20080690 Ver 1_Application_20080416

w
~ ~-~'
~~no~
'~ .,,,; -
~Q aw+®~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'I1V~NT OF'I~~ANSPORTATION
lvlic~-3t1EL F. EASL.EY
GOVERNOR.
April 7, 2008
~~ ~
~.
~J ~~
J
.~
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
k=°' a~
~,,,~,-, c,~ ~-
~.,f~~~n ~~~' ,a .
~~ ~~~'WN~AT~I~~
R~Rgh~'N
LYNDO TIPPETT
SEOtETARY
080690
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Application for the replacement of Bridge
No. 223 over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek on SR 1321 in Union County.
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1321(3), WBS Element 33634.1.1, Division
10, TIP No. B-4296.
Please see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), US Fish and Wildlife Concurrence
Letter, permit drawings, and design plans, for the above referenced project. A Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion, dated June 12, 2007, has been completed and distributed for this project.
Additional copies are available upon request. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes to replace the 41-foot, single-span bridge with a new 115-foot, single-span
bridge over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek. The existing bridge will be replaced in place at the
location of the existing bridge, and traffic will be maintained on an off site detour. There will
120 feet of linear stream impacts due to the relocation of an unnamed tributary to West Fork
Twelve Mile Creek. There are no jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General DescriQtion:
The single water resource impacted for project B-4296 is an Unnamed Tributary to West Fork
Twelve Mile Creek. Within the project area, West Fork Twelve Mile Creek is approximately 25
feet wide and 1-2 feet deep, and the UT is approximately 1 foot wide and <4 inches deep where
water exists. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Index number for this section of West Fork
Twelve Mile Creek is 11-138-1, and the Hydrological Cataloguing Unit is 03050103 within the
Catawba River Basin. The DWQ classifies West Fork Twelve Mile Creek as "C". Within the
project area, West Fork Twelve Mile Creek is not listed as a 303(d) water. There are no 303(d)
waters within a mile downstream of the project area. No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WSII), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), occur within one mile of the
project study area.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING,
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BLVD.
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

w
Permanent Impacts:
There will be 120 feet of stream impacts to the UT to West Fork Twelve Mile Creek due to the
improvement of the alignment of SR 1315. This design places the fill for the abutment into the
UT to West Fork Twelve Mile Creek and requires the relocation of this system. The new single-
span structure will have no permanent impacts to West Fork Twelve Mile Creek.
Temporary Impacts:
There will be <0.01 acre of temporary impact to the UT of West Fork Twelve Mile Creek
associated with the relocation of this system.
Utility Impacts:
A gas line will be relocated on the north side of the bridge using a directional bore method.
There will be no jurisdictional impacts associated with utilities for this project.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 223 is constructed of timber and steel and should be removed without any temporary
fill falling into West Fork Twelve Mile Creek during demolition.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 31, 2008, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally protected species for
Union County (Table 1).
NCDOT is in receipt of a letter from USFWS (attached to this package) concurring with the
findings below.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species fnr i Tninn (':rn~nty
Common Name Scientific Name Status abita
Presen ast Survey
Date Biological
Conclusion
arolina heels litter asmi ona decorata Endangered Yes 10/2004 No Effect
ichaux's sumac hus michauxii Endan ered Yes 7/2006 No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower elianthus schweinitzii Endan ered Yes 10/2006 No Effect
B-4296 Nationwide Permit Application Page
2 of 4

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance and Minimization:
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters
of the United States." The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable
design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impact. In addition, Best Management
Practices will be followed as outlined, in "NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities".
Additional avoidance and minimization efforts for this project also include:
• The replacement with a spanning structure over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek.
• Traffic will be maintained on an off site detour eliminating the need for construction of a
temporary on-site detour.
• Water will not be directly discharged into West Fork Twelve Mile Creek via deck drains.
• The new. bridge will be longer, allowing for better hydraulic connectivity for West Fork
Twelve Mile Creek.
Miti ag tion:
NCDOT proposes no mitigation for the 120 linear feet of impacts to the UT to West Fork
Twelve Mile Creek due to the low quality of this system, and the reconstruction of this system
resulting in a less incised feature.
PROJECT SCEHDULE
The project schedule calls for a December 16, 20081et date, and a review date of October 28,
2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit:
It is anticipated that the permanent impacts to the UT to West Fork Twelve Mile Creek will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the permanent stream impacts for the
project, and a Nationwide Permit 33 for the temporary impacts associated with this project. We
are, therefore, requesting the issuance of Nationwide Permits 23 and 33.
Section 401 Permit:
We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3701 and 3688 will apply to this project. All
conditions of the General Certification will be adhered to; therefore, we are not requesting
concurrence from NCDWQ. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two
copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
A copy of this application will be posted at
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html
8-4296 Nationwide Permit Application
3 of 4 .
Page

Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Michael Turchy at maturchyna dot.state.nc us or [phone].
Sincere ~
~< .
G~/ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
""YY Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
W/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Barry Moose, PE, Division Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Greg Blakeney, PDEA Project Planning Engineer

B-4296 Nationwide Permit Application Page
4 of 4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
20080690.
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
~u any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ . Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. .Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gre~orv J. Thorpe Ph.D. Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number:~919) 733-3141 Fax Number:_(919) 733-9794
E-mail Address: maturchyna,dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information .
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bride 223 over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek on SR
1321 (Cuthbertson Road).
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4296
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Union Nearest Town: Waxhaw
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 34.9577 °N -80.7523 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: West Fork Twelve Mile Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:_ The land uses surrounding and within the project area are
primarily woodland and scattered residential homes
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Page 2 of 8

Standard construction e ui ment will be used backhoes bulldozers cranes and/or other
heavy machinery)
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to replace a
functionally and structurally obsolete structure and to obtain a safer and more efficient
traffic operation.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. None.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 120 linear feet of permanent impacts
and 14 feet of temporary impacts to UT to West Fork Twelve Mile Creek due to the
relocation of this system.
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flnncl;nu

Wetland Impact
Site Number

(indicate on map) - -

T e of Im act
yp p -
Type of Wetland

(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) --o-
Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no)
Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet)
Area of
Impact
(acres)
None

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:None
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply leneth X wihih_ then rhv;rle by 4'~ Sin
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
( P)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or

Intermittent? Average
Stream Width

Before Im act Impact
Len th
g
(linear feet) Area of
Im act
p )
(acres
1 UT to 12 mi. Creek Permanent Intermittent 1' 120 0.01
1 UT to 12 mi. Creek Temporary Intermittent 1' 14 <0.01

Total Permanent Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 134 <0.02
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dred 'ng, floodin ,drainage, bulkheads etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)
No open water
impacts

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01 (120')
Wetland Impact (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01 (120')
Total Stream Impact: 0.01 (120')
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Traffic will be maintained on
an offsite detour during construction. No deck drains will be used and NCDOT's Best
Management Practices will be followed.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
Page 5 of 8

necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is yroposed due to the quality and size of the UT to Twelve Mile Creek
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
Page 6 of 8

c
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document. is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Im act
Zone* ~c~,,,p ~ o.~ Multiplier Required
t 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
Page 7 of 8

• ~ r

demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Impervious surfaces will not significantly
increase as a result of this project. Water will not directly discharge into West Fork Twelve Mile
Creek.
XIL Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (ISA NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
The new bridge will be constructed near the location of the old bridge
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

,~~,~~
ApplicabtJAg(lnt's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

w
1
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
October 16, 2006
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Attention: Mr. Michael Turchy
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for the Replacement of Bridge No. 223 on SR 1321
over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek, Union County, North Carolina (TIP Project
No. B-4296)
We have reviewed the survey report for the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata) for the subject project and are providing the following comments and our
concurrence that the project will have no effect on the Carolina heelsplitter. The comments are
provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e); and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.).
Fish and Wildlife Resources -The information provided for this project does not include a
detailed description of the structure that will replace the existing bridge. We recommend that the
existing bridge be replaced with a new bridge, and we request that the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) document for this project address an alternative of replacing the existing
bridge with a new one. If an alternative other than the replacement of the existing bridge with a
new bridge (such as replacing the existing bridge with a culvert) is chosen, we request that the
NEPA document include an evaluation as to why an alternative of replacing the existing bridge
with a new bridge was not chosen. We recommend that the new bridge design include
provisions for the roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching
the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from
the runoff of storm water and pollutants. The bridge design should not alter the natural stream or
the stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be placed
outside the bankfull width of the stream. The bridge and approaches should be designed to

avoid any fill that will result in the damming or constriction of the channel or floodplain. If
spanning the floodplain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the floodplain portion of
the approaches in order to restore some of the hydrological functions of the floodplain and
reduce high velocities of floodwaters within the affected area. Measures to control erosion and
sedimentation should be in place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet concrete should
never be allowed to come into contact with the stream. Equipment should be inspected daily to
ensure that there are no equipment leaks that could enter the river. Construction material should
not enter the water during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge.
In most cases we prefer that a bridge be replaced in place by constructing the new bridge through
staged construction or by detouring traffic to existing off-site routes.
When.reseeding/revegetating disturbed areas, we strongly recommend that only native plant
species be used or, if an adequate seed source cannot be found, that noninvasive species (such as
annual rye) be used until native plants can reestablish themselves. While many of the exotic
plant species typically used in erosion-control and reclamation efforts have proven beneficial to
some wildlife species, we now know that the invasive nature of these species outweighs any
short-term erosion-control or wildlife benefits they may provide. Exotic species, including tall
fescue (native to Eurasia), Korean and Sericea lespedeza (eastern Asia species), redtop (a
Eurasian species), Sudan grass and Bermuda grass (native to Africa), and Kentucky bluegrass
(native to Eurasia and northern Canada), choke out native vegetation and often result in
monocultures that prove to be of little benefit to wildlife and can be very detrimental to the
ecosystem as a whole.
Federally Listed Species -The federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
has been recorded from the Twelve Mile Creek subbasin in Union County, North Carolina.
Accordingly, a mussel survey was conducted 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream
of the project area on August 19, 2004. No Carolina heelsplitters were discovered during the
survey. However, 16 eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), 1 variable spike (Elliptio icterina),
and 1 eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) mussels were found. Your letter requested our
concurrence that there may be an effect, although not an anticipated adverse effect, from the
project on the Carolina heelsplitter. To issue a concurrence letter that a project "may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect" a listed species, we need to review the analysis of the effect and
how the project has been designed to ensure that the effect is not likely to be adverse. Because
no Carolina heelsplitters were discovered during the survey for the subject project and because
other recent mussel surveys within West Fork Twelve Mile Creek did not result in the discovery
of any Carolina heelsplitters, we do not believe the project will have any effect on the Carolina
heelsplitter. Your letter also stated that no specimens of the federally endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) or Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) were discovered in
the project area during a plant survey. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7(c)
of the Act are fulfilled for these species. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must
be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that maybe affected by the identified action.

..

.•
While we believe obligations under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled, we request that the NCDOT
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) prior to construction to inform
them that the eastern creekshell, which is listed by the NCNHP as significantly rare, is within the
project area and maybe impacted by the project. .
Migratory Birds -The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712} prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds (including the bald eagle), their eggs, parts,
and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. To avoid
impacts to migratory birds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of the bridge and any
other migratory bird nesting habitat within the project area during the migratory bird nesting
season from March through September. If migratory birds are discovered nesting in the project
impact area, including on the existing bridge, the NCDOT should avoid impacting the nests
during the migratory bird nesting season (March through September). If birds are discovered
nesting on the bridge during years prior to the proposed construction date, the NCDOT, in
consultation with us, should develop measures to discourage birds from establishing nests on the
bridge by means that will not result in the take of the birds or eggs, or the NCDOT should avoid
construction and demolition activities during the nesting period.
If we can be of assistance or if you have any questions about these comments, please contact
Ms. Denise Moldenhauer of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 226. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-03-448.
Sin rely,
~ -
,~ _ I
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Road, Suite M, Charlotte, NC 28227
Ms. Sarah McRae, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, natural
Heritage Program, 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

4
i
NORTH (:aROLINA
~~®~~~~
~,®c~~®~
N~~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~~`l~~l~l ~~~
1"ll~~
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT:3363~.1.1 (B-~296)
WAXHAW, NC
CUTHBERTSON RD (SR1321)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 223
SHEET I OF

N ~~ a
3151 4 0 ~
O J~~ /
0
~+-~ 1315
~ ~Q~-'
~~ ~, ~ti, 1321
~ ~ ~J~
I'
o

~~
~
~
~
i
a
~ ~
1 ~
~7 ~ ~ ~`
~~ ~~ ~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~
~
_ ~
~ ~
~~' ~ ~
1 0
G~
' ~
~~ V i ~~ ~~
~
~.
~,r--~~ , ~ ~ a
~~, ~~~ 132 ~ ~,e - - - ~ _ - _~-~
~ t
A ° 3
-~' ~: a '~
l -
- , ~, -1 04
~ ~ ~~
~ ~
~ a
,p C
o~
1 ~
k Rd ~
pa
~,' p~ne ~ ~_
~
' ~ ~ ~ ~ = OFFSITE DETOUR
vrcrxrzy ~p
~~~~~~~~
1°ll~~
N~~~~°
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT:3363~.1.1 (B-~2%)
WAXHAW, NC
CUTHBERTSON RD (SR1321)
REPLACEMENT QOF BRIDGE 223
SHEET 2 OF S

.`'-,y, `t ~ ``" F',.~~, ,;4..-.rte,`' ~, ~ ~, ''''~
^~~-} ''~ Wit. "~j ~ ~ ~ ~ '`'~ ~''
..
~ 1 4 ~ ~~ ~ t 4 ~~t ~
* i ~ 'i
~ '
'~ w ti _.
j ~R
~~`~ 1 ' '~ { ...~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~~-
` ~~` ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~.~ 1
~~~~ 1 v~ ~
~~ }~
~.
=;, ~. ~,
°~~~~
-NOT TO SCALE-

-.o
N~~~~
j~ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
j~ UNION COUNTY
~/(~ ~ ~ PROJECT: 3363.1.1 (B-296)
1° Ji WAXHAW, NC
CUTHBERTSON RD (SR1321)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 223
SHEET 3 OF 8

~~®~~~~~ ®~N~~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
1~ARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES

~-
®~e~n~9 2~®9 Ca~(hberEson I$d.
C~~,~~®1~ ~o VVa~haw, NC 2817
]f~.®. ~oz 191
~ ~~IlS~e~ 9 ~~~~e~ ~09 C~n~~s~Il~e ~o W8~h8W, NC 2817

~i
~~Il~~e~°9 ]f~.®.l~o~ 191
~eIl~~ ~I~1~~ ~09 ~®~~g~ ~a ~'8~h8w, NC 2817
I~.®. ]dog 191
~ ~~ns~e~°9 ~e~~s ~~~~ X09 ~®s~g~ ~a Waghaw, NC 2817

NC~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT:3363~.1.1 (B-~2%)
WAXHAW, NC
CUTHBERTSON RD (SR1321)
REPLACEMENT
OF BRIDGE 223
p
SHEET y OF D

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac an
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
ac Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)

1 21+g5 to 21+47LT-L- Roadwa Fill 0..01 <.01 120 14

TOTALS: 0.010 <.010 120 14
ReWsad 3/31/05

/ ~
~ I
/ '~
1"=50'

raI ,
ST A V' ITCH
trot to kiu
an ~'
D
MIn, D• 5 Ft.
L LT 21+10 H- TO 22+N +L
O
rgTER R,PFISTER
preST1E L.PFKTEA
t~21kNeGtlk
,_ ___
__--
_~_~ ~___
__ _ _ _________ ______________
J~ ~GN~~Rr7M'MSP ~~________~~
a •Igi I(I 2.z3'
© / I C4r~l
'fj ~xc
~ © / ! I I
II
~'g//©11 ~ Ig~x ~}
1 1 ~ IQ
6 Q Q I
x
. I
a
o
© Q M1 III
ur ~~ ~, ~ ~ Q i Ix a
bG4 ~-~ a I 4'
/
/ /, ,/I
~ Q ~i ,--- \~ _ ~ Ilx
~~ P ~ ~ e 1 1
/ ~ ~ I
m.ar ~EIP I l
~N14'58'~6'E I I
BAIIBARA TIriE
OB !1S ! zsro I
~ m I
x if-1 I
I~
ae• n z sew s Q
~ Ei
~ ~ x\ \
r ~ \
~ ~ \ ~ ~
P ~ ~
Q x
~ x e
u -L-
- P! 51018+77.94 P! Sl0 24+32.84
E p -8'22' 336(LT/ p ~ 10' 33' 02T (RTI
0 =3'48'25.3' 0 =3'02' 5/S
a L = 220.or L = 34619•
Q q r= l%20~ r=17359'
o, R = 1,505.0(1' R = 1,88(1.Q7
o- SE ~ SEE PLANS SE ~ SEE PLANS
o^
Nq
ZD
~~
a..
O
DuYTOa s. oTlEas a
aEIE E.EOrARDS
oe r~ ro r
1`
SKETCH SHOWING ROADWAY-BRIDGE RELATIONSHIP
(Not to Scole/
BEGIN BRIDGE END APPROACH SIAB
~- STA. 21+25 +~ -Ir STA 1Z+54 +~
an ih ~
~ a ~ 4n
BEGIN APPROACH SIAB END BRIDGE
-~- sra si+io +,~ .~ srA.22+w +i
A101-
8-42
My
lOAGWAY 001
e+anae
W NOT U51 Po CONSTPUCTION
1, P9mpt
• I I $~ sG
~`
~~
1~
1~
I~ `V ~ I
II
II
9 1I
O ~ j1
11
~ dPFIlTER 8 / /
bra'- RD$LY P,PFKTER,fERS
®Z7110' 2ffi! I ~ 1
d ! ~/
lID.'Y 0001 / / /
' eT DrtAw s / ~
i/ ICI
are I ~ ~ I
W ~ ~
/ ~
~ ~ ~
~ / E_-E E ~
-, _
__ , ~
.. .. _ ~_ R .~ ` ..
~ - --- c r y _ ~_ ~_ _ r , . .. .. .,
. _ ~_ _ T ..
_____________ _________~___. _ L - . ....
o~ _ ... ... ...
I Mi _________ _~__`_ ` -e..
Wi
O t _ _ __ _
_ ______ _
f L~
-..
___~__~ ~ .. / .. ~. ~ _ ~- . .. F F --
_ F 1 - ~~ .. ., ~ _
F_ _ C -~k~~x ~ ~ x x
E -E--E E +7! ~
+N !
-__.~x- ~ x ~ x_x~ 1' ~ 1
^ GAiE % , 1
~s ~~
~~ ~
'
I ~ Elte, dPFISTER a ''~
AUSLY P, PFISTER, a:RS
p! 2!I PC 26T
III
° ~ ~I
I
II
(~ Ili
lr N 1
U•GBVD
® S~UAFTnCE wApTER S IN
® DENOTES 1EMPORAAY
IMPACTS W SURFACE rATER
loo' D' 1DO• FOR -L- PROFILE, SEE SHEET N0.5
FOR DITCH DETAILS, SEE SHEET N0.2-A
GRAPHIC SCALE

"~
sTA :
•~• ITCN SKETCH SHOWING ROADWAY-BRIDGE RELATIONSHIP
i ROt ro s~w~
pour (Not fo Scalel
o -
"•' BEGIN BRIDGE END APPROACH SLAB
uln.0• s Fr. ~- 5TA 11+15 +/- -L- SiA 11+54 +~
a. LT D+10 +F TO 22+1f r~L
677
~ 477

N ~
~n w7
` P. , ~G1N APPNO CH SL48

~ ~ ~ " S
..
~ ~ m~~
,.,. 0
T
..
;_ 9 ~-_
~ ~

Cf}., .- ~ m
~
~,

.
.. .. Ulm
:
P ~ T

8.
l s
.. .
,
' ~.
~~
~~ lID.'Y'pwil
- p k! GRAIL 7
1
-
.. IfR :.-:..
ti ti~
r

Q

... f,
__ ..
~ T ~

..
,,.
......._. .....
ws ~, ___~? ___.
___

CJI
_

~
O _.
53~ _....... . ,~ $
I i
s
° I~
a ~
i ,
r,-~ I

~
mc~ -

I )

B
~ ,_ ~
,,-- -- ~~ ~
- t
~} Q~ - :...::525 .; ... 5. - ~ ~ - 1 m
,.
' -~ 1 ~
BARBARA
OE JA
e TWE
7 ~
Ni/'SB'
~
zsTO
- ~
,~}
- ',

O
~ ~
~ ( 7T
a
ae•n 2 s ew s ' _-.,~'~ E.EBN S
J S

T
S ~ ~l
_

V

..:- \':
~ \
„ _ .
C
x
~.
~ -C- I e
e a P PI Slo 18+77.94
' PI $to 24+32.84
p ~ 8
2233.G(LT) p - IO'33'OZT rRr)
v D =3'48'25.3" 0 =3'02' 51S
~
Qo r= T =~
o; R = l,505.aT' R = 1,880,00'
„~ ~ SE - SEf PLANS SE -SEE PLAwS
m
L
• Q
i
J
a

T lEFEIIBICE N0. !N!R I
3-4296 9
ew fNEET No.
~r DeueN NTDU~uua
~! e~taNeeti
P~~T'?"It ~t~Wl"Q
;ELIMIN RY PLANS
no woT usa w caxsraucrrow
_ ...
\ ..: ~~/
ILCBiD
® DENOTES thPACTS 1N
SURFACE uATER
® DENOTES TENPORART
WPACTS IN SURFACE wAtER
loa o' loa FOR -l- PROFILE, SEE SHEET NO.5
FOR DITCH DETAILS, SEE SHEET N0.2-A
GRAPHIC SCALE
r

. ...
r~ h dro ~lOCs\~codd\ erm~t drowin \64296_h d_ f],d
y gs y prm_p gn
5/ !4/99

Of

a

N

w

ro

ro

~ ~
8~

.',
~ ~
z ~'. ti
- ~,
~
~ k ^~
~
:~
~ t
.
.~
~ ''

~
~~i ~

N
V
W
O

~JJ 1~ ' , ~
((~ (,.. - , r0wn
1 0- Lars
a ~~ t
A.~, '~ ,^ ~ 1sz1 ~
~.. ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~ ~~ s~ ` ~
~~ °L
~ ~ ~
a ~ C°
A _~ ~a~ -
' ,t36a j\i P C° ~ ,~
~-
Ptn(+0~~ 96 '
\ ~ f-•- ~ OFPSITE DETOUR
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-4296
-L- STA. 16 + 40.00
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.223 OVER WEST FORK TWELVE
MILE CREEK AND APPROACHES ON SR 1321
(CUTHBERTSON ROAD)
TYPE OF WORI~~ G24DING, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND STRUCTURE
L
TO NC 16
PROVIDENCE RD. S.
=_
CUTHBERTSON RD. SR 1321
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L- STA 21 +25 ± ~
~.
`~::
~~~ I
~a~;
3~~J
See Sleet 1-A For Index of Sl~efs

~ [~ • l THIS PROJECT L5 NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDRIES
v
+ C~ GRAPJYIC SCALA..C npcrru neTe
~° 50 45 50 too ADT 2008 = 935
N ADT 4015 = 1600
PLANS
~~ ~ DHV = 10 96
m p
N 50 15 50 1 0 D= 60 %
~
c0 ~
Z
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) ,
T = 596
~ ° Y = 45 MPH
z o~ 10 5 0 10 ~0
a 0~
N , ~
V
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
~ TAT 1% + DUAL 496

uxrox covH~
END BRIDGE
-L- STA 12+40
I~
END TIP PROJECT B-4296
-L- STA. 28 + 80.00
END CONSTRUCTION
,,, am w.a, .ssmn ,. ~.
c• 8-4296 1
nm nrws F.,...~„y ~~
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE P9iFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY MkTF10D III.
PROJECT LENGTH Praareo !n the G'tlce d, Nl'DRl ULICS BNGAr88R
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROD. B-4296 = 0.13 MILES +/- D~SION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 D1r¢,i Ridp Dr., J2¢]d~~i NC, 17610
LENGTH STRUCTURES TIP PROJ. B-4296 = 0.021 MILES +~ ~d ~
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJ, B-4296 = 0.135 MILES R1GHT OF IPAY AAT& ROGER D. THOA~I-S. PE 'a
DECEMBER 19, 2007 P'S'T " 1t0~lDR'AY J)l3S1'GN
ENG1N88R
LBTlING ~ATB: SAMUEL L. ST.CWR
DECEMBlB! 16 4008 '' °°f7pAf ~"iQi~'
-I.-
fl ~C~~a
del
',...~
JAN 3 0 2008
QMSIOti Cr H1GH~iAYS
HYDRAULIOS UI~T
TO SR 1315
NEW TOWN RD.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ao war use rox wasnucrtow
ST ~ OF NORTJ3AOYLII1y
~ Y
c
0

Note.• Not to Scale
*S,U.T = Subsurface Utility Enl~xeering
5°d°.41'E ~F N~IB°1[°1[~ C.~gB~LdN.~
IIDIV~SY~Ia~ ~]F ~I~H[WAY~
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY
State Une
--..-...._
County Une -----~
Tawnahip Une ------
Cit
Une
y ---
Rewrvalion Une - - - -
Pro
ert
Une
p
y
Existing Iron Pin o
Properl
Comer
y _K
Properly Monument 0
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Une -x-x-x-
Propowd Woven Wiro Fens ---a--
Proposed Chain Link F
n
e
ce e
Proposed Electric Fen
ce
Existing Wetland Boundary - - - _„_ _ _ _
Propowd Wetland Bo
nd
u
ary -ti-
ExissHng Endangerod Mimal Boundary F•-
Existing Endongerod Plant Boundary -U-

BU7LDINGS AND OTHER CULT7IRE,•
Gas Pump Vent or U'G Tank Cap o
Sign o
ll
W o
a
Small Mine ~
Foundation 0
Aroa OuHine ~
Cemetery
Building u
Sch
l
oo
Ch
h
urc
Dam
HYDROLOGY
Sheam or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir r-----~
Jurisdictional Stream
-u-... _
Buffer Zone 1 -u ~ _
Buffer Zone 2 _Q s_
Flow Arrow ~._--
Disappearing Stream ~.._.-
Spring o---~,~
Swamp Manh ~
Proposed lateral, Tail, Haad Ditch $~
rr
Falw Sump ~
RAlI.ROADS.•
Standard Gaups $
CSx igN15R1PfO,W
RR Signal Milepost ~
Switch C7
:~~X
RR Abandoned ----- ~ --
RR Dismantled - -
RIGHT OF WAY.•
Bowline Control Point
Existing Right of Woy Marker Q
Existing Right of Way Une ---
Proposed Right of Way Une -®.-
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Iron trio and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control ofAccess -~.~-
Proposed Control of Accaw ~_
Existing Eawment Une --E--
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - e
Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -TpE-
Propased PernaneM Drainage Easement- -~-
Proposed Permanent Utility Eawment -;ue-
ROADS AND REI.rsTTED FE9T ~S.•
Existing Edpe of Pavement --
Existing Curb --
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut --- ~ _--
Proposed Slope Slakes Fill - - - g _ _ _
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp Curb Cut -
Curb Cut for Futuro Wheel ChairRamp - cF
iodating Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
Existin
Cable Guideroil ^
g
Propowd Cable Guiderail
Equal'dy Symbol ~
Pavement Removal
YEGETAT70N
Single Tree Q
Single Shrub o
Hedge --w-w-•~
Woods Une ~^-r^u"u"ti
Orchard p ~ 0 4
Yneyard ~ NMY~^
EXISTING STRUGTURES•
MAJOR;
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
Pipe Culvert
Fooffiridge
Drainage Box; Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gunter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILITIBS•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole
Propowd Power Pole
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Uw Pole
Power Manhole
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer
UDC, Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frame Pole
Recorded U~G Power Une
Designated L6G Power Une (S.U.E.')
^~
b
8
e--s
TELEPHCMIE:
Existing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pols ~
Telephone Manhole 0
Telephone Booth p
Telephone Pedestal p
Telephone Cell Tower ~„
USG Telephone Coble Hand Hole
Recorded USG Telephone Cable t
Designated Ufi Telephone Cable (S.U.E')- ----r----
Recorded USG Tele
h
C
i
d r~
p
one
on
t
u
Designated LVG Telephone Conduit(S.U.E.'~ ----r~----
Recorded USG Fiber Optia Cable r r~-
Detignated USG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.`)- ----'r°---
wArER:
Water Manhole 0
Water Meter o
Water Valve
Water Hydrant ~
Recorded U~G Water Une •
Desgnated L4G WatarUne (S.U.E.`)--- - ---•----
Above Ground Water Une •~^ Nm~
N:
TV Satellite Dish CC
N Pedestal
N rawer
lbG TV Cable Hond Hole p
Recorded USG N Cable ~•--
Designated U,G N Cable (S. U.E.') - - - -~•- - - -
Recorded USG Fiber Optic Cable -rro---
Designated USG Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.")- ----t•ro---
GAS:
Gas Valve p
Gas Meter
Recorded U~G Gas Une r-
Deslgnated USG Gas Une (S.U.E,') ----•-
Above Ground Gas Una "" `~
SANRARY SEWER:
Sanffary Sewer Manhole
SanNary Sewer Cieanout 0
WG Sanitary Sswsr Une
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer .,~:a,,,~, 5,.,r
Recorded SS Forced Main Line ~-
Designated SS Forced Main Une [S.U.E.7 - ----rss----
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole ~
Utility Pole with Base 0
Utility located Object o
Utility Traffic Signal Box m
Utility Unknown U-G Une -„m-
liT, Tack; Water, Gos, Oil
ArCi Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
lli; Teat Hole (S.U.E ") ~
Abandoned According to Utility Records - ,4,a,~R
End of Information E.0.1.
~~
- ~~~..~
CONL XN

~~
~~
.~,~~~ ~~
d
D~c~~~~~~~¢U~C/ 8
NORTH CAROLINA ~~`
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
NoRrH
-k
r ~ V ® ~ ~ a
v z
1~_.
F TR
NATURAL RESOURCES
TECHNICAL REPORT
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE # 223
SR 1321 OVER WEST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT TIP No. B-4296
March 2003

u.,~
•
~~._~
~~
-~-,
.~.
~,
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
~NoRrH
v Z
~ o
(v.
NATURAL RESOURCES
TECHNICAL REPORT
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE # 223
SR 1321 OVER WEST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT TIP No. B-4296
March 2003
PREPARED BY:
~~
H.aerTxr
ASSE54~1ENTAVU ~~'LL~-
RESTOFP.TICiJ i
PFiUiii{AIN r... -- - r

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No
Project Description:
B-4296
8.2693401
33634.1.1
BRZ-1321(3)
The purpose of this project is to replace Union County Bridge No. 223 on
SR 1321 (Cuthbertson Road), over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek. Bridge No.
223 is 41 feet long. The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately
100 feet long providing a minimum 30 feet cleat deck width. The bridge will
include two 12-foot lanes with 3-foot rail offsets. The bridge length is based on
preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The roadway
grade of the new structure will be raised approximately 7.5 feet above the existing
structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 490 feet from the west end of
the new bridge and 650 feet from the east end of the new bridge. The approaches
will be widened to include a 24-foot pavement width providing two 12-foot lanes.
Eight-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (11-foot shoulders where
guazdrail is included). Also, there will be horizontal realignment on both the east
and the west approaches to improve the existing alignment of SR 1321. The
roadway will be designed as a Rural Local Route with a 45 mile per hour design
speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 223 has a single span superstructure, composed of a timber deck on
steel I-beams and channels. The substructure is constructed of mass concrete
abutments. The existing bridge was built in 1950.
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 223 has a
sufficiency rating of 26.0 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. Both, the structural
appraisal and deck geometry appraisal rate a two out of a possible nine, according
to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards. Therefore, the bridge is
eligible for FHWA's Bridge Replacement Program.
Components of both the timber and steel I-beam superstructure, along with the
concrete substructure have experienced an increasing degree of deterioration that
can no longer be addressed by maintenance activities. The posted weight limit
on the bridge is down to 11 tons for single vehicles and 14 tons for truck-tractor

semi-trailers. The bridge is approaching the end of its useful life. Replacement of
the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guazdrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median bamers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazazds and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade sepazation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
2

4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of--way or for joint or limited use of
right-of--way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open azea consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding azeas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.

D. Special Project Information:
The estimated costs, based on 2007 prices, are as follows:
Structure $ 394,500
Roadway A proaches $ 536,500
Detour Structure and A roaches - 0 -
Construction Utilities $ 50,000
Structure Removal ~ $ 13,100
Misc. & Mob. $ 213,900
Eng. & Contingencies $ 192,000
Total Construction Cost $1,400,000
Ri t-of--way Costs $ 147,000
Utilities $ 6,700
Total Project Cost $1,553,700
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 900 vpd
Year 2030 - 1800 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 4%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and
found there were two accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project. Both
accidents were non-fatal injury accidents that resulted in property damage.
Design Exceptions: There aze no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Bridge Demolition: The superstructure of the bridge has a timber deck on I-
beams and channels with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of
abutments of mass concrete. There is potential for components of the
substructure to be dropped into Waters of the United States. The resulting
temporary fill associated with this bridge is 58 cubic yards.
Floodplain Evaluations: Union County is currently participating in the National
Flood Insurance Regulaz Program. This crossing of West Fork Twelve Mile
Creek is in a flood hazard zone with a detailed study. The 50-year flood overtops
the road. A FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision may be required
depending on the water surface elevations.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build -The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the
road, as the existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation -The bridge was constructed in 1950 and the timber
materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.

Offsite Detour -Bridge No. 223 will be replaced on the existing location
with a slight alignment shift. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure
1) during the construction period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of
Offsite Detours for Bridge Replacement Proiects considers multiple
project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the
average road user resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for
this project would include SR 1315 and NC 16. The majority of traffic on
the road is through traffic. The detour for the average road user would
result in 4.5 minutes additional travel time (2.6 miles additional travel).
Up to a 10-month duration of construction is expected on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of
delay alone the detour is acceptable. Union County Emergency Services
along with Union County Schools Transportation have also indicated that
the detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 10 has indicated the condition
of all roads, bridges and intersections on the offsite detour are acceptable
without improvement and concurs with the use of the detour.
Onsite Detour - An onfite detour was not evaluated due to the presence
of an acceptable offsite detour.
Staged Construction -Staged construction was not considered because
of the availability of an acceptable offsite detour.
New Alignment -There will be a slight shift in the alignment on both
approaches to improve the vertical alignment of SR 1321.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission in standazdized letters provided a
request that they prefer any replacement structure to be a spanning structure. The
letter also stated, West Fork Twelve Mile Creek is Class "C "waters and that
sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for
sensitive watersheds. NCWRC suggested that mussel surveys be conducted
within the project azea.
Response: The existing bridge will be replaced with a new bridge. The Catena
Group conducted mussel surveys within the project azea on August 19, 2004. The
survey distance was 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream. Three
species of mussels were located: 16 Eastern elliptio, 1 Variable spike, and 1
Eastern creekshell. These species are all listed as "stable". There was no evidence
of the Carolina heelsplitter within the project area, however, there is recorded
evidence that the species has been located within the Twelve Mile Creek
Subbasin. There is a remote chance that it may occur downstream of the project
s

area, but potential impacts aze considered discountable. Thus, a biological
conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" was rendered.
The US Fish and Wildlife Services, in a Concurrence Letter, stated that through
the results and evidence shown in the mussel survey, this project will not affect
the Carolina heelsplitter (See letter dated October 16, 2006).
The Army Corps of Engineers in a standazd letter recommends replacing the
bridge with another spanning structure, and avoidance of any~dischazge into the
streams during bridge demolition. (See letter dated May 23, 2003)
The Town of Waxhaw, and the N.C. Division of Water Quality had no special
concerns for this project.
Public Involvement:
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected
directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments
have been received to date.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any.
unique or unportant natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
~
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ^
X

(4). If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures ^
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ^
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X'
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? X

(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
' tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X

" PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X

(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guazd permit be required? ^
X

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? . X
SOCIAL ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO

(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ^
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ~ X

(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ^
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ^
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the

bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? ^
X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
^
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ^
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any azchaeological remains which are
important to history orpre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 13: The roadway grade of the new structure will be raised
approximately 7.5 feet above the existing structure. Union County is currently
participating m the National Flood Insurance Regulaz Program, and this crossing
of West Fork Twelve Mile Creek is in a flood hazard zone with a detailed study.
The 50-year flood overtops SR 1321. A FEMA Conditional Letter of Map
Revision may be required depending on the water surface elevation.
8

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4296
State Project No. 8.2693401
W.B.S. No. 33634.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1321(3)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Union County Bridge No. 223 on
SR 1321 (Cuthbertson Road), over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek. Bridge No.
223 is 41 feet long. The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately
100 feet long providing a minimum 30 feet clear deck width. The bridge will
include two 12-foot lanes with 3-foot rail offsets. The bridge length is based on
preliminary design information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The
roadway grade of the new structure will be raised approximately 7.5 feet above
the existing structure.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Appr
at
li /2 07 _~~~
Date Project
(~ /~- U
Dae
For Type II(B) projects only:

~!' ~ ~ ~-
Date ohn .Sullivan, III, PE, Division
Federal Highway Administration
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
~R
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Analysis Branch
9

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Union County
Bridge No. 223 on SR 1321
over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1321(3)
W.B.S. No. 33634.1.1
State Project No. 8.2693401
T.I.P. No. B-4296
All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters, Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. The following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
Division 10 Construction:
In order to allow Emergency Management Services (EMS) time to prepare for road
closure, the NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify the Director of the Union County
EMS at [phone], of the bridge remova130 days prior to road closure.
In order to allow Union County Schools to prepare for road closure, the NCDOT
Resident Engineer will notify the Transportation Director at [phone], of the
bridge remova130 days prior to road closure.
Greensheet Page 1 of 1
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Document
June, 2007

i
• /~ e
9~
-r
nm

_ ~, O ~ ,..
~ .• p9 221 ~.-•.
i ~ i
r i ~ '~
.\ ~•
~~ ,~ ~ .
~ 1 ~
~~ 222 ~,..~r•"-'.. --
~~ ~
;.
J
\ ~1 ~' ,
'~
i `,
r.
9a~ds k-ove
~ ~ I
\..
.~~ 1
.'
~~ gal
•~ •-
.•'
d~ \ ~
f3zi
.l i
~~
,, i :i
•~~ /~
~ j i
.~
~ i
i i
i ~~
_~.-'" 223 ~`.,
(439
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

Figure 1
UNION COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.223 ON SR 1321
OVER WEST FORK TWELVE MILE CREEK
B-4296

avoid any fill that will result in the damming or constriction of the channel or floodplain. If
spanning the floodplain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the floodplain portion of
the approaches in order to restore some of the hydrological functions of the floodplain and
reduce high velocities of floodwaters within the affected area. Measures to control erosion and
sedimentation should be in place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet concrete should
never be allowed to come into contact with the stream. Equipment should be inspected daily to
ensure that there are no equipment leaks that could enter the river. Construction material should
not enter the water during demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new bridge.
Inmost cases we prefer that a bridge be replaced in place by constructing the new bridge through
staged construction or by detouring traffic to existing off-site routes.
When reseeding/revegetating disturbed areas, we strongly recommend that only native plant
species be used or, if an adequate seed source cannot be found, that noninvasive species (such as
annual rye) be used until native plants can reestablish themselves. While many of the exotic
plant species typically used in erosion-control and reclamation efforts have proven beneficial to
some wildlife species, we now know that the invasive nature of these species outweighs any
short-term erosion-control or wildlife benefits they may provide. Exotic species, including tall
fescue (native to Eurasia), Korean and Sericea lespedeza (eastern Asia species), redtop (a
Eurasian species), Sudan grass and Bermuda grass (native to Africa), and Kentucky bluegrass
(native to Eurasia and northern Canada), choke out native vegetation and often result in
monocultures that prove to be of little benefit to wildlife.and can be very detrimental to the
ecosystem as a whole.
Federally Listed Species -The federally endangered Cazolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
has been recorded from the Twelve Mile Creek subbasin in Union County, North Cazolina.
Accordingly, a mussel survey was conducted 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream
of the project azea on August 19, 2004. No Cazolina heelsplitters were discovered during the
survey. However, 16 eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata), 1 variable spike (Elliptio icterina),
and 1 eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis) mussels were found. Your letter requested our
concurrence that there may be an effect, although not an anticipated adverse effect, from the
project on the Carolina heelsplitter. To issue a concurrence letter that a project "may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect" a listed species, we need to review the analysis of the effect and
how the project has been designed to ensure that the effect is not likely to be adverse. Because
no Carolina heelsplitters were discovered during the survey for the subject project and because
other recent mussel surveys within West Fork Twelve Mile Creek did not result in the discovery
of any Carolina. heelsplitters, we do not believe the project will have any effect on the Cazolina
heelsplitter. Your letter also stated that no specimens of the federally endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) or Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxit~ were discovered in
the project area during a plant survey. Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7(c)
of the Act are fulfilled for these species. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must
be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that maybe affected by the identified action.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Cazolina 28801
October 16, 2006
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Attention: Mr. Michael Turchy
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for the Replacement of Bridge No. 223 on SR 1321
over West Fork Twelve Mile Creek, Union County, North Cazolina (TIP Project
No. B-4296)
We have reviewed the survey report for the federally endangered Cazolina heeLsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata) for the subject project and are providing the following comments and our
concurrence that the project.will have no effect on the Carolina heelsplitter. The comments are
provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
661-667e); and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.).
Fish and R'ildIife Resources -The information provided for. this project- does Trot include a
detailed description of the structure that will replace the existing bridge. We recommend that the
existing bridge be replaced with a new bridge, and we request that the National Environmental
Policy Act (1VEPA) document for this project address an alternative of replacing the existing
bridge with a new one. If an alternative other than the replacement of the existing bridge with.a
new bridge (such as replacing the existing bridge with a culvert) is chosen, we request that the
NEPA document include an evaluation as to why an alternative of replacing the existing bridge
with a new bridge was not chosen. We recommend that the new bridge design include
provisions for the roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching
the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from
the runoff of storm water and pollutants. The bridge design should not alter the natural stream or
the stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be placed
outside the bank-full width of the stream. The bridge and approaches should be designed to

While we believe obligations under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled, we request that the NCDOT
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) prior to construction to inform
them that the eastern creekshell, which is listed by the NCNHP as significantly rare, is within the
project area and may be impacted by the project.
Migratory Birds -The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds (including the bald eagle), their eggs, parts,
and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. To avoid
impacts to migratory buds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of the bridge and any
other migratory bird nesting habitat within the project area during the migratory bird nesting
season from March through September. If migratory birds are discovered nesting in the project
impact azea, including on the existing bridge, the NCDOT should avoid impacting the nests
during the migratory bird nesting season (March through September). If birds are discovered
nesting on the bridge during yeazs prior to the proposed construction date, the NCDOT, in
consultation with us, should develop measures to discourage birds from establishing nests on the
bridge by means that will not result in the take of the birds or eggs, or the NCDOT should avoid
construction and demolition activities during the nesting period.
If we can be of assistance or if you have any questions about these comments, please contact
Ms. Denise Moldenhauer of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 226. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-03-448.
Sin ely,
.:
'~~,~~
/ -'mo't f
t.
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Mazla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Cazolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Road, 5uiie lt!E, Charlotte, NC 28227
Ms: Sarah McRae, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, natural
Heritage Program, 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUNIMARY ............................................................................................... ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description .................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Purpose ......................................................................................... 1
1.3 Methodology ............................................................................................. 2
1.4 Qualifications ..................................................:......................................... 3
1.5 Definitions ................................................................................................. 3
2.0 PHY SICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 4
2.1 Soils ............................................................................:.............................. 4
2.2 Water Resources ..............:........................................................................ 5
2.2.1 Best Usage Classification ............................................................... 5
2.2.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .................................... 5
2.2.3 Water Quality....... ............................................................................ 6
2.2.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Network ............ 6
2.2.3.2 Water Quality Monitoring Data ....................................... 6
2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................. 7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .......................................................................................8
3.1 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................8
3.2 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...........................................................10
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts ........................................................................11
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts ............................................................................11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ..........................................................................11
4.1 Waters of the United States .....................................................................11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ..........................12
4.2 Permit Issues ...........................................................................................12
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition ........................................................................13
4.2.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ....................................13
4.3 Protected Species ....................................................................................14
4.3.1 Federally Protected Species ..........................................................15
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ..................15
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................16
6.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................17
00166-118-018 i
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223
March 2003

FIGURES
Figure 1-Project Location Map
Figure 2 -Study Area
Figure 3 -Terrestrial Conununities
Figure 4 - NHP Occurrences
TABLES
Table 1 -Federally Protected Species ..................................................x.......................15
Table 2 -Federal Species of Concern ...........................................................................16
APPENDICES
A Data Sheets
B Endangered Species Biological Conclusions

00166-118-018 ii March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

EXECUTIVE SUNIlVIARY
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
BRIDGE N0.223
SR 1321 OVER WEST FORK TWELVEMILE CREEK
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT TIP NO. B-4296
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning to replace the above-
referenced bridge during Fiscal Year 2006. This report identifies areas of particular
environmental concern that may affect the selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate
changes in design criteria. The proposed project is designed to replace Bridge No. 223 on SR
1321 over West Fork Twelvemile Creek in Union County (County), North Carolina (Figure 1).
The Study Area for this project includes approximately 30 acres (.012 km2) of land to the
northeast and southwest of the existing bridge.
Land use within the Study Area is approximately 50 percent forested, 40 percent agricultural,
and 10 percent residential. The Study Area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province,
and elevations within the Study Area range from approximately 500 to 560 feet (152.4-170.7 m)
above mean sea level. There are no hydric soils within the Study Area; however, the Study Area
contains Chewacla loam, which contains hydric, conclusions. Other soils within the Study Area
include Badin channery silt loam and channery silty clay loam, and Tatum gravelly silty clay
loam.
Water resources within the Study Area are located in the Lower Catawba River Basin (USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03050103, NCDWQ Subbasin 03-08-38). There are two water resources in the
Study Area. SR 1321 crosses West Fork Twelvemile Creek, a fourth order tributary to
Twelvemile Creek, which discharges into the Catawba River. A small intermittent channel is
present on the northeast side of the bridge. The best usage classification for West Fork
Twelvemile Creek (NCDWQ Index No. 11-138-1, 09/01/74) is Class C from its source to
Twelvemile Creek. This classification of waters is protected for secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses suitable for
Class C. Secondary recreation includes those activities performed in an infrequent, unorganized,
or incidental manner. According to the Rosgen system of stream classification, West Fork
Twelvemile Creek in the vicinity of the Study Area is a Class E stream (1996).
There are seven terrestrial communities located in the Study Area (Figure 3). The Study Area
consists of hedgerows, successional upland woods, flood plain, pine grove, disturbed
successional upland woods, pasture, and open field.
There is one distinct aquatic community, West Fork Twelvemile Creek, located in the Study
Area. The small, intermittent tributary does not provide aquatic habitat. There are no wetlands
within the Study Area. No concurrence from the USACE is necessary due to the lack of special
aquatic sites (i.e., wetlands) within the Study Area. Impacts to Waters of the United States will
be limited to surface water.
00166-118-018 ES-1 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223
Executive Summary

Bridge No. 223 is located on SR 1321 over West Fork Twelvemile Creek in the County. It is
constructed of asphalt, wood, and steel. All efforts will be made to demolish the bridge without
dropping any materials into Waters of the United States. However, there is some potential for
materials to enter surface waters or wetlands during construction. This impact will be reduced to
minimal levels through the implementation of Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Replacement and Demolition. The B-4296 bridge
replacement falls under Case 3 as described in the NCDOT BMPs for Bridge Demolition and
Removal. Case 3 has no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. There are no construction moratoria and no evidence
of protected species within the Project Area.
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United
States resulting from the proposed project. This project will also require a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the NCDWQ prior to the issuance of the NWP. The impacts from this project
do not meet the minimum mitigation thresholds; therefore, no mitigation requirement is
anticipated. However, final authority for the permitting and mitigation requirements rests with
the USACE. In addition, temporary construction access and dewatering, if needed, are authorized
under NWP 33. This permit does not require notification to NCDWQ.
Plants and animals with Federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Sections 7
and 9 of the ESA, as amended. The USFWS (last update: February 25, 2003) and NCNHP (last
update: January 2003) list three Federally protected species for the County (Table 1).
Table 1
Federally Protected Species
Connnon Name ~ ~ • = Latin Naive t : <,, Federal Status ~ Biological Conclusion:
Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E Unresolved
Georgia Aster Aster georgianus C Unresolved
c wetnttz s u ower a iant us sc weinitzii Unresolved
The following recommendations are based on the natural resources analysis:
• NCDOT mussel survey data should be reviewed and incorporated into the study.
• Afield review for the presence of Georgia aster and Schweinitz's sunflower should be
performed during peak flowering periods and the case number for the project should be
reevaluated.
• BMPs should be implemented to assure minimal environmental degradation.
• Bridge replacement could occur on either side of the existing structure, as long as impacts
to the flood plain and successional upland woods communities are minimized.
00166-118-018 ES-2 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223
Executive Summary

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
BRIDGE N0.223
SR 1321 OVER WEST FORK TWELVEMILE CREEK
UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT TIP NO. B-4296
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning to replace the above-
referenced bridge during Fiscal Year 2006. In support of this planned activity, HDR
Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) and Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program
(HARP) prepared the following Natural Resources Technical Report for the site.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project is designed to replace Bridge No, 223 on SR 1321 over West Fork
Twelvemile Creek in Union County (County), North Carolina (Figure 1). The current
bridge structure consists of asphalt over wood with steel supports, spanning
approximately 40 feet [12.19 meters (m)] of stream. The current bridge is 20 feet
(6.10 m) wide and 40 feet (12.19 m) long.
The Study Area, depicted in Figure 2, is based on the project limits provided on the aerial
photograph in the October 28, 2002 Request for Environmental Input. This area includes
approximately 30 acres (0.12 km2) of land to the northeast and southwest of the existing
bridge. Land use within the Study Area is approximately 50 percent forested, 40 percent
agricultural, and 10 percent residential.
1.2 Project Purpose
This report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for
the above-referenced project. The purpose of this report is to inventory and describe the
natural resources that occur within the proposed Study Area. Assessments of the nature
and severity of potential impacts to these natural resources are provided along with
recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the
selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of
the proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient
manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context of the
existing preliminary Study Area. If the Study Area changes, additional field
investigations may be necessary.
00166-118-018
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223
March 2003

Some environmental effects could not be determined at this stage of the planning process
either due to the lack of design information or the season of the study. These effects are
identified in the appropriate section along with recommendations for future action.
1.3 Methodology
Natural resource information for the Study Area (Figure 2) was obtained from several
sources. Prior to an on-site evaluation of the Study Area, the Catawba Northeast
1:24,000 topographic quadrangle map from the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
the Union County Soil Survey from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
were used to determine existing landscape and soil composition. Aerial photography,
supplied by NCDOT, was studied to identify hydrologic and environmental features. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database was used to seazch for the
presence of known populations of Federally threatened and endangered species in the
County and in the Catawba Northeast Quadrangle. In addition, the NCNHP database was
seazched for Federal Species of Concern (FSC), as well as State listed species. The
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species for Union
County was used to verify the NCNHP data and check for additional listed species.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) records were reviewed to
determine stream index number, classification, and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits within the Project vicinity. The Catawba River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan was used to further characterize environmental resource
conditions at and around the project site (NCDENR, 1999). The North Cazolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) Geographical Information System (GIS) database was
searched to identify proposed critical habitats for aquatic species.
Field investigations were conducted by HDR/HARP personnel (Section 1.4) on
December 18, 2002. Water resources were identified, and their physical characteristics
recorded on field data sheets (Appendix A). Plant communities and their associated
wildlife (or potential wildlife habitat) were also identified and described. Terrestrial
community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
applicable, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Brigham et al. (1982), Martof et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter et al. (1980), and
Webster, et al. (1985).
Vegetative communities were mapped based on aerial photography and field verified
during the site visit. Wildlife identification involved various techniques including
qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active searching, and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, burrows, etc.). Cursory
surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted and tactile searches for benthic organisms
were administered. Organisms captured during these searches were identified and
released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria
established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetland Delineation Manual
00166-118-018 2 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

w
(USAGE, 1987) and Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina
(NCDENR, 1995). Wetlands were classified using Cowardin, et al. (1979).
1.4 Qualifications
The following personnel performed and/or supervised the natural resource investigation
and preparation of this report. Each individual is listed with qualifications and areas of
involvement with the project.
Personnel: Responsibility:
Mr. Chris Matthews, M.S. Project Management
Section Manager Report QA/QC
HDR-Charlotte
Ms. Ke>•Ti Snyder, M.S. Preliminary Research
Environmental Scientist Field Inventory
HDR-Charlotte Report Preparation
Ms. Jaime Henkels, M.E.M. Preliminary Research
Environmental Scientist Field Inventory
HDR-Charlotte Report Preparation
Mr. Philip May Preliminary Research
Environmental Scientist Field Inventory
HDR-Raleigh Report Preparation
Mr. Joshua McSwain Preliminary Research
GIS Analyst Field Inventory
HDR-Charlotte Report Preparation
Dr. James F. Matthews, Ph.D. Field Inventory
Botanist Report Preparation
HARP-Charlotte
Mr. John T. Soule Field Inventory
Botanist/Surveyor ~ Report Preparation
HARP-Charlotte
1.5 Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural resource investigations. "Study Area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed
limits supplied by NCDOT on the aerial photograph (Figure 3). "Project Area" is
defined as the area within which the actual bridge reconstruction will eventually take
place.
00166-118-018 3 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the Study Area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and .site topography significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the Project Area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In
addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources.
2.1 Soils ~
1
The County lies in the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina. The landscape 1
is characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills and long, low ridges that forma ~
transition area between the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Atlantic Coastal Plain. '
Elevations. in the vicinity of the Study Area range from 500 feet (152.4m) above mean
sea level (msl) along the stream valley to 560 feet (170.7m) above msl on the adjacent ~
ridge tops. ~
Soil mapping units are based on the NRCS soil survey for the County (USDA, 1996).
The Study Area, located at the intersection of SR 1321 and West Fork Twelvemile Creek,
is mapped as Chewacla (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), Badin channery silt loam and
channery silty clay loam (Typic Hapludults), and Tatum gravelly silty clay loam (Typic
Hapludults):
There are no hydric soils listed for the County. although Chewacla soils have hydric
inclusions, this soil type is not considered to be hydric in the County. Chewacla soils are
characterized as having a slow infiltration rate and a slow rate of water transmission. The
Chewacla series consists of very deep, rather poorly drained, moderately permeable soils
on floodplains. Most areas with these soils flood frequently, and slopes in these areas
range from 0 to 2 percent: Soils in this group generally have moderately fine to fine
texture or a layer that impedes the downward movement of water.
Badin soils consist of well-drained, moderately deep undulating soils on upland ridges.
Within the Study Area, Badin channery silt loam and channery silty clay loam are
present, with the silt loam being the more dominant map unit. These Badin map units
occur in irregularly shaped areas on convex upland ridges, which are commonly dissected
by intermittent drainage ways. These maps units are characterized by moderate
permeability and a moderate shrink-swell potential. There is a moderate erosion hazard
in bare or unprotected areas. In the Study Area, Badin channery silt loam is found on
slopes ranging from 2 to 8 percent. Badin channery silty clay loam is found on eroded
slopes ranging from 2 to 15 percent.
00166-118-018 4
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223
March 2003

Tatum soils consist of well-drained, gently to strongly sloping soils on upland ridges.
The Tatum soils in the Study Area are gravelly silty clay loam and are found on eroded 2
to 15 percent slopes. This soil is characterized by having moderate permeability and a
moderate shrink-swell potential. Tatum soils are found in long bands of varying width on
the convex side slopes, which are dissected by intermittent drainage ways.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the Study Area are located in the Lower Catawba River Basin
(USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050103, NCDWQ Subbasin 03-08-38). There are two water
resources in the Study Area. SR 1321 crosses West Fork Twelvemile Creek, a fourth
order tributary to Twelvemile Creek, which discharges into the Catawba River. A small
intermittent drainage channel is present on the northeast side of the bridge. This channel
drains an approximate 11-acre area and joins the roadside ditch near the bridge.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDWQ that reflects water
quality conditions and potential resource usage. The classification for West Fork
Twelvemile Creek (NCDWQ Index No. 11-138-1, 09/01/74) is Class C from its source to
Twelvemile Creek. This classification of waters is protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other
uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes those activities performed in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
Although this site lies in the Catawba River Basin, the Catawba River Basin: Protection
and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers regulations (15A NCAC 2B.0243) do not
apply to this site. These temporary rules currently apply only to main stem lakes and
rivers. However, future changes in these regulations may change the jurisdiction of these
rules to include all .perennial and intermittent streams. A review of the current rules
should be performed prior to the final design and permitting of the activity.
2.2.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
West Fork Twelvemile Creek at SR 1321 has a channel width of approximately 30.5 feet
(9.30 m) and a water depth of 0.50 feet (0.15 m). Bankfull width at the current bridge
location is 34 feet (10.36 m), and bankfull height is 6 feet (1.83 m).
According to the Rosgen system of stream classification, West Fork Twelvemile Creek in
the vicinity of the Study Area is a Class E stream (1996). This assessment is based on
00166-118-018 5 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

bankfull width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, and stream sinuosity measured from aerial
photography.
West Fork Twelvemile Creek has a substrate composed of 30 percent bedrock, 30 percent '
cobble, 20 percent gravel, and 20 percent sand. West Fork Twelvemile Creek has riffle- '
pool structure with steep eroded banks. In many areas, the banks are undercut with
exposed roots. Upstream of the bridge, there is a long run; however, downstream of the ~
bridge, there is a more distinct riffle-pool sequence. The habitat within the stream is ~
more heterogeneous downstream of the bridge.
2.2.3 Water Quality ~
This section describes the quality of water resources within and downstream of the ~
Project Area. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from
both point and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made 1
based on published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. 1
These data provide insight into the value of water resources within the Project Area to 1
meet human needs and provide habitat for aquatic organisms. ,
2.2.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the NCDWQ, is part of an ongoing
ambient water quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water
quality. The Program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are sensitive to water quality
conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups
[Ephemoptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes
tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal
weight in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily
reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such
physical pollutants as sediment. There are no benthic monitoring stations on West
Fork Twelvemile Creek; however, there is a monitoring station on Twelvemile Creek
at NC 16. This is just down stream of the confluence of the West and East Forks.
The last sampling at this station occurred in 1990 and yielded a rating of Good-Fair.
2.2.3.2 Water Quality Monitoring
The Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan does not rate West Fork
Twelvemile Creek or Twelvemile Creek. West Fork Twelvemile Creek is not listed
on the most recent 303d list as an impaired water (Clean Water Act Section 303(d)).
Land usage within the Subbasin is approximately 61 percent forested, 28 percent
pasture, 7 percent agriculture, and 4 percent urban (NCDENR 1999).
00166-118-018 6
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223
March 2003

•
There are no NPDES facilities on West Fork Twelvemile Creek. The NPDES site
closest to the Study Area is the Union County Public Works Department on
Twelvemile Creek approximately 4,900 feet downstream (NCDENR, 2002a).
Non-point source discharges within the Study Area could occur from several sources.
The impervious roadway surface will discharge direct surface runoff during rainfall
events along with minimal amounts of potential pollutants present on the road
surface. Agricultural areas to the north of the bridge, and residential runoff through
the roadside drainage ditches may introduce nutrients, herbicides, or pesticides if used
in the area for lawn or crop management.
2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the Project Area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts include
clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction,
fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following
impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the aforementioned
construction activities.
o Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the Project Area.
o Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
o Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
o Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
o Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
o Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
o Potential increase of toxic compound releases, such as fuel and oil, from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
o Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and ground
water drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the Project Area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the construction phase of the project. In addition, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed for Case 3
projects. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting in-stream activities and revegetating
stream banks immediately following completion of the grading. Impacts can be further
reduced by limiting in-stream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately
following completion of the grading. Uses of turbidity curtains for this project were
reviewed and investigated. Given the size of the stream and general design
considerations for turbidity curtains, I-IDR concludes that the specified flotation
components, in many instances, are larger than the depth of the stream and would most
likely result in additional expense with minimal added benefit.
00166-118-018 7
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223
March 2003

s
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the Study Area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout
the Study Area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land usage.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990), where possible. In
addition to site-specific evidence of fauna, representative animal species that are likely to occur
in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also listed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and
plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the common name
only, unless no common name is designated.
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora and fauna
described within biotic communities use resources from adjacent communities, making
boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define.
3.1 Terrestrial Resources
There are seven terrestrial communities located in the Study Area (Figure 3). The Study
Area consists of hedgerows, successional upland woods, flood plain, pine grove,
disturbed successional upland woods, pasture, and open field. Due to the disturbed
nature of this area, the terrestrial communities do not correspond to any of the
classifications described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
Pastures and Fields
Along Cuthberson Road, there are several pastures and fields bordered by hedgerows or
wooded strips. These strips are not mapped, due to their small size. The canopy in these
strips contains Black cherry (Prunus serotina), Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana),
Willow oak (Quercus phellos), Water oak (Q. ~iigra), Sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), Winged elm (Ulmus alata), Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), Loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), and Red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
The subcanopy and shrub layer are composed of Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
Flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida), Red maple (Ater rubrum), Box elder (A. negundo),
Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Rose (Rosa spp.), and Blackberry (Rubus spp.).
The following species comprise the herb layer: Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense),
Woolly mullein (Verbascum thapsus), Goldenrod (Solidago spp.), Bushy broomsedge
(Andropogon glomeratus), Cudweed (Gnaphalium spp.), Privet (Ligustrum sinense),
Plume grass (Erianthus spp.), Greenbrier (Smilax spp.), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium
sempervirens), Crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), Possum haw (Ilex decidua var.
longipes), Grape (Vitis spp.), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). The pasture and field communities could potentially
provide habitat for the Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), Eastern mole (Scalopus
1
1
1
00166-118-018 8 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

aquaticus), Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Woodchuck (Maromota monax),
Old-field mouse (Peromyscus polionitus), Cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), Pine vole
(Microtus pinetorum), Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), Red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), White-tailed deer (Odocoileus ~ virginianus), and Raccoon (Procyon
lotor). Various species of birds may use the roadside and pasture areas for foraging and
hunting rodents.
Successional Upland Woods
The successional upland woodland contains a canopy of Shortleaf pine, Willow oak,
Sugarbeny, and Water oak. The subcanopy is dominated by Beech (Fagus grandifolia).
The shrub layer includes Autumn olive, American holly (Ilex opaca), and Beech. The
forested areas provide potential habitat for Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Short-tailed
shrew (Blarina brevicauda), Eastern mole, Eastern cottontail, Eastern chipmunk (Tamias
'striatus), Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans), White-footed mouse (P. leucopus), Raccoon, Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),
Bobcat (Fells rufus), and White-tailed deer. Many bird species, such as Cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), White-throated sparrow (Z.
albicollis), and Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), have the potential to inhabit woodland
areas. '
Disturbed Flood plain Forest
The flood plain is disturbed in areas and has a canopy composed of Shortleaf pine Red
maple, Sweet gum, Sycamore, Persimmon, Water oak, Black walnut, Box elder, Black
walnut (Juglans nigra), Sugarberry, and Cottonwood (Populus deltoides). The
subcanopy contains American elm (U. americana), Red cedar, Sugarberry, Box elder,
Red mulberry (Morus rubra), and Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). The shrub layer
consists of Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), Cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Privet,
Rose, and Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). The herb layer includes: Broad-leaved
spike-grass (Uniola latifolia), Crownbeard (Verbesina spp.), and Japanese grass
(Microstegium vimineum); however, in some areas, herbs are shaded out by the dense
shrub layer. Vines present are Japanese honeysuckle, Greenbrier, and Grape. Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides) is also present. Fauna within this community is likely
similar to that found in the successional upland woodland.
Pine Grove
The pine grove is dominated by Loblolly pine. In addition, the canopy includes Willow
oak, and Water oak. The subcanopy contains Water oak, Red cedar, Red maple, Black
cherry, Sweet gum, Willow oak, Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), Winged elm, and
Flowering dogwood. The herb layer is composed of Cudweed, Broomsedge (A.
virginicus), Love grass (Eragrostis spp.), Plume grass (Erianthus spp.), Golden aster
(Heterotheca mariana), and Ragged rosinweed (Silphium compositum). Vines present
are Carolina jessamine and Japanese honeysuckle. Running pine (Lycopodium
00166-118-018 9 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

flabelliforme) is a ground cover. Fauna within this community is likely similar to that
found in the successional upland woodland.
Disturbed Successional Woods
The area east of and above the agricultural field is a highly disturbed successional ~
woodland. It has a few large trees but is mostly comprised of small caliper tree species. ~
The canopy trees include Willow oak, Black cherry, Shortleaf pine, and Winged elm. ~
The shrub layer is composed of Flowering dogwood, Redbud (Cercis canadensis), ~
Persimmon, and Autumn olive, while Greenbrier and Japanese honeysuckle comprise the
vines. Fauna within this community is transient in nature due to the adjacent fields and ~
increased disturbance. i
3.2 Aquatic Resources
There is one distinct aquatic community, West Fork Twelvemile Creek, located in the
Study Area. The small intermittent tributary does not provide aquatic habitat. Physical
aspects of the aquatic community are described in Section 2.2.
Macroinvertebrates found in this community include mayflies (Ephemoptera), net making
caddisflies (Hydropsychidae), rock case caddisflies (Neophylax), crayfish (Crustacea),
and fly larvae (Diptera). caddisflies of both varieties were the most abundant.
Fishes ~ observed within this community include Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
Fantail ,darter (Etheostoma flabellare), Creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus),
Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and Rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides).
Other aquatic fauna observed include bivalves (Unionidae) and a salamander (Necturus
sp.). Mussel survey data will be supplied by the NCDOT.
A review of the NCWRC database showed no occurrence of Significant Aquatic
Endangered Habitat within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the Study Area. Construction moratoria
should be determined by consultation with the NCWRC.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Any construction-related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section describes
potential impacts to the natural communities within the Study Area in terms of the
communities and organisms affected. Estimates of impact areas are not included due to
the early stage of the planning process for this project. No estimates can be made until
the design and footprint of the bridge construction have been determined. However, the
natural community boundaries, shown in Figure 3, should be utilized during the
development of alternatives and design of the replacement structure in order to minimize
impacts.
00166-] 18-018 10 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
widening, clearing, and paving of portions of the Project Area, and thus, the loss
of community area. The communities likely to be impacted by the Project include
hedgerows, successional upland woods, flood plain, pine grove, disturbed
successional upland woods, pasture, and open field.
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of West Fork Twelvemile Creek will result
from the replacement of Bridge No. 223. Impacts are likely to result from the
physical disturbance of aquatic habitats (e.g., substrate and water quality).
Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community
composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic
habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following
impacts to aquatic communities.
o Inhibition of plant growth.
o Clogging of feeding structures or filter feeding organisms and gills of fish.
o Burial of benthic organisms.
o Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations, which deplete
dissolved oxygen supplies.
o Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting .from an
increased sediment load.
o Increased water temperatures due to removal of riparian canopy.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to the
BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and for Bridge Demolition and Removal
and additional measures described in Section 2.3.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant regulatory
issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues retain particular
significance because of Federal and-State mandates that regulate their protection. This section
deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to
Project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States", as defined in Section 33 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
00166-I 18-018 11 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 2Z3

U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters that have ~
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the ~
presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions ~
during all or part of the growing season. ~
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria used to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. There are no wetlands within the Study
Area. Physical descriptions of surface waters in the Study Area aze included in
Section 2.2. An existing drainage channel enters the Study Area from the ~
northeast side. This channel exhibits marginal indicators of intermittent streams ~
and has been significantly disturbed just outside the Study Area. This channel is ~
considered an unimportant channel by USACE criteria. USACE and NCDWQ
intermittent stream evaluation forms for this channel are included in Appendix A. ~
No concurrence from the USACE is necessary due to the lack of special aquatic
sites (i.e., wetlands) within the Study Area.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of
the stream that are located within the Study Area. Impacts to Waters of the
United States will be limited to surface water.
4.2 Permit Issues
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated for the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will .require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality
of public water resources.
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the
United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by
another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment;
and,
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
00166-118-018 12 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ prior
to the issuance of the NWP. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the State
issue or deny certification for any Federally permitted or licensed activity that may result
in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulation. The issuance of a 401 Certification from the NCDWQ is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit.
A NWP 33 may also be required if temporary construction measures are required. This
permit authorizes temporary access, dewatering, and construction activities for projects
already authorized by USAGE or not requiring authorization. This permit does not
require notification to NCDWQ as long as all conditions of their certification are met.
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 223 is located on SR 1321 over West Fork Twelvemile Creek in the
County. It is constructed of asphalt, wood, and steel. All efforts will be made to
demolish the bridge without dropping any materials into Waters of the United
States. However, there is some potential for materials to enter surface waters or
wetlands during construction. Implementation of BMPs described previously will
reduce these impacts to minimal levels. The NCDOT project engineer will
complete bridge materials and impacts at a later time.
The B-4296 bridge replacement should fall under Case 3 as described in the
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal. Case 3
has no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters. There are no construction moratoria and no
evidence of protected species within the Project Area; however, there is potential
habitat for Georgia aster and Schweinitz's sunflower within the Study Area. This
area should be resurveyed during peak flowering periods, which occur during
September and October for both species. At that time, the case number should be
reevaluated.
4.2.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The USAGE, through the CEQ, has adopted a wetland mitigation policy, which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose
of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical
integrity of Waters of the United States; specifically, wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include the following: avoiding,
minimizing, rectifying, reducing (over time), and compensating for impacts (40
CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
00166-1 ] 8-018 13 Mazch 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

1
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection ~
Agency (EPA) and the USAGE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" ~
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to ~
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing '
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
1
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to ~
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Lnplementation of ~
these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. 1
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction to median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes, and/or road
shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable impacts that
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of
Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent or contiguous to the discharge site, if practical.
Current NWP regulations require compensatory mitigation for those projects that
require notification to the USAGE. In addition, NCDWQ requires mitigation for
impacts greater than 1.0 acres of wetlands and/or more than 150 linear feet (45.72
meters) of streams. For projects in or near streams or other open waters, a
common component of any compensatory mitigation plan is to establish and
maintain a vegetated buffer next to open waters within the Project vicinity.
Generally, the buffer is 25 to SO feet wide on each side of the stream; however,
the District Engineer will determine whether or not the vegetated buffer is
required and, if necessary, the appropriate buffer width. The vegetated buffer
should consist of native species and cannot account for more than one third of
compensatory mitigation acreage.
The impacts from this project should not exceed the minimum mitigation
thresholds; therefore, no mitigation requirement is anticipated. However, final
authority for the permit/mitigation decisions rests with the USAGE. Stream
mitigation potential on-site is limited by the presence of the bridge, which
restricts the use of natural channel design.
4.3 Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to co-exist with human development. Federal law
[under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended]
00166-I18-018 14 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as Federally
protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other
species may receive limited additional protection under separate State laws.
4.3.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with Federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected
under the provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA, as amended. The USFWS
(last update: February 25, 2003) and NCNHP (last update: January 2003) list
three Federally protected species for the County (Table 1). Descriptions of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species are included as
Appendix B. Biological Conclusions for each species are also shown in Table 1.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species• and unique habitats shows no
occurrence of Federally protected species within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the Study
Area (NCDENR, 2002b) (Figure 4).
Table 1
Federally Protected Species
Common Name • ' `Latin Name " ~ Federal Status Biological Conclusion
Carolina Heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata E Unresolved
Georgia Aster Aster georgianus C Unresolved
c welnltz s un ower a iant us sc weinitzii Unresolved
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are eight FSC listed by the USFWS and NCNHP for the County (Table 2).
FSC are not afforded Federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to
change and should be included for consideration. FSC are defined as species that
are under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing. In addition, organisms that are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNI~ list of Rare Plant. and
Animal Species are afforded limited State protection under the North Carolina
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. .
Table 2 lists the FSC, the State status of these species (if afforded State
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the Project Area for each
species. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
shows no occurrence within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the Study Area (NCDENR,
2002b). This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
00166-1 ]8-018 15 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

Table 2
Federal Species of Concern

,~ a,.
- ,~ _ r T.
;r ~ ~.; f. d ...~~~; Common Name: ; ~~~',~,~.- . ~~ . ~ ~. '~ t~ ~'$E albifa>
~ ~
,
Carolina•Darter -central Piedmont Population Etheostoma Collis pop 1 SC Yes
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E Yes
Savannah Lilliput Toxolasma pullus E Yes
Carolina Creekshell Villosa vaughaniana E Yes
Pee Dee craysifh ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis - Yes
Piedmont Aster Aster mirabilis SR-T No
Virginia Quillwort Isoetes virginica SR-L No
aro ma ;<r oot-tre of tus a en - Yes

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the. natural resource investigation described in the preceding sections, the
environmental impacts from the proposed bridge replacement can be minimized through the
implementation of the following recommendations:
~ NCDOT mussel survey data should be reviewed and incorporated into the study.
• Afield review for the presence of Georgia aster and Schweinitz's sunflower should be
.performed during peak flowering periods.
• BMPs should be implemented to assure minimal environmental degradation.
• Bridge replacement could occur on either side of the existing structure, as long as impacts
to the flood plain and successional upland woods communities are minimized.
00]66-118-018 16
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223
March 2003

1
1
1
I
1
1
1

6.0 REFERENCES
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka. 1982. Aquatic Insects and Oligochaetes of North
and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, II..
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
' Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Washington,
DC.
Department of Defense. 2002. Federal Register. January 15, 2002. Issuance of Nationwide
Permits; Notice. National Archives and Records Administration. Washington DC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J.R. Harrison, III, and J. Dermid. 1980. Amphibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. 2002a. List of Active
NPDES Permits. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/permits.html#lists.
. 2002b. Natural Heritage Element Occurrences: Natura, 20020128. Division of Parks
and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
. 1999. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality,
Raleigh, NC.
. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina -Fourth Version.
Raleigh, NC.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers, Catena 22 (1994): 169-199.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina -Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh,
NC.
00166-118-018 17 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(Technical Report Y-87-1). Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1975. Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina.
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
00166-118-018 18 March 2003
Natural Resources Technical Report -Bridge No. 223

;~
,__ ,
Union
County
j ;Municipalities
~_ _ ___; County Boundary
® B-4296 Project Location
Major Roads
~~-~~-~~- Hydrology
Roads
Figure 1: Location Map
Union County, North Carolina
files
A
( ONE COMPANY I Mnny Solnrionr
March, 2003

t
_ 1 _ _, .. _ . __ .. ..
^~r~ Feet N
0 150 300
i1
.`
~ `
-.
~1

.1
I
I
~~ Munici alities A proximate Jurisdictional
__ p p Figure 2: Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams
Stud Area ~~-~~-~~-~~-~~ Streams Mayor Roads
y B-4296 Study Area '~ ONE COMPANY ~ Many Solutianru
i County - Wetlands ~ Roads .~
~ Data Points
- Boundary Non-jurisdictional channel/ditch Union County, North Carolina March, 2003

.. i
~'
~r j.?
~ a.~ ~3
t1 0
5 1
~
;,~ .
,

Municipalities Study Area Major-Roads Figut"~ ~: ~3-42g~ RiHP
County
Baundar
Y one Mile Buffer ._.. _.,,
Hydrology
f ~,
C~t,(,laY'C~i"1C~S
c ;~, ~.~:=,z,. ~ ,,,,, ~.,~,;.,,,,,.

Ni-IP locations o
Study Area Roads
Un101"1 Gr~unfiy, ~C)rtF~l ~aralln~
tvl~r~:h, 2~7f73

~.
~ ~. ~~ ~ ~°
eas~remer":ts: Len~~: '--~
Spar: --
Structurai~cr~nents: ~.s~~.t°~ ~k ~~-e~.`t s~~o~-~
S'~'E~alt~:
escripti~: ~~ ~~,-~. ~~a'~ l ~~. ~~` ~~~Q ~ r ,~
P
R~s~et~ ~ia~;
hartne! euba#sa#e; ~ o ~ c.,~ c~ ° . `~,
~easuremerr#sa Channel width: 3 Q . S ~~- i'E -4',-m b~-;c1~ e. ~.~~ k ~+1 E~
Sankfuil width: 3~ ~, p~ ~- ~{' ~ n~ y f
~ankfull height: (o ~}- 'p3 -~,n,~~, b~; ~, ta~ s ~ ~ S
Water depth: ~ .~ ~{- ~~} ~ ~ s ~' `~ S ~.
general charac#eristics: I3~criptivr~;
Turbidity curtain Yes
Trout waters Yes 'mac
-

Essential fish habitat
Yes .
ISIa~
Anadramous fish Yes ~~
Navigable stream Yea o
Shellfish waters Yes 0
l~firT#3ry nurse;Y area Yes l~$Q
CAA Yes ~
,SEC Yes hf0
~dditicnal tributaries cr ponds: .
r~~-r~ c~ta s~,~~~

A, ~
~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ x~
i9r

ern {-~y~Ga^.. - a
( g
"~`~ C~4~+ C9..~ 4: C ~ w
L ! crt~'
g
rg ~ C,,~+~"-~t^ a.'~S
t'l'~s3 ~ , ~ ~ - ~'
v ~ ~.4,C7 A~`--'}'
°.3`L. ~'fis~s°"S^. ~k..$~ .
C~'Y3' %3:"`:3'.F.. .'t, ^.~~ $

5
~-
~iAR$~~~~i~~. c~~~tu~i ~;
C~~~n€anii~ ~haractsrizati~~a ~re.~
.~

Parana ~sr signs cif ta~na: ~a rr ~. ~ ~ ~r~. ~,
~~~~ ~~~ sn~~~
~~~~s-~ ~~-~~s
r;ifa~r ~

a
5~e 6 ~ ~°°Y°"',a
~~~~ n
i y
~ 4 ~ ... .
,$

i
~~~~
~
a~~a~ JD
[$
.
..F
y,3 g
_. _ ._..._ .. _.___.
i.>k°e 3~.~' ado !.: N~a~+`e~..
• ~
E SPE~iE~o _ __ _
F~6E ~~~i~ ~. it
iihin ; [11ii~ ~f the ShEd~~ ,~e~. ~ ~
EGEaLL~E£3US NffiTE;
~~~r~ ~~~ ~~ssaY
c~c~~ ss-~ ~ e-a a ~ rr

t
^.}~
~, E
:.~ - ~~

Aq...'; 3i.F~1 a5.~ '~./,.° 4. ~ L': ~_9".8: X..lEi.~ y9 ~S•Y.3~ 4""s 4/ °r'4J 4 - BS~ b. a1 t 4~ %h"~. ~' ~:vw
PF;~Pf.3S;~'LS CJrs.A~~d~L'.~'zDs~;is i.e., cu?ve:f, felecation, etc.j r"~.~ ~.~* ~~~ ,,.~ „~~"
~.
~~:~3'ira~3D~1~'~~.~elSi:~ ~(`ac~~."=",~ :~y~~`':~P~rr~~ i..~~t~'sc ~~~t„t~rr~ Ct_3F,"J"~1~`I~'°:'_ ~;4e.t~"~ ~s;~~~~gi~c
CF:i~(~' ~~'EA 1 ~ CD?YI3:'I'Y'~3Pa'S %',:~~'fLG~,n

~~ ~dP _..._...
4bse: vatiort
r Cornrnents ~r Des:,rirst=cr
.~ Fis ;.'Si-;cilt~sil;'vrstaceans Present ~
~ent;Iic 3tacre invertebrates
~

a `~ AIt1P3tibEaC;S PreSenG'!'~ree~t?t~
Algae And,'C3r Fung~~s ;svatPr `~uaiiti' functic:n,
'
j ~, Vv
ildlife Channe3 Case (i.e. trac3:s, feces„ steals, others]
~ ederal3y Protected Species Present!Disconziaue} 1 ~
!
'~, €Liftle,'Pool Structure
^~, ~ Stable St;eam6ani;s 4
y~ E ~'G'Y t ;p C~

~ E
~ Channel Substrate
Ci.e. gtavei, cebb3e, roc;£, coarse sardl
iciparian Canvey Present {SP _,'~ 50°ro clesurej
;.~ ?>ndercut Banks;Tnstream Habitat Structure ` •
Flew In Channel
,~, Vm'et3ands Adjacent Te(Contig. With Channel
(DtSCOnEinue}
~~ PerSIStent PoOls/Saturated DOCtQtn
(June through Sept.}
Szepsrt'aroundwater Discharge (June through Sept.}
Adjacent F1oadPiain Present
~` LVrack Material ar Drift Lines
~° Hydrvphytic Vegetation in'adiacent to channel
----
Iangertarst'F't~ IJoenestic Water 3ttppiy? ~ ,~~
Z)caes Chartrael Appear €9ra ~, quad {fir Scams iYlags? ~' ~ .~.g~arma. Draflraa~e Area; !~ ~ck'e =Y
I3eterrraination:
Perennial Channel (step} irtapo~ Cant Channe: ~.,F ~R ~I' ~r1~~. In~~a1s
~ ~ intermittent Channel (Proceed) t3nirnpt~rtarlt Channel: C LF
EpheYrieral Channel (ne jd) {attach maP indicating Icscation of imPertantlunimportant channel}
3~itch'1'hr~uah Upland {no jd)
)~valsratcr'a Sggnatctez: .it ~ ~~.
(if oche than C. .E. project massager}
P=Present Sl'=StoYa~ly Presen~ ~P=~rd~E P r~sers¢

~~~~
~s~rftf~.
~east~re~rtents: .ength: ~~
1~~idth' ~~
Span
StructuraiC~rnp~nents: s ~~c.~~ ~ ~~~.i s r~~$~
STP: n
u r
~'~' { °- ~' e-a K $ 5 G', C ,v@ C3S ~, t 4r+ , o,'1C4°a P ^ .+ ~ r C
R~sge~ Claw;
~(Sil~! i~`t~; ~ rock C3 ~ ~ ~
ieasc~re~ents: Channel width: 3 ~ . S ~~. P1 -~,;-~, ~,:-;d~ ~„ e..~,,~ .~ €=°' ~ ,~j ~
13ankfu0 width: 3~ ~` t ~~ wC5-k° t' ~, ~! ~.,s
Ban~fiuli height: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~u t ,~~,, v.~ s ~' ~ S
Y+tater depth: D S ~} '~~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ s
general characteristics: ~escr6ptlun:
Turbieifiy curtain Yes o
Trout waters Yes ~

Essential fish habitat
Yes ,. .
~~
Anadramaus fish Yes ~ )
Nauigabie strAam Yes
Shellfish waters Yes ,~'f~~~
Primary nursery area Yes ~ N~
CANiA Yes ~~;
SEC Yes ,
Additi~nai tributaries or ponds:
~~ E ~: ~ad~ s;~~~~

~,~ v~.
°~~.~ ~; ~
c~~~~~
1
~, ~~
~ ~~~ ~~
x
~~t~ ' e:a.. ri~~#['; i~MStC7i°<S:L C.d ~ 1
a

a~~~~s~~~. c~~~u~~'rES:
~~~r~unB~y ~h~rr~ct~razatiara: ~ s a~~~ a~ .~
-~-t cs cc~ o~ ,~
i
SW R f £'£ 8.~~~Q v! 36.~..~

3 ~fu
~~e ~ ~
i
o.
~'~~+8 ~~ €t:,~; ~.h44;i.,6aaT; o -.4':~?}~ ~~.~°iv'~ ~"'YR ®....m
,_~ ~ _
hii~ ~ ~nil~ caf ~ 5~~~ Ares: o
t~~S~~LLAE~U t~~'~E5:
~~ ~ ~ ~ae~ 4~~~~
_~ ~~~

y
r.
~ ~ _ d - 'x
~, ._

-~--~
:`~.C~IDi~ l~ {,"~..° .~ ~L'~ ~~~~,~¢,...':~A'eF t~ra.~`s~' S"s i.%/~ 4 ~sc'k a`. 4''°.~~ L~n"Z, 'G :°~.,ws°
~'Fk;?~5~'~ ~I~~:~~iEs'.. ~i%£~i~~ (i.e., cuiver., rpiocation, et~.3 ~,~ ~~i~~ Gam:,-~, r.,.,. x°'
~' a ri.b• .~ u ~.J F"~ Y
~~`:~-1'..IZ~sL~.R54'I~i~:~i.F#~s:,It'~ ~'~ ~'r~r ~e~-~` +~4"~ ,tw,, ~a ~~.,~!'iZ.t=`ytt.~ ~-:~~Li~t'~'~"f~3~''~' ~i~~~.~"f., f`~'~
~':?.!''+! a° ~V~ATF-Y~:fg. Co:~3;Z!'diJ:"vS ~ `'~,'!! y^.tdrn.
.J
~° J~ i'~'L'' ~ 4'b$4'r~'.'~tion ~ ~~itnTYSents iii Dea~°r3t3ti;~at
~
~` Fish'Sheilf:si~~Cnsstaceans Present ~
~ ~ ~ Benthic hlacre invartenrates ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Amphibians Fresert:`&reeding
I ~, ,~;[ae :4rdi{~r Fun,us :`,water auatity~ runction}
}~, ~ S~`ildtiie Channel Use i.e: tracks; Fees, she€ts, others}
j •~ ~ Federaily~ :•rotacted Species Present (Discor>tinue}
' Itiffiar'Puet Structure
'~ ( ~ Stahie Streatnbanks • ~ ~'L~~'f~
Channel Substrate
(i.e. grade?, cobhte, rock, coarse s..nd}
` Riparian Canopy Present (5P =:'a 5Q% cEosure;
~ Lndercut $artks.%Instreatts i-tabitat Structure
~{ ~ Fiore Fn t;iaannei
~, Shetlands Adjacent ~fliContig. jh'itft ChanraeE
(Discontinue}

~` Persistent PooIslSaturated $ottorn
{dune throueit Sept.)
Seeps:'Groundwater Discharge {June through Sept.)
Adjacent Fiaodpiain Present
`~ Wrack h4ater•ial ar Drift Lines
~i'' ~ Hydropttytic Vegetation inJadjacent to channel
Tmpc~: feast Tc~ I3e~mestie R~v'ate~ Supply? ~ !}
Id€~es Chanaoel ~pposar €3n .4 (woad Dr Smils map? ~' j Appa~€~,. Dr~iaoage Area: ~Sa ~~~ '>
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop} Itnportattt Channel: LF P~C13I;C'T C~~. Iniilal~
~ Intermittent Channel (proceed} Unimportant Channel: ~aQ LF
Ephemeral Channel {no jd) (attach map ind'acating iacatien of irztpcrtan+Junirnoortant channel'}
Ditch Though Upland {no jd} .
i~'~alrtatar's §ognatttre: ~'+ 1~
~ {if other t?aan C.{3.F. projeck r~anager~
.. _ ~,
P=Present SP=Stonaly Prvser~t I~t?'=dot Present
11l~;"~~

'~~ ~~
B-=~~a
Ss~su n ' a
Tire pr€~ject is located in ~r~ion County, can Cuthbertsor~ Rd., Mate. Road Z ~`~ where it crosses
hest Fork ~'~rel-ve file creek, The site consists of successional upland r~roods, flood plain,
pc~~,•er line right-of-~~°av, opLr~ space, pastu~•e, agricultural fields, se~~'er life right-bf-way, ar~d
residential lawn The object of this report is tb describe the site, us?ng data collected on the site
visit, and relate to t~is report. The ~~•o~ect will be describe;' ~wsir?g .TSR~ " ; .~-:°nirute maps.
There. the strearr~ and road intersect, the four q~aadrar~ts that result arc used to describe the t`~ora.
Thy orientation of the stjearn ar~d road dPterr~iined the quadrant labels used. The species that
were identified during the fie..ids,~=ork will be noted, along ~~'ith a discussion of the potential
species of conceraa az~d ,atonal cor~nu~-~itics, as taken iron the Elerr~en~ k;ist ot° the i~.C. natural
~~e stage ~'rograrr~. The site vas surve=cd or: I ~ ~eccrr~ber ?~p2.
The southeast quad. begins ire an upland agricultural field v9~itl~ a l~edgrow between it and
Cuthbertson Road, The hedger€~w contains .~r'idnFdS s~r-o;anu Black cherry to 12" diameter breast
height {dbh), L~i~sp1~r~s rjirairziurzu Persimrnor to ~" dbh, C~r~erct~s ~r~ellvs Tillov~l oak to ~~"
dbh, ~ilrra~s cr?utu Winged elm to ~?" dbh, Cel~is ir~evigutu ugarberry to l.t~" dbh; and .~a~rai~er-r~s
virgirficrr~u Red cedar tc i" dbh. !~.iso present are ~'arar~s ~i~ridu Flowering drsgwood, Hsu
spp. Rose, Sr~rgr'aa~rn 7auie~sns~ Johnson grass, ~'~r•~us~~€rn tu~s~s ~ooll y mullein, S~aiidugc~ spp,
£~oldenrod, ~ndre~~og~n gir~.ner-utus Bushy broomsedge, nupaaulinrr~ spp. Cudweed, ~ig~asZrr~rra
sin~ns~ F~rivet, and ~.~riic~r-u jut~zataica Japanese honeysuckle. 1`~ext is a successional upland
u,'ood, which has a canopy f .~'irrr~s ecI?inutu Shortleaf pine to 1~" dbh, Jillo~' oak to 36" dbh,
Sugarberry to ? ~" dbh, and ~. nigr-u ~~Iater oak to 8" dbh. The average canopy= dbh is
approximately 8". The subcanopy contains ~'ugars gr-undifQliu Beech to ~" dbh. The shrub lager
~Zu~ugrtus utrr~beliutu Autumn olive, ilex Qpucu Am°ricaai holly, and Beech. The successional
wood grades into a disturbed flood plain wood with a canopy comprised of Shortleaf pine to ~~„
dbh, Acer racbr-adrr2 Red maple to ~" dbh, ~ie~g~idurrr.~ur- sti~r-uci~uu Sweet gum to I~" dbh,
I'lutunr~s occiderrtui'is Sycamore to 14" dbh, t~later oak to 1C3" dbh, and Sugarberry to 12" dbh.
'The average dbh for the canopy trees is approximately 14", The subcanapy contains Il.
arrr~rican~ American cirri to 4" dbh, Red cedar to I4y" dbh, and ~ur~iraats cur-oliniana ironwood,
Also present are Rose. ~ar~us anaarr~a~nt Silky dogwood, and Zlraic~lu lutifoiiu Broad-leaved
spike-grass.
The southwest quad begins at the bridge with a narrow flood plain. The flood plain has a canopy
of ~. ncg~drrdr~ Box elder rr-,aple to 14" dbh, with .~raglur~ds nigru Black walnut to 10" dbh present.
The shrub layer consists of Ar-a~ndinuriu gigurzteu Cane, Privet, and Surr~br~cns cunud~nsis
Elderberry. herbs present are Ver-besirau spp. Crownbeard, and 1~1icr^ost~gia~rr virrtirrereerrz
Japanese grass. Following the flood plain is a sewer right-of-way and a horse pasture. A narrow
u=ooded strip runs between Cutl~bertson d. and the pasture and contains ~~'ater oak to ~0'' dbh,
Sweet gang to ~~" dbl^~, Red cedar to ~" dbh, Black cherry to 6" dbh, and ~, tc~edu Loblolly pine
to lei" dbh. Also in the strip are 'rivet, Sycamore, Rose, Red maple, IZul~~~s spp. Blackberry,
.i/ricant7airs spp. 1?l~zrrie brass, Snailta,~ spp. C~reer~brier, Japanese honeysuckle, and CTelserazia~r°n
serrr~~r"~ar~r~s Caroli~~a .~essarrine. After a pri~°ate dri Ye is a pine grove comprised of Loblolly
pine to ?~„ dbl=; ~ti~ith `illo~~ oak to ~~" dbh and °~4rater oak to ~~" dbh. The subcanop;~ contains
grater o~.~k, Pied cedar, an>~' Flo~ve~nn dogwood. 'Fines present are ~ Carolina jPssarr~ine and

r
~C'.a~/a?SS.~U/ £&VnA~iYJLlv~. ~Y?v tl~L~RS~L ill ~YLL~LvL~~~~ ~'(~g^!~g{y~~ py2 q 4~ 5+~,y~ ~g~;y ~+,T ~F` 71 Tt-~'f Y j'°,
1 ) ~ESi 3]3EEtV 3+'$nir 3~3 ~ ~x~„i ~aA d:3 ~..~i Y` :~'a.A Lgi tF ki..
pi~~e gro~~e is a r;;sidential az~'ea ;~~it lawn and scattered trees follo~e; -J _.;~othe~• pasture.
The northwest quad begins as an open field. ~,vith a naE-~-ow row o~ trees and shrubs between th°
field ar~d Cuthbertson Rd. This row ~C3ntaiils Sugarberrv to " dbl, Blau. chair}~ to ~'' dbh,
<?~~erican elrn to l4" dbh, ar~d Shortleaf pine to I" dbh. also present are Privet, Greenbrier,
Japanese honeysuckle, Red rr~aple and Sweet gum. l°dext is a private drive with a hed~erow
comprised of Red cedar to " dbh, Black cherry to ~" dbh, uturnn olive, and i~.~ra.ri
~L~pr?J~Cd~`Ci ~:r£?sst~'lne. I~ollo~R'ing tl~e ~3rivatC' 'i1vr~'.. Is a p~aStliie ;~/1t1"~ ~ r~°~' {3~ tt'>°,es 13'°t~a'°.er? 1? a~i
~.:uthbertson P~.d. `T'his rou' contains Sl~iortleaf pine to I=?" ~'bh, Black cl:er3-y- to fQ" dbh., I..vbaollr,
pine :o ~" dbh, I~.ed cedar to ~"' dbh, ~~jinged elm4 I Towering dog~~'cgod, .~.utunan olive, Pri~t•et.
Rose, 1~~ ,i~ci~~~ ~'ar. ?c~r~gip~s Poss~rr~ ha~.v, Japanes° honeysuc:~~~Ie, Greenbrier, and l~`it°s spp.
gape. ~t the end of the pasture are another chive, a power Tine right-o-~.'ay, and a pine gro~,~e
dominated by I.oblolE; p9r~c to I" d'oh. The st~bcanopy s co~npris~d ol` Rvd ced.:r to 6"tibia,
R,ed maple to ~" dbh, Blau chesty, tweet gurr~ to ~~.-„dbh, jillo~v oak, ~~~~~~~:~, ~~ c~r~r~~ea~~~
Sou-~,~ood, ,and. inged elrn to 2" dbh. .long the road. can be found fl, ijir~i~;ic~1s Broorresed~e,
~~•~,~;-c~~ti~ spp. l:.ove grass, ~'ria~z~i~~as spp; Plu.~ne grass, Cudvveed, ~~~~nti~~c~ ~~z~~i~~~ra Golden
aster, and .~ilphr~a c~r~pesit`~~ Ragged rosinv~Jeed. Tlae pine grove ends at the sewer right-of-
way and a disturbed flood plain begins. 'T`he flood. Blain canopy contains Sycamore to 3~" dbl~,
Black walnut to 1~3" dbh, Box elder rr~aple to Imo" dbh, Populus deltoides Cottonwood to ?~" dbh,
S~~reet Burn to 2~" -dbh, and Sgarberrv to ~ ~" dbla, The average canopy dbh. is approxinaatel~,J
I''". The sub canopy contains Sugarberry to 5" dbh and !l~'~:~a~~ ~rc~ Red ~-r?ulber~° to ~" dbh.
The shrub layer cons=sts of Privet ar~d nose with Japanese grass and. Crownbeard as herbs. `dines
present are Japanese honeysuckle, Greenbri~;r, and Grape. ~'y~~i~.r~rti ~~~'c~sticia~i~'e~ Cltrist~nas
fern ~s also present.
The northeast quad begins with a disturbed flood plain ~x-Doti. The canopy is comprised of
Sycamore to I2" dbh, Black walnut to z2" dbh, Persirr~rnon to I ~" dbh, and Sweet gum to 1 ~"
dbh. 'The average canopy dbh is approximately 1?" dbh. The subcanopy contains ~.merican elan
to I4" dbh, Box elder rr~aple to IO" dbh and Sugarberry to C" dbh. T'he shrub layer is dorr~inated
by Privet and Cane with Rose present. Tlerbs are shaded out by the dense shrub layer. zlines are
Japanese honeysuckle and Grape. 'The flood plain ends with a broad agricultural field. Between
the field and Cuthbertson Rd. is a tree line comprised of Red cedar to 1{}" dbh, I'ersirr~mon to 6"
dbh, Black cherry to 8" dbh, and Sweet gum to S" dbh. ~Iso in the tree line are 1~Iowering
dogwood, Box elder maple, Sycamore, Privet, Rose, Black'oerry, Japanese honeysuckle, Carolina
jessamine, Grape, Plume grass, and Sorgh~cstncn7 rttaruns Indian Grass. The area east of and
above the agricultural field is a highly disturbed successional wood. It has a few large trees but
is mostly comprised of small caliper tree species. The canopy trees are ~v'illow oak to 44" dbh,
Black cherry to lb" dbh, Shod2leaf pine to 8" dbh, and ~'inaed elm to 14" dbh. Also present are
1=lowering dogwood, ~'L'd"CiS canr~d'~r~sis Redbud, Persirnrnon, ,autumn olive, Greenbrier and
Japanese honeysuckle. The quad ends v+,'itI'€ an open field.

r

~R~~~~~~a$ ~'~~ pe~i~s ~i' ~~rcrY r ~~ tie .~:. ~1~~.~r~1 ~~~ ~t~~,F ~~:4 °i ~..ast.
~,~~i~~ ~ i;~ fry tl~~ ~.~. a~~~~al ~~~~~~ 'r~~~- ~ r° 6 ~ ; = - __ "' ,~ ~
~'~i~~'~ ?at'~ ~'a.' TF~~~°aI L~~~~I~I~S ~l~ti l~ ~~ ~Ll~;~.'~?~", ~.5i 13~~ ~~? ila°,~. i+~3~"!° ~'"° ~}~`~:,5.:.;~i ~;~"~~.
Si2?rf; past ~f~:-ic~lt~~al ~~~ sil~'a~~l~?~ral pra~ti~,e~ a~r~ ~T~3tiii~ ~i`i~ si~~.
~l~e~e are =~ ~'asc~lar playa ~~~~ l~~r~d ~rt~ tl~~ ~.~-~~. Tit~~ a~-4 ~~i~~ ~-~€~~~;i~~rr~s ~..~~G3r~ia as~~E,
~~~~i~~~~ r~t~~sL~~~s~ ~l~iira-p~ ,w~l~i~~ r~il~ ir~~~, ~'~~~~~tz~~~tar~ ?~~'$,''8,'i ~a~'. ~~~l~er ~~tl~~'~ ~a~bi
~~~:~u`;{?, a~I~i .~~IFE't~1w3a{~gZt~9 ~'<'62b>%°dr~ZZ~`,":is' s".~'?~~'L'~xt%I~~jS 8L1~`f~l~+~v'~S'. ~ fi`~'~~~`, ~~,~i?,~ZLZ, ~iI' ,€~E.'~lClr''~l`~iit3'
~p~~i~s ~~;~r~ ~~~ Thy ;~;~,~~~~,~ac~Ir~~~r~ f~~~~ is ~~~ ~l€~'s,al~~it t~a~~~.

Des~.r~pt~or~:~ o~°~=~.deraI r• ~°rc°~~.~..~ed pe~.~es tff~~.~o ~'~ v!r~=on Co~z~ty,1`~ort?~ tr.aro~r~~
U*L£5/k Sidd li.• ~aF3 ~4a ~L~~&dL{~~y'iif. B.i~'4J~a4LLi
~:orn~on ~ar~~e: Cat-oiiraa heels litter
F`arriily: ~Jnionidae
Current Status: endangered
Date Listed: 3une 3~, 199
The Carolina Iseelsplitt¢r is erdernic to the Cata~Tba ~>r~d eve De° .i ~rer ~•aina~es in ~r~it~n
County north Caroli ,~, and in adjacent areas in South Carolr~a, historically, it has also beer
found in l~~eckie~nburg~°~d Cahar-us C€~unties, This species has I~nstorical£~r been reported in
srr~all to Iar`e str~,ai s, rivers, and ponds. It has generally beer yoc=nd in a varietlr of substra~es.
usually near stable, ~.A ell-shaded strew barks; I'o~vever, it has occasionai~ been fo~~nd in the
main stream c;harr~el, Tl~e stability of stream hanks appears to b° a critical factor for this species
(I~ridell, 1993>. -
There are only six known populations of the Carolina 1-leelsplitter in the Carolinas. Two
populations in 1 dcrtl Carolina are found ire C:~o€~sc Creek (pee Dee l~.i~~er basin ~ and ~~a~Isa~~s
Creel;: {Catawba lciver ~asir} it ?..Tnion Conr~t~°. The ~~C~p.C rec;ornx~?ends that ail heaa~~•ater
areas tha` fiow• into these two habitats should receive spe~,:ial ~-~ anaaerner~t (SCF`T[, 199Qj.
The Carolina 1•ieelsplitter is' a medium-sued mussel tl~;at has an ovate, trapezoid shaped shelf.
The shell is yello~ti~ish, vreenish brown to ds.rk bro~~•r ins color and younger specimens have
greenish brown or black rays (Fridell, 1993}.
BIOLOGIC!~L CONCLUSION: L?P~RESflL~%LD
The NC~N~ has eight records of this species in I.nior County. Data on suitable habitat and
species occurrence will be provided by the NCDOT.
~c~entitlc !Name: ffsrer ge~r~ia~~ars
Common Name: Georgia aster
Family: Asteraceae
Current Status: Candidate
Bate Listed: November 10, 1997
The Georgia aster is a perennial herb, 4.~i-8 dm tall, tivith dark purple ray r`1o~vers surrounding the
light reddish disk. Flower heads can be up to 6 cer;tirr?eters across, anal flowering occurs frorr~
early October to mid-November. Disc flowers are ~~;-bite ~~°ith purplish tips on the corollas,
anthers purple and pollen ti~~hitish. A.s the flowers aye, the corollas turn a darker purple, so the~•e
is a difference between colors of early and mature disk corollas. ~'1'ie ribbed achpnes are up to
millimeters (~.1 ir, lor3g, ~~~ith evenly distributed spreaaing trichornes. Plants are usually
colonial, with 1 {sometimes 2J sterns arising from each underaro~?nd part. The stems and leaves
are scabrous {~•Iatthe~~rs, 993?.

f
~a3~;':at I~3~- ti?e er,rgaa aster CuriS~StS of ~r~ ~:'.:- ..- '_at~a~,~~,€~ds~z€ iip~3lLls 2I~ tl-~~ pfl~dt~?~w -~
'~I ~,r•~i?. ~.. dr?~si?a; Soot.? Carotana, L"s°vL~}r4I~1, ar3 °~ alb w.a. ~':e ,U''Im?r~= cor~troll~rr ~. factor a~~.. g-.
to be the availability of ligl-~t. The species is a good corsapetitor with other early successional
species, b~.~t to:ids to. decline wiser. shaded. by woody species. As a result, disturbed =~i^ts-of-~va~,
can prow°ide suitable habitat. f'op,~latiorrs car persist for some urdetLYired length of tune in tl°:e
s:ade, Lut these rarer= l~lowea• {~rlatthews I993}, and reproduce only by rhizornatous e~.gansior~,
Soils vary° from sand to heap=~• clad', with p~f ran~in~ froa~~ .~ to ~.~ at ti-te sites sa~-r~pled thus far.
storicall~°, 37 popiatior~s of eor~ia aster vie:e ;.ro~~Fr to e;~ist; 3 of these rave apparently
beers d.~Str~tJe~. $n rri`~'3St 4',aSes tlle,. e:~act Cailse ~Jf enttr~~. at§t>n was r?ot documented, b:~t :~erbflcades,
highpvay constr-~wction, fire suppression, and resideTtial and industa-ial develogsr:ert have all
lt;ered the hi:;ici-ic landscape ir`i ~~~hich Georgia aster once flourished `~atthe~.vs. 1993},
Z3.E~L*'ti,.9~~iC.`5.L :~~~~T~, i~lrTSiC~I`!: i'L'VRE~~L~tl~
The ~'~~°~1 has ?~_een rec~~rds of this species in ~.~r~ior ~ouT~t~~. John Soule ;Wade a 1~ Fawn
location site visit ort Decernl;er 18, ZtJ~2. HDR~'~HAR~ personnel conducted a search of the
Stud~° Area on December 18, 21~~2. Suitable habitat for the Cieor~ia aster was found within the
Stud~• Area. Disturbed areas and RC)~~,`s t~,~ere found t~~ithin the Study Area, 1^io~vever, no
rnd?V3C~;1alS Cif th~S sL7c^.~IeS were obServe_d ~tl:~ng the s:tA ~'3Slt, ii is r~~.g~rn~'~U'rtdt:d ti~y.t take ~2re": ~g
resur~'e-~ed durlis~ Seutember or ~ctot~eT, 1vf21Gh 1S the peal~e floes'°~ "~~ t7rl"fe fC)r eC3rg:~a aste.~'.
Scientific 1'+tame: ~-~elica~zrizrrs sr:~r~~•ei~~it~ii
Common fan-~e: Schweiitz's Sunf'ower
1~arnil,~: Asteracere.
Current Status: Endangered
Date Listed: I~lav ?, 1991
The Schweinitz's sunflo~:'er occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dry clays,
clay foams, or sandy clay foams that often have high gravel content. The species usually grows
in open habitats (Cooper et al., 1977}. 'This plant is ender<•ic to the piedmont region of tl~e
Carolinas, and has 1~ Itnown populations in !~lorth Carolina. The Schweinitz's sunflower .
requires sc-me form of disturbance to maintain its open habitat. Historically, this has been
provided by fire and gazing animals. Currently, most of the remaining populations occur along
roadsides ar utility line rights-of-way {ROB}, which are maintained by mowing {Chris IvIathews,
personal communication). y
The Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb, which grows from 1 to 2 meters
tall. Stems are solitary and purple with branching occur-ing only above the raid-stem. Leaves
are pubescent, thicl~:, lanceolate, (wider at the basest and vary in size and position from the lower
stemb {large and opposite} to the ufiger stem {smaller and alternate}. This species flowers trot?
Segterr~ber to frost with relatively small yellow heads {Radford et al., 19C~~; Heiser et al., 199>.
E1f3I.v~ICAL. CCii~CL~SI~"~l: L~RESQL.~'ED

e ~~ CN has t~~'erity'-fine records of this species it ~.;rioi? Coa~nt;~. J~ha*f Soule rraade a l~ro§~';
c~catioa~ site ~Jisit on D~ecernl~er .18, 2~~t~2. Pi~Ri'~P~' gersonaGel c€srad~acte a ser-~~ of #:.,-
Staady .a•va on De„eaa~al~er 1~, 2~2. :citable habitat for the Scl~weinit~"s sua~l~ower ~~~ ~s ~:
t~.atl`a:' thv Staady~ ~.rea.. Dasturbed ar°as and .Rt~~ls ~~°ere fund oar sate; t;c~~~ever, n~; anda~'?~a-~aa'.
vLL itaS S~eCaeS ~~'ere ~bSeri~e~ d;.a_F~n~ the Sate 4%a$at. ~.'~ aS reCOnended thi t the area bC r~Sa?r;~4.-'~'d
ii~~lrii?~ ~et~aksl3Cr ur C~Ct~iber, 4~'h1Ch IS tli~ p°~~~ flt"~,vv'C.a'id~ t?r~a'v for Ch~~'en2t~'S Saan~flo~v'°r, d
~' E ~ ~E
NatureSe= ire Explorer: ~:~ online ency;,lofsedia of life weh ap~+licatiora~. '?~.~ .Version ~..
~~'lar~gton, ~'ar~aria~:, USA: °'~ai.Llrf'~er'+%e, .c~a'~~Ila.?.~3~,°'..: }~t.#g:~P~~'t~v'~~~.al:ttdre5°.~~'G.~I'~~~~~.f~°i;.?'.
~,:~ccessed: L~'ebr~~ar~~' 27; %~~"?
C~~°~lina~ eawlsPilter
F~4~idell, Jo'ran r>. 133. ~:ndan~ea•ed dad i i~reatened ~~ildlife• acid Plants; "~.~~.f~~~~.
DECD~;.~>T.~" (Carolina. ~eeisplitter~ Det;,a-ania~ed. to he Endangered. L1SF~~S, Federal
P~.e~ister, Degaa~ment of the Interior. 58(120: pg. 34926-3I.
The ~Cie~~tlfiC Council ora Freshwater and T ea~esrial l~fl~llusks. I99~J. ~ rego:-t on the
c;onserb'at~on scat=~:s of Nortra Carolina's freSr~~'ater and tea-restnal moltuscan fauna.
~~fl'~fla ~S~~%°
Matthews, J.P. 1993, and. 1997 revisioias. Status survey of ester georgianus ~alexander, Prepared
under worl order• NCPCP-92-18, U.S. Fish and 4~'ildlife Service, :~sheville, NC, and
North Carolina Department ~f A.Qriculture Plant Conservation Program.
Se)<rv~ein€f~'s sflia~#1~a~er
Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderbur6, eds. 1977. Endangered and threatened ~Za~?is
aP.d a~ain~als of North C'art~tina. North Carolina State Museum i~atural history, Raleih,
NC.
Heiser, C.B., Jr., D.M. Smith, S.B. Clevenger, and Va'.C. Martin, Jr. 1969. The tVortli flnierica~~
sacnflowers (HeliantTtus). Mem. Torrey Botanical Club 22:1-218.
Radford, fi.E~, H.E. ~hles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. tea;coal t~~ tlae vaseu~arflora c~`~tlae Cart~li~aas.
University of forth Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,