20191362 Ver 2_ePCN_Br162_R133_SupportingMaterials_With_Cover_Letter_20220714

;I ""mm�0
�y �C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 13,2022
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest,NC 27587
SUBJECT: Pre-Construction Notification Pursuant to Regional General Permit 50
NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Project
Bridge No. 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek(Class C), Stanly County,NC
WBS Number: 17BP.10R.133
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
We are requesting a Section 404 Regional General Permit (RGP) 50 for work associated with the
replacement of Bridge No. 162 with a new bridge at the same location over Hardy Creek(Class C) on SR
1923 in Stanly County. The project will permanently impact 77 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to
Hardy Creek for a channel change associated with the bridge replacement and roadway modifications
parallel to the stream. There will be 8 linear feet of permanent stream impact needed for stream bank
stabilization along Hardy Creek. There will be potentially 175 linear feet of temporary stream impacts for
demolition/construction of the bridge. There will be 19 linear feet of temporary stream impacts necessary
for the installation of an 8-inch water line. The temporary impacts associated with the water line fall
within the previously described 175 linear feet of temporary impacts necessary for
demolition/construction of the bridge.
The approximate 30-foot wide bridge will consist of two lanes including two 10-foot travel lanes and
3.25-foot paved shoulders on either side of the bridge. The proposed structure would be lengthened from
approximately 26 feet to approximately 70 feet. There will be bank stabilization installed along Hardy
Creek. Dewatering impacts will be necessary within Hardy Creek for a water line relocation on the south
side of the roadway.
There will be no wetland impacts.
Section 106
Section 6 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to take into account
the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. NCDOT Cultural Resource staff reviewed the
project for Historic Architectural and Archeological Resources. A No Survey Required Form for Historic
Architecture and Landscapes was provided by a NCDOT Architectural Historian on November 2, 2018. A
Mailing Address: Telephone:[phone] Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax:[phone] 716 WEST MAIN STREET
DIVISION 10 Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968 ALBEMARLE,NC 28001
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE,NC 28001 Website:www.ncdot.gov

No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites Present Form was
provided by the NCDOT Archaeologist on May 7,2019.
Protected Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
website lists Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorate) as endangered, and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni) as threatened within the study area. There is habitat in the study area for Schweinitz's
sunflower. No Schweinitz's sunflowers were found during field surveys of the study area conducted on
September 27,2017 and again on July 11,2022. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database, accessed July 7, 2022, found no occurrences of Schweinitz's sunflower within 1.0
mile of the study area. A biological conclusion of"No Effect"was reached for Schweinitz's sunflower.
A mussel survey was conducted on June 23, 2022, and a Freshwater Mussel Survey Report was prepared
on July 1, 2022. The results of the mussel survey indicate that the study area supports suitable habitat for
freshwater mussels, however no mussel species were observed during the survey. Based on the survey
results it was determined that impacts to Atlantic pigtoe and Carolina heelsplitter are unlikely to occur in
the study area and the recommended biological conclusion for both species is 'May Affect-Not Likely to
Adversely Affect'.
There is potential summer roosting habitat in the existing bridge and the surrounding trees for northern
long-eared bat (NLEB). No evidence of bats using the bridge was observed during a July 11, 2022 field
review. The project may require tree clearing or pile driving but no blasting or percussive activities are
anticipated. Based on the findings and in conforming to SLOPES procedures it has been determined that
the USACE's Alternative Local Procedure (ALP) Situation 2 would be applicable. The NCDOT
determined that the project 'May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect' the NLEB. NCDOT has
determined that the proposed action does not require separate consultation on the grounds that the
proposed action is consistent with the final Section 4(d) rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(o) and
effective February 16,2016. Section 7 responsibilities are therefore considered fulfilled.
Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A desktop-GIS assessment of
the study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits
was performed. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding
sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study
area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the
NHP database on July 7,2022 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the study
area. Due to no nests or eagles being identified during the survey, no known occurrences within a mile,
and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this
species.
If you have any questions, comments or need additional information after reviewing this material please
contact me at(704)983-4423. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Brett Canipe,PE
Division Engineer,NCDOT Division 10

Attachment A—Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan
Attachment B—Delineation Materials
Attachment C—Representative Photographs
Attachment D—T&E Supplemental Information
Attachment E—No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed Archaeological Sites
Present Form; Historic Architecture, Landscapes No Survey Required Form

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek— PCN for RGP 50
Attachment A
Permit Drawings with Stormwater Management Plan

I li itway North Carolina Department of Transportation
,010
stormwater-:I !hl
Highway Stormwater Programr�.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ,:`'o-/��
(Version 2.08;Released April 2018) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 17BP.10.R.133 TIP No.: SF-830162 County(ies): Stanly Page 1 of 1
General Project Information
WBS Element: 17BP.10.R.133 ITIP Number: SF-830162 I Project Type: Bridge Replacement IDate: 7/27/2018
NCDOT Contact: Marc Shown Contractor/Desig_ner: STV Engineers Inc./Shirshant Sharma
Address:1020 Birch Ridge Drive Address:900 West Trade Street,Ste.715
Raleigh,NC 27610 Charlotte,NC 28202
Phone:[phone] Phone:[phone]
Email:[e-mail] Email:[e-mail]
City/Town: Norwood County(les): Stanly
River Basin(s): Yadkin-Pee Dee I CAMA County? No
Wetlands within Project Limits? No I
1 Project Description 11. —
Project Length(lin.miles or feet): 0.089 miles I Surrounding Land Use: (Rural,wooded,agricultural
Proposed Project Existing Site
Project Built-Upon Area(ac.) 0.3 ac. 0.2 ac.
Typical Cross Section Description: Bridge:Two 10'lanes,3'-3"paved shoulders Bridge:Two 7.9'lanes,no shoulders
Approach:Two 10'lanes,3'-0"paved shoulders Approach:Two 8'lanes,4'grassed shoulders
Annual Avg Daily Traffic(veh/hr/day): Design/Future: 800 Year:2025 Existing: 400 Year: 2001
General Project Narrative: The existing single span 25'-8"bridge over Hardy Creek on SR 1923(Old Cottonville Rd)is being replaced with a single span(1 @70')24"cored slab bridge with 4'end bent
(Description of Minimization of Water caps.The bridge will be superelevated at 4%with 10'travel lanes and 3'-3"shoulders,26"-6"clear width and 30'-0"OTO width.The existing bridge structure will be removed
Quality Impacts) and the aburtments will be cut off at elevation 344 ft.Overall drainage patterns will be maintained.There are roadside ditches that flow towards the bridge on both sides of the
structure.The proposed design will interfere with three of the existing ditches flow patterns.Proposed ditches and a channel change will be used to maintain flow to the bridge.
On the end side of the bridge,a concrete flume was placed on the left side of the roadway in the shoulder berm gutter to pick up runoff from the bridge.Class-II rip rap abutment
protection on both banks of the stream is also proposed to prevent future erosion and stream migration.No deck drains are needed.No dissipator pads were used because the
Class-II rip rap will prevent erosion and dissipate flow.A proposed water line crossing construction will also be performed as part of this project which will cross the stream
downstream of the proposed bridge.The work area shall be cordoned off with impervious dikes and pump around operation and the sediment laden water within the work area
shall be filtered out using a special stilling basin.
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body(1): I Hardy Creek NCDWR Stream Index No.: 13-17-42
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body Primary Classification: Class C
Supplemental Classification: None
Other Stream Classification: None
Impairments: None
Aquatic T&E Species? No Comments:
NRTR Stream ID: Buffer Rules in Effect: I N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Yes Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? INo Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? INo
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body? No (If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes,describe in the General Project Narrative;if no,justify in the
(If yes,provide justification in the General Project Narrative) General Project Narrative)

See Sheet IA For Index ofSlmers STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA m" "'"•••`•••m"," T.: —
M See Sheet IB For Standard Symbology Shoot 133 1
DIVISIONrn OF HIGHWAYS HWAYS N.C. 17BP.10.R.
�`— �� A 17BP.10.R.133 ..wm P.E.
1:4
o �. �Jz�
STANLY COUNTY
24
Mr• - "� , g `"e LOCATION:BRIDGE #162 OVER HARDY CREEK ON SR 1923(OLD COTTONVILLE ROAD) NORT.r
CAROLINA
t\ ER
N Se,'.31 TYPE OF WORK:GRADING,PAVING,DRAINAGE,& STRUCTURE
I—PROJE f i.,,....,•i♦♦V%,
e ,1= :EGIN71f
a SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT Vim'
•--•—e DETOUR VICINITY MAP N.T.S.
2
Cu
v
W END PROJECT WBS 17BP.10.R133
O —L—STA.17+60.00
BEGIN PROJECT WBS I7BP.10.R.133 4 /Cgm �
—L—STA.12+90.00 SEE % F
FIGURE
SITE 1%
SITE 1 �� -
i
BEGIN
a". ND�Dgl
✓�.
e.,.,6.77.,s
7', TO SR INS \\\E
�Ie _ SR,"23 C'orTONVILLEROADI 3,11MIC ,,r ✓
4i --
— \ j r
\ \� 80' 0' 80'
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. Permit Drawing ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
- Sheet -1 of B ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I aaL.ee.r�e�ar...ae.eaar..L.,E,
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED r0 THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD II. GRAPHIC SCALE
GRAPHIC SCALPS DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH Sr LEANS PREPARED FOR THE xeDOT BY: HYDRAULICS
ENY�y R vvAg COOTa
aszossA
Ig 10 0 40 ADT 2001 = 400 ®3TU 100 wn,ez ns
�";,'�� ADT 2025= 800 LENGTH OF ROADWAY PROJECT WBS I7BP.I R.D3= .075 MILES "�u°.^+�u..e.r-reel
_ E�Fyy PLANS DHV= N/A LENGTH OF STRUCTURE PROJECT WBS ITBP.M.Ri33 = .III MILES Am pE
20 10 4 20 0 scAlcanass
D = N/A TOTAL LENGTH OF PROJECT WBS IBP.l0R.I33 = .ID MILES AT
RIGHT OF WAY DATE: NIKKI T.HONEYCUTT,PE ROADWAY 14"Alr7.---
'O`•11 `i ■I\ J T = 6% OCTOBER 15,2018 SH AL""""'8P DESIGN
PROFILE(HORIZONTAL) V = 45 MPH ENGINEER
— U 4 2 4 R FUNC.CLASSIFICATION: NCDOT CONTACT: GARLAND HAYWOOD,PE LETTING DATE: CLARK E.GROVES
`� J LOCAL Division Bridge Manager MAY 15,2019 PROJECT°6B14YLfl
prig J` PROFILE(VERTICAL) SUB REGIONAL TIER ^ AvaeNT P.

LEGEND STU 100 w�.��ww rbm nI7BPJORJ33 I zxr�rvo
m y��� / NMSUR ACE wATERs-53 Mg SKr NO.
pf/�Li�� suRvncE wnrta ry iii1l5 PTEwNEEa RNcmRRa/
WIA iMvncTs iry suancE muER SITE 1STREAM PERMIT IMPACT mn•
24ERnqAREA IAGI LENGTH Im /
DB 1219 PG 954
pERmAMENT
SS
SW IMPACTS .
Sw�MPADTS ,l5 0 r. ire
-,«:::i:�: o%o:E;:•MOR. '"CAA Irr
...DS .. r TPTURPACE W TER 81 --// / /'/..
r T _ C ®� WAS®a -- -
N 7859588E L ���Ill , ■• / ' �¢
RI A ... Ateliiir�� ...o olE ROAD)
u �Q P
-------- F F = •�;vsr /
.. .ODD, �. ®®� It�� � � ��/� �.. GDDB .11
o o n
10
�f 0 MT I �,/ RB R+PG 181
DB tR55 PC B80
_ DB 1592 PG 79
DUE SUE DUE
-" - • -- �0V'p PERMAMENT IMPACTS=5R •
O O IN�,�� � � 11�SURFACE WATER
L,a„a, FIGURE ,4
40' 0' 40' oa''R SITE 1 POMP AROUND OPERATION m11
IIi i i i ' ��1 TEMPORARY IMPACTS_,.
GRAPHIC SCALE IMPERVIOUS DIKE
UND r.1 . 19 SURFACE WATER
Permit Drawing C? OPERATION fl `'\
Sheet z of s
364 BEGIN PROJECT WRs OBP.10.R133 NO DECK DRAINS REQUIRED 364
STAI2+90,00
I. I_E:17sr EL=360,50' PI=13+4000
e VC= PI-14+8000
8 360 -60
KKY MPH` EL-34655' 360
- K=31 END PROJECT WBS 17BP.IO.RJ33
PROPOSED GRADE
OS=25 MPH STA-17+60.00
.1' 356 ` �` BEGIN BRIDGE EL=35I3T' 356
�-�- -L-5TA 15+04.84 END BRIDGE Pl=16+7000
-L-STA 15+716 EL=346%'
! ``\- EXISTING GROUND] KC 352 =33 OY_
=.
OS-£5 MPH EXIST S+L = _ 352
aYl I_\'�---- BM-2
m Pl=14i00Ltl LT I. _ BM-I 0
e 348 353DD' �� ____ (r180000 X
El' I,J4 ;103105X !-X/JK15% (+)?yTIBY.
` BRIDGE TTE
348:,3344 4 I I I I I I P145+04b4 LT �__� - (+)03/88 X 1 Pl + OO LT EI=34JdJ'E1-34TA0 =OVERTOPPING II
EST.350 CY.UNCLASSlF1ED P1=16+3200 Rl STRUCTURE EXCAVATION p/-/5+T81K1 T EI=344L': BOTH SIDES
DATE OF SOW, _ ED,DDC, DESIGN SPEED SHOWN FOR VERTICAL CURVE IS UP E/=3HP'
9 TO 20 MPH LESS THAN OVERALL DESIGN SPEED CL IRIP RA P1=15+6100 RT TON
ITVP.)
,,� PER SUB-REGIONAL TIER DESIGN GUIDELINES. SEE STRUCTURES PLANS„a? 336 ATDro sunvEr - DRr EI=34J78' siEllSTRUCTURES PLANS i l i 1 i i i l l l 336
N1 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00

m LEGEND" o , ' ,�� i7 I \7(\� E WATER_TEMPORARY IMPACTS 53 ®STY moss, . m1..n6 L,BPJORJ33�RN/SKr� SHEET3
re
f// i " �\lam 16--- //////I///T�l'.. /�R IN C / tw."Z =,Y,.vlW/IA °,o'c:`.°� �:n .,E. SITE 1ACE NEW PROMISES.LLC
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT / 3tTf �n
E
AREA IACI LENCTN IETI re 1218 Pc Rst
PERmAMENT .T,
SW MPACTS o of RS a "s / ALL
s o DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
TEMPORARY _ �$
W IMPACTS 4 sA ��r• ._ "�� i
SIGNATURES COMPLETER
}63 P RMAMENT MPAC
S� ao¢ i�� 6N�URFACE WATER SI u / � /
369 362
fM
6 0 35P —35l — ..,»
• E6E�
,E=
5359 Ea i a oBa - _ \.
F ,�y,,'� IP. ' .cp' '�illasa es a;< o Q.
N
a>
-s
ail//
3sR � 6,r
.E ,
DE: m
osr ✓ '- .,, mlf, PERMANENT IMPACTS_52
\\ C esr\ es[ O \ 77 FT
IN URFACE WATER
°" FIGURE
as s o' 40' SITE 1 i * -*"p-ARoUNR OPERATION m,.
iiiii \\�f I TEMPORARY IMPACTS_s, �"
VnRE R RE IrvP 19 SURFACE WATER
GRAPHIC SCALE -�zc Woa AROUND _ a
Permit Drawing ����� (OPERATION ° ��
Sheet 3 of s � � "' V
364 BEGIN PROJECT S OBP./O.R133 NO DECK DRAINS REQUIRED
VMS I
STAI2+90,00
o `L ,st EL=360,50' PI w 314000
EL=135510
VC-Oa PI-I4480L0
8 360 ' w 90`MPH EL-34955' 360
K-31 END PROJECT ABS'78,0,5133
PROPOSED GRADE-
OS=E5 MPH STA-1,60.00
356 `"`��� �` BEGIN BRIDGE EL=35/33' 356
�—�� -L-5TA 15+04.84 END BRIDGE Pl=16+T0.00
-L-STA 15,716 EL=346%'
352 EXISTING cAD//RD KC=33
DY__-.
OS-E5 MPH EXIST S+L = 352
aYl r \'�--�
m Pl=14i00Ltl LT 54,000% 7. BM-1 ZARE
348 353DD' (r1 Y0000
fl- I,14 ;KlJbS% - !-X/J.05% (+)?yT/8Y.
` BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA X P/-/T46040 a- 348
5 scnaacE = sm Pl+350.1D LT P/=/5+0040 LT +/82000
ioxFREQUENCY - E1=3500. E/-J48D0' 1 f+1 OJffi Y. (+11E000/ /-
CFS
f-)/E.4Etl0 X O PI-164C000 LT P1=/1+i= LT
oEslcx tM ElEvarrox = Er
344 ease ascnaRse - � crs E/=34680' 1:1,:1 S0 LT El 1748 ' 344
o Rue FREQUENCY = IRO
tR 'III J P145+09b4 LT (+10J/8B% 1 PI + 00 LT E1=34Jd7'
BASE SAT ELEVATION El�3NA0' 1 l=
5.
DISCHARGE`_ _ EST.350 CY.UNCLASSIFIED p/=/6+3ZL0 Rl
340 wERtaev xc OVERTOPPING DAi�x 3as/ Er STRUCTURE EXCAVATION p/�/5+TBlp LT EI-344LO' 340
E. 'NOTE: BOTH SIDES
IQ DATE OF SOW, _ 0inim7 DESIGN SPEED SHOWN FOR VERTICAL CURVE IS UP 40 TON
E/=344P'
TO 00 MPH LESS THAN OVERALL DESIGN SPEED45 RIP TRIP RAP 5 336 iEAOF Su/.vEY 0/n' PER SUB-REGIONAL TIER DESIGN GUIDELINES SEE USTRUCTURES PPLANS ::;:: SEEIISTRUCTURES PeuNS 1 I I I1I I I I I1111 336
^ti
n5 x 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00

ml r/// .G..DrP N i
/ STU ioo .� r aNrro. ExPIrv.E./- S r/BPJOpNT�Oil° TEMPORARYIMPACRV rzy Iry .rmwnne kIN SURFACE WATER SD/ 'oN1)5 FT
STREAM PERMIT IMPACT rARu yq RfNO"Irn 1, '' GE E PRPs. uusEss nii sior...oREs coMriE.Eo
w ImrAcrs P.os es p - Nx
rfRMAMFNT C� COTTAGE Ra PaPRO aRra oocoms...o.co.siosREo as
`D:ID: °" : SITE 1
7__. ___________ _,____ -- •. .-, .,—At<4`-.1.-/o•11r11-.-.1-%._ #� Ai
coos #i4��:►� , , . �—
:
'e� i�iii�ii� .�iiiiiiii --
®�iiii®Oil, �/.iiiiiiSii�. --
,_
—%//,r iiiiiWIIW<■1.L�%!KIBail% �_
� �. t gi - . -AA S� yam i
/�"rlw�i�lr� dR��C�����■ � MODIFIED CONCRETE �-
�A:ogo�, �1tr►ittet1 M FLUME 192i ponD
- , ���1 l nip 011 REfT FNT IMPACTS_SI
IN SURFACE WATER - ---
-...17-411:7-19:,____-7.,
D.N'.��7
.ii®®ii►�� rayti .y Ay
1"` iiiwi �`4i� '!or;Er �c s.��.�ri�i��
SW.SIMEON \ :!If.or._ Ar:AW4V7 j0141611.11.110.1111160.-rdir6-LER,WLdriraMfr 4_____,.________js .7st.
ME ME PP 770
Tr
/
PERAUMENT IMPACTSoF SEE `i: : I FT
SRFACE WATER
\ S]
FIGURE 4 i DUE DUE DUE DUE D ��
- .. _- oo SITE 1 * i i F 0®® ARO OPE TION w LLD
TEMPORARY IZO=SJ
°E 19 SURFACE WATfR RS iRi
20' 0' 20' IMPERVIOUS DIKE BY, . r DUE ,11' I
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ OPERATION
GRAPHIC SCALE \
Permit Drawing \
Sheet a of e
_ \

PROPE [' TY OWNS I' S
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESS
1 PAMELA A SIMPSON 32637 II,ETHLEHEM CHURCH RD
NOI'WOOD NC 28128
2 II ETTY ALLEN MOI':TON 9741 I' ICHARD SANDY ROAD
IL ILLY JOE MORTON OAK ILORO NC 28129
3 COTTAGE VIEW PROPERTIES LLC 8021 KITI",IDLE II AY LANE
TEGA CAY,SC 29708
4 LUCKY CLAYS ADVENTURES LLC 3440 SHARON VIEW ROAD
CHARLOTTE,NC 28210
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ANSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 17BP.10.R.133
BRIDGE #162 OVER
HARDY CREEK ON SR 1923
(OLD COTTONVILLE ROAD)
Permit Drawing
Sheet 5 of 6
SHEET 5 OF 6 5/28/2019

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fill In Fill In in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No. (From/To) Size/Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design
(ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 15+04.81/15+77.16 70'CORED SLAB 0.01 0.08 85 175
TOTALS: 0.01 0.08 85.00 175.00
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRIDGE#162 OVER HARDY CREEK
ON SR 1923(OLD COTTONVILLE ROAD)
STANLY COUNTY
17BP.10.R.133
ArR Revised vaims I SHEET 6 of 6 5/17/2019

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek— PCN for RGP 50
Attachment B
Delineation Materials

N
W .OS0 E
S �
`Zll
coke
•
•
•1;
t�
o 500 1,000 z,000 � •�_�
Feet ----r
Division 10
op NonTy q49 Bridge Replacement
Legend SR 1923 Over
~� � Hardy Creek
Project Study Area (— 4.9 acres) 17BP.10.R.133
' 4k4 Bridge No.162
op no."
Stanly uty,NC
Thursday,Co Mayn 23,2019
eritt Ansonville Quad FIGURE 1
STV Engineers,Inc.Project No.
4018827 Ref.USGS 7.5Minute Topography USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Quadrangle Map]Aquadale,NC] MAP
JLK BJP MAI USGS The National Map Topo Base Map

M h
BaB
\GOF
I
OaA G o F
BaB ) \\*N......\
NN............,.........._______z/I'
l
BaD
�a��:.-_._ BaF
ooQO
1
S4 ._
G o F
7......." ..
Mapped Soil Units Within the PSA
BaD i
p BaB Badin channery silt loam,2 to 8 percent slopes
B a B BaD Badin channery silt loam,8 to 15 percent slopes
BaF Badin channery silt loam,15 to 45 percent slopes
GoF Goldston very channery silt loam,15 to 45 percent slopes
e 0 ioo 200 400
1,1 OaA Oakboro silt loam,0 to 2 percent slopes,frequently flooded
r
Division 10
o,do iTH 6,q9 Stanly County,NC Bridge Replacement
Legend SR 1923 Over
=1 Hardy Creek
my Project Study Area (- 4.9 acres) 52 • 17BP.10.R.133
' ICAlbemarle
Bridge No.162
oFnatvi National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Stanly County,NC
�'����/7,/ Thursday,May 23,2019
`��•J ea9.60 52
FIGURE 2
STV Engineers,Inc.Project No.
4018827 Sources:
Informationa Center
s alysis NRCS SOIL SERIES
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: NC 911 Board;NRCS Soil Series Data MAP
Sternly County,NC(2014)
JLK BJP MAI

�' r _ it � lei �� 7 � `> 1 � �ZN P r t 4� l M)1 ,} ri � }c> 1!t( `�*N .. \ e�0:.:....4C:\, .t''''",-:..',' .. ' � •. , : •�—'� : t t jsl 5 � -�•4 1 cF 4 � r � .� rS !
,. ...,:of-,p,[0:,:.1:pz, ,. ..:,,,,i4:!.1,..,.:;.:4:,-„.,.,.:„.4,;.;,,, t.
r: .. •,-.;!
,. f \ ° f'T a 4� s < l fi rt ••' a a ` ----, I f a F aP� -.. ,- ,r' ,e 1 -- i ,� h c1b,: > : .`iA P. 5 f 3 t 7 �� F '
• 't .74:"'.f -• ",•-•lip
�v `..:.. '' :�^" h�'� ro' 3 t
"� i fny3tjf ' i Y ' • `,V k
k 1 y3' * O P - .12 la 1 jk• 'r
ei
! F � ? f
4 _ _..:.....
L, v "F '[' .G I ,4 !- , i nto p is 1 •
�!- •F..
r
• ,..4
•
•
•
•
tttt
:T - /.
•
•
I 5 } ' I
' e3 ` >;:,, - {,
®�', RPW Stream A-Hardy Creek(-338 If) _:
35.214566°N,-80.171822°W J.:
} ri ,
' •Velf4
r
r
• .4 \ S 4 � . ,
T ��� � _I �A s ' t ' „ , tA Y,. i\N 4 ♦ • . ,, iI .'
. .
• •
PI
r. 1'3"�' Seasonal RPW Stream B(-5271f)
1'4 (35.214769°N,-80.171103°W)
` pp
tl r :b Pr., ' }
• � (/' � + � - � 1'... y 'r.eYW` � � �•2Y � ry
, . — — 4.&„*' ' : ;',4,j,,•`•,•;•:. :%••••,•••,••:•••••, "•:::„"--•-•,'V.
:446!:,..'..;';4:
9
•
fi�
0 75 15(1 300 Yr•d... _ — - Alt
J\. - 1 x• �• � �
Feet
Division 10
p NORTy Notes:
o qy 1. Potential waters of the U.S.were Bridge Replacement
~� a Legend delineated by STV Engineers,Inc.during
m �'¢� field reviews conducted on September 27, SR 1923 Over
2017. Potential boundaries have been Hardy Creek
marked in the field with blue and white
x Project Study Area (- 4.9 acres) striped tape and subsequently surveyed by 17BP.10.R.133
vv a a professional licensed surveyor.This map
Fq O
�s is intended for planning purposes only. Bridge No.162
OF i4P'PO RPW Stream 2. Boundaries of the potential waters of the Stanly County,NC
0
U.S. have not been verified by the U.S.
Data Point Location Army Corps of Engineers and are subject to
change following verification. Thursday,May 23,2019
ROE, 100 3. No potential wetlands were identified in eo9,6. Photograph Location the Project Study Area. FIGURE
3
STV Engineers,Inc.Project Na. APPROXIMATE
pp POTENTIAL WATERS
4018827 Source:NC OneMap,NC Center for OF THE U.S.
Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Geographic Information NC 911 Board and Analysis, AND WETLANDS
JLK BJP MAI BOUNDARY MAP

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM— Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/SiteStanly Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek(R.133) City/County: Norwood/Stanly Sampling Date: 09-27-17
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Division 10 State: NC Sampling Point:DP#1
Investigator(s): Brandon Phillips,CHMM Section,Township,Range:
Landform (hillslope,terrace,etc.): Terrace Local relief(concave, convex,none): Convex Slope(%): —1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.214644N Long: -80.171727 W Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Oakboro silt loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
DP#1 is representative of the forested uplands (See Figure 3-Approximate Potential Waters of the U.S.and Wetlands Boundary Map for approximate
location of DP#1).
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6)
Surface Water(A1) True Aquatic Plants(B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8)
_ High Water Table (A2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Drainage Patterns(B10)
Saturation(A3) , Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines(B16)
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(B4) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits(B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief(D4)
Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): _
Water Table Present? Yes No x Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos, previous inspections),if available:
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators are not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: DP#1
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 30 Yes FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Fraxinus americana 20 Yes FACU
Total Number of Dominant
3., - Species Across All Strata: 9 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33 3 (NB)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
50 =Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50%of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10 OBL species x 1 =
SaplinalShrub Stratum (Plot size: 10'radius ) FACW species x 2=
Quercus alba 30 Yes FACU FAC species x 3=
2. Celtis occidentalis 20 Yes FACU FACU species x 4=
3. Tilia americana 20 Yes FACU UPL species x 5=
4 Column Totals: (A) (B)
5. Prevalence Index = B/A=
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7 _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2- Dominance Test is=50°I0
9. _ 3- Prevalence Index is s3.0'
70 =Total Cover 4- Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting
50%of total cover: 35 20% of total cover: 14 -
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1 meter ) data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Lonicera japonica 20 Yes FACU
2. Ligustrum sinense 15 Yes FACU
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3. Micrnstegium vimineum 15 Yes FAC be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
4. Oxalis montana 10 Yes FAC Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5. Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 No FACU
6 Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm)or
more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of
7. height.
8.
Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less
9. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28ft(1
10. m)tall.
11. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody) plants, regardless
65 =Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
50°I0 of total cover: 32.5 20% of total cover: 13
Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) height.
1. J
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5. Vegetation
=Total Cover Present? Yes No X
50°I0 of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic vegetation is not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP#1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type.' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-2 10 YR 3/4 100 sandy loam
2-20 10 YR 3/6 100 sandy loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: 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(F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147)
_ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F7) _ Other(Explain in Remarks)
_ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Depressions(F8)
_ 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) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material (F21)(MLRA 127,147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer(if observed):
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Indicators were not present.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0

RPW Stream A (Hardy Creek)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Bridge No. 162 on SR 192 35.214566
Date: 09/27/2017 Project/Sitebver Hardy Creek(R.133) Latitude:
Evaluator: Brandon Phillips County: Stanly County Longitude:-80.171822
Total Points: Ansonville, NC Quad
Stream Determination(circl one)._ Other
Stream is at least intermittent 33.5 Ephemeral IntermittenCPerennial e.g. Quad Name:
if> 19 or perennial if>_30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 17.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 C' J
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 © 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0 41111110 2 3
ripple-pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 C-3-7
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 C___2___ 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 C 1 7 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 �- 2 3
8. Headcuts C-0�� 1 2 3
9. Grade control ` U ) 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No= 0 es=D
a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 6.5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 O 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 ( 2 ) 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 C 0 7
15. Sediment on plants or debris C 0 ) 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 C 0.5) 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 es=3)
C. Biology (Subtotal = 9.5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed © 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed C__2__ 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 4 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 0 1.5
23. Crayfish �D 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 C 1 1.5
25.Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.- Other=0
`perennia!streams may also be identified icing other methods Seen 35 of manual
Notes: RPW Stream A(Hardy Creek)was determined to be perennial within project limits.
Sketch.

Seasonal RPW Stream B (U.T. to Hardy Creek)
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Bridge No. 162 on SR 192 35.214769
Date: 09/27/2017 Project/Sitebver Hardy Creek(R.133) Latitude:
Evaluator: Brandon Phillips County: Stanly County Longitude:-80.171103
Total Points: Ansonville, NC Quad
Stream is at least intermittent 20 Stream Determin. ion(circle one) Other
if> 19 or perennial if>_30* Ephemera 41110=Mi Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 12 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la.Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 C ' J
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 (1 D 2 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, 0 4111111110 2 3
ripple-pool sequence
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 C 2 2 3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 [_1_) 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 C-1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 C-1-) 2 3
8. Headcuts �� 1 2 3
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel NC-77D Yes=3
a artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 4 )
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria C 0___D 1 2 3
14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 C 0.5') 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5) 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles C 0 ) 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 es=3)
C. Biology (Subtotal = 4 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 �7 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 C 0 _ 0.5 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.- Other=0
`perennia!streams may also be identified icing other methods.Seep.3F of manual
Notes: Seasonal RPW Stream B (unnamed tributary to Hardy Creek)was determined to be intermittent within
project limits.
Sketch.

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map,and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch"section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA(do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
Seasonal RPW Stream B
1. Project name(if any): 17BP.10.R.133 2. Date of evaluation: 9/27/17
3.Applicant/owner name: NCDOT Div 10 4.Assessor name/organization: B. Phillips/STV
5. County: Stanly 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Yadkin on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Hardy Creek
8. Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): 35.214769 N;-80.171103 W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number(show on attached map): 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 50
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present)to top of bank(feet): 1 ['Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank(feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ['Perennial flow ®Intermittent flow ['Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains(M) ® Piedmont(P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (I) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A��� ❑B
valley shape(skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream,flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream,steeper valley slope)
17.Watershed size: (skip ['Size 1 (<0.1 mi2) ®Size 2(0.1 to<0.5 mil) ['Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi2) ['Size 4(>_5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
['Section 10 water ['Classified Trout Waters ['Water Supply Watershed (01 011 ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
['Essential Fish Habitat ['Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
['Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ['Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d)List ❑LAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
['Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
['Designated Critical Habitat(list species)
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? ['Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water-assessment reach metric(skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow,water in pools only.
®C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction-assessment reach metric
®A At least 10%of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach(examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel,tidal gates,debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B NotA
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern(examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B NotA
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile-assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile(examples: channel down-cutting,existing damming,over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability-assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure,active channel down-cutting(head-cut), active widening,and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip-rap).
❑A < 10%of channel unstable
• 10 to 25%of channel unstable
❑C >25%of channel unstable

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

12. Aquatic Life—assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. DYes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No,select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water DOther:
12b. ❑Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No,skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to"individuals"for Size 1 and 2 streams and"taxa"for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ['Adult frogs
❑ ['Aquatic reptiles
❑ ['Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses(include liverworts, lichens,and algal mats)
❑ ['Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae(T)
❑ ['Asian clam(Corbicula)
❑ ['Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ['Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ['Mayfly larvae(E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera(alderfly,fishfly,dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ['Mosquito fish (Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
❑ ['Other fish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ['Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae(P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
DC ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area(examples: ditches,fill,soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees,drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage—streamside area metric(skip for Size 1 streams,Tidal Marsh Streams,and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB)of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y DY Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
®N ON
16. Baseflow Contributors—assessment reach metric(skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs(jurisdictional discharges)
DB Ponds(include wet detention basins;do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
DC Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area(beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam,weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating(iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
®F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors—assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex:watertight dam,sediment deposit)
DC Urban stream(>_24%impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading—assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category(may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
DC Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider"vegetated buffer"and "wooded buffer"separately for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
ZA ❑A ®A ❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
DB ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to< 100 feet wide
DC ❑C ❑C DC From 30 to<50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D From 10 to<30 feet wide
❑E ®E ❑E ®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A Mature forest
DB ❑B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
DC ®C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees< 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream(Abuts),does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream(<30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream(30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank,check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
DA ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
DB ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
DC DC DC DC DC DC Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture(active livestock use)
22. Stem Density—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
ZA ❑A Medium to high stem density
DB ❑B Low stem density
DC ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream(parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation> 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
DC ®C The total length of buffer breaks is>50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first)as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
®A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
DB ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
DC ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity—assessment reach metric(skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No,select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement(units of microsiemens per centimeter).
DA <46 ❑B 46 to<67 DC 67 to<79 ❑D 79 to<230 ❑E >_230
Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Seasonal RPW Stream B Date of Assessment 9/27/17
17BP.10.R.133
Stream Category Pa2 Assessor Name/Organization B. Phillips/STV
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type(perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2)Baseflow LOW MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography LOW LOW
(3)Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4)Channel Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4)Sediment Transport HIGH HIGH
(4)Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2)Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1)Water Quality LOW LOW
(2)Baseflow LOW MEDIUM
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation LOW LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance OMITTED NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat LOW LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW MEDIUM
(3)Baseflow LOW MEDIUM
(3)Substrate HIGH HIGH
(3)Stream Stability MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2)Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3)Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2)Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek— PCN for RGP 50
Attachment C
Representative Photographs

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek—PCN for RGP 50
s • a
z � � 4
.•
4 v,. 'V ppY� ?-
1 " •.1� y. I `}�
v:
w 8
Photograph 1 —View of the Old Cottonville Road(SR 1923)bridge over Hardy Creek(RPW
Stream A) looking to the southwest.
•
! .
x d
:` tc c , z r
,
'
a ti
l 1�
: � ��3 �
Ort.,iira
Photograph 2—View of Hardy Creek(RPW Stream A)from the Old Cottonville Road bridge,
looking upstream to the north.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek-PCN for RGP 50
",'6r cam. 1ft, -
P
-
3
'' y�' +w�ir y-� z
- . tea : 1. = '=
.x_ � _ 4., r ._.. 3...
Photograph 3—View of Hardy Creek(RPW Stream A)from the Old Cottonville Road bridge,
looking downstream to the south.
.. - .�- , .._ ._- _ �'� I• „I.c a . ,? '.. r
...
. {.. ..
. ......„
. , .,,, .... ,
4.......,....... , .,. . . .., .
• , .4., .•. „,...,..
,., - -,,,,,..4,-- --,..- •,....ger•- --- ,to • -..-T i II
.,. .- -�� 4- J
._ �`-tom- T r . _ �
�_ y. �_S fT1 V'ry4
Photograph 4—View of Hardy Creek(RPW Stream A)flowing under the Old Cottonville Road
bridge.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek-PCN for RGP 50
' i ' '
ey
l. ":. ,.:_ ./.'../.41:
fia,•l 0 .,�a- -x y-...,
i F
Photograph 5 —View of the unnamed tributary to Hardy Creek(seasonal RPW Stream B)looking
downstream to the southwest.

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek— PCN for RGP 50
Attachment D
T & E Supplemental Information

Threatened & Endangered Species and Critical Habitat
NCDOT Division 10—Old Cottonville Road (SR 1923) over Hardy Creek
Project Number 17BP.10.R.133
STV Engineers, Inc. (STV) conducted field reviews of an approximate 4.9-acre study area on
September 27,2017 and July 7,2022.Additionally,a mussel survey was performed by Three Oaks
Engineering on June 23,2022. Prior to the field reviews, STV reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) online databases for
information related to the occurrence of federal and state protected (threatened or endangered)
species in Stanly County. The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation(IPaC)lists four
federally protected species as occurring or having the potential to occur in Stanly County (Table
1) as well as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) which is protected under the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act. As of July 7, 2022, the NCNHP lists no occurrences of federally
protected species within one mile of the study area. A brief description of each species, including
habitat requirements and physical characteristics, and biological conclusion rendered based on
surveys of the study area follow. Habitat requirements for each species are based on current
available literature and/or the USFWS.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Stanly County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E Yes NE
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Yes *
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Yes MA-NLAA
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T Yes MA-NLAA
E-Endangered
T-Threatened
MA-NLAA-May Affect—Not Likely to Adversely Affect
NE-No Effect
*May Effect—NLEB is exempt due to consistency with 4(d)rule
Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS optimal survey window: Late August- October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial herbaceous plant species limited to the Piedmont regions
and counties of North and South Carolina. The plant grows from one to two meters tall originating
from a cluster of tuberous roots. The plant's flower consists of yellow disk and ray flowers formed
on small heads less than 1.5 centimeter (cm) in diameter. The petals, or modified leaves, are two
to three cm long. The lanceolate leaves are arranged in an opposite pattern within the lower two-
thirds of the stem transitioning to alternate within the upper third. The typical habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower includes periodically maintained roadsides and utility line rights-of-way
(R/Ws), old pastures, edges of upland woods, and other disturbed open areas. Soils associated
with suitable Schweinitz's sunflower habitat generally include thin upland soils clayey in texture
Supplemental Information—Stanly 162

(and often with substantial rock fragments) which have a high shrink-swell capacity. Flowering
occurs from August to the first frost of the year.
STV Environmental Scientist Joshua Kotheimer, PWS conducted an initial field survey for the
presence of Schweinitz's sunflowers on September 27, 2017, during the flowering season and
USFWS-designated optimum survey window. An additional survey was conducted by STV
Environmental Scientist Joshua Kotheimer, PWS and Environmental Scientist Chris Sheldon on
July 11,2022. Prior to the July survey a reference population was viewed to determine the current
state of the plants. Suitable habitat was found along the SR 1923 roadside and woodland edges,
but no sunflowers were observed. Review of the NCNHP element occurrence records on July 7,
2022, revealed no documented occurrences or populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the study
area or within one mile of the study area. Based on the literature review and field surveys it is
determined that the project would have 'No Effect' on Schweinitz's sunflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS optimal survey window: June 1 —August 15
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is a medium-sized bat approximately three to 3.7 inches in
body length with a wingspan of nine to 10 inches. As its name suggests, this bat species is
distinguished from other species in the genus Myotis by its long ears. The range of the NLEB
consists of the eastern and north central portions of the United States including 37 states. In North
Carolina specifically, the NLEB primarily occurs in the western part of the state in the mountain
region. Only scattered occurrences have been documented in the piedmont and coastal plain
regions of the state. In western North Carolina, NLEBs spend winter hibernating in caves and
mines. During the summer, NLEBs roost singly or in colonies within trees including underneath
the bark, in cavities, or in crevices. Roosting trees can be both live and dead and are typically >
three inches diameter at breast height in size. Males and non-reproductive females may also roost
in cooler places such as caves and mines. The NLEB has also been observed roosting in man-made
structures including barns and sheds,under eaves of buildings,behind window shutters,in bridges,
and bat houses. Foraging habitat includes forested hillsides and ridges, the airspace above
waterways, and along woodland edges. Mature forests are generally considered to an important
habitat type for foraging.
The final 4(d)rule for the NLEB went into effect February 16,2016.Within the range of the NLEB
in North Carolina, any take of the species within a hibernaculum(breeding grounds) is prohibited
including any action that may change the nature of the hibernaculum's environment or entrance
ways. The 4(d) rule exempts incidental takes of the species for tree-cutting activities occurring
greater than 0.25-mile from a known hibernaculum or more than 150 feet from a known maternity
roost during the pup-rearing season(June 1 through July 31).
Additionally,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),and the USFWS developed a Standard
Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) agreement concerning potential
effects to the federally-threatened NLEB (Myotis septentrionalis). The SLOPES was signed and
became effective on January 30th, 2017. The SLOPES agreement details how the USACE will
make determinations of effect to the NLEB when the USACE is the lead federal agency for a
Supplemental Information—Stanly 162

project and is applicable to activities regulated pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(RHA)of 1899 in the western 41 counties
of North Carolina,to include North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT)non-federal
aid projects. The SLOPES is also applicable to non-NCDOT projects in the eastern 59 counties of
North Carolina.
Based on review of the USFWS online database on July 11, 2022, no known NLEB hibernation
or maternity sites have been documented within Stanly County. A review of the NCNHP records
obtained on July 7,2022, revealed no known occurrences of NLEB within the study area or within
one mile of the study area. Field reviews conducted by STV Environmental Scientist Joshua
Kotheimer, PWS on September 27, 2017, and STV Environmental Scientists Joshua Kotheimer,
PWS and Chris Sheldon on July 11,2022,concluded that no caves or mines(potential hibernacula)
exist in the study area and no evidence of bats was discovered upon inspection of the bridge;
however, potential foraging and roosting habitat, including trees and the air space above Hardy
Creek,is present. The project may require tree clearing or pile driving but no blasting or percussive
activities are anticipated. Based on the findings and in conforming to SLOPES procedures it has
been determined that the USACE's Alternative Local Procedure (ALP) Situation 2 would be
applicable. The biological conclusion for NLEB is May Effect, however,NLEB is exempt due to
consistency with the 4(d) rule.
Biological Conclusion: May Effect -NLEB is exempt due to consistency with 4(d) rule
Carolina heelsplitter
USFWS optimal survey window: March 1 — September 30
The Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mussel species with an ovate,trapezoid-shaped shell. The
outer surface of the species' shell is yellow-green to brown in color with green-black rays, and the
inner shell is iridescent to mottled pale orange in color. The average size (width) of the shell is 78
millimeters(mm)across. The species is found in small to large streams and rivers with cool,clean,
well-oxygenated water and silt-free bottoms. Individuals are typically found in undercuts among
buried logs and rocks along well-shaded banks stabilized with extensive tree roots. Per the
USFWS's Carolina Heelsplitter Five-Year Review: (2019), eleven populations of Carolina
heelsplitter are known to exist,three of which occur within North Carolina. Specifically,two small
remnant populations exist in Union County within the Catawba River system including one within
Waxhaw Creek and one within Sixmile Creek. Another small population is known to exist in
Union County within Goose Creek, a tributary to the Rocky River, located within the Pee Dee
River system.
A habitat assessment and mussel survey for Carolina heelsplitter was conducted by Three Oaks
Engineering on June 23, 2022. No freshwater mussels were found during the survey. A review of
the NCNHP database on July 7,2022,indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study
area.
Biological Conclusion: May Effect—Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Supplemental Information—Stanly 162

Atlantic pigtoe
USFWS optimal survey window: Undetermined
The Atlantic pigtoe is a freshwater mussel species with a chunky, rhombus shape, like that of a
pig's hoof/toe. There is a distinct posterior ridge. The outer surface of the shell is yellow to dark
brown and parchment-like, while the inner layer is iridescent blue to salmon, white, or orange.
Although larger specimens exist, the Atlantic pigtoe rarely exceeds two inches in length. The
preferred habitat of the Atlantic pigtoe is coarse sand and gravel, and rarely in silt and detritus.
Historically, the best populations existed in small creeks to larger rivers with excellent water
quality, where flows were sufficient to maintain clean, silt-free substrates.
A habitat assessment and mussel survey for Atlantic pigtoe was conducted by Three Oaks
Engineering on June 23, 2022. No freshwater mussels were found during the survey. A review of
the NCNHP database on July 7,2022,indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study
area.
Biological Conclusion: May Effect—Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act as regulated by the
USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests found in association with
rivers and other large bodies of open water utilized for foraging. Large dominant trees, typically
located within one mile of these waters, are used as nesting sites.
Prior to conducting field reviews, a desktop-GIS assessment of the study area and an area within
a one-mile radius of the project limits was performed. Specifically, aerial photographs were
reviewed to identify any areas of potential foraging habitat. No water bodies large enough to be
considered potential foraging habitat for the bald eagle were identified within the study area or
one-mile radius; therefore, it has been determined that no field surveys for the species are
necessary. Review of the NCNHP element occurrence records obtained on July 7, 2022, revealed
no known occurrences of bald eagle within one mile of the study area.Based on the desktop review
and NCNHP element occurrence records, it is determined that the project would have no effect on
bald eagle.
Supplemental Information—Stanly 162

Freshwater Mussel Survey Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 830162 on SR 1923
(Old Cottonville Rd) Over Hardy Creek
WBS Element# 17BP.10.R.133
Stanly County,North Carolina
R` o- a 4i .. .. a .
�_ -
_ -- - . •
._
G9,
Stream conditions in Hardy Creek during survey efforts
Prepared For:
tip~ O49
4 9 O
Q
f"' OF isIOO
NC Department of Transportation
Raleigh,North Carolina
July 1, 2022

Prepared by:
01tEER/Ne,
o
tIF
fi
43B1`�
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham,NC 27701
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
[e-mail]
919-732-1300

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED 1
2.1. 303(d) Classification 1
2.2. NPDES Discharges 2
3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions 2
3.1. Atlantic Pigtoe 2
3.1.1 Species Characteristics 2
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements 3
3.1.3 Threats to Species 3
3.1.4 Designated Critical Habitat 4
3.2. CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER 6
3.2.1 Species Characteristics 6
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements 8
3.2.3 Threats to Species 9
3.2.4 Designated Critical Habitat 10
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS 13
4.1. Stream Conditions at Time of Surveys: Hardy Creek 13
4.2. Methodology 13
5.0 RESULTS 13
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS 14
7.0 LITERATURE CITED 15
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1: Project Vicinity& Survey Reach
Figure 2-1 to 2-2: NCNHP Element Occurrences
Figure 3: 303(d)Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page i

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)proposes the replacement of bridge
No. 830162 (WBS Element# 17BP.10.R.133) on SR 1923 (Old Cottonville Road) over Hardy
Creek in Stanly County,NC (Appendix A, Figure 1). The project will cross Hardy Creek of the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Information, Planning, and Consultation(IPaC) system as accessed June 2022 (USFWS 2022),
the Federally Threatened Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), and the Federally Endangered
Carolina Heelsplitter(Lasmigona decorata) have the potential to occur in Stanly County near the
project study area.
Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) in approximate river miles (RM) for the
targeted species for the Hardy Creek survey reach. Data is from the NC Natural Heritage
Program database (NCNHP 2022), most recently updated in April 2022 (Figures 2-1 to 2-2).
Table 1. Element Occurrences
Distance
Species EO from crossing First Last EO
Name EO ID Waterbody (RM) Observed Observed Status* Figure
22093 Lanes Creek 43.8 September September C 2-1
Atlantic 2002 2002
Pigtoe 22087 Goose Creek 36.1 July 1994 March
1998 H 2-1
22095 Little River 36.4 July 1987 July 1987
Carolina August March
Heelsplitter 21454 Goose Creek 36.1 1987 2017 C 2-2
*: C—NCNHP Current,H—NCNHP Historic
As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related
impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted by
NCDOT to conduct mussel surveys targeting the Atlantic Pigtoe and Carolina Heelsplitter.
2.0 WATERS IMPACTED
Hardy Creek is located in the Hardy Creek-Rocky River HUC-12 subwatershed (ID #
030401050707) of the Rocky River subbasin(HUC# 03040105) of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin. Hardy Creek flows approximately 4.3 RM from the study area to its confluence with the
Rocky River.
2.1. 303(D) CLASSIFICATION
Hardy Creek is on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ, formerly
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources,NCDENR) - Division of Water
Resources 2020 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams. It is listed due to a fair bioclassification of
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 1

its fish community. Within a 5-mile buffer of the study area, there are several waterbodies that
are also listed as impaired. The Rocky River, located approximately 4.3 RM downstream of the
study area, is listed for exceeding criteria in zinc, copper, and turbidity. Lanes Creek is impaired
due to benthos and is located 7.5 RM from the study area. Long Creek is also located within a 5-
mile buffer; however, it is located more than 10 RM from the study area, and it is impaired due
to exceeding criteria for copper(NCDEQ 2020) (Figure 3).
2.2. NPDES DISCHARGES
There are no permitted NPDES discharges located upstream of the subject bridge on Hardy
Creek. However, there are three permitted minor NPDES discharges located within a 5-mile
buffer of the project study area. Norwood WWTP (NPDES Permit#NC0021628) is located on
the Rocky River, located approximately 8.8 RM from the study area. Aquadale Quarry(NPDES
Permit#NC0028169) is located on Long Branch, located more than 10 RM from the study area.
The Aquadale Elementary School (NPDES Permit#NC0029432) is located more than 10 RM of
the study area, and discharges into Long Creek (NCDEQ 2022) (Figure 3).
3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1. ATLANTIC PIGTOE
3.1.1 Species Characteristics
The Atlantic Pigtoe was described by Conrad(1834) from
the Savannah River in Augusta, Georgia. Although larger
specimens exist, the Atlantic Pigtoe seldom exceeds 50 mm
(2 inches) in length. This species is tall relative to its
length, except in headwater stream reaches where
specimens may be elongated. The hinge ligament is
relatively short and prominent. The periostracum is
normally brownish, has a parchment texture, and young
individuals may have greenish rays across the entire shell
surface. The posterior ridge is biangulate. The interdentum
in the left valve is broad and flat. The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the
posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored,
while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In
addition to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent
aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season.
When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia(VDGIF 2014).
The Atlantic Pigtoe is a tachytictic (short-term) breeder, brooding young in early spring and
releasing glochidia in early summer. The Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Shield Darter
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 2

(Percina peltata) have been identified as potential fish hosts for this species (O'Dee and Waters
2000). Additional research has found Rosefin Shiner(Lythrurus ardens), Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) are also suitable hosts (Wolf
2012). Eads and Levine (2012) found White Shiner(Luxilus albeolus), Satinfin Shiner
(Cyprinella analostana), Bluehead Chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Rosyside Dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), Pinewoods Shiner(Lythrurus matutinus), Swallowtail Shiner(Notropis procne),
and Mountain Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus oreas) to also be suitable hosts for Atlantic Pigtoe.
3.1.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Johnson (1970) reported the range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extended from the Ogeechee River
Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia; however, recent curation of the H.
D. Athearn collection uncovered valid specimens from the Altamaha River in Georgia(USFWS
2021b). In addition, USFWS (2021a) citing Alderman and Alderman (2014)reported two shells
from the 1880's that also documented the historical occurrence in the Altamaha River Basin. It
is presumed extirpated from the Catawba River Basin in North and South Carolina south to the
Altamaha River Basin(USFWS 2021a, USFWS 2021c). The general pattern of its current
distribution indicates that the species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages and
most populations are represented by few individuals. In North Carolina, aside from the
Waccamaw River, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope River basin. Except for the Tar
River, it is no longer found in the mainstem of the rivers within its historic range within North
Carolina(Savidge et al. 2011). It is listed as Endangered in Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina, and as Threatened in Virginia. It has a NatureServe rank of G1 (Critically Imperiled)
(Natureserve, 2018).
The Atlantic Pigtoe has been found in multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the
Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in streams less than
one meter wide to large rivers. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and
coarse sand,usually at the base of riffles; however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates
and lotic habitat conditions.
3.1.3 Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-point
discharge, stream modification (e.g., impoundment, channelization), coupled with the apparent
restricted range, are believed to have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its
range (USFWS 2021b). When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals
and are restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, they are extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity(Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events
may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events,
such as toxic spills.
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 3

Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including agriculture,
silviculture, and development activities, has been recognized as a major contributing factor to
degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has been documented to be
extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing
potential exposure to other pollutants, and by directly smothering mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking
and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than 1 inch have been shown to cause high
mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and
abundance of mussel fauna(Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988) found that recovery
of mussel populations might not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage
effluent. The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented
(USFWS 1992,Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats,
which results in changes with aquatic community composition. These changes associated with
inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure,
which could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia(Fuller 1974).
The introduction of exotic species, such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra
Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), has also been shown to pose significant threats to native
freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the
United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting surviving
populations of the Atlantic Pigtoe. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for
space, food, and oxygen between this species and native mussels,possibly at the juvenile stages
(Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of
the Black, Caspian, and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the
Great Lakes in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins,
including those of the South Atlantic Slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes
for food resources and space with native mussels and is expected to contribute to the extinction
of at least 20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern
United States (USFWS 1992). This species has not been recorded in the Neuse River Basin.
Atlantic Pigtoe appears to be particularly sensitive to pollutants and requires clean, oxygen-rich
water for all stages of life. All the remaining Atlantic Pigtoe populations are generally small in
numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and
the restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event.
3.1.4 Designated Critical Habitat
As mentioned in Section 1.0, the Atlantic Pigtoe is listed as a Federally Threatened Species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)with Section 4(d) Rule and Critical Habitat
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 4

Designation. In accordance with Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists
of:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, in which are found those physical or biological features (constituent elements) that
are:
a. essential to the conservation of the species, and
b. which may require special management considerations or protection
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed
in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are "essential for the conservation of the species."
On November 16, 2021, USFWS listed the Atlantic Pigtoe as a Threatened species under the
ESA. Critical habitat was revised with the listing (86 FR 64000) and consists of the following
(USFWS 2021a):
• Unit 1 (JR1) - 29 river mi (46.7 river km) of Craig Creek in Craig and Botetourt
Counties, Virginia
• Unit 2 (JR2) - 1 mile (1.6-km) of Mill Creek in Bath County, Virginia
• Unit 3 (CR1) - 4 miles (6.6 km) of Sappony Creek in the Chowan River Basin in
Dinwiddie County, Virginia
• Unit 4 (CR2) - 64 river miles (103 river km) of the Nottoway River and a portion of
Sturgeon Creek in Nottoway, Lunenburg, Brunswick, Dinwiddie, and Greenville
Counties, Virginia
• Unit 5 (CR3) - 5 miles (8 km) of the Meherrin River in Brunswick County, Virginia
• Unit 6 (RR1) - 14 miles (22.5 km) of the Dan River in Pittsylvania County, Virginia and
Rockingham County,North Carolina
• Unit 7 (RR2) - 12 miles (19.3 km) of Aarons Creek in Granville County,North Carolina
and along the Mecklenburg County-Halifax County line in Virginia and North Carolina
• Unit 8 (RR3)—3 miles (4.8 km) of Little Grassy Creek in the Roanoke River Basin in
Granville County,North Carolina
• Unit 9 (TR1) - 91 miles (146.5 km) of the mainstem of the upper and middle Tar River as
well as several tributaries (Bear Swamp Creek, Crooked Creek, Cub Creek, and Shelton
Creek), in Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Nash Counties,North Carolina.
• Unit 10 (TR2) - 50 miles (80.5km) of Sandy/Swift Creek in Granville, Vance, Franklin,
and Nash Counties,North Carolina
• Unit 11 (TR3) - 85 miles (136.8 km) in Fishing Creek, Little Fishing Creek, Shocco
Creek, and Maple Branch located in Warren, Halifax, Franklin, and Nash Counties,North
Carolina
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 5

• Unit 12 (TR4) - 30 miles (48.3 km) of the Lower Tar River, lower Swift Creek and lower
Fishing Creek in Edgecombe County, North Carolina
• Unit 13 (NR1) - 60 river miles (95 river km) in four subunits including Flat River, Little
River, Eno River, and the Upper Eno River in Person, Durham, and Orange Counties,
North Carolina
• Unit 14 (NR2) - 61 river miles (98.2 river km) in five subunits including Swift Creek,
Middle Creek, Upper Little River, Middle Little River, and Contentnea Creek in Wake,
Johnston, and Wilson Counties,North Carolina
• Unit 15 (CF 1) - 4 miles (6.4 km) of habitat in New Hope Creek in Orange County,North
Carolina
• Unit 16 (CF2) - 10 river miles (16.1 river km) of Deep River in Randolph County,North
Carolina, including the mainstem as well as Richland Creek and Brush Creek
• Unit 17 (YR1) -40 miles (64.4 km) of Little River in Randolph and Montgomery
Counties,North Carolina
*JR, CR, RR, TR,NR, CF and YR denote James River, Chowan River, Roanoke River, Tar
River,Neuse River, Cape Fear River and Yadkin River Basins, respectively.
Critical Habitat Unit 17 (YR1) occurs closest to the project location in neighboring Randolph
and Montgomery Counties, occurring greater than 50 RM from the subject bridge.
3.2. CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER
3.2.1 Species Characteristics
The Carolina Heelsplitter, originally described as Unio decoratus by
(Lea 1852), synonymized with Lasmigona subviridis (Conrad 1835,
Johnson 1970), and later separated as a distinct species (Clarke
1985), is a federallyEndangered freshwater mussel, historically
) g
known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River
systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee, Savannah, and possibly
the Saluda River systems in South Carolina.
The Carolina Heelsplitter can reach a length of 118 mm,with a height of 68 mm and a width of 39
mm. Based on some specimens collected by Keferl and Shelley(1988) from three different
streams and rivers,the mean length is 78 mm,the mean height is 43 mm and the mean width is 27
mm. The shell is an ovate trapezoid. The dorsal margin is straight and may end with a slight wing.
The umbo is flattened. The beaks are depressed and project a little above the hinge line. The beak
sculpture is double looped. The unsculptured shell can have a yellowish, greenish or brownish
periostracum. The Carolina Heelsplitter can have greenish or blackish rays. The lateral teeth may
or may not be well developed; in most cases they are thin. The pseudo-cardinal teeth are lamellar
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 6

and parallel to the dorsal margin, and there is a slight interdentum. The nacre varies from an
iridescent white to a mottled pale orange. The shell's nacre is often pearly white to bluish white,
grading to orange in the area of the umbo (Keferl 1991). The hinge teeth are well developed and
heavy and the beak sculpture is double looped(Keferl and Shelly 1988). Morphologically, the
shell of the Carolina Heelsplitter is very similar to the shell of the Green Floater(Clarke 1985),
with the exception of a much larger size and thickness in the Carolina Heelsplitter(Keferl and
Shelly 1988).
Prior to collections in 1987 and 1990 by Keferl (1991), the Carolina Heelsplitter had not been
collected in the 20th century and was known only from shell characteristics. Because of its rarity,
very little information of this species' biology, life history, and habitat requirements was known
until very recently. Feeding strategy and reproductive cycle of the Carolina Heelsplitter have not
been fully documented, and recent studies have confirmed that they are likely similar to other
native freshwater mussels (USFWS 2019).
The feeding processes of freshwater mussels are specialized for the removal (filtering) of
suspended microscopic food particles from the water column(Pennak 1989). Documented food
sources for freshwater mussels include detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton
(USFWS 1996).
Freshwater mussels have complex reproductive cycles, which include a larval stage (glochidium)
that is an obligatory parasite on a fish. The glochidia develop into juvenile mussels and detach
from the "fish host" and sink to the stream bottom where they continue to develop, provided
suitable substrate and water conditions are available (USFWS 2019). For more details regarding
general freshwater mussel reproductive biology, McMahon and Bogan(2001) and Pennak(1989)
should be consulted.
At the time of listing, nothing was known about the host species(s) for the Carolina Heelsplitter
(USFWS 1996, Bogan 2002). Starnes and Hogue (2005) identified the most likely fish host
candidates (15 species)based on fish community surveys in occupied streams throughout the
range of the Carolina Heelsplitter. Captive propagation efforts for this species had not been
attempted in the past; however, due to the critical level of imperilment of the North Carolina
populations, acting on recommendations from the NC Scientific Council on Mollusks, the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC) funded a life history/captive propagation study,
which allowed for salvage of individuals from the Goose/Duck and Sixmile Creek populations to
be used in the study. A total of nine minnow species (Cyprinidae)were identified as suitable,
and two sunfish species (Lepomis spp.)were identified as marginally suitable host species (Eads
and Levine 2008, Eads et al. 2010). All of these species may occur in habitat types known to be
occupied by the Carolina Heelsplitter; however, "it is always possible that it may use a
combination of fish host species and some may not be native to all streams inhabited by this
mussel" (Starnes and Hogue 2005). Another member of the genus Lasmigona, the Green
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 7

Floater (L. subviridis),perhaps a close relative to the Carolina Heelsplitter, has been documented
to be capable of in situ early development with glochidia developing within the marsupium of
the female (Barfield and Watters 1998), thus it is possible that the Carolina Heelsplitter may also
be able to propagate by direct transformation.
3.2.2 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Currently, the Carolina Heelsplitter has a very fragmented, relict distribution. Until recently, it
was known to be surviving in only six streams and one small river(USFWS 1996); however,
recent discoveries have increased the number of known populations to eleven:
Pee Dee River Basin:
1. Duck Creek/Goose Creek- Mecklenburg/Union Counties,NC
2. Flat Creek/Lynches River- Lancaster/Chesterfield/Kershaw Counties, SC
Catawba River Basin:
3. Sixmile Creek(Twelvemile Creek Subbasin) - Lancaster County, SC
4. Waxhaw Creek -Union County,NC and Lancaster County, SC
5. Cane Creek/Gills Creek - Lancaster County, SC
6. Fishing Creek Subbasin- Chester County, SC
7. Rocky Creek Subbasin(Bull Run Creek/UT Bull Run Creek/Beaverdam Creek) -
Chester County, SC
Saluda River Basin:
8. Redbank Creek- Saluda County, SC
9. Halfway Swamp Creek- Greenwood/Saluda Counties, SC
Savannah River Basin:
10. Little Stevens Creek/Mountain Creek/Sleepy Creek/Turkey Creek(Stevens Creek
Subbasin) - Edgefield/McCormick Counties, SC.
11. Cuffytown Creek(Stevens Creek Subbasin) - Greenwood/McCormick Counties, SC
All of these populations occur in stream reaches within the Piedmont Physiographic Province,
particularly within two northeast trending lithostratigraphic belts of the Carolina Terrane, the
Carolina Slate Belt and the Charlotte Belt. The Carolina Slate Belt is a band of greenschist faces
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 8

metavolcanic rock formations positioned in the central and lower Piedmont province extending
from south-central Virginia to extreme eastern Georgia(Howell 2005, Butler and Secor 1991).
The Charlotte Belt extends from north central North Carolina to eastern Georgia and is
comprised of amphibolite faces metavolcanic and metaplutonic rock(Howell 2005, Butler and
Secor 1991). These hard formations strongly dictate the channel morphology and character of
stream substrates where they intersect. Starnes and Hogue (2005) describe such reaches as
"generally characterized by dark, often tilted, bedrock stream bottom with associated large and
small rock rubble interspersed with pockets of sand, silt, and gravel." Habitat for this species has
been reported from small to large streams and rivers as well as ponds. The ponds are believed to
be millponds on some of the smaller streams within the species' historic range (Keferl 1991).
Keferl and Shelly(1988) and Keferl (1991) reported that most individuals have been found along
well-shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates; however,
numerous individuals in several of the populations have been found in cobble and gravel
dominated substrate in stream reaches intersecting the hard rock formations described above (T.
W. Savidge personal observations). The stability of stream banks appears to be very important
to this species (Keferl 1991).
3.2.3 Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation,point and non-point
discharge, and stream modification (impoundments, channelization, etc.)have contributed to low
numbers and restricted range of surviving populations; therefore, they are extremely vulnerable
to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity(USFWS 1996).
Siltation resulting from improper sedimentation control of various land usage practices,
including agriculture, forestry, and development activities, has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to the degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has been
documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water
quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels
(Ellis 1936, Markings and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been
shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936).
Loss of riparian buffers can lead to degradation of adjacent aquatic habitats. The role of forested
riparian buffers in protecting aquatic habitats is well documented(NCWRC 2002). The
Recovery Plan for the Carolina Heelsplitter(USFWS 1996) identifies the establishment of
stream buffer zones as a major Recovery Objective (Task 1.4). Riparian buffers provide many
functions including pollutant reduction and filtration, a primary source of carbon for aquatic food
web, stream channel stability, and maintenance of water and air temperatures. Numerous studies
have recommended a range of buffer widths needed to maintain these functions. Recommended
widths vary greatly depending on the parameter or function evaluated. Wide contiguous buffers
of 100-300 feet(30-91 meters) are recommended to adequately perform all functions (NCWRC
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 9

2002). The NCWRC recommends a minimum of 200 foot(61 meter) native, forested buffer on
perennial streams and a 100 foot (30 meter) forested buffer on intermittent streams in watersheds
that support federally endangered and threatened aquatic species (NCWRC 2002). Although not
officially adopted, the USFWS uses the NCWRC recommendations as guidance when addressing
federally protected aquatic species in North Carolina and South Carolina.
Other factors threatening mussel species but unrelated to potential Project impacts include
sewage treatment effluent(Goudreau et al. 1988), dams, and other impoundments (USFWS
1992a, USFWS 1992b,Neves 1993,USFWS 1996), and the introduction of exotic species such
as the Asian Clam(Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) (Fuller and
Powell 1973, USFWS 1996,Neves and Widlack 1987, Alderman 1995).
3.2.4 Designated Critical Habitat
In accordance to Section 4 of the ESA, Critical Habitat for listed species consists of:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed in which are found those physical or biological features (constituent elements)that
are:
a. essential to the conservation of the species, and
b. which may require special management considerations or protection
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act,upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are "essential for the conservation of the species."
When designating Critical Habitat, the USFWS identifies physical and biological features
(primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may
require special management considerations or protection. The primary constituent elements
essential for the conservation of the Carolina Heelsplitter(USFWS 2002) include:
1. permanent flowing, cool, clean water
2. geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks
3. pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel
4. stable substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment
5. moderate stream gradient
6. periodic natural flooding
7. fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Critical habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter was designated in 2002 (USFWS 2002). The
designated area totals approximately 92 miles (148 kilometers) of nine creeks and one river in
North and South Carolina. These areas are considered essential to the conservation of the
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 10

Carolina Heelsplitter. Six areas (Units) have been designated as critical habitat. A description of
each follows with details on observations and status for Unit 1,where the project is in close
proximity.
Unit 1: Goose Creek and Duck Creek(Pee Dee River System), Union County, NC
Unit 1 encompasses approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 km) of the main stem of Goose Creek, Union
County,NC, from the N.C. Highway 218 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the Rocky
River, and approximately 6.4 mi (10.3 km) of the main stem of Duck Creek, Union County,NC,
from the Mecklenburg/Union County line downstream to its confluence with Goose Creek. The
Carolina Heelsplitter was first discovered in Goose Creek in 1987 (Keferl 1991) and in Duck
Creek in 2000 (NCWRC Database). Between 1993 and 1999, a total of 15 live individuals had
been recorded in Goose Creek. NCWRC surveys in early 2002, found 16 live individuals in
Duck Creek (NCWRC Database); however, following extreme drought conditions in late 2002,
where much of the streambed in both creeks was dry, status surveys in Duck Creek yielded only
four live and more than 40 fresh dead. One fresh-dead shell was also found in Goose Creek
during the 2002 drought surveys just below US 601. Pools and wet streambeds were much more
common in lower Goose Creek, apparently providing refuge from desiccation during the
drought. Between 2004 and 2005, four live individuals were found at two locations within
Goose Creek, and 12 live individuals were found at six locations within Duck Creek. Prolonged
severe drought conditions persisted in the Goose Creek watershed in 2006 through 2007. A total
of nine individuals have been found in Duck Creek between 2006 and 2009. Three of the
individuals were found on more than one occasion. Four of these individuals were taken into
captivity, as much of the stream channel was dry when they were found. A survey conducted in
2011 of the critical habitat portion of Goose Creek, from the Rocky River confluence to the NC
218 crossing, located a total of 12 live individuals and one fresh dead shell (Catena 2012). All of
the live individuals were taken into captivity for a joint propagation effort between North
Carolina State University and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The majority
of the individuals were estimated to be <5 years of age based on shell condition and growth rests,
indicating relatively recent reproduction. Some of the propagated individuals have been released
back into Goose and Duck Creeks, and are being monitored by the NCWRC. Status surveys and
monitoring of released propagated individuals conducted by NCWRC and USFWS in 2015
found three live resident individuals, and several propagated individuals (T. R. Russ,NCWRC
personal communication). Repeated survey efforts in Duck Creek in 2011 and 2012 and 2015
have not located any live individuals post drought; however, released propagated individuals
have been alive during monitoring surveys (T. R. Russ,NCWRC personal communication).
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 11

Unit 2: Waxhaw Creek(Catawba River System), Union County, NC
Unit 2 encompasses approximately 12.2 mi (19.6 km) of the main stem of Waxhaw Creek, Union
County,NC, from the N.C. Highway 200 Bridge, downstream to the North Carolina/South
Carolina state line.
Unit 3: Gills Creek(Catawba River System), Lancaster County, SC
Unit 3 encompasses approximately 6.0 mi (9.6 km) of the main stem of Gills Creek, Lancaster
County, SC, from the County Route S-29-875, downstream to the SC Route 51 Bridge, east of
the City of Lancaster.
Unit 4: Flat Creek(Pee Dee River System), Lancaster County, SC, and the Lynches River(Pee
Dee River System), Lancaster, Chesterfield, and Kershaw Counties, SC
Unit 4 encompasses approximately 11.4 mi (18.4 km) of the main stem of Flat Creek, Lancaster
County, SC, from the SC Route 204 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the Lynches
River, and approximately 14.6 mi (23.6 km) of the main stem of the Lynches River, Lancaster
and Chesterfield Counties, SC, from the confluence of Belk Branch, Lancaster County, northeast
(upstream) of the U.S. Highway 601 Bridge, downstream to the SC Highway 903 Bridge in
Kershaw County, SC.
Unit 5: Mountain and Beaverdam Creeks (Savannah River System), Edgefield County, SC, and
Turkey Creek(Savannah River System), Edgefield and McCormick Counties, SC
Unit 5 encompasses approximately 7.0 mi (11.2 km) of the main stem of Mountain Creek,
Edgefield County, SC, from the SC Route 36 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with Turkey
Creek; approximately 6.7 mi (10.8 km) of Beaverdam Creek, Edgefield County, from the SC
Route 51 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with Turkey Creek; and approximately 11.4 mi
(18.4 km) of Turkey Creek, from the SC. Route 36 Bridge, Edgefield County, downstream to the
SC Route 68 Bridge, Edgefield and McCormick Counties, SC.
Unit 6: Cuffytown Creek(Savannah River System), Greenwood and McCormick Counties, SC
Unit 6 encompasses approximately 12.9 mi (20.8 km) of the main stem of Cuffytown Creek,
from the confluence of Horsepen Creek, northeast(upstream) of the SC Route 62 Bridge in
Greenwood County, SC, downstream to the U.S. Highway 378 Bridge in McCormick County.
Five of the eleven Carolina Heelsplitter populations listed in Section 2.2: Sixmile Creek, Fishing
Creek, Rocky Creek, Redbank Creek, and Halfway Swamp Creek,were discovered after Critical
Habitat was designated. Like most of the other Carolina Heelsplitter populations, these
populations are also limited in size and distribution.
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 12

Unit 1 is the closest critical habitat unit to the project study area. The critical habitat unit is
located 36.1 RM from the subject bridge, located at confluence of the Rocky River with Goose
Creek. (Figure 2-2).
4.0 SURVEY EFFORTS
Mussel surveys were conducted by Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson(Permit#22-
ES00343), and Lizzy Stokes-Cawley on June 23, 2022.
4.1. STREAM CONDITIONS AT TIME OF SURVEYS: HARDY CREEK
The survey reach consisted of a sequence of pools punctuated by riffle breaks. The channel
ranged from 15-30 feet wide with generally stable banks up to five feet high. Substrate was
dominated by gravel, cobble, and bedrock with silt and sand accumulations in pools and other
depositional areas. Slate bedrock outcrops were present throughout the surveyed reach,
providing grade control. A narrow-forested buffer surrounded the surveyed reach to active
pasture and rural land uses. Water levels were low and the stream was clear during the survey.
4.2. Methodology
Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 feet(400 meters) downstream of the
bridge crossing to approximately 328 feet(100 meters)upstream of the crossing for a total
distance of approximately 1,640 feet (500 meters) (Appendix A, Figure 1). Areas of appropriate
habitat were searched, concentrating on the stable habitats preferred by the target species. The
survey team spread out across the river into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using
glass bottom view buckets (bathyscopes). Tactile methods were employed, particularly in
streambanks under submerged rootmats. If encountered, all freshwater bivalves were to be
recorded and returned to the substrate. Timed survey efforts were conducted to provide catch per
unit effort(CPUE) data for each species if encountered. Relative abundance for freshwater
snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the following criteria:
> (VA)Very abundant> 30 per square meter
> (A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter
➢ (C) Common 6-15 per square meter
➢ (U)Uncommon 3-5 per square meter
> (R) Rare 1-2 per square meter
➢ (P-)Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the
sampled site.
5.0 RESULTS
A total of 5.67 person hours of survey time were spent in the reach, with no freshwater mussels
being found(Table 2). Other mollusk species located during the survey included a Pea Clam
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 13

(family Sphaeriidae), a Physid snail species (Physella sp.), and the aquatic snail Two-ridge
Rams-horn(Helisoma anceps).
Table 2. Mollusks found in Hardy Creek Survey Reach
Abundance/
Scientific Name Common Name #live CPUE
Freshwater Mussels CPUE
None N/A N/A N/A
Relative
Freshwater Snails and Clams Abundance
Helisoma anceps Two-ridge Rams-horn — P-C
Physella sp. Physid Snail ,, P-C
Family Sphaeriidae Pea Clam — U
6.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
These results indicate that the study area supports suitable habitat for freshwater mussels,
however no mussel species were observed during the survey. While appropriate habitat was
present, the Atlantic Pigtoe, Carolina Heelsplitter, and other species were not found during these
efforts. The most recent previous survey conducted by NCWRC in 2002 documented the
presence of Elliptio sp., however this site was 3.5 RM downstream from the project site below
the confluence with South Ugly Creek.
Based on these survey results, impacts to Atlantic Pigtoe and Carolina Heelsplitter are unlikely
to occur in the study area but cannot be ruled out based on a one-time survey. Strict adherence to
erosion control standards should minimize the potential for any adverse impacts to occur. A
recommended biological conclusion on potential impacts from the project is provided below.
The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as such, it is
recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the finding of this
document. The federal action agency, or its nonfederal designee (NCDOT) must render a
biological conclusion for the species.
Recommended Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: May Affect Not Likely to Adversely
Affect
Recommended Biological Conclusion Carolina Heelsplitter: May Affect Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 14

7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Alderman, J.M. and J.D. Alderman. 2014. DRAFT 2014 Atlantic Pigtoe Conservation Plan.
Prepared for Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Richmond, VA. 32pp.
Barfield, M.L. and G.T. Watters. (1998).Non-parasitic life cycle in the green floater,Lasmigona
subviridis (Conrad, 1835). Triannual Unionid Report 16:22.
Bogan, A.E. (2002). Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh,NC, 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Butler, J.R., and Secor, D.T., Jr. (1991) The central Piedmont, in Horton, J.W., Jr., and Zullo,
V.A., eds., The geology of the Carolinas; Carolina Geological Society Fiftieth
Anniversary Volume: Knoxville, The University of Tennessee Press,p. 59-78.
Clarke, A.H. (1985). The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona
and Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 399: 75.
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States,with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls.
Conrad, T.A. 1835. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh water
bivalve shells) of North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone from nature. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1:1-12, plates 1-5.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. (2008). Carolina Heelsplitter(Lasmigona decorata) and Tar River
Spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Conservation Research: July 2007-June 2008. Final
report submitted to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh,NC.
18 pp.
Eads, C.B., R.B. Bringolf, R.D. Greiner, A.E. Bogan, and J.F. Levine (2010). Fish Hosts of the
Carolina Heelsplitter(Lasmigona decorata), a federally endangered freshwater mussel
(Bivalvia: Unionidae). American Malacological Bulletin. In press.
Eads, C.B. and J.F. Levine. 2012. Refinement of Growout Techniques for Four Freshwater
Mussel Species. Final Report submitted to NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh,
NC. 15pp.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 15

Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents on
Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Howell, S.M. (2005). Geologic Mapping and Interpretation of Carolina Slate Belt Rocks in the
Woodlawn and Aonia Quadrangles, GA. Department of Geology and Geography,
Georgia Southern University. Bachelor of Science in Geography: 42.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Keferl, E.P. (1991). "A status survey for the Carolina Heelsplitter(Lasmigona decorata). A
freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas."Unpublished report to US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Keferl, E.P. and R.M. Shelly. (1988). The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta robusta),
Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 47.
Lea, I. (1852). Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as
an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. (2001). Mollusca: Bivalvia. Ecology and classification of
North American freshwater invertebrates. J. H. Thorpe and A. P. Covich, Academic
Press: 331-429.
McRae, Sarah. 2017. Fish and Wildlife Biologist,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh,NC.
Personal communication regarding target species.
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.
(Accessed: February 2022). Species Accessed: Fusconaia masoni.
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 16

Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2020. 2020 North Carolina Final 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2022. NPDES Wastewater Facilities. Accessed June 2022.
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4ca77e79b68e466cbc
ae9713a28dde7d
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program(NCNHP). 2022. Biotics Database. Division of Land
and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. April 2022
version.
NCWRC. (2002). Guidance memorandum to address and mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts
to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources and water quality, NC Wildlife Resource
Commission.
O'Dee, S.H., and G.T. Waters. 2000. New or confirmed host identification for ten freshwater
mussels. Pp. 77-82 in R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Waters, B.J. Armitage, P.D.
Johnson, and R.S. Butler(eds.). Freshwater Mollusk Symposia Proceedings Part I.
Proceedings of the Conservation, Captive Care and Propagation of Freshwater Mussels
Symposium. Ohio Biological Survey Special Publication, Columbus.
O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Pennak, R. W. (1989). Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca.
New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J.
Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols,
A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010
Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in
North Carolina. Unpublished report of the Scientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 17

Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue. (2005). Investigations into potential fish hosts for the Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,Asheville,NC. 29 pp. plus appendices.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
T. R. Russ,NCWRC personal communication.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1992a. Special report on the status of
freshwater mussels.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of
the southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft
Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. 5-Year Review: Summary and
Evaluation 2019, Charleston, SC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: Threatened Species Status with Section 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical
Habitat. 50 CFR 17:86 FR 64000, 64000-64053. Docket Nos. FWS-R4-ES-2018-
0046FF09E21000 FXES 1111090FEDR 223.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). April 202 lb. Species Status Assessment
Report for the Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) Version 1.4.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe
Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp.
Wolf, E.D. 2012. Propagation, Culture, and Recovery of Species at Risk Atlantic Pigtoe.
Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute, Project No. 11-108. 55pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. USFWS Information for Planning and
Conservation(IPAC). Accessed June 2022.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/O7LH76IEF5AOPK33RYSXX33 C6Y/resources
17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 18

17BP.10.R.133 Hardy Creek Aquatic Species Survey Report July 2022
Job#22-316 Page 19

APPENDIX A
Figures

{ r a '* - ;
x. . _ .. , 1 4
Lo
r
V. _ T.,� art- "#.} * rr !4T .k,
•
. --r -• '- '.Ley *, r
• 4 Q., ©OpenStreetH'ap(Air,'
-rc contributors, CC-BY-SA
.'. x
•" ile:41111.0t(' . . -
{ T - • . *'
4111‘
#1.....,.. , ,_.
_ ft.:s r
•
'� k
....., . •
r t .r_ t- -- - '
41/201
%
' + v , ). �, ?f tit# L +{r .,' , • - +
11111.1
•
•
Bridge Number 830162 . . • .
Survey each a i r * ,, . ,4fr.
•
'' Stream J
Road • 15 ii Liat,l:Ofil Lt-,+ . E:so. ,Efiii. k t-C t - -il :'"I..JL ::I-bLl 1)%.
US1j.A,U ,:Er5 17 N D ,[G[J,it-x:J {"i t [ U +. ":iJliUuL1iL' f
4.00 E D._J{%5 VI' Freshwater Mussel Survey '2l'`. July2022 Figure
gitpit -` ', 17BP.10.R 133: Bridge No. 830162 kale. a iia 2' . .
on SR 1923 fold Cottonville Road}
, Over HardyCreek Ala w4-
;* . ' Project Vicinity & Survey Reach 2 316
" "$33�11` � * Stanly County. North Carolina ' ' amd.'ad`¢'
TH TD

'• Rno raii f .w'
•
w
ROWANcOUNTY N.
F�OhhANOOUN1Y y. {sNDDiPHCOUNTY -
ABARRUS OUN'Y — —' — SRNLYOOUN� ? NTODMERYCOUNT`
�_, EC ID 14265 • YFt1
}r Rl1n.in
f
r
".. f h<x L ru,..
+frt. Id LPI.,Rrt / BMirf
MIS {f k. T 4 .�,
zs . EO IC 22C
ille
t ¢ff ee, AlbMn a ir05.
m. ,E 0 ID 220, 7`- yti 2S I 1,..�}+'
,�1 ' /w
}f l
' {r Loc4tsi +� 17
%
.lN.,r 5411E t e
/f Svhllrld Study Area k' 1 '
c •_ f}r Oakhu.s, Nerwcu
# } MLod.�i F r EO ID 05.
r . }+ % °5
r IF1'
' - ,-/-1 -.. . f r ` f i r' ,"„��' 1m j klOt��GCt1, IRY CAl!!sT -^"�.Y
__ .
. 35
I
'x. Aw:=nrl„*mow - ~
+ \ 5
...R-J Un t:irill. - \ ti11
+
‘,.....4sQ
J �
.
r}1IJ+ +f
1.
'' Lys MR�!'Illle 0 . i lan N
1,\,....„-
tVJWc�Laro
t �y.i+uh w
E 0 I D 720 9 3 Reck cow..
��
rI
Bridge 162 Location
.0 r . NCNHP EO: Atlantic Pigtoe
\_ b" r
'{I ` t Critical Habitat:.Atlantic Pigtoe
c#
---- ---�__-- 1 `"'a, j---] CountyBoundar;,
� �-OLEERit w,:. Freshwater Species Surveys " June 2022 Figure
8,110#1Replacement of Bridge 162 on pia. o 1 2MiI
Old C<otton+�ille Rd over Hardy reek �J'� NCNHP Element Occurrence 4c
ta4_ 22-31fi2. 01
It'',4/11/ '
4433 ` 'y `o , ,� and Critical Habitat Atlantic Pigtoe �Eddy:
stanl}r County. North Carolina TH TB

it i fildl#Jd itei i-r-
' IfAL
a
Gunolua >+ „w■r.. -
r Miilleacant f{ j 1
G ,af 6If"
$ Irj?3 4431\ti'. i,e v5 Albarllarl•
YNarfisbERg Q`;� ifi r 'i"'"` {t f.
— 414111114
66
5 cz. *fill
.,
` a
x EO ID: 143Ba ,f ''' --Cli /
f. ' ., -.1,� ; ff{r 1.44rif r1
1.44-, S�, titer wphway7.417 {f StudyArea
/r
I ry it ! s3akboro N.
v f }'
a f
cp 4 %, -' J i ....0 r
•
3 MllltF11r ti `ti f , * •
'n{" t c0 t (- )
a c' EOID: 1454 t � x
' f
kV4 tr i R *a` J
I'
4.
I In - L a.Park .14 e11 Rp MI ravine d;66' i .
•
fndian ira11 , f
•11 > I>.•
- e
o- .oh, zjz
.
Wesley Chapel 0. 't
t% - -} I {,14ton
IPeachluld -
-#+nCn 1':- #.l3r gi.nel I. _ — .,
4'fi ngaia
Bridge 162 Location I
I'
NCNHP EO Carolina Heelsplitter I
r
Critical Habitat Carolina Heelsplitter f
f
L ____i CountyBoundary il
L____
— f
�,1ff '�rG' w,,. 4. Freshwater Species Surveys a.v. July, 2022 Figure
� '� Replacement of Bridge 16 on ;fl. 0 1 zruvlr5
Old Cottonville Rd over Hardy Creek I I II II
NCNHPElementOccurrencesand ,. NO 2_2
� . „Er Critical Critical Habitat: Carolina Heelsplitter
61;1631 fi
,� 1 +� :aw clxdey:
$�3�11` stanly County- North Carolina TH TD

N� . V ' T N Co\{oemf
- 4.
' � ' /
,
. �• ,, \ /
.__._ /
. 2 \ . , (
.\ , \, 3 -
o3u
eL-J\ x
/ * ) N.Iiili®2®
¥, 2
, % AI g%
f . � � �
• . \ •m - ®
. /, , 6 e . � V � \
fr N coot k]2 ,
. . % I
\ / N.
N Co/r.—-o4]s]2 ' .
_..'
4 N C002 @ E - •
• � \ -..) 7\
l . /
©~•1o1141..p!
• ,_.. . -(
. . ,
» 6 d . .
: ` ^ . ' : \�
•.,
L \
�w ~` . \ /, .
\ „
i, .
. ..,....2
1•
, \ Q Coo2]B2B
.
/j:,LY
% . . Ai
. - , ,
. \: 1 t V /
° w J |
z•
. ® 4 (
/ } / CL
) \
» Bridge Number B]o] 'y
& ,e
NPDESDischemes ` ....Log,®� .. .
• Major . z
k _
Minor . �,% \ • /.
]o3d) bgedSlmams % (
Mile6Bufter :2 i
I.
---, \
j�, CountyBoundary . y , l �
Seam
�z - . . \opens .4'(and ! !
�9* a» EmshwaterSpeciesSurvey ` ^ July2o22 Figure
A� Freshwater
]o.R 133. Bridge No. B]o]\2
Oiler,
on SR 1923 (Old Co#onviQ R$ ` , , .
over Hardy Creek ±Na.
3034} bgedSlmamsand 2224E 3
..� NPDES Discharges w .w ,G
Stahl Count North Carolina TH ^ TD

NCDOT Division 10 Bridge Replacement Program
Bridge 162 on SR 1923 over Hardy Creek— PCN for RGP 50
Attachment E
No National Register of Historic Places Eligible or Listed
Archaeological Sites Present Form,
Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form

Project Tracking No.:
18-10-0040
NO NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
PRESENT FORM It
`V This form only ertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not fib'
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the '''
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: R.133 County: Stanly
WBS No: 17BP.10.R.133 Document: MCC
F.A. No: na Funding: Z State ❑ Federal
Federal Permit Required? ® Yes ❑ No Permit Type: USACE; DENR
Project Description: This project entails the replacement of Bridge No. 162 on SR 1923, Old Cottonville
Road, southeast of Aquadale(PA 18-10-0040) in Stanly County, North Carolina. No preliminary designs
were available at the time of request for archaeological survey. The area of potential effects (APE)
measures 704 feet(214.58 meters) long and 200 feet(60.96 meters) wide along Old Cottonville Road
(Figure 1). The current APE encompasses 3.3 acres (nearly 1.34 hectares).
SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)Archaeology Group reviewed the subject
project and determined:
Z There are no National Register listed or eligible ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
present within the project's area of potential effects. (Attach any notes or
documents as needed)
❑ No subsurface archaeological investigations were required for this project.
® Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological
resources.
❑ Subsurface investigations did not reveal the presence of any archaeological resources
considered eligible for the National Register.
® All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and
all compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
18-10-0040
Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:
The review of the site maps and files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) was
conducted on November 19, 2018. No previously identified archaeological sites are recorded within the
APE as currently proposed, nor are any sites recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed project.
Data available on the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office HPOWEB GIS Service
(http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) revealed no recorded historic properties within a 0.5-mile radius of the
APE,nor are any known cemeteries within that radius.
An examination of soils in Stanly County presented on the National Resources Conservation Service Web
Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) indicated the following soil
types within the APE: Badin channery silt loam, 8-15 percent slopes(BaD);Badin channery silt loam, 15-
45 percent slopes (BaF); Goldston very channery silt loam, 15-45 percent slopes (GoF); and Oakboro silt
loam, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently flooded (OaA). The soils within the APE include well drained,
somewhat well drained, and moderately well drained silt loams on hillslopes on ridges and floodplains.
Table 1 illustrates the USDA soil types present in the designated survey areas(Soil Survey Staff 2019).
Table 1. Soil Types in the Area of Potential Effects (APE)
Soil Type Percent of Permeability Locations
Survey Areas
Badin channery silt loam,8-15 percent 5.0% Well-drained Hillslopes on Ridges
slopes
Badin channery silt loam, 15-45 22.1% Well-drained Hillslopes on Ridges
percent slopes
Goldston very channery silt loam, 15- 0.6% Well-drained Hillslopes on Ridges
45 percent slopes
Oakboro silt loam,0-2 slopes, 72.3% Moderately well- Flood Plains
frequently flooded drained
The APE is shown on the USGS 7.5' Aquadale Quadrangle topographic map. The study area is located
in the Lynches River sub-basin of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality 2003). The closest source of water is Hardy Creek, which directly intersects the
APE and Old Cottonville Road. The landscape of the APE contains plowed agricultural fields, wooded
areas, and disturbed areas (Figures 2-3). Disturbance in the APE was especially prevalent in areas
directly adjacent to the road and was indicated by the presence of gravel on the surface.
New South Associates, Inc. (New South) conducted an intensive shovel testing survey of the APE during
March 2019. Shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter intervals to identify archaeological resources that
may be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement. The fieldwork also included a visual inspection in
areas with high ground visibility, such as agricultural fields. New South pre-plotted 12 shovel tests in the
APE. Two of these could not be excavated because of surface water (Figure 4, Table 2). Shovel tests
measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated into sterile subsoil, the water
table, a natural impasse, or the maximum feasible depth (approximately 1 meter). Soils were screened
through 0.25-inch hardware cloth. No additional shovel tests were excavated. The archaeological
investigations did not identify any sites in the APE.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
18-10-0040
Table 2. Shovel Test Data
Shovel Level Depth Depth Munsell Color Soil 1 Artifacts Notes
Test (Top) (Base) Texture
15 1 0 10 10R5/8 Red Silty Clay - Disturbed
16 1 0 30 10YR5/4 Yellowish Silty Clay - Rock Impasse
Brown Loam
17 1 0 45 10YR5/4 Yellowish Silt - Creek Pebbles
Brown at Bottom
18 - - - - - - - Not Excavated
-Surface Water
19 1 0 20 5YR5/3 Reddish Silty Clay - Water at Base
Brown
20 1 0 40 5YR5/3 Reddish Silty Clay - Water at Base
Brown
21 1 0 10 7.5YR4/3 Brown Silty Loam - -
2 10 20 7.5YR4/6 Strong Brown Silty Clay
22 1 0 10 7.5YR4/3 Brown Silty Loam - -
2 10 20 7.5YR4/6 Strong Brown Silty Clay
23 - - - - - - - Not Excavated
-Surface Water_
24 1 0 10 10R4/6 Red Silty Clay - Disturbed
Rocky
25 1 0 10 10R4/6 Red Silty Clay - Disturbed
Rocky
26 1 0 10 10R4/6 Red Silty Clay - Disturbed
Rocky
The stratigraphy in the APE varied by location. The soils are highly disturbed to the south of Old
Cottonville Road in the eastern portion of the APE, and to the north of Old Cottonville Road in the
western portion of the APE. The disturbance in these areas probably relates to the construction and
maintenance of the bridge and road. STP 15, located south of the road in the eastern portion of the APE,
revealed red (10R 5/8) silty clay with around 40 percent medium angular rocks. This was the only
stratigraphic layer present in this shovel test. An identical stratigraphic sequence was found in STP 26
north of Old Cottonville Road in the western side of the APE. STP 20, located south of the road in the
western side of the APE, was offset to avoid a small unnamed creek draining from Hardy Creek to the
east. This STP profile consisted of reddish brown (5YR 5/3) silty clay. Excavation ceased at 40-
centimeters below ground surface, at which point the water table was met. STP 21 exposed brown
(7.5YR 4/3) silty loam from the ground surface to a depth of 10 centimeters. Beneath this layer was
strong brown(7.5YR 4/6) silty clay that extended to the base of excavation at 20 centimeters.
Summary of Findings:
In March of 2019, New South conducted an intensive archaeological survey of the APE for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 162 on SR 1923 (R-133) in Stanly County, North Carolina. Fieldwork
included the examination of 12 shovel test locations. The survey determined that there are no
archaeological sites in the APE. No additional work is recommended. If the project expands and impacts
subsurface areas beyond the defined APE, further archaeological studies may be necessary.
Samantha Taylor
Archaeologist
New South Associates, Inc.
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 4

Project Tracking No.:
18-10-0040
Figure List
Figure 1. Location of Area of Potential Effects (APE)
Figure 2. Photographs of the APE, 1 of 2
Figure 3. Photographs of the APE, 2 of 2
Figure 4. Shovel Test Pit Locations within the APE
Table List
Table 1. Soil Types in the Area of Potential Effects (APE)
Table 2. Shovel Test Data
References
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
2003 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/
planning/basin-planning/water-resource-plans/yadkin-pee-dee-2003, accessed March 20,
2019.
Soil Survey Staff
2019 Web Soil Survey of Selected Area in Stanly County, North Carolina.Natural Resources
Conservation Service,United States Department of Agriculture,Washington,D.C.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: ® Map(s) n Previous Survey Info 171 Photos Correspondence
Signed:
May 7,2019
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date
"NO NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE OR LISTED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRESENT"
form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
4 of 4

Figure 1.
Location of Area of Potential Effects (APE)
HN
`r `Y
Fr ". •ii5E &)i
C",,F.:
::
/.
f \ lip ..
4‘. •••,1`,...' ' , . i .'Pi.?. '/,'' -
r. //'
,; 15' , .' 1 - . c 0 r.3 ••••\, l_./
1 ,
`— ��J(14.1�+�'�-��1 ` �� \ l �, _--fit „ ilb Q.)
., ,—. 1 1.0)--",r ..-1........_..-
.- ' '... ft, ( C- ' /il''S
') .' ...-'-.. I, -.:1_,,,,----, : : • ...co/ -- If
• \' \ tit • ''
C. �CoCq yr_ Gr—.','��✓_ i.
t .r;, — ' -J��-/1" '�/1 APE ,.-.e_
!e • . fC(/',...-. ,--- /,
,... 0 ' ‘1,$-7(7 '-' -
' , ,C__ -- II, i, ..--,:-11 tr•\ C) i). (....--------_ -.
I\ 4,../ .., :‘ ,:t1
.....k.k.N. *".11/' ."'" " .) (........' s - ' ' ..‘ (1'.---\\ \ 'C.
_ _''�:. APE
\ ✓': ti/ 0 500 1,000 Feet
' o I I I i I
I i I i i N
.- '2 l ^ / 0 100 200 Meters
Source: USGS Aquadale, North Carolina Quadrangle

Figure 2.
Photographs of of the APE, 1 of 2
_ .ice -
I.:
Xt. mayu.
. � 8 7a i ,.j � fi ,te�. 7'*: �' mow" ,
Lew r!:''- x` +
:.':::.7--'7:::;1.:1''
ma *, s -. w " a - r n 44ry ,. .,"ti'.. » T _, • , a , .,
y,-:-i
APE Facing North
silo .g cae '-'
pig
/i
,8 A�
i �06� 20 I 1'l�. _
- *, .tea i• '� ,` `ti s
--s' q eY .-
•
APE Facing Southwest

Figure 3.
Photographs of the APE, 2 of 2
ri54s i 7,240`41 ` ;off y ! 1lei A 6 L
,1i r t 1'
-,
i
f;
APE Facing Southeast
NI
•
Yam` r... .o •'��z_
• ,-_ . • iiiiii, ; -_.,-_- _,
APE Facing Northwest

Figure 4.
Shovel Test Pit Locations within the APE
t, •
Stanly
County
•
21
o
APE 22 ,
0
_ 15
." • c .
- . . .
25 •41Q
26 Ala
llll '
•
20
0 Negative Shovel Test
® Not Excavated
i IAPE
-. ._ _ 0 50 100 Feet
L i I I
L N
0 15 30 Meters
Source: 2010 Orthoimagery

Project Tracking No.(Internal Use)
18-10-0040
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPES
NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to Historic Architecture and Landscapes for this project. It
is not valid for Archaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the
Archaeology Group.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project No: County: Stanly
WBS No.: 17BP.10.R.133 Document MCC
Type:
Fed.Aid No: N/A Funding: ® State ❑ Federal
Federal ® Yes ❑No Permit USACE
Permit(s): Type(s):
Project Description: Replace Bridge NO. 162 on SR 1923 (Old Cottonville Road) over Hardy
Creek.
SUMMARY OF HISTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW
Description of review activities, results, and conclusions:
Review of HPO quad maps, HPO GIS information, historic designations roster, and indexes was
undertaken on November 2, 2018. Based on this review, there are no existing NR, SL, LD, DE,
or SS properties in the Area of Potential Effects, which is 300' from each end of the bridge and
200' from the centerline each way. There are no properties over fifty years of age within the
APE. Bridge No. 162 is not eligible for NR listing based on the NCDOT Historic Bridge
Inventory. There are no National Register listed or eligible properties and no survey is required.
If design plans change, additional review will be required.
Why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there
are no unidentified significant historic architectural or landscape resources in the project
area:
HPO quad maps and GIS information recording NR, SL, LD, DE, and SS properties for the
Stanly County survey, Stanly County GIS/Tax information, and Google Maps are considered
valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of historic resources being present. There
are no National Register listed or eligible properties within the APE and no survey is required.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
1?Vlap(s) ['Previous Survey Info. nPhotos ['Correspondence Design Plans
FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Historic Architectur and Landscapes --NO SURVEY REQUIRED
IUziDS► y
NC OT Architectural Historian Date
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 1 of 3

01
if
•
11
f FG
•
•
O �
o
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 2 of 3

S•
'r
rz
}fir
ior4,
,a
4'f'.. n _ ..
axe. , } . 7 i. A1/4Ks
f
, .Y1\ 1.Y f 1 y� ' 'y
t tra
,y , _ •
,tom i is ,' t -.`,\ , t \ t' -4'u t
* }t' t. 1 Half .: % ?'?'' '4
fir'
.Aa . .
'i "•r 4
State Historic Preservation Office GIS.
Historic Architecture and Landscapes NO SURVEY REQUIRED form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007 Programmatic Agreement.
Page 3 of 3