2022-02136 NWP 14 Tearsheet

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2022-02136 County: Rockingham U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Mavodan
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee: NC Department of Transportation
Attn: Michael Turchy
Address: 1000 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
Size (acres) —3.5 Nearest Town Madison
Nearest Waterway Mayo River River Basin Roanoke
USGS HUC 03010103 Coordinates 36.392494,-79.952829
Location description: The pro*ect area is located at NCDOT Bridge 124 on SR 2177 (Dam Valley Road) over the Mayo River, in
Rockingham County, North Carolina.
Description of projects area and activity: This verification authorizes the permanent discharge of fill material into >0.01 acre (21
linear feet) of stream channel (not considered permanent loss of stream), the temporary discharge of fill material into >0.01
acre (28 linear feet) of stream channel, and the temporary discharge of fill material into 0.03 acre of open waters within the
Mavo River. necessary for the replacement of existing NCDOT bridge on a new alignment and associated approach work.
included as part of NCDOT TIP B-5712.
Applicable Law(s): © Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Nationwide Permit 14. Linear Transportation Projects
SEE ATTACHED NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL, AND/OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
Conditions, your application signed and dated 10/3/2022, and the enclosed plans "Wetland and Surface Water Impacts Permit,
January 202211, Permit Drawing Sheets 1 through 8. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted
plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate
legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide and/or regional general permit
authorization is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide and/or regional general
permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided
it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide and/or regional general permit authorization
expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon
the nationwide and/or regional general permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the
date of the nationwide and/or regional general permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has been
exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), prior
to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State
or local approvals/permits. If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of
Engineers regulatory program, please contact David E. Bailey at [phone] or David.E.Bailev2(&usace.armv.mil.
Date: 2022.11.17 12:30:18
Corps Regulatory Official:-05-00' Date: 11/17/2022
Expiration Date of Verification: 3/14/2026

SAW-2022-02136
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS's) Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) titled,
"NCDOT Program Effects on the Northern Long-eared Bat in Divisions 1-8", dated November 6,
2020, contains agreed upon conservation measures for the NLEB. As noted in the PBO,
applicability of these conservation measures varies depending on the location of the project. Your
authorization under this Department of the Army permit is conditional upon your compliance
with all applicable agreed upon conservation measures in the PBO, which are incorporated by
reference in this permit. Failure to comply with the applicable these conservation measures would
constitute non-compliance with your Department of the Army permit. The USFWS is the
appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of its PBO, and with
the ESA.
2. This Department of the Army permit does not authorize you to take an endangered species, in
particular the Roanoke logperch (Percina rex). In order to legally take a listed species, you must
have separate authorization under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (e.g., an ESA Section 10
permit, or a Biological Opinion [BO] under ESA Section 7, with "incidental take" provisions with
which you must comply). The enclosed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BO contains mandatory
terms and conditions to implement the reasonable and prudent measures that are associated with
"incidental take" that is also specified in the BO. Your authorization under this permit is
conditional upon your compliance with all of the mandatory terms and conditions associated with
incidental take of the attached BO, which terms and conditions are incorporated by reference in
this permit. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the
BO, where a take of the listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would
also constitute non-compliance with your permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the
appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of its BO, and with
the ESA.
Date: 2022.11.17
Corps Regulatory Official: 12:29:55-05'00' Date: 11/17/2022
Expiration Date of Verification: 3/14/2026
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so,
please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at https://re ugulatory.ops.usace.gM.mil/customer-service-survey.
Copy furnished electronically:
Ryan Conchilla, NCDEQ-DWR, ryan.conchilla@ncdenr. og_v

E fivi North Carolina Department of Transportation
;in1'uihv�it[°f Highway Stormwater Program } r'
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Version 3.00; Released August 2021) FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
WBS Element: 45677.1.1 TIP/Prof No.: B-5721 County(ies): Rockingham Page 2 of 2
General Project Information
Waterbody Information
Surface Water Body 1 : Mao River
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
22-30- 10
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Primary Classification:
Class C
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
None
Impairments:
None
Aquatic T&E Species?
No Comments:
NRTR Stream ID:
Mayo River
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
Yes
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
INo
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body (2): 1 UT to Mayo River
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
22-30-(10)
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:
SA
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
No
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
N/A
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body 3 : UT to Mao River
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
22-30- 10
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:
SB
Buffer Rules in Effect: N/A
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body?
No
Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? N/A
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer? N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
I N/A
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
L. (If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)

STATE OF NORTH CAROI ILA
DIVISION OIL HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
LOCATION: BRIDGE 780124 ON SR 2177 (DAN VALLEY RD) OVER
THE MAYO RIVER
TYPE OF WORK: GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, AND STRUCTURE
WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS PERMIT
See Sheet 1A For Index of Sheets
See Sheet 1B For Conventlonol Symbols
JANUARY 2022
BEGIN BRIDGE
—L— STA. 20+29.00
END CONSTRUCTION
-DWI- STA. 11+75.00
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-5721
—L— STA. 15+46.00
-\0v5' �i"3
THERE IS NO CONTROL OF ACCESS ON THIS PROJECT.
CLEARING ON THE PROJECT SHALL BE TO THE LIMITS
ESTABLISHED USING METHOD II.
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL
BOUNDARIES.
SITE 1
END BRIDGE
—L— STA. 22 + 99.00
STA'EE
STATE PROIP.CT REPERENC6 NO.
SXee,I.fi
B-5 721
9TATE PROl.N0.
P. A.PROl. NO.
OE9CRIPTION
45677.1.1
BRZ-2177 001
PE
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 1 OF 8
4 0 5
END CONSTRUCTION o END TIP PROJECT B-5721
-Y- STA. 11 +35.00 h:� —L— STA. 30 + 40.00
SITE 3
SR / (NL 1VATER 77 ` //ry //END CONSTRUCTION
ST) j i/ h /// -L- STA. 31+00.00
- I ------ -- /L------ TO SR 2150
-
I I L- SR 21 ----� r------- (RIVER RD)
/ (DANN V Rb) -
SITE 2
75% ROADWAY PLANS
DECEMBER 17, 2021
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
el
GRAPHIC SCALES
el
DESIGN DATA
11
PROJECT LENGTH
11
Prepared in the Office of:
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ADT 2022 = 4,277
Suite
5438 Wade Park Boulevard, Suite 200
�L=C0m NC FIRM LICENSE No:F-0342
Ralei h, NC 27607
50 25 0 50 100
(91n9) 461-1I00
RORF
ADT 2041 = 6,096
p
K = 10 /D
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-5721 = 0.232 MI
0*
�
@ �®
� o
2018 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
PLANS
D = 55 %
GREGORY R. COLS, P.E.
P.E.
SIGNATURE:
® a
50 25 0 50 l00
T = 8% p/p *
V = 50 MPH
* TTST =1% DUAL 7%
LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-5721 = 0.051 MI
%
TOTAL LENGTH TIP PROJECT B-5721 = 0.283 MI
RIGHT OF WAY DATE:
JANUARY 14, 2022
VQ
®�
PROJECT ENGINEER
NEIL I DEAN P.E.
I
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
(HORIZONTAL)
PROFILE HORIZONTAL
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER
10 5 0 10 20
FUNC CLASS =
LOCAL
SUB —REGIONAL TIER
LETTING DATE:
DECEMBER 20, 2022
D STUT P.E.
_
8��0�
NCDOT oz PROJECT MANAGER
AGER
P.E.
SIGNATURE:
PROFILE (VERTICAL)

TEMPORARY WORK PAD
N.T.S.
MIN. ELEV=541.3'
CLASS B RIP RAP
10,
NATURAL GROUND
CLASS II RIP RAP
GEOTEXTILE
�� g051 GPI
coo x
10/
m
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-572/
—L— STA.I5+46A0
O
SOD FARM PRPERTY,LLC
DB 1171 PG 1761
Q
C7
° R
I
57,
C70€7 �O �1
Q
y�0p0S TAINjA
J F
INV=54!
WOODS
—ON/— ST,
0
0
\ LUG
11
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 2 OF 8
N
(TYP) I RAP WOODS
J / F STRUCTURE PAY ITEM
/d p
VJ0095 ExisTwc Bxw2Gl
F
--'3RADE
N y DE Th DRAIN I /
—1---L—�1_
LU
HECTORS
St P=�f. R
SNEGGI
WOODS
��_�
,/�ff
NDSTA.20+T 08 RT_ 1l
WO S
SITE 1
SITE 1 TEMP. WORK PAD
& TEMP. IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WATERS
O
SOD FARM PROPERTY,LLC
DB 1171 PG 1761 I(/
I
TEMPORARY WORKPAD
DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
goo
DGE •124
CONC. BST
� • II, II, II, II, II, � �
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
B-572/
4
RIN SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
�ItELdA�[IN
E$Y
1�LAN
S
DO NOT USE FO
CONSTRUCTION
Ow'-e ol:— AECOM " am
wa kEsoEa°a a = ,.e "
'asi-uoTOsoi
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
N' O Lo
DAVID M. BRACEY
DB 1274 PG 634 1~
Lij
CLASS II RIP RAPTy
N
°UE-' (STRUCTURE PAY ITEM) W
PUE Lu
BM-2 N
a F • _ O
0
O
N
BEGIN STA. 23+09 RT tin END TA. 23+32 RT
r—
EXISTING Riw
— LLJ
Z
WOODS 2
o
OGER L. AND L INDA 41 SMI
—DB T79 PG 243
PAVEMENT REMOVAL
FOR —L— PROFILE SEE SHEET 6
FOR —OWI— PROFILE SEE SHEET 7
0
0
0

TEMPORARY WORK PAD
MIN. ELEV=541.3'
NATURAL GROUND
GEOTEXTILE
N.T.S.
CLASS B RIP RAP
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
B-572/
4
SHEET NO.
DES
DES
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
PERMIT
SHEET
DRAWING
3 OF 8
11
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
Il�1Ed1E1LdNIIN
DO NOT USE PO
lEd� Il�1LAN�
CONSTRUCTION
/�
O
SOD FARM PROPERTY,LLC
Prepared in the ca sE rva F-o rz
aF A=COM 5g3d rva aorv�a�a�a. s��.a zoo
Rd,V,a,C,,2 m
DB 1171 PC 1761
N
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
'CLASS II RIP RAP I /
/e
i
END CONSTRUCTIONto
ti O
-DWI- STA//+75.//�� 0
,
I DAVID M. BRACEY
�- DB 1274 PC 634 L j
1 �
s ��ti�ltititi / UJI
P �yj > `
• rs / •. 1 / CLASS IIRIP RAP, N
\U� j CC�i�i--��, P o p
�! V n
PUE (STRUCTURE PAY ITEM)
LU
PUE W
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 572/ �
E i PI E O
-L STAI5,`46.00 — O
F
ITYPj ' I RAP WOODS o 8
i
STRUCTURE P® IITEM)
CN
BB62G _--z"^4 - SB
�� BEGIN STA. 23+09 RT
F ---- F END TA.21-E32 RT �/i
C7 .vv i -- --- — — — — — —
R yDE� DRAIN 7 RDCE _ ' o — —F
-- �� - r�
O DRAI
N ,
C7 / J - ice. _ `rw -. - Lu
-f ,Nc aiw
s 2G ��Hv,� R Z TAIN QJ 5 _
WOODS
A -v 5
/ w
p _
IN STA.
d
42
i
N0'' V-547.3
RETAI" SITE 1 TEMP. WO PAD
INV-548.63' S J
1N 5 9.2D' \\ � S& TEMP URFACE IMPACT WATEIN I/ !� �ocE DE, L.N e ' INDA 1
S s a L/\ I / PC 24
�s g CONN TORS
e WOaM MPRJ I
�� SOD FARM PROPERt,Y, LLC
DB 1171 PO 1761
v \ V✓
\I Vs J 1
5 �
`5`59 � � ` s i
�I
\� U
\ a
TEMPORARY WORKPAD
se DENOTES TEMPORARY
\\ (5m s IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
\ \ 5
e>s \
\ \ SSe
\ eS
\ \S
y .
100' 0' 100'
PAVEMENT REMOVAL
SCALE FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 6
FOR -DWI- PROFILE SEE SHEET 7
m
0
0
0

PROJECT REFERENCE NO SHEET NO
ERMI
SH E
D
T 4
WING
0 F 8
e-572/
6
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
-L- S
A. 16 +
7.22
C
1
BRIDG
E STA. 21
+64
L-
P/ =
3+85.00
PIBEII INiIIN
UO NOT USE I=O
RY PLANS
CONSTRUCTION
129', 1
141'
-DWI
STA. 1
+ 00.0
M
4' END
BENT CAPS
VC =
K =
55
P/ = 18
foo.00
G
SKEWN�
P. ELEV
-jn7
= 57
.94'
-
Prepared in the
INlice of: A-�
5930 W FI M LIk EBSE -rd S.l a 20
° s°
-L-
-
VC =
/Ol
ROa°s�i'n"NC 2760
oo
STA. 15
46.00
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
570
EL
556.
0'
K = 8
(+)I.09
3%
(-J
2/57%
+�
.6 9-1
_
(-122i
7v
560
/
EXISTING
GROUND
-L---I-----t-�
BRIDGE
HY
RAULIC DATA
DESIGN
REOUENCY
= 50
YRS
DESIGN
ELEVATI
N = 554
FT
BASE D
SCHARGE
= 28,8C
0 CFS
BASE F
EOUENCY
= l00
YRS
ELEVAT
- 5552
FT
OVERTOI
PING DISCHARGE
= l7
CFS
OVERTOI
PING FREOO
ENCY= l0+
YRS
OVERTOf
PING ELEVA
ION = 5512
FT
OT A
-L- STA I
+00
LEV = 551D
FT
DATE OF
SURVEY
= 11107
20I8
W.S. ELa
ATION
AT DATj
OF SURVE
= 540
FT
EL=541.3
\
[�(N
IN.) //
550
1
GROUND
LINE
@
NWSE=
40.3'
540
EXISTIN13
BRIDGE
I
-
(APPROX.
\
530
TEMP.
WORK
PAD &
TEMP
B
#2
- STA.23
76.2/ 68.4
'LEFT
E
EV=556.3
'
BM"I
-L- STA.2/+I283 25.04' LEFT
ELE=556.55'
510 SPIK IN 20' AIAPLE TREE_
FOR -L-PAN VIEW EE SHE T 4 510
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
m
0
N -L- STA. 28 69.93
59n P1= L185.00 -Y- STA. 10 + 00.00
Pl
E HYD
AULIC CATA
54" RCP
Sto. 30
57
D
SIGN FRI
QUENCY
= 25
YF, S
D
SIGN DIS
HARGE
= 80
CFS
DESIGN
HW
ELEVATI
= 56
.5 F
lrrc
YEAR
ELEVA
ION = 562.59
F
ERTOPPI
G FREQU
NCY= 20
+ Yr, S
ERTOPPI
G DISCH
GE = 140
CFS
Y- STA. 10 + 00.00
/L = 565.71
BEGIN GRADE
F-rv- C+A -in . -Pi
EL = 65.25'�-Y-
END RADE
END TIP PROJE T B-57 1 STA. 11 + 3.00
N = I' BURIED DEPTH L- 5 I A. U + 4U. U
K = 5 L = 5?24
6'
g P/ = 26 95.00 JEL = 5 4.97' C = 5'
Z EL= 57.48' _ = 7580
V = 15Y EL 564.74'
K = 12 VC l50'
m
570
c
E
3135% (+l
$ (- - - -1 L5840%
560
N END V DITCH R
Z BEG V-DITC RT -L- S A 28+50. 0
N 55n -L- STA28+0 00 EL = 564.00
54' RCP
m
18e RC
Sto.10+
4
DRAINAGE
AREA
= /10
AC
DESIGN FREQUENCY
=
5
rRS
DESIGN DISCHARGE
_ IIJ
FS
DESIGN hW
ELEVA
ION = 563.4
FT
/00 YEAR
DISCHARGE
_ J.5
FS
/00 YEAR
HW ELEVATION
=
63.46
T
OVERTOPPING
DISCHARGE
= 15.0
FS
OVERTOP
ING ELEV
TION =
66.0
cT
FOR -L-PAN VIEW EE SHEET 5
FOR -Y-PAN VIEW EE SHE T 5 sqn
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 10 11

Uf
Z
0
Iv
DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3
SPECIAL LATERAL 'V' DITCH TYPICAL SECTION 'V' DITCH W/PSRM PIPE BANK STABILIZATION
I Not to Scale) (Not to Scala) IN— Smle) N N
NaNml lac Nral ad 1.25'mm=
atuELEV.=560'MIN.
T
Ground 4.X D F\sec Groand 7) p 't\� Id
d FILL EXISTING :..NV
ILL WRIP RAP —1.25'
Min. D= I Ft. Min. D= 1 Ft. L�
M— d = 1 Ft, d— V.H.O—INEL BED
FROM -L- STA. 28+00 RT TO -L- STA. 28+50 RT Type of Liner= PSRM Type of Dner= Cl— I Rip Rap P/adable)
FROM -Y- STA. 10+31 LT TO -Y- STA. 11+35 LT -L STA. 30+56 RT
FROM -Y- STA. 10+39 RT TO -Y- STA. 11+35 RT
EIP
N
END CONSTRUCTION
- —Y— STA //+35.00
M
0
DAVID M. BRACEY O EIP 0y
DB 1274 PG 634 q m
WAYNE & IRENE KNIGHT
IV DB 1228 PG 1614
W
STEVENB COX
� N rL1 I `� / `S� / DB 877 PG 392
w �v V
W
N PUE
- PUE p
0 - PUE VF
O F
+ _ WOODS
N
N ♦ BL-4
F
F
W
EXISTING R/W
WOODS
U
/
� 6
ROGER L.A D
C
LINDA L. H
DB 779 243
0
TO DRAIN
TYPICAL SECTION DITCH
EST. PSRM I
1p
DE 2
SEE DETAIL
/
TYPICAL
SECTION
/
V—DITCH
fe PSRM
EST. 100 SY
/
f
PSRM
SEE DETAILTIE TYPICAL
SECTION
2 EDXTZ NGTO
WOODS
E
r
/1 FS DITCH LINE
C /
/
o QPUE
- Pi
II
i I
EIP -. �y /
— INV=56243'_, 78o
PW�I
\�
/ Pletlmont Na+ural Gos F
EIP Company Inc. G D T DRAI �6°STL(HPI — —
� I"G �
oN Oil
I1
o
� 1 I
1 I 2SFD PV
I �
I
I \
I I
SPECI LATERAL V-DITCH —
EE D L I
EIXISTING GROUND
•
PUE "-
WOODS PUE
7
O INER COLLINS
DB 7" PG 6
WILL BOOK 09E-73
WILL BOOK 90E-55
i
/POGAIPLE -
/ 8
/ AER
/ DB DB 150504 PC PG 21 2165
/
t
DENOTES IMPACTS IN /
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
PERMIT DRAWING
SHEET 5 OF 8
END TIP PROJECT B-572
—L— STA.30+40DO /
SIT
ti
.�1
�o
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO.
B-572/
5
RW SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
PItELd
DO NOT UEE USE FO
E$Y 1�LANS
CONSTRUCTION
MM
4s/
d/o'UC QKD
oop 1
ry i `J
'SURF E WATEP.,*PAL4 PATRICIA SWRAY
/ DB 1233 PbG 23
e/
EXISTING R/W
1 . R P 25 PRE -
O
SR 9J77 DAN VKLEY RD —_
23'BST
CP—V ---__ --
D 1' 25 PR �—
YISTING R/W A
—Li ST.
, AN � I `PERMT SURFACE WATER IKl
% 1 "I
'PCE WATER I CTS
5 GF_ I ;W
S. I i 0
i I WOODS
I �
/ EIP T
ROBERT C. SS
PC 1404DB 1258 PG I404
I L
STABILIZATION
NS CLASS IRIP RAP
GEOTEXTILE
3ALLEN HENSLEY
12 PG 363
I
I WOODS
off a of — AECOM ,a3a Wa aIR IkEsoEla°a a = ,.a zoG
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
ioo' a' loo'
PAVEMENT REMOVAL
FOR —L— PROFILE SEE SHEET 6
SCALE FOR —Y— PROFILE SEE SHEET 6
0
0
0

m
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
B-572/ 5
RAN SHEET NO. ___
DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3 ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
TYPICAL SECTION 'V' DITCH wRSRM
SPECIAL LATERAL'V' DITCH PIPE BANK STABILIZATION ENGINEER ENGINEER
1
Natty Scale) (Nato Scala) I S.6) PERMIT D RAW I N G \1
a•:aia. �ww ;FLO
m:➢� TELEV. =560' MIN. SHEET 6 O F 8 "l
NaNml b.\l Natural V
GroundE\moo Ground Z') D F��e` trnlD mn ,rx�iwr tD to Tnn p wrc
d FILL EXISTING PLUNGE— — /tiQ 1L'u®R%1lill1rIl11V a®ll ll'llaALV .S
POOL WRIP RAP —1.25' �` DO NOT USE PO CONSTEUCTION
Min. D= 1 F. Min. D= 1 Ft.
d= Varie
M.. d= 1 Ft. CHANNEL BED
Type of Liner= PSRM Type of Liner= Class I Rip Rap Nadoblel
FROM -L- STA. 28+00 RT TO -L- STA. 28+50 RT -L STA. 30+56 RT
FROM -Y- STA. 10+31 LT TO -Y- STA. 11+35 LT
FROM -Y- STA. 10+39 RT TO -Y- STA. 11+35 RT
EIP
Prepared in the
DRiee of Bg3B
IA=COM pa E Na: F_D342
de Par Boulevard. Suite 200
Ra,dV,"F, o60
N \ END TIP PROJECT B-572/ DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
T +400 UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
L S A 30 0 /
ti
END CONSTRUCTION s� /
O-Y- STA//+35.00
DAVID M. BRA
P o
aM /
e3
74 PG 6�4 l ,
� 'WAYNE & IRENE KNIGHT
DB 1228 PG 1614
,.
DB 12k
d
L � I
i
ILLJ
REX B COX
1,7 STEVEN B. COX
2 DB 8T7 PG 392;.
6 PICAL S I N ITC / �T
s ST. E
W TA
LLJ �h
TYPICAL /
N PUE .---------- ___ SECTION
O Pu P a sFD / - // V-DITCH -PSRM END CONSTRUC I()O - E ES�00SYTIETYPICAL SIT 3 -L STA3/+WQCf,
SEE DETAIL )
_ 2 SECTION
DITCH TOWOODS
EXISTING /
DITCH LINE
CN
s�q PUE
MPORAR SURF E WATERWA&S\ 1 I AY
�SBL-4
6243 n4� 11""
N -- — r-3fl0�A _ REMOVE
INV 5
F GRADE TO DRAIN �-�—
_
. _ u — 125 PR
L
H
PL
6°STL
T DRAT c
LU
�ODS h
n// g I I �= E%ISiING aiw A ) R 2 z�
w0oD5
-zs1-D566�- -� � � PUE � - - PUE
Q ROGER L A D / I w PIPE BANK STABILIZATION -
1 , , PE T SURFACE WATER I CTS EST_
DB°:y'7,JT9, 243 i II V � EST 6S-SY, E TE------ IP
_ Pp�L/ RF CE WATER ACTS
j I $PE D LATERAL V DITCH �° J' / z SEE DETAILS ,
' I EE D TAIL 1 � �� � / I
m Jj�II //
�' j f / T EXISTING GROUND / /� gOR-'� 3�`+� -I I _ Yt-----
•
w` FSLEY
/ -
�COLLINS�
YIOBB7O4O0K PG
-WILL BOOK 90E-55 --
I �
I I
- II WO-ODS��— -
-�
GAP / I
ANN G. SHAFFNER --�_ �s
DB 1504 PG 2165
ROBERT C14 4
DB 1258 PCPG 140
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WATER /
oo' ol 100,
DENOTES TEMPORARY PAVEMENT REMOVAL
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER / FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEET 6
SCALE FOR -Y- PROFILE SEE SHEET 6
0
0
0

N
Z
0
END CONSTRUCTION
-Y - S / - .3500O =�
2SFo
' C
IV=562e43' -
EIP
18" P�
- 18" RCP
�/E ATlP PROJECT B-572/ PERMIT DRAWING ,�
SHEET 7 OF 8 'r
STA. 30 +40.00 a�
Sc / ?P
ll -
END CONSTRUCT- l0 _
-L STA.
SITE/3
C
INV=5610
Service
_ BL-5 2" s1� c
C >
411
PUE _ PUE
p�F EIP
WOODS PUE
►y[ilZsim
PUE
�ig„1
i �I
� 1
—E- rL --
INV=597a39
TEMPRF C E WATER lt4PXCTS
DENOTES IMPACTS IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY Q
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
I
I
/ I
I
I
1
1
1
1
N
/I
REMOVE
INV=558o16'
SURFACE WATERAM/PACTS PATRICIA So WRAY
�� DB 1233 PG 23
EXISTING R/W
RAP 25 PR T
O
EIP
SR 2177 DAN VAl l FY qn
PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET NO,
B-572/
R,W SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
ENGINEER
DD NOT USE FO
CONSTRUCTION
A=COM is waaeRP kEao e°a a°s .e z°°
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
PL
23'BS7 _
54" RCP—V
BURIED 1' 25 PR
EXISTING R/W A
18" TC -
8 TC R
•T - �
{ T SURFACE WATER I TS m PIPE BANK STABILIZATION
I EST. 35 TONS CLASS I RIP RAP
EST. 65 SY GEOTEXTILE
z� SEE DETAIL 3
I WOODS
e� IPATRICK ALLEN HENSLEY
I DB 1512 PG 363
WOODS I
I
I� 40' 0' 40'
,I I SCALE

WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS URWATER IMPACTS
Site
No.
Station
(From/To)
Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac)
Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft)
Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
R
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1
-L- 21+54 to 22+40
2-Span Bridge (1@129', 1@141')
0.03
54
2
-L- 30+25 to 30+58 RT
54" Pipe / Bank Stabilization
< 0.01
< 0.01
21
20
3
-L- 30+54 to 30+65 LT
54" Pipe
< 0.01
8
TOTALS:
< 0.01
0.03
21
82
0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
2018 Feb

United States Department of the Interior SE�:�E
F[SH SERVICE
FE
A
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 5, 2022
Seth Wilcher
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Subject: Biological Opinion — Replacement of Bridge No.
Mayo River in Rockingham County, NC (TIP No
2022-0043263
Dear Mr. Wilcher:
124 on SR 2177 over the
B-5721); FWS Project Code #:
This letter transmits the enclosed Biological Opinion (BO) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) for the replacement of Bridge No. 124 on SR 2177 over the Mayo River in
Rockingham County, NC (the Action). The Service received on May 12, 2022 your letter
requesting formal consultation for the Action described in the May 6, 2022 Biological
Assessment. You determined that the Action is likely to adversely affect the Roanoke Logperch.
The enclosed BO answers your request for formal consultation, and concludes that the Action is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Roanoke Logperch. This finding fulfills
the requirements applicable to the Action for completing consultation under §7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
Reinitiating consultation is required if the Federal Highway Administration retains discretionary
involvement or control over the Action (or is authorized by law) when:
a. the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;
b. new information reveals that the Action may affect listed species or designated critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this BO;
c. the Action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated
critical habitat not considered in this BO; or
d. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the Action may affect.
A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file with our office. If you have any
questions about the BO, please contact Gary Jordan at gM jordan&fws. go .
Sincerely,
THOMAS THOMIASSigned AUGS by
URGER
0400022.°'.°5'S`2':52
AUGSPURGER
Tom Augspurger
Deputy Field Supervisor

Enclosure
Electronic copy provided to:
Jared Gray, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Jerry Parker, NCDOT, Greensboro, NC
David Bailey, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC

Biological Opinion
Replacement of Bridge No. 124 on SR 2177 Over the Mayo
River, Rockingham County, North Carolina
TIP number B-5721
FWS Project Code #: 2022-0043263
U.&
F'L9ii E ILDI.IF'E
SERVICE
Prepared by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
THOMAS AUGSPURGERDigitally signed by T
Date: 202 070516:1107-04'00
GSPURGER July 5, 2022
Tom Augspurger, Deputy Field Supervisor Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSULTATIONHISTORY...................................................................................................................................... iii
BIOLOGICALOPINION............................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................1
2. PROPOSED ACTION.......................................................................................................................................2
2.1. Construction of New Bridge........................................................................................................................2
2.2. Demolition of Existing Bridge.....................................................................................................................2
2.3. Conservation Measures..............................................................................................................................3
2.4. Other Activities Caused by the Action.........................................................................................................5
2.5. Action Area.................................................................................................................................................5
3. SOURCES OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS..............................................................................................................7
4. STATUS OF SPECIES.......................................................................................................................................7
4.1. Species Description.....................................................................................................................................7
4.2. Life History..................................................................................................................................................7
4.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution..................................................................................................8
4.4. Conservation Needs and Threats................................................................................................................8
5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE.........................................................................................................................9
5.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution..............................................................................9
5.2. Action Area Conservation Needs and Threats............................................................................................9
6. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION...............................................................................................................................9
6.1. Construction of New Bridge........................................................................................................................9
6.2. Demolition of Existing Bridge...................................................................................................................10
6.3. Conservation Measures............................................................................................................................10
6.4. Other Activities Caused by the Action.......................................................................................................10
6.5. Summary...................................................................................................................................................11
7. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS................................................................................................................................11
8. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................................11
9. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT...................................................................................................................11
9.1. Amount or Extent of Take.........................................................................................................................12
9.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures..........................................................................................................12
9.3. Terms and Conditions...............................................................................................................................12
9.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.................................................................................................12
10. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................13
11. REINITIATION NOTICE.................................................................................................................................14
12. LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................................................................14
11

CONSULTATION HISTORY
This section lists key events and correspondence during the course of this consultation. A
complete administrative record of this consultation is on file with the Service's Raleigh Field
Office.
2021-12-06 — The Service began discussions with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding the need for formal Section 7 consultation.
2022-03-24 — The Service received a draft Biological Assessment (BA) from the NCDOT.
2022-03-28 — The Service provided comments on the draft BA.
2022-05-12 — The Service received a final BA dated 2022-05-06 and a letter from the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) requesting initiation of formal Section 7 consultation.
2022-05-24 — The Service provided a letter to the FHWA stating that all information required for
initiation of formal consultation was either included with their 2022-05-12 letter or was
otherwise available.
2022-06-02 — The Service provided the FHWA and NCDOT with a draft Biological Opinion.
iii

BIOLOGICAL OPINION
1. INTRODUCTION
A biological opinion (BO) is the document that states the findings of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(ESA), as to whether a Federal action is likely to:
• jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
• result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
The Federal action addressed in this BO is the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
funding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 124 on SR 2177 over the Mayo River, Rockingham County, North Carolina, TIP
number B-5721 (Action). This BO considers the effects of the Action on the Roanoke Logperch.
The Action does not affect designated critical habitat; therefore, this BO does not address critical
habitat.
The Service previously concurred with the NCDOT's conclusion that the Action is not likely to
adversely affect the James Spinymussel by letter dated February 28, 2022. This concurrence
fulfilled the FHWA's responsibilities for the Action under §7(a)(2) of the ESA for this species.
We do not further address this species in this BO.
BO Analytical Framework
A BO that concludes a proposed Federal action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of listed species and is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat fulfills the Federal agency's responsibilities under §7(a)(2) of the ESA.
"Jeopardize the continued existence means to engage in an action that reasonably would
be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the
survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction,
numbers, or distribution of that species" (50 CFR §402.02).
"Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the conservation of a
listed species" (50 CFR §402.02).
The Service determines in a BO whether we expect an action to satisfy these definitions using
the best available relevant data in the following analytical framework (see 50 CFR §402.02 for
the regulatory definitions of action, action area, environmental baseline, effects of the action,
and cumulative effects).
a. Proposed Action. Review the proposed Federal action and describe the environmental
changes its implementation would cause, which defines the action area.
b. Status. Review and describe the current range -wide status of the species or critical
habitat.
c. Environmental Baseline. Describe the condition of the species or critical habitat in the
action area, without the consequences to the listed species caused by the proposed action.
The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or

private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all
proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early
consultation, and the impacts of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with
the consultation.
d. Effects of the Action. Predict all consequences to species or critical habitat caused by the
proposed action, including the consequences of other activities caused by the proposed
action, which are reasonably certain to occur. Activities caused by the proposed action
would not occur but for the proposed action. Effects of the action may occur later in time
and may include consequences that occur outside the action area.
e. Cumulative Effects. Predict all consequences to listed species or critical habitat caused by
future non -Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area.
f. Conclusion. Add the effects of the action and cumulative effects to the environmental
baseline, and in light of the status of the species, formulate the Service's opinion as to
whether the action is likely to jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat.
2. PROPOSED ACTION
The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 124 on SR 2177 over the Mayo River in
Rockingham County, North Carolina (Action). The Action is federally funded by the Federal
Highway Administration. The existing bridge was constructed in 1965 and is considered
structurally deficient. Components of both the superstructure and substructure have experienced
an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities.
The existing bridge is a 217 feet long, seven -span structure with two interior bents within the
Mayo River.
2.1. Construction of New Bridge
The new bridge will be a two -span structure with one span at 129 feet and the other at 141 feet,
totaling 270 feet. The new bridge will first be constructed adjacent and upstream to the current
structure and will completely span the river. Approach work for both ends of the new bridge will
include tree clearing and placement of fill material to raise and extend the existing roadbed
upstream of the current roadbed. Class II rip rap will be placed adjacent to both bridge end bents
for protection of the bents. Minor improvements will be made to the SR 2177/SR 2174
intersection near the northeastern end of the project limits.
2.2. Demolition of Existing Bridge
The existing bridge is to remain as a detour structure until the new bridge is completed. After
completion of the new bridge, the existing bridge will be removed in a top -down manner with
the portion of the bridge over the river cut into pieces and removed by a crane. Temporary
causeways, to be located just upstream of the existing bridge, will be used to facilitate the
removal of the structure. The causeways will extend from one riverbank and then the other so
that no more than 50 % of the river channel will be blocked at one time. The area around each
bent in the river will be dewatered, and the existing piles will be cut off one foot below the
riverbed. Materials used for stabilization, causeway fill, and much of the old approach fill will be
removed.
2

2.3. Conservation Measures
The following will be incorporated into the design and construction of the Action to avoid and
minimize effects to the Mayo River.
Regardless of the surface water quality classification, NCDOT will adhere to Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds described in 15A NCAC 0413.0124.
(a) Uncovered areas in High Quality Water (HQW) zones shall be limited to a maximum
total area of 20 acres within the boundaries of the tract. Only the land -disturbing activity
within a HQW zone shall be governed by this Rule. Larger areas may be uncovered
within the boundaries of the tract with the written approval of the Director upon
providing engineering justification with a construction sequence that considers phasing,
limiting exposure, weekly submitted self- inspection reports, and more conservative
design than the 25-year storm. The Director may also stipulate the inclusion of other
conditions in the plan as necessary based on specific site conditions.
(b) Erosion and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices within HQW zones
shall be planned, designed, and constructed to provide protection from the runoff of the
25-year storm that produces the maximum peak rate of runoff as calculated according to
procedures in the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service's "National Engineering Field Handbook 630 for Conservation
Practices." Other methodologies may be used if based on generally accepted engineering
standards that are shown to the Division to be equivalent to or improved over the
procedures in Handbook 630. The Division shall determine acceptability of an alternative
methodology based upon a showing that the runoff model used was based on observed
data in agreement with the predictive model.
(c) In order to provide for water quality protection in HQW zones, sediment basins that
discharge to those areas shall be designed and constructed to meet the following criteria:
(1) use a surface withdrawal mechanism, except when the basin drainage area is less
than 1.0 acre;
(2) have a minimum of 1800 cubic feet of storage area per acre of disturbed area;
(3) have a minimum surface area of 325 square feet per cfs of Q25 peak inflow;
(4) have a minimum dewatering time of 48 hours; and
(5) incorporate 3 baffles, unless the basin is less than 20 feet in length, in which case
2 baffles shall be sufficient.
(d) Upon a written request of the applicant, the Director may allow alternative design or
control measures in lieu of meeting the conditions required in Subparagraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(5) of this Rule if the applicant demonstrates that meeting all of those
conditions will result in design or operational hardships and that the alternative measures
will provide an equal or more effective level of erosion and sedimentation control on the
site. Alternative measures may include quicker application of ground cover, use of
sediment flocculants, and use of enhanced ground cover practices.

(e) Newly constructed open channels in HQW zones shall be designed and constructed with
side slopes no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical if a vegetative cover is used for
stabilization, unless soil conditions permit a steeper slope or where the slopes are
stabilized by using mechanical devices, structural devices, or other forms of ditch liners
proven to the Division as being effective in restraining accelerated erosion. The angle for
side slopes shall be sufficient to restrain accelerated erosion
Special procedures will also be used for clearing and grubbing, grading operations, seeding and
mulching, and staged seeding within the project. NCDOT will designate the affected area as an
Environmentally Sensitive Area.
Clearing and Grubbing
In areas identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Contractor may perform
clearing operations, but not grubbing operations until immediately prior to beginning
grading operations as described in Article 200-1 of the Standard Specifications. Only
clearing operations (not grubbing) shall be allowed in this buffer zone until immediately
prior to beginning grading operations. Erosion control devices shall be installed
immediately following the clearing operation.
Grading
Once grading operations begin in identified Environmentally Sensitive Areas, work shall
progress in a continuous manner until complete. All construction within these areas shall
progress in a continuous manner such that each phase is complete, and areas are
permanently stabilized prior to beginning of next phase. Failure on the part of the
contractor to complete any phase of construction in a continuous manner in
Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be just cause for the Engineer to direct the
suspension of work in accordance with Article 108-7 of the Standard Specifications.
Seeding and Mulching
Seeding and mulching shall be performed in accordance with Section 1660 of the
Standard Specifications and vegetative cover sufficient to restrain erosion shall be
installed immediately following grade establishment. Seeding and mulching shall be
performed on the areas disturbed by construction immediately following final grade
establishment. No appreciable time shall lapse into the contract time without stabilization
of slopes, ditches, and other areas within the Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Stage Seeding
The work covered by this section shall consist of the establishment of a vegetative cover
on cut and fill slopes as grading progresses. Seeding and mulching shall be done in stages
on cut and fill slopes that are greater than 20 feet in height measured along the slope, or
greater than 2 acres in area. Each stage shall not exceed the limits stated above.
All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the following documents will be used
during project design and construction: Erosion and Sediment Control Design and Construction
Manual (NCDOT 2015); Stormwater Best Management Practices Toolbox (NCDOT 2014); and
Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities (NCDOT 2003).

Project design calls for the elimination of the two bents currently within the Mayo River channel.
The proposed new bridge will completely span the river.
2.4. Other Activities Caused by the Action
A BO evaluates all consequences to species or critical habitat caused by the proposed Federal
action, including the consequences of other activities caused by the proposed action, that are
reasonably certain to occur (see definition of "effects of the action" at 50 CFR §402.02).
Additional regulations at 50 CFR §402.17(a) identify factors to consider when determining
whether activities caused by the proposed action (but not part of the proposed action) are
reasonably certain to occur. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(1) past experiences with activities that have resulted from actions that are similar in
scope, nature, and magnitude to the proposed action;
(2) existing plans for the activity; and
(3) any remaining economic, administrative, and legal requirements necessary for the
activity to go forward.
Existing power and phone lines north of the existing bridge will be relocated slightly north of
their current location. A PNG/Duke Energy gas line will be relocated. Although plans for the gas
line relocation are not finalized, the most likely action would involve boring underneath the
Mayo River and staying within the new road right-of-way. Our evaluation of this Action assumes
this construction methodology. If trenching or another methodology is utilized, additional
analysis may be required under a separate action.
2.5. Action Area
The Action Area is defined as "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action" (50 CFR §402.02). Delineating the
Action Area is necessary for the Federal action agency to obtain a list of species and critical
habitats that may occur in that area, which necessarily precedes any subsequent analyses of the
effects of the action to particular species or critical habitats.
It is practical to treat the Action Area for a proposed Federal action as the spatial extent of its
direct and indirect "modifications to the land, water, or air" (a key phrase from the definition of
"action" at 50 CFR §402.02). Indirect modifications include those caused by other activities that
would not occur but for the action under consultation. The Action Area determines any overlap
with critical habitat and the physical and biological features therein that we defined as essential
to the species' conservation in the designation final rule. For species, the Action Area establishes
the bounds for an analysis of individuals' exposure to action -caused changes, but the subsequent
consequences of such exposure to those individuals are not necessarily limited to the Action
Area.
5

W1 . k
O
,0-
as- -- .*-.
r !L rt
lop
Legend
Prop Aflignment 4.
Prop Roadway Budge
Biological Assessment may 2la22
BRIDGE # 124 ON SR 2177 Figure
■ OVER MA RIVER B- 572 1 2.5
B-5721
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY G!SM KW
me

Figure 2.5 shows the locations of all activities that the proposed Action would cause and the
spatial extent of reasonably certain changes to land, water, or air caused by these activities, based
on the descriptions and analyses of these activities in sections 2.1-2.4. The Action Area for this
BO includes the SR 2177 right-of-way at Rockingham County Bridge No. 124, beginning
approximately 470 feet from the southwest end of the new bridge and extending just past SR
2174 for a total of approximately 900 feet, plus the Mayo River for a distance of 328 feet (100
meters) upstream to 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream and extending slightly into the Dan
River. The Action Area consists mainly of a maintained/disturbed roadside vegetative
community, the SR 2177 pavement and bridge structure, the Mayo River channel, and a small
amount of riparian forest.
3. SOURCES OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
A BO must predict the consequences to species caused by future non -Federal activities within
the Action Area, i.e., cumulative effects. "Cumulative effects are those effects of future State or
private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the
action area of the Federal action subject to consultation" (50 CFR §402.02). Additional
regulations at 50 CFR §402.17(a) identify factors to consider when determining whether
activities are reasonably certain to occur. These factors include, but are not limited to: existing
plans for the activity; and any remaining economic, administrative, and legal requirements
necessary for the activity to go forward.
In its request for consultation, the FHWA did not describe, and the Service is not aware of, any
future non -Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Action Area.
Therefore, we anticipate no cumulative effects that we must consider in formulating our opinion
for the Action.
4. STATUS OF SPECIES
This section summarizes best available data about the biology and condition of the Roanoke
Logperch (RLP, Percina rex) throughout its range that are relevant to formulating an opinion
about the Action. The Service published its decision to list the RLP as endangered on August 18,
1989 (54 FR 34468-34472). No critical habitat has been designated for the species. The Species
Status Assessment (SSA) Report was published in 2022 (USFWS 2022).
4.1. Species Description
The RLP is a large darter with an elongate body up to 165 mm in total length (Roberts and
Rosenberger 2008). It has a bulbous snout, eight to 11 lateral blotches, dorsal scrawling, and an
orange streak on the first dorsal fin which is especially vivid in mature males (Jenkins and
Burkhead 1994).
4.2. Life History
The RLP is a benthic invertivore that uses a feeding tactic whereby it flips pebbles and gravels
with its snout and eats the exposed invertebrates. Because of this specialized feeding behavior,
7

they prefer habitat with loose, unembedded, and unsilted substrates and substrates of a size that
are easily flipped (Rosenberger and Angermeier 2003, Lahey and Angermeier 2007). The
maximum life span is approximately 6.5 years (Burkhead 1983), and reproductive maturity
occurs at 2-3 years (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). Spawning occurs in April or May in deep runs
over gravel and small cobble. Logperch typically deposit their eggs and provide no subsequent
parental care (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). For additional life history information, see Section
2.2 of the SSA (USFWS 2022).
4.3. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution
The RLP is endemic to the Roanoke, Dan, and Chowan basins of Virginia and North Carolina.
The known geographic distribution of RLP has expanded dramatically over time, from four
streams by the end of the 1940s to 14 streams by the time of its ESA listing in 1989 to 31
streams currently. Because survey effort also increased dramatically over this time, we cannot
determine whether RLP's range increased because of true range expansion via dispersal, new
discovery of existing but undiscovered populations, or both. The species' current distribution is
assessed as four metapopulations (Roanoke Mountain, Roanoke Piedmont, Dan, and Chowan).
Each of these metapopulations harbors 1-5 demographically independent management units
(MUs) with a total of 11 currently occupied MUs extending 2033.7 km. More detailed
information regarding numbers, reproduction, and distribution can be found in Table 5, Section
2.3, and Section 3.5 of the SSA (USFWS 2022).
4.4. Conservation Needs and Threats
The RLP was listed as endangered under the ESA in 1989 based on its small geographic range,
vulnerability to anthropogenic impacts like urbanization, reservoir construction, and water
pollution, and projected future increases of those threats. Six factors have a particularly strong
influence on RLP condition. First, fine -sediment deposition emanating from urbanization,
agriculture, and other sources smothers eggs and reduces feeding efficiency, potentially resulting
in reduced growth, survival, and recruitment. Second, chronic chemical pollution reduces habitat
suitability for RLP, and acute pollution events reduce survival and population size. Third, dams
and other barriers inhibit fish movement, fragmenting populations into smaller areas and
reducing demographic rescue and gene flow among populations. Fourth, climate change may
alter hydrology and sediment delivery by increasing flood magnitudes and flow variability in
general, reducing flow predictability, decreasing summer/fall base flows, and increasing erosion
and runoff of sediment, potentially reducing habitat suitability for all age -classes of RLP and
increasing direct mortality of vulnerable juveniles during spring floods. Fifth, existing legal and
regulatory mechanisms such as ESA protections, the U.S. Clean Water Act, and state -level
equivalents likely benefit the species through prohibitions on activities that may cause take and
by facilitating funding opportunities that can be used for RLP research and conservation. Sixth,
management activities aimed at improving habitat quality (e.g., riparian revegetation to reduce
silt loading), restoring habitat connectivity (e.g., removing dams), and directly manipulating
populations through propagation, augmentation, reintroduction, translocation, and introduction of
fish could increase the resiliency and redundancy of populations. More detailed information
regarding conservation needs and threats can be found in Section 3.3 of the SSA (USFWS 2022).

5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
This section describes the best available data about the condition of the RLP in the Action Area
without the consequences caused by the proposed Action.
5.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution
Three surveys utilizing electrofishing into a stationary seine have been conducted within or
adjacent to the Action Area (November 8, 2016; June 5, 2019; and August 10, 2021). The 2019
and 2021 surveys each yielded a single RLP. The length of each survey was approximately 250
meters (as opposed to the normal 500 meters), with better quality habitat occurring upstream of
the existing bridge. Roberts et al. (2016) generated a capture probability for RLP of 0.092 for
surveys consisting of electrofishing into a stationary seine. For each of the two surveys that
found one RLP, one can be divided by 0.092 to calculate 10.87 individuals potentially present
during each of the surveys. Taking the average number of individuals for the three surveys
(10.87 + 10.87 + 0) / 3 would result in 7.24 individuals potentially present within the survey
reach. Since the survey reach for the three surveys included only 250 meters of the 500 meter
Action Area, the calculated number of individuals would be doubled to 14.48. Rounding down, it
is estimated that 14 RLP could be present within the Action Area. This estimate assumes an even
distribution of individuals throughout the Action Area.
5.2. Action Area Conservation Needs and Threats
The Action Area covers approximately 0.9% of the Lower Mayo River MU (0.5 km/54.2 km)
and represents approximately 0.02% (0.5 km/2033.7 km) of all habitat within the 11 occupied
MUs. The Action Area has the same conservation needs and threats listed in Section 4.4.
However, given its proximity to the Towns of Madison and Mayodan, the Action Area has
increased threats from continuing urbanization. The adverse effects to aquatic systems from
increased urbanization and impervious surface is well understood (Wheeler et al. 2005,
Rosenberger 2007).
6. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
In a BO for a listed species, the effects of the proposed action are all reasonably certain
consequences to the species caused by the action, including the consequences of other activities
caused by the action. Activities caused by the action would not occur but for the action.
Consequences to species may occur later in time and may occur outside the action area.
We identified and described the activities included in the proposed Action in sections 2.1-2.3.
We identified and described other activities caused by the proposed Action in section 2.4. Our
analyses of the consequences caused by each of these activities follows.
6.1. Construction of New Bridge
The greatest potential for adverse effects to RLP from the Action is prolonged erosion of the
disturbed area on and along the banks of the river within the Action Area during the construction
0

of the bridge, placement of rip rap, and approach road earthwork. A major storm event could
erode soil from within the disturbed construction area and wash it into the river, potentially
clogging their gills, interfering with feeding, burying eggs, and otherwise degrading habitat. To
avoid or minimize the potential for this effect, NCDOT has developed stringent erosion control
measures and other conservation measures (see Section 2.3) which greatly reduce the likelihood
of sediment entering the stream. Even in the unlikely event of catastrophic failure of erosion
control measures, the effects of the Action are likely sub -lethal for adults. Given the mobility of
the species under normal flow conditions, RLP could temporarily relocate to areas of better
habitat upstream of the bridge.
6.2. Demolition of Existing Bridge
Habitat for RLP may be affected by the removal of the two in -channel bents and temporary
causeways. Disturbed sediment could redeposit downstream within RLP habitat. However, the
increased turbidity and substrate disturbance would be temporary and have sub -lethal effects on
adults. Upstream or downstream movements of RLP could be hindered temporarily by the
disturbance created during bent removal and the placement/removal of the temporary causeways.
The removal of the existing bents in the channel will likely alter flow patterns at the bridge thus
forcing the stream to reach a new equilibrium. Though some minimal sediment deposition may
occur due to a localized reduction of velocity, the effect is likely minimal and possibly
undetectable.
The removal of the existing in -channel bents and the commitment to completely span the channel
will have beneficial effects. Given that in -channel bents can trap debris during high flows and
can change stream hydraulics in the immediate vicinity of the structure (causing scour and
deposition), the elimination of the in -channel bents is expected to reduce the bridge's effects on
flow patterns. Also, given that large debris piles must often be removed from in -channel bents
(creating additional channel disturbance and downstream sedimentation), the elimination of the
in -channel bents will thus preclude future disturbance from debris removal. The lengthening of
the bridge from 217 feet to 270 feet and increasing the hydraulic opening under the bridge will
allow the river to access more of its floodplain, thus potentially reducing downstream bank
scouring and sedimentation.
6.3. Conservation Measures
The conservation measures are primarily designed to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and
turbidity, thus reducing the potential for effects to the species.
6.4. Other Activities Caused by the Action
The relocation of power, phone, and gas lines could potentially contribute minor sediment input
into the river. However, the use of construction BMPs will reduce the potential for effects.
10

6.5. Summary
It is estimated that up to 14 RLP may occur within the Action Area at any time and could thus be
harmed. Given the highly mobile nature of the species, the Action is unlikely to kill any RLP.
However, erosion of sediment into the river and increased turbidity could harm RLP by clogging
their gills, interfering with feeding, burying eggs, and otherwise degrading habitat. The use of
BMPs and other conservation measures will minimize the potential for such effects. The
movements of RLP could temporarily be impeded by in -channel disturbance. Overall, the Action
has significant beneficial effects with the removal of in -channel bents and increasing the
hydraulic opening under the bridge, thus improving RLP in the long-term.
7. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
In Section 3, we did not identify any activities that satisfy the regulatory criteria for sources of
cumulative effects. Therefore, cumulative effects to RLP are not relevant to formulating our
opinion for the Action.
8. CONCLUSION
In this section, we summarize and interpret the findings of the previous sections (status, baseline,
effects, and cumulative effects) relative to the purpose of the BO for the RLP, which is to
determine whether the Action is likely to jeopardize its continued existence.
The RLP is endemic to the Roanoke, Dan, and Chowan basins of Virginia and North Carolina,
and its known range has expanded from 14 streams at the time of its ESA listing in 1989 to 31
streams currently. The species current distribution consists of 11 occupied MUs. The Action
Area represents only about 0.02% of all known occupied habitat. The estimated number of RLP
present in the Action Area is up to 14 individuals. While mortality of RLP is unlikely,
individuals within the Action Area may be temporarily harmed by the effects of sedimentation or
by disturbance from in -water work. Conservation measures designed to reduce erosion and
sedimentation will minimize such effects. Long-term, the elimination of in -channel bents and
increasing the hydraulic opening underneath the bridge will likely improve RLP habitat.
After reviewing the status of the species, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the
effects of the Action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the
Action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the RLP.
9. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
ESA §9(a)(1) and regulations issued under §4(d) prohibit the take of endangered and threatened
fish and wildlife species without special exemption. The term "take" in the ESA means "to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in
any such conduct" (ESA §3(19)). In regulations, the Service further defines:
• "harm" as "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife
11

by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or
sheltering;" (50 CFR § 17.3) and
• "incidental take" as "takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an
otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant" (50 CFR
§402.02).
Under the terms of ESA §7(b)(4) and §7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to a Federal agency
action that would not violate ESA §7(a)(2) is not considered prohibited, provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of an incidental take statement (ITS).
For the exemption in ESA §7(o)(2) to apply to the Action considered in this BO, the FHWA
must undertake the non -discretionary measures described in this ITS, and these measures must
become binding conditions of any permit, contract, or grant issued for implementing the Action.
The FHWA has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this ITS. The protective
coverage of §7(o)(2) may lapse if the FHWA fails to:
• assume and implement the terms and conditions; or
• require a permittee, contractor, or grantee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the ITS
through enforceable terms that are added to the permit, contract, or grant document.
9.1. Amount or Extent of Take
This section specifies the amount or extent of take of listed wildlife species that the Action is
reasonably certain to cause, which we estimated in the "Effects of the Action" section of this BO.
We estimate take of RLP of up to 14 individuals. This take is expected to be sub -lethal in nature
for adults.
9.2. Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes that no reasonable and prudent measures are necessary or appropriate to
minimize the amount or extent of incidental take of RLP caused by the Action. Avoidance and
minimization of RLP habitat previously occurred during the routine project development and
design process. Minor changes that do not alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or
timing of the Action would not reduce incidental take below the amount or extent anticipated for
the Action as proposed. Therefore, this ITS does not provide RPMs for this species.
9.3. Terms and Conditions
No reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the impacts of incidental take caused by the
Action are provided in this ITS; therefore, no terms and conditions for carrying out such
measures are necessary.
9.4. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the FHWA must report the progress of the
Action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the ITS (50 CFR
§402.14(i)(3)). This section provides the specific instructions for such monitoring and reporting
12

(M&R), including procedures for handling and disposing of any individuals of a species actually
killed or injured. These M&R requirements are mandatory.
As necessary and appropriate to fulfill this responsibility, the FHWA must require any permittee,
contractor, or grantee to accomplish the M&R through enforceable terms that the FHWA
includes in the permit, contract, or grant document. Such enforceable terms must include a
requirement to immediately notify the FHWA and the Service if the amount or extent of
incidental take specified in this ITS is exceeded during Action implementation.
M&Rl. Disposition of Dead RLP
If dead fish suspected of being RLP are observed during the construction and demolition
activities of the Action, such fish should collected (if can be safely done) and preserved for
identification. Since RLP generally do not exceed 165 mm (6.6 inches), no dead fish larger than
this need to be collected. Collected fish should ideally be preserved in 95% non -denatured ethyl
alcohol/ethanol. If no ethyl alcohol is initially available, the fish may be temporarily stored on
ice (not frozen) until ethyl alcohol is available. The fish should initially be submitted to the
NCDOT Biological Surveys Group (Jared Gray, phone [phone]) as soon as possible for
identification. If determined to be RLP, the Service's Raleigh Field Office must be notified.
M&R2. Erosion Control Measures Failure
In the event of any visible sediment loss within the Action Area, a review of turbidity levels will
be made upstream and downstream 400 meters (0.25 mile) to determine if sedimentation effects
are occurring beyond 400 meters downstream. If visual observation of turbidity levels
downstream appear to be elevated beyond upstream observations, the project inspector will
contact the Division Environmental Officer. If determined that project -related sedimentation is
occurring beyond 400 meters, the Service's Raleigh Field Office must be contacted immediately
to discuss potential remediation.
10. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
§7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes of the
ESA by conducting conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species.
Conservation recommendations are discretionary activities that an action agency may undertake
to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of a proposed action, implement recovery plans, or
develop information that is useful for the conservation of listed species. The Service offers the
following recommendations that are relevant to the listed species addressed in this BO and that
we believe are consistent with the authorities of the FHWA.
1. Contribute funding to any ongoing or future RLP research, monitoring, or conservation
efforts conducted by others.
13

11. REINITIATION NOTICE
Formal consultation for the Action considered in this BO is concluded. Reinitiating consultation
is required if the FHWA retains discretionary involvement or control over the Action (or is
authorized by law) when:
a. the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded;
b. new information reveals that the Action may affect listed species or designated critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this BO;
c. the Action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated
critical habitat not considered in this BO; or
d. a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the Action may affect.
12. LITERATURE CITED
Burkhead, N.M. 1983. Ecological studies of two potentially threatened fishes (the orangefin
madtom, Noturus gilbert and the Roanoke logperch, Percina rex) endemic to the
Roanoke River drainage. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington,
NC.
Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
Lahey, A.M. and P.L. Angermeier. 2007. Range -wide assessment of habitat suitability for
Roanoke logperch (Percina rex). Final Contract Report VTRC 07-CR8. Virginia
Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, VA.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2003. Best management practices for
construction and maintenance activities. Raleigh, NC. Available online at
https://connect.ncdot. gov/resources/roadside/FieldOperationsDocumentsBest%20Manag
ement%20Practices%20for%2OConstruction%20and%2OMaintenance%2OActivities.pdf.
Accessed on May 24, 2022.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2014. Stormwater best management
practices toolbox, version 2. Raleigh, NC. Available online at
htlps:Hconnect.ncdot.gov/resources/hydro/Stormwater%20Resources/NCDOT BMP_T
oolbox_2014 April.pdf. Accessed on May 24, 2022.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 2015. Erosion and Sediment Control
Design and Construction Manual. Raleigh, NC. Available online at
hLtps:Hconnect.ncdot.gov/resources/hydro/HSPDocuments/NCDOT ESC_ Manual_2015.
pdd£ Accessed on May 24, 2022.
Roberts, J.H. and A.E. Rosenberger. 2008. Threatened fishes of the world: Percina rex (Jordan
and Evermann 1889) (Percidae). Environmental Biology of Fish 83:439-440.
14

Roberts, J.H., P.L. Angermeier, and G.B. Anderson. 2016. Population Viability Analysis for
Endangered Roanoke Logperch. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 7(1): 46-64.
Rosenberger, A.E. and P.L. Angermeier. 2003. Ontogenetic shifts in habitat use by the
endangered Roanoke logperch (Percina rex). Freshwater Biology 48:1563-1577.
Rosenberger, A.E. 2007. An Update to the Roanoke Logperch Recovery Plan. Prepared for
USFWS Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, VA.
USFWS. 2022. Species Status Assessment Report for the Roanoke Logperch (Percina rex),
Version 1.0. March 2022, Gloucester, VA.
Wheeler, A.P., P.L. Angermeier, and A.E. Rosenberger. 2005. Impacts of new highways and
subsequent landscape urbanization on stream habitat and biota. Reviews in Fisheries
Science 13:141-164.
15

Action ID Number: SAW-2022-02136 County: Rockingham
Permittee: NC Department of Transportation (Attn: Michael Turchy)
Project Name: NCDOT / B-5721 / Bridge 124 on SR 2177 / Mayo River / Rockingham County
Date Verification Issued: 11/17/2022
Project Manager: David E. Bailey
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Attn: David E. Bailey
Raleigh Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
or
[e-mail]
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may
result in the Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I
administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal action.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date