associated with the discharge of fill into jurisdictional waters of the United States are subject to
our regulatory authority pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters of the United States and/or any adjacent wetlands would
require Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization. The type of DA authorization
required (i.e., general or individual permit) will be determined by the location, type, and extent
of jurisdictional area impacted by the project, and by the project design and construction limits.
Compensatory mitigation may also be required for unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S.
Until additional data is furnished which details the extent of the construction limits of the
proposed projects, and an onsite inspection is completed with regard to determinations of the
presence of jurisdictional waters on the project property, we are unable to verify that the project
will not have jurisdictional impacts, or to provide specific comments concerning DA permit
requirements or a recommendation of alternatives. To assist you with determining permitting
requirements, we recommend that you perform a detailed delineation of the streams and/or
wetlands present on the project site. When this information becomes available, it should be
forwarded to our office for review and comment, as well as a determination of DA permit
eligibility.

Should you have any further questions related to DA permits for this project, please
contact me at 828 - 271 -7980 x.225.
Sincerely, `
Liz Hair
Regulatory Prod c M)2 er
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Copy Furnished:
Polly Lespinasse DWQ (E -copy)

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 13, 2011
TO: Phillip Todd, Environmental Division Manager, SEPI Engineering and Construction
FROM: Polly Lespinasse, NC Division of Water Quality, Mooresville Regional Office
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's Proposed Bridge Replacement Project, TIP Project No.
B -5009, Replacement of Bridge No. 90 on East Wade Street over Brush Fork in Anson County
In reply to your correspondence dated April 4, 2011, and received on April 6, 2011, in which you requested comments for
the above referenced project, the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) offers the following comments:
Project Specific Comments:
The scoping request indicates the bridge crosses Moss Creek. Based on a review of topographic maps and
NCDWQ Stream Classifications, the stream is Brush Fork. Brush Fork is a Class C Waters of the State.
2. Any anticipated bank stabilization associated with culvert installations or extensions should be addressed in the
Categorical Exclusion (CE) document. It is understood that final designs are not determined at the time the CE is
developed. However, the CE should discuss the potential for bank stabilization necessary due to culvert
installation.
Any anticipated dewatering or access structures necessary for construction of bridges should be addressed in the
CE. It is understood that final designs are not determined at the time the CE is developed. However, the CE
should discuss the potential for dewatering and access measures necessary due to bridge construction.
General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Projects
1. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NCDOT shall address
these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating
factors that would reduce the impacts.
2. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 36871Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
3. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ believes the use of a
Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of Engineers to determine the required
permit(s).
4. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless otherwise
authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a
condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
Mooresville Regional Office
Location: 610 East Center Ave., Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 One
Phone: [phone] \ Fax: [phone] \ Customer Service: 1- 877 -623 -6748 NorthCarolina
Internet: httv / /portal.ncdenr.ora /web/wo 'J� atum/ /ff
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled /10% Post Consumer paper �/ Li"

Page Two
5. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within
the stream or grubbing of the stream banks and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish
passage and do not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
6. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across the bridge and
pre- treated through site - appropriate means (grassed swales, pre- formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before
entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
7. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing
concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to surface
waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
8. Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and
elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species
shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area
with chain saws, mowers, bush -hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact
allows the area to re- vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained
in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise approved by NC
DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
12. Heavy equipment shall be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize sedimentation
and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment shall be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials.
13. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure. If
road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour shall be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize
the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure shall be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100 -year floodplain. Approach fills shall be
removed and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area shall be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue shall not be used in riparian areas.
General Comments if Replacing the Bridge with a Culvert
1. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the elevation of the
streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter
for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and
placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a
manner that may result in dis- equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting
features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to
determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
2. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely as
possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and /or sills where appropriate. Widening the stream
channel shall be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water
velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.

Page Three
Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes
aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures shall be properly designed, sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The NCDOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be implemented to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
Polly Lespinasse at (704) 663 -1699.
cc: Liz Hair, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office (electronic copy)
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy)
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy)
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service (electronic copy)
Sonia Carrillo, DWQ Central Regional Office (electronic copy)
File Copy

Page 1 of 1
From: Phillip Todd
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 10:45 AM
To: Tommy Register; Brittney Layton
Subject: FW: B -5009, Bridge Replacement
FYI — Please include in the project folder.
From: Militscher .Chris @epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Militscher .Chris @epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 10:23 AM
To: Phillip Todd
Cc: polly.lespinasse @ncdenr.gov; sarah.e.hair @usace.army.mil
Subject: B -5009, Bridge Replacement
Phil: The USEPA has reviewed the Start of Study notice dated 4/4/11, for B -5009, Bridge #90 over
Moss Creek in the Town of Wadesboro, Anson County.
Because you are potentially considering the replacement of an existing bridge with a 2 RCBC
10'x10', documentation in the CE should clearly outline the existing conditions of the creek,
including the identification of any CWA Section 303(d) listed impairment, if relevant and
appropriate. Furthermore, if the anticipated stream impacts from installation exceed the Merger
screening criteria requiring an I.P., additional coordination is recommended with the USACE and
NCDWQ.
The CE should identify all alternatives considered, any relevant flooding issues, the reasons for the
selection of the preferred alternative, efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.,
etc.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Region 4 Raleigh Office
919 - 856 -4206
file: / /G:\Environmental\EN11.009 - Wadesboro, NC bridge replacment\Agency Scoping C... 4/12/2012

201c( oq lto 1l 3c3
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE CO
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain:
Presence of now /persistent pools in stream 0-5 0 - 4 0-5
Z
1 no now or saturation = 0i stron flow = max oints
Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0 - 5 0-5
2 extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max pints n
Riparian zone 0– 6 0–
3 no buffer = 0; conti uou wide buffer = max points
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
4 (extensive disch es = n- no dischar es =max ints
Groundwater discharge
5 (no discharge = 0; rin s, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max oints n
Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 L
6 no flood lain = 0- extensive flood lain = max p2ints
Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 0
7 deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = inax oints)
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
8 no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max oints
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4
0– 3
9 (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points
Sediment input 0-5
0– 4 0– 4
1 10 (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max oints
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0 - 5 ?
1 I ( fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max oints
Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0 - 4 0-5
12 deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks =max ints ._,
Pres.,. c: cr mq jor t,::.k failures 0-5 0 - 5 0-5
5
.3 severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stL'U;c banks = mac oints
Root depth and density on banks 0 _ 3 0-4 0 - 5
14 no visible roots = 0; dense roots throu out =max pints)
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0 _ 5 0-4 0 - 5
15 substantial impact =0; no evidence = max ints _
Presence of rilile- poouripple -pool complexes 0-3 0 - 5 0-6
' 16 no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well- dcvelo ed = max points)
Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6
0– 6
H17 'little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max oints
Canopy coverage over streambed 0_ g 0-5 0-5
18 (no s`tadin ve etation = 0; continuous cano =max pints
Substrate embeddedness NA* 0– 4 0-4
19 (deep] embedded = 0• loose structure = max
Presence%f stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0 - 5 0-5
2'
20 no evidence =; 0' common numerous es = max oints
Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 D
21 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max pints
L -- Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 D
22 no evidence = 0• common numerous s = max oints
M Evidence ofwildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
23 (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max eints
Total Paints Possible loo too 100
. :(also ente7on first page)
These chatedstics are tot assessed in coastal streams. —
�� �Q �o2
a 5
w`

'131
PVUS Puod -,y 93nod uuoM auEnbd
EAIE'1 )(I.a 09PItN EAJE'] XU13E18
i) sf
T
, vien Ue U1 Puno; aq eW Jeyl s1USiueSao ule.lajo1 uoilnllod — ExE1, Pula
I Al l..ir.. 'c..1 nnSv)n nnnC
L
1 I ,• 1
t
,V
101 ^ �%
^
udw, N AnosWEn 4SUAVIJ
t...•..... -. �nn,�nnc WEI'1 EAJE'7 anaafl
JO Pooll 1.11 Plllllij ay AULU ley; JLUJfUeD.IV {UGddly{ JL, l
nvuc namn 4uua,l lalum allaafl a111Ig
[r... ncnn q X[lauol4Z �CI1�EW
�11slPPEJ
al
- JajEA1 A411enD pooa ul Nunvj dy Aeua ley; 7-u luGnju dnlipue -, uvy..11vd — .--,L ...•.�.�• -�,
sa)eaga)Janul MVaajS aowwo3
91 },o hf cry

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Bridge #90 over Brush Fork on East Wade St
Town of Wadesboro
Anson County
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ- 1127(2)
TIP Project No. B -5009
WBS No. 41538.1.1
June 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ ..............................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS ........................ ..............................1
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ......................................................... ..............................1
3.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................ ..............................2
Table1. Soils in the study area ................................................................................. ..............................2
3.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................... ..............................2
Table 2. Water resources in the study area ............................................................... ..............................2
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area ..................... ..............................2
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................... ............................... 3
4.1 Terrestrial Communities ..................................................................................... ..............................3
4.1.1 Maintained / Disturbed .......................................................................................... ..............................3
4.1.2 Piedmont Low Mountain Alluvial Forest ............................................................ ..............................3
4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts ........................................................................... ..............................3
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area ............................... ..............................4
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................... ..............................4
4.3 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................................... ..............................4
4.4 Invasive Species .................................................................................................... ..............................4
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ..................................................... ...............................
4
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U. S .................................................................... ..............................4
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area ............. ..............................5
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area ........................ ..............................5
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits ..................................................................................... ..............................5
5.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ............................................................................. ..............................5
5.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ..................................... ..............................5
5.5 Wetland and Stream Mitigation .......................................................................... ..............................6
5.5.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts ........................................................ ..............................6
5.5.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts .............................................................. ..............................6
5.6 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ........................................................ ..............................6
Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Anson County ................................. ..............................6
5.7 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................................... ..............................8
5.8 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ....................................................... ..............................8
Table 8. Federal Species of Concern listed for Anson County ................................. ..............................9
5.9 Essential Fish Habitat .......................................................................................... ..............................9
6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................ .............................10

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B -5009, Anson County, N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 90 on East Wade Street over Brush Fork in Anson County (Figure 1). The existing
bridge will be replaced with a box culvert. A Natural Resources Technical Report
(NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE)
for the proposed project.
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS
Field work was conducted on 16 May 2011. Documentation of this jurisdictional
determination is provided in Appendix F. The principal personnel contributing to this
document were:
Principal
Investigator:
Phillip Todd
Education:
B.S. Biology, NCSU; M.P.A, NCSU
Experience:
Environmental Division Manager, SEPI Engineering 2005- Present
Project Management Group Leader, NCDOT NEU 2003 -2005
Mitigation Supervisor, NCDOT NEU 2002 -2003
Lead Specialist, NCDOT NEU 1998 -2003
Mitigation Specialist, NCDOT NEU 1998
Permit Specialist, NCDOT NEU 1996 -1998
Biological Technician, NCDOT NEU 1993 -1996
Responsibilities: Natural community assessment, jurisdictional delineations, federally
protected species, mitigation assessment, NEPA documentation
Investigator: Philip Beach
Education: B.S. Natural Resources, 2006
Experience: Project Scientist, SEPI Engineering, 2006 - Present
Responsibilities: Natural community assessment, jurisdictional delineations, federally
protected species, GIS, GPS
Additional personnel who contributed to portions of the field work and /or documentation
for this project were Brittney Layton. Appendix D lists the qualifications of these
contributors.
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The study area lies in the Yadkin Pee Dee region of North Carolina. Topography in the
project vicinity is comprised of gently rolling hills with narrow, level floodplains along
streams. Elevations in study area range from 300 to 500 feet above sea level. Land use
in the project vicinity consists primarily of residential and commercial development,
interspersed with forestland along stream corridors.
June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report
3.1 Soils
TIP B-5009, Anson County, N. C.
According to the online NRCS Web Soil Survey, there is one soil map series within the
study area (Table 1).
Table 1. Soils in the study area.
Soil Series
Mapping
Drainage Class
Hydric Status
Stream Name
Unit
Number
Classification
Mayodan Gravelly Sandy
MnC
Well drained
Non -Hydric
Loam 4 -10 /o slopes
UT Brush Fork
13- 42 -1 -3
C*
Mayodan Urban Complex
MgC
Well drained
Non -Hydric
8-15% slopes
Mayodan Gravelly Sandy
MgB
Well drained
Non - Hydric
Loam 2-8% slopes
3.2 Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the Yadkin Pee Dee river basin Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) 03040201. Two (2) streams were identified in the study area (Table
2). The physical characteristics of this stream are provided in Table 3.
Table 2. Water resources in the study area.
"UT" denotes an unnamed tributary.
* UT Brush Fork takes on the classification for the water body into which it converges, Brush Fork.
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area.
Map ID
Bank
Height ft
NCDWQ Index
Best Usage
Stream Name
Map ID
Number
Classification
Brush Fork
Brush Fork
13- 42 -1 -3 -1
C
UT Brush Fork
UT Brush Fork
13- 42 -1 -3
C*
"UT" denotes an unnamed tributary.
* UT Brush Fork takes on the classification for the water body into which it converges, Brush Fork.
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area.
Map ID
Bank
Height ft
Bankful
Width ft
Water
Depth in
Channel
Substrate
Velocity
Clarity
Brush Fork
Bedrock,
5
11.5
6
pebble,
Strong
Clear
gravel,
Flow
boulder
UT Brush
4
3.5
3
Gravel
Slow
Clear
Fork
Brush Fork has been designated as `C' by NCDWQ. Waters designated as `C' are
protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, and
may include boating and other in -water human activities. UT- Brush Fork does not have a
separate water classification of its own. Instead, the tributary takes on the classification
for the water body into which it converges, Brush Fork.
Within the study area, UT- Brush Fork has its confluence with Brush Fork approximately
June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP B -5009, Anson County, N.C.
10 feet of Bridge No 90. Brush Fork flows south until its confluence with Bailey Creek.
Bailey Creek flows into Jones Creek and North Fork Creek, which again meets up with
Jones Creek before its confluence with the Pee -Dee River.
There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS -I
or WS -II) within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The North Carolina Final 2010
303(d) list of impaired waters identifies no waters within the study area.
No benthic or biological sampling data from the 2008 NCDWQ Basinwide Water Quality
Report for the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin was available for Brush Fork or Bailey
Creek. These water resources are located within 0.5 miles of the study area.
One (1) jurisdictional wetland was identified in the project area, located in a roadside
ditch. Wetland WA originates at the pipe outlet on the north side of East Wade St and
flows towards UT -Brush Fork. The jurisdictional roadside drainage feature, which is
approximately 1 ft wide and approximately 80 fl in length, runs parallel to East Wade St.
A Jurisdictional Determination (JD) package will be submitted to the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to document both Wetland WA and UT Brush Fork status as
jurisdictional Waters of the US.
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
4.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two (2) terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: Piedmont / Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest and Maintained / Disturbed Community. Figure 3 depicts the
location and extent of these terrestrial communities in the study area. A brief description
of each community type follows. Scientific names of all species identified are included
in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Maintained /Disturbed
Maintained /disturbed areas are scattered throughout the study area in places where
vegetation is periodically mowed, such as roadside shoulders and residential lawns. The
vegetation in this community is comprised of low growing grasses and herbs, including
fescue, rabbit tobacco, and dandelions.
4.1.2 Piedmont Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The Piedmont Low Mountain Alluvial Forest community occurs along the floodplain of
Brush Fork where periodic overbank flooding from the creek occurs. Tulip poplar and
sweetgum dominate the overstory canopy, while poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle,
dogwood, privet, eastern red bud, and trumpet creeper occur in the understory.
4.1.3 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of grading and paving of portions of the study area. At this time, decisions
3 June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B -5009, Anson Count,, N. C.
regarding the final location and design of the proposed bridge replacement have not been
made. Therefore, community data are presented in the context of the community type
within the study area (Table 4).
Table 4. Terrestrial communities in the study area.
Community
Cove_ ra e (ac.
Maintained/ Disturbed
0.15
Piedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
0.14
Total
0.29
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed
habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species. Mammal species that commonly
exploit forested habitats and stream corridors found within the study area include species
such as eastern cottontail, raccoon, Virginia opossum, and white - tailed deer. Birds that
commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include the American crow, blue jay,
Carolina chickadee, tufted titmouse, and yellow - rumped warbler. Birds that may use the
open habitat or water bodies within the study area include American kestrel, belted
kingfisher, eastern bluebird, eastern meadowlark, and turkey vulture. Reptile and
amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study area include
the corn snake, eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, five -lined skink, and Northern
dusky salamander.
4.3 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities in the study area consist of both perennial and intermittent
piedmont streams. Perennial streams in the study area could support bluehead chub,
redlip shiner, northern dusky salamander, and redbreast sunfish. Intermittent streams in
the study area are relatively small in size and would support aquatic communities of
spring peeper, crayfish, and various benthic macroinvertebrates.
4.4 Invasive Species
Six species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found to
occur in the study area. The species identified were Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese
privet, Japanese privet, Chinese wisteria, and tree of heaven. NCDOT will manage
invasive plant species in the Department's ROW, as appropriate.
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Two (2) jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 5). The location of
these streams is shown on Figure 4. USACE and NCDWQ stream delineation forms are
4 June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP B -5009, Anson County, N. C.
included in Appendix C. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of
each jurisdictional stream are detailed in Section 3.2.
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area.
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area.
Map ID
NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
Compensatory
River Basin
Map ID
Length (ft.)
Classification
Mitigation Required
Buffer
Brush Fork
+/-130
Perennial
Unknown — Preliminary
No
Design
UT-Brush
+/-43
Intermittent
Unknown — Preliminary
No
For
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area.
Map ID
NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
NCDWQ Wetland
Rating
Area (ac.)
WA
None*
N/A
N/A
0.0005
* Wetland WA did not fall into any of the NCWAM Welland types when using the dichotomous key for
NCWAM Version 4.1; Wetland WA is a linear jurisdictional roadside feature (ditch).
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits
The proposed project has been designated as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the
purposes of NEPA documentation. As a result, a Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23
will likely be applicable to replace Bridge No. 90 with a culvert and for impacts to UT
Brush Fork and / or Wetland WA during construction. Dewatering of Brush Fork and
UT -Brush Fork may be necessary during construction. In addition, a NWP No: 33 for
temporary construction activities may also be necessary for dewatering. The USACE
holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project
construction.
In addition to the 404 permit, other required authorizations include the corresponding
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCDWQ. A NCDWQ Section
401 Water Quality General Certification (GC) for a Categorical Exclusion may be required.
Other required 401 certifications may include a GC 3688 for temporary construction access
and dewatering.
5.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
The study area does not reside within a stream buffered that contains NC Buffer Rules.
5.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
There are no rivers or harbors within the study area.
5 June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B -5009, Anson County, N. C.
5.5 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
5.5.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The project study area contains several jurisdictional areas — stream, unnamed tributary
and wetland. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be
implemented.
Based on the current design and to meet current safety measures, impacts to jurisdictional
areas are unavoidable, and are minimized to the extent practicable. Clear zone protection
and the culvert structure guardrail may warrant impacts to the unnamed tributary and
wetland.
5.5.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
The NCDOT will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the preferred
alternative. If on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP). In accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District" (MOA), July 22, 2003, the EEP, will be requested to provide off -
site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation
requirements for this project.
5.6 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Anson County (Table 7) as of
September 1, 2010. A brief description of each species' habitat requirements follows,
along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area.
Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best available infonnation
as per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence.
Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Anson County.
BGEPA — Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
E - Endangered
T — Threatened
6 June 2011
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Present
Conclusion
Will Not
Haliaeetus lettcocephalus
Bald Eagle
BGPA
No
Constitute a
[Disturbance
Picoides borealis
Red cockaded woodpecker
E
No
No Effect
Acipenser brevirostrunt
Shortnose sturgeon
E
No
No Effect
Helianthus schtit�einitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
No Effect
BGEPA — Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
E - Endangered
T — Threatened
6 June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report
Red - cockaded woodpecker
TIP B -5009, Anson County, N. C.
USFWS optimal survey window: year round; November -early March (optimal).
Habitat Description: The red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open,
mature stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pines palustris), for
foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. The RCW excavates cavities for nesting
and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, and which are contiguous
with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat. The foraging
range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 miles.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
The project corridor is located approximately 6 miles south from the nearest
documented RCW colony (Pee Dee national Wildlife Refuge, Anson County,
NC). During the site assessments which occurred on 16 May 2011, no RCW
individuals or cavity trees were observed. Only sub - optimal RCW foraging areas
were encountered within the project limits. A review of NCNHP GIS Data,
updated February 2011, indicates that no NC Natural Heritage Element
Occurrences were depicted within 1.0 miles of the study area.
Due to the lack of foraging and nesting habitat, a determination of `No Effect' has
been provided.
Shortnose sturgeon
USFWS optimal survey window: surveys not required; assume presence in appropriate
waters.
Habitat Description: Shortnose sturgeon occur in most major river systems along the
eastern seaboard of the United States. The species prefers the nearshore marine,
estuarine, and riverine habitat of large river systems. It is an anadromous species
that migrates to faster - moving freshwater areas to spawn in the spring, but spends
most of its life within close proximity of the river's mouth. Large freshwater
rivers that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants are imperative to successful
reproduction. Distribution information by river /waterbody is lacking for the rivers
of North Carolina; however, records are known from most coastal counties.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
According to the Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum) Federal Register 1998, the shortnose sturgeon spawns and migrates
up and down major river systems of the southeast. A review of NCNHP GIS Data,
updated February 2011, indicates that no NC Natural Heritage Element
Occurrences were depicted within 1.0 miles of the study area. The project limits
for the East Wade Bridge Replacement Project are located approximately (+ / -
20) linear miles upstream on tributaries located downstream of the Pee -Dee River.
Considering that the shortnose sturgeon prefers major river systems and would
not typically migrate an excessive distance upstream (+ / - 20 miles), it is unlikely
June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5009, Anson County, N. C.
that the project area for the East Wade Bridge Replacement Project would
constitute preferential habitat. As a result, there are no areas within the project
study area that contain shortnose sturgeon habitat.
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS optimal survey August - September, continuing until first fiost.
Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb that grows from 1 to 2 m
tall from a cluster of tuberous roots. The stems are usually solitary, branching
only at or above mid -stem. The stem is usually pubescent and is often purple.
Schweinitz's sunflower begins flowering in late August or early September and
continues flowering until the first frost. Leaf margins are entire or with a few
obscure serrations and are generally also somewhat revolute. Reproduction is
accomplished both sexually (by seed) and asexually (by tuberous rhizome). It is
believed that this species formerly occupied prairie like habitats or Post Oak -
Blackjack Oak savannas that were maintained by fire. Current habitats include
roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, woodland openings and other sunny
or semi -sunny situations. Schweinitz's sunflower is known from a variety of soil
types but is generally found growing on shallow, poor, clayey and /or rocky soils,
especially those derived from mafic rocks. In the few sites where Schweinitz's
sunflower occurs in relatively natural vegetation, the natural community is
considered a Xeric Hardpan Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area within the
Maintained / Disturbed community located along the right of way of the project
area. A plant by plant search was performed for this species on May 16, 2011.
The search was conducted during the flowering season throughout areas of
suitable habitat. No individuals of Helianthus species were observed. A review of
NCNHP GIS Data, updated February 2011, indicates that no NC Natural Heritage
Element Occurrences were depicted within 1.0 miles of the study area.
5.7 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest 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. Suitable habitat for bald eagle does not exist in the study
area.
5.8 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of September 1, 2010, the USFWS lists ten Federal Species of Concern for Anson
County (Table 8). Habitat requirements for FSC species were assessed by comparing
Naturesery Ecology and Life History data with observed field data from the May 16,
2011 study are assessment.
June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP B-5009, Anson County, N. C.
Table 8. Federal Species of Concern listed for Anson County.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Habitat Present
Anguilla rostrata
American eel
Yes
Etheostoma collis collis
Carolina darter
Yes
Moxostona sp. 2
Carolina redhorse
Yes
Moxostoma robustum
Robust redhorse
Yes
Alasntidonta varicosa
Brook floater
Yes
Villosa vaughaniana
Carolina creekshell
Yes
Lampsilis cariosa
Yellow lampmussel
Yes
Lindera subcoriacea
Bog spicebush*
No
Etttybia mirabilis
Dwarf aster
Yes
Panicunt lithophiltmt
Flatrock Panic grass
No
* Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
5.9 Essential Fish Habitat
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper
was utilized to assess the project corridor for EFH areas located within the project
corridor. The Mapper depicted no EFH areas within the project limits.
9 June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B -5009, Anson County, N. C.
6.0 REFERENCES
Code of Federal Regulations. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sttageon
(Acipenset• brevirostrum) Federal Register 1998. National Marine Fisheries
Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. online.
littp://www.nnifs.tioaa.gov/pr/pdfs/recovei-y /sturL,eoii shortnose.pdf
Cowardin, L. M., et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS /OBS- 79/31. 103 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y -87 -1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 264 pp.
Merthinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. The North Carolina
Wildlife Resourccs Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina. 227 pp.
Naturesery Explorer. Website. Plant and Animal Records Data. Updated 2011.
littp://%N,ww.iiatureser,.,e.org/explorer/itidex.litiii
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP). NC County Heritage Data. Database Updated February 2011.
http: / /www.nconemap.com /Default.aspx ?tabid =286
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources / North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (N CDWQ). February 2011. DWQ Classifications
2011_02_08. ESRI ARCGIS shapefile format.
htW:11207.4.252.941D l t'Q Data Dist/
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources / North Carolina
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) 2010. DWQ assessment
units with 2010 detailed water quality assessment decisions.
nc_2010_IR_Asmnt_20100928. ESRI ARCGIS shapefile format.
http://207.4.252.94 /DWQ Data Dist/
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). CSU: Surface Water Classifications.
http://poilal.iicdeiir.org/web/wq/ps/csu Accessed January 2011.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). Water Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch.
December 2010. (DRAFT) Pee -Dee River Basin, Basin Water Quality Plans.
htip: /l -)octal.ncdcnr.org/tt,eb/it,gl ps/bJ)it/basiiiA,adkinpeecl(,
10 June 2011

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B -5009, Anson County, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2003. Best Management
Practices For Construction and Maintenance Activities. August, 2003.
orth Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1997. Best Management
Practices For Protection of Surface Waters. March, 1997.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2011. USGS Topographic
Mosaic Map Anson County, NC (SID Format). Accessed June 2011.
Peterson, R.T., editor. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North
America. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 384 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
1183 pp.
Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998.
Hydrologic Units -North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Shortnose sturgeon in North
Carolina. http:// www. fws.gov /nc- es /fish/shortst.html. (Accessed 02/15/08)
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Anson County NC. Last updated
September 2010. http•// www .fws- gov /nc- es /es /countyfr.html
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
11 June 2011

Appendix A
Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

_ y ,
7.
of
ri• ,�� . �!— L �y , t -_'� Y —_1ti•r
fL�' ' `r , 1,PROJ ECT
T �I t \
`�` y ;;,�,, a„ l =;, . ter #a vk �1 LOCATION
.•i f. r, r w 1.Stl it f. -' j, ,r ,t �, L lY �(,,l , { f/ �' 1 + _� ' ":7,:
• "• till I , � , 7.3 �.r :. �. r � }� :. � i } r ?
OFf` , ;` rr 51 r t t +v
WADESBORO'
� �� � '+
1 _ i }�YS`t 1 �1}. tiC..•. 1. 7 Jt 1 •1 f- f
..- ' ��' S ?" • ci, '7.. T-� lti. t ^s�. �� yi S •yjj 1 I t�t
. - '_!_.\ n� � S'T. y :J '!\ !. 'Si s �i. j�s'' r,i;'O3 �Lt-a'a: y'i. 4 � � tl ' � .z .•x .1 ^.
�� ti`.. '. i/ t� t'} `+ jol ��' ;{ % f ,S } i+,>r �f "`: "gxzt�.
1Y1 �3�1
.. - � I I �,,' y CIS Tr �� , � �• , I r .� �f_ { y •: ii �� �
j� ' y=v f w . fr � � � I � � ti_ $ �• �t '� r a 5 �, 'I�j� {r � y ! � i �lg5 tf} \, yt�`
`: wy `� � �'�•���> �}''`' r. t r �`"*2y', r ,
.. � Yr^1` '' I 1 � r i,= • i °1r ��� , t„�` -tic. � , ., "� `' r Id . /r, S ,�I.
1 S S 3 1 %4� o.
y (tin TOWN OF
WADESBORO, NC
ANSON COUNTY TIP Project No. B -5009
Replacement of Bridge No. 90 East Wade Street
over Brush Fork, Anson County, NC
VICINITY MAP
. r " .c � 1 -�' �� �� � � • 1 St•1 r, .� r FIGURE 1
N
DATA SOURCE:
SEPI Engineering, Inc Field Data Jan 2011
NCDOTUSGS Mosaic Raster 2010 Anson Courty, NC VJ G
0 2 4
Miles s

0
BRIDGE ®.90
UT BRU _ FORK
.� 3'.5 FT 1MDE
( _..Y f� .
C 31NCHE3 DEEP
25'UNEAK FTr)
BRUSH FORK -
(11T5; F�Tj`1MDE
6 INCHES DEEP
130'LINEAF � r.
�NN�F REA
No-� E5' PAS uD� P
M GON PR0��G� St
��Ovj 0
Project Limits TOWN
WADESBOR O,NC
Brush Fork ANSON COUNTY TIP Project No. B45009
Replacement of Bridge No. 90 East Wade Street
UTBrush Fork over Brush Fork, Anson County, NC
Wetland WA JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES MAP
FIGURE 3

a 1 •i
MEW= D `.lam U VaJO 9@ 1,
, 1 00-
� 4
i T r
M 1
��e'.` Alai • n D • • .
"yam �r',�#�it � r `•t a • 1 r,. F 1 ^1'1
�11�-�' • OF
I• to ix rp+a �.Ir :��J iOR•
ANSON CCUNTY TIP Project No.
• �, "; i tit . + •:✓ �liII�
.r
y j!, ••
over Brush Fork, Anson Count%
NATURAL COMMUNITIES I
1 'l

Appendix B
Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Plants
Common Name
Scientific Name
Chinese privet
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese wisteria
Wisteria sinensis
Dandelion
Taraxacttm officinale
Dogwood
Cornus florida
Eastern redbud
Cercis Canadensis
Fescue
Festuca sp.
Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Japanese privet
Ligustrttm japonicum
Poison ivy
Toxicodendron radicans
Rabbit tobacco
Gnaphalitun obtusifolittm
Sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Tree -of- Heaven
Ailanthus altissima
Trumpet creeper
Campsis radicans
Yellow poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
Animals
Common Name
Scientific Name
American crow
Con,tts brachyrhynchos
American kestrel
Falco sparverius
Belted kingfisher
Ceryle alcyon
Blue jay
Cyanocitta cristata
Carolina chickadee
Poecile carolinensis
Corn snake
Elaphe guttata
Eastern bluebird
Sialia sialis
Eastern box turtle
Terrapene carolina
Eastern cottontail
Sylvilagus floridantts
Eastern fence lizard
Sceloportts undulates
Eastern meadowlark
Sturnella magna
Five -lined skink
Eumeces anthracinus
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Turkey vulture
Cathartes aura
Virginia opossum
Didelphis virginiana
White- tailed deer
Odocoileus virginiantts
Yellow - rumped warbler
Dendroica coronata

Appendix C
Wetland and Stream Forms
W ._ # ,
1p
y

v T-
NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins v. 4.11
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 5' 1(Q p j `
wc3RS c"'
Project/Site:: JV G'V
Latitude:
Evaluator: P� i I ��G{
County: "also"
Longitude: -cam ,0 &'� ,
Total Points:
Stream Deter i (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent (� .�
Ephemeral ntermitte t Perennial
e.g. Quad !Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if z 30*
2
3
o r �
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ( 2' v )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
(1)
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
r 20
�J
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2_
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
T
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
Not- 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrirnlnnv (Ri ihtntai = _1. U )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
Q)
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
y6s = 3
C. Rioloov (Subtotal = (✓ • ) --- - -- I
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22, Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1-
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
_0_0
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Oth =o
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
41

W-C+f C( L. d � n - I G f
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: East Wade Street Bridge Replacement City/County: Wadesboro /Anson Sampling Date: 16 May 2011
Applicant/Owner: Town of Wadesboro NC State: Sampling Point: At pipe outlet
Investigator(s): Phillip Todd Phil Beach Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Roadside Ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %): 0-.5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 34.966149° Long: - 80.063891° Datum: UTM
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayodan -Urban land complex 4 to 10 percent slopes NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No I Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
All 3 criteria criteria present; area is a wetland. Wetland is located within a roadside ditch which originated from a pipe outlet
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Hydrologic criteria present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Il Ulk I apt d p fj
e/ 6
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: At pipe outlet
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B
2•
3,
4.
5.
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8.
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1
2
3
4
5.
6.
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: Entire wetland )
1. Juncus effusus 20 Y FACW
2. Polygonum hydropiperoides 10 N OBL
3. Toxicodendron radicans 10 N FAC
4. Commelina communis
20 Y FAC
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height.
5.
6
7,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
60 =Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
= Total Cover
Remarks: Vegetative criteria present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

Sampling Point: At pipe outlet
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Dark Surface (S7)
Redox Features
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
0-4
7.5 YR 4/2
90
7.5 YR 7/8 10
Sandy Clay Loam
6-10
7.5 YR 5/1
60
7.5 YR 7/8 40
Silty Loam
10 -14
7.5 YR 5/1
60
7.5 YR 7/8 40
Silty Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks: Hydric soils
:duced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
X Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: East Wade Street Bridge Replacement City /County: Wadesboro /Anson Sampling Date: 16 May 2011
Applicant/Owner: Town of Wadesboro NC State: Sampling Point: Upland In R/W
Investigator(s): Phillip Todd, Phil Beach Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Roadside Ditch Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %): 0•.5
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 34.966149° Long: - 80.063891° Datum: UTM
Soil Map Unit Name: Mayodan Urban land complex 4t 10 percent slopes _ NWI classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
ci IRAMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks: No wetland criteria present; area Is not a wetland. Wetland is located within a roadside ditch which originated from a pipe outlet.
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
rrcuan.. ,.Y..... "y ............
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Surface Sol[ Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (614) —
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _
Drainage Patterns (1310)
_
(A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)_
Moss Trim Lines (616)
—Saturation
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _
Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_
Drift Deposits (63)
— Thin Muck Surface (C7) _
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_
Iron Deposits (135)
_
— Geomorphic Position (D2)
_
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_
Water- Stained Leaves (139)
— Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
— FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
ELeld Observations:
—
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches)-
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gaugu;-monitorirrgwell, aerial photos�sTevtausltssp
ions), if available:
Remarks: Hydrologic criteria not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

UQ1cxv�� r1n.2o�3
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Upland in R/W
Remarks: Vegetative criteria not present
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7•
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1
2
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL species X5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
3
4
5•
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7•
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9•
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
= Total Cover
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: Entire wetland )
1. Festuca sap
80 Y NI
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3•
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 m) tall.
g,
10.
Herb —All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
12.
80 =Total Cover
Woody vine —All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
6
= Total Cover
Remarks: Vegetative criteria not present
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

U�6Ac� F9, 3? 4 3
SOIL
Sampling Point: Upland in R/W
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
(inches) Color (moist) %
Redox Features
Color (moist) % Tne Loc
Texture Remarks
0-8 7.5 YR 413
Silt
Loam
8-12 7.5 YR 514
Silt Loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 21-ocation:
Hydric Soil Indicators:
PL--Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1`19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks: Hydric soils criteria not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Appendix D
Qualifications of Contributors
Investigator: Britt Layton
Education: B.A. Cultural Anthropology, 2008
Experience: Environmental Specialist, 2010- present
Responsibilities: Documentation

ADDENDUM
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
On
Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
for
Bridge #90 over Brush Fork on East Wade St
Town of Wadesboro
Anson County
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ- 1127(2)
TIP Project No. B -5009
WBS No. 41538.1.1
October 3, 2011
Addendum BA Page 1 of 3
Replacement of Bridge No. 90 (Wadesboro, NQ

The purpose of this addendum biological assessment is to provide documentation for
Schweinitz's sunflower site search conducted on October 3, 2011 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge #90 over Brush Fork on East Wade St.
Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herb that grows from 1 to 2 in
tall from a cluster of tuberous roots. The stems are usually solitary, branching only at or
above mid -stem. The stem is usually pubescent and is often purple. Schweinitz's
sunflower begins flowering in late August or early September and continues flowering
until the first frost. Leaf margins are entire or with a few obscure serrations and are
generally also somewhat revolute. Reproduction is accomplished both sexually (by seed)
and asexually (by tuberous rhizome). It is believed that this species formerly occupied
prairie like habitats or Post Oak - Blackjack Oak savannas that were maintained by fire.
Current habitats include roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, woodland openings
and other sunny or semi -sunny situations. Schweinitz's sunflower is known from a
variety of soil types but is generally found growing on shallow, poor, clayey and/or rocky
soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks. In the few sites where Schweinitz's
sunflower occurs in relatively natural vegetation, the natural community is considered a
Xeric Hardpan Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area within the
Maintained / Disturbed community located along the right of way of the project area. A
non - flowering season plant by plant search was originally performed for this species on
May 16, 2011. During the May 2011 search, no individuals of the genus Helianthus were
encountered. A follow up search was conducted on October 3, 2011 during the flowering
season throughout areas of suitable habitat within the project study area. No individuals
of Helianthus species were observed. A review of NCNHP GIS Data, updated February
2011, indicates that no NC Natural Heritage Element Occurrences were depicted within
1.0 miles of the study area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Addendum BA Page 2 of 3
Replacement of Bridge No.90 (Wadesboro, NQ

6.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP). NC County Heritage Data. Database Updated February 2011.
http://www.nconemap.com/Default.asi)x?tabid=286
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998.
Hydrologic Units -North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Anson County NC. Last updated
September 2010. http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
Addendum BA Page 3 of 3
Replacement of Bridge No. 90 (Wadesboro, NQ

CONTRACT-
750012118
TIP
PROJECTE
-5009
�
N
m
N
B
-u
�
70
O
�
p
d
Ti
m �
M
B =
m
=
v
z
nui�saa
�S
°
rr
m
m
_
O
rt
-I
0
f
m
-' 0
77
v
(,n
r�s� )
r
D
m
% S,
C r
a
D D
O O
0
O
CD m
�
Ln
rt
O
0C
(n C]
�Jk
O ?j
rl
D " O
a•
cn O D
Lr)D���X
zy
n
D
�� ►�
F- =
? V
v
N
:10
FTJ
o
Z
o
D
r
CD
D
m
C-)
D
D
o
o
��
m
m
c-
0
C1�
-�
_
`i
POT Sto. 1000.00 10
0
::D
--
D
® wt
o(�
v) rri
D
O
m
z
o y
D
-
®
N
CD
•�0 _1
o°
0
z
CD
C1�
�
m
D
C
�
NJ
N
m N
m
—I O D
O
�
to W
°
~
(-1
l I
D
D
m
D
ti
=
D v
° b
m
FT l
I I
D
m
C� �t
M— 0
,'
Z
cn
D
m
m
cn
m
oz
o
m
Z Z
C
ID
V.nV�W
N p a
(A y
°
a
ti^ o
�-�
Z
F-4
o
<
z m
N
^ A
Z
m
L
m
�
o�
D
UD
o
D
C
N_
L1
LO
`-' '
I
z
D
ti
0
=
�
�
D
0
D
POT Sta. 12.9898
C
o
z
n
cn
C
M m
M m
m
�7
" cn
z
m
a
z
m
.
T
T m
Q
9
N
A
mm y>y
r� c P
V I
8�
P
ura�a.
S0
a
�z A�
8
(A�> A
9 �°
G
Ap�ON • MW�1
o
.> °z m
z
Z

I.
_ i _ I,r
*J/ 14/ "
kll\\\\L\ \\\�\\
-ij
FT1
N 10'50'�
U:lj
TA 0
F-
175.00
(-n
Un
CU
D
F-
F-
F---1
F-
N
D
--- i 00
F-
n
CD F--
J-\
zz >
<
--- i
0
z
n
OZ.
FTI
0-) >
00
rA
CT)
>
C)
co
rQ
Cr N
N
>
0-)
F-r]
C)
>
Do
I.
_ i _ I,r
*J/ 14/ "
kll\\\\L\ \\\�\\
�80
rr // l
1 4,
J
CI K0
'41
110 50,38"
177,96'
C,Tl-
- -----------
---------------
----------
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- I---- - - - - --
- - - - - - - - -
N 10'50'�
175.00
J-\
(A
FTI
rA
CT)
C)
co
c
N
F-r]
Do
�80
rr // l
1 4,
J
CI K0
'41
110 50,38"
177,96'
C,Tl-
- -----------
---------------
----------
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- I---- - - - - --
- - - - - - - - -

—SSSS --05ERNLAM ssss
Fri �7; % /// /
D N 10' 50'2
D 175.00
hl
Dom, I co
F
(�'
CD
>
-C
I
m) rte.. ) - ------
FTI
Q�
n
U' I/
0 U4
N)
r\I
LA Q0
FT1
> i 1„
sO
-- �O-
36 5 ----
Q,
01
Q-3
+
Q0
7-
03
Qs)
80�
F-rj- -------------
CO 0-)
7'p,
360-__
---------------------
Z
S 11*50'38"(!fj�)
177.96'
--- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -------- - - - - --
— — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — —
360. i r' ',_" N

��l
u �J