The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190198 Ver 1_17BP10R111 FINAL MCDC - Signed_20190213MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST The following questions provide direction in determining when the Department is required to prepare environmental documents for state-funded construction and maintenance activities. Answer questions for Parts A through C by checking either "Yes" or "No". Complete Part D of the checklist when Minimum Criteria Rule categories #8, 12(i) or #15 are used. TIP Project No.: N/A State Project No.: 17BP.10.R.111 Project Location: The proposed project is located on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) near Unionville in Union County, North Carolina. The project limits are shown on the Study Area Map in the appendices. Project Description: Project 17BP.10.R.111 proposes to replace Bridge No. 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) in place over Stumplick Branch in Union County near Unionville. The purpose of the proposed project is to replace a deficient and functionally obsolete bridge. The latest inspection report, performed in January of 2015, classifies the condition of Bridge No. 326 as "fair." The bridge replacement will be constructed on the same location and alignment using an offsite detour. The current bridge is small, and the proposed length of the new bridge will be approximately 50 feet long. The new bridge will overlap the existing facility and will be constructed over previously disturbed soils. No new right of way (ROW) is required, though easements may be required outside of the existing ROW for construction. Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required, then a corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) will be also be required. A Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3 and corresponding WQC 4085 will likely be required. Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may be required because the USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as such, it is recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the findings of this document. Waters of the U.S. (WOUS): There appears to be WOUS in the project area that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The waters have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable. The signed Jurisdictional Determination (JD) is appended to this checklist. 17BP10.R111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Page 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA): As of June 27, 2018, the USFWS lists three federally protected species under the ESA for Union County. The Natural Resources Technical Memorandum (NRTM) is appended to this checklist. Suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter exists in the study area, so a mussel survey was performed on September 25, 2018. No freshwater mussel species were found during the survey, so it was therefore determined that the biological conclusion is "No Effect" on the Carolina heelsplitter. The USFWS lists Michaux's sumac as a historic record for Union County. However, suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area. Therefore, surveys for Michaux's sumac were conducted on September 5, 2018 and no plants were found. A review of the July 2018 North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates no known Michaux's sumac occurrences within one mile of the study area. It was therefore determined the biological conclusion is "No Effect" on Michaux's sumac. Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area. Therefore, surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted on September 5, 2018, and no plants were found. A review of the July 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known Schweinitz's sunflower occurrences within one mile of the study area. It was therefore determined that the biological conclusion is "No Effect" on Schweinitz's sunflower. Since this project is state-funded, the USACE will act as the lead agency for issues related to the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Therefore, Section 4(d) of the ESA does not apply. The USACE has developed a Standard Local Operating Procedure for Endangered Species to address NLEB, which NCDOT will follow. Cultural Resources: There are no recorded archaeological sites or cemeteries within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). A previous environmental review of the APE did not result in a recommendation for an archaeological survey. The No Archaeological Survey Required Form is appended to this checklist. There are no National Register of Historic Places-listed properties or districts in the vicinity of the proposed project, and all work will occur in existing ROW. The Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form is appended to this checklist. Floodplains: According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map 3710544700J effective 10/16/2008, the project is located in Zone AE. Please see attached documentation: • Study Area Map (Appendix A) • Signed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (Appendix B) • Natural Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix C) • No Archaeological Survey Required Form (Appendix D) • Historic Architecture and Landscapes No Survey Required Form (Appendix E) 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Page 2 PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA Item 1 to be completed by the Engineer. YES 1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity allowed under � the Minimum Criteria Rule in which environmental documentation is not required? If the answer to number 1 is "no", then the project does not qualify as a minimum criteria project. A state environmental assessment is required. If yes, under which category? 9 If either category #8, #12(i) or #15 is used complete Part D of this checklist. PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS Items 2— 4 to be completed by the Engineer. 2. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality impacts? 3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative impacts that may result in a significant adverse impact_to human health or the environment? 4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed activity have such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern for its environmental effects has been expressed to the Department? I� � YES NO ❑ � ❑ � ❑ Item S— 8 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. 5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands; � surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime ar unique agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical value? 6. Wi11 the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the Department of Interior's threatened and endangered species list? 7. Could the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or ground water impacts? ❑ ❑ � � � � 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Page 3 $. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on � � long-term recreational benefits or shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their natural habitats? If any questions 2 through 8 are answered "yes", the proposed project may not qualify as a Minimum Criteria project. A state environmental assessment (EA) may be required. For assistance, contact: Manager, Environmental Analysis Unit 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 FaX: (919) 250-4224 PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS Items 9-12 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. 9. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its habitat, likely to be impacted by the proposed action? 10. Does the action require the placement of temporary or permanent fill in waters of the United States? 11. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of fill in high quality ar relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as mountain bogs orpine savannahs? 12. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental Concern, as defined in the Coastal Area Management Act? Items 13 — I S to be completed by the Engineer. 13. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes? Cultural Resources 14. Will the project have an "effect" on a property or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? 15. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of way from publicly owned parkland or recreational areas? YES NO ❑ � � ❑ ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � ❑ � � �� Questions in Part "C" are designed to assist the Engineer and the Division Environmental Ofiicer in determining whether a permit or consultation with a state or federal resource agency may be required. If any questions in Part "C" are answered "yes", follow the appropriate permitting procedures prior to beginning project construction. 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Page 4 PART D: (To be completed when either cate�ory #8, 12(i) or #15 of the rules are used. Items 16 — 22 to be completed by Division Environmental Officer. 16. Project length: 17. Right of Way width: 18. Project completion date: 19. Total acres of newly disturbed ground surface: 20. Total acres of wetland impacts: 21. Total linear feet of stream impacts: 22. Project purpose: If Part D of the checklist is completed, send a copy of the entire checklist document to: David B Harris, PE State Roadside Environmental Engineer 1557 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1557 (919) 707-2925 Fax: (919) 715-2554 Email: davidharris@ncdot.gov DocuSigned by: �rLvlrLvya `�rLywooa 11/8/2018 Reviewed by: Ss8o88�B8oE44o4 Date: Lead Engine�r� :. �"��r � ��f �`� `�'�`- - Date: 11/08/18 �'� ' � T�ivis��unmenta�ficer �-�� 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Page S Apnendix A 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Appendices _� ,_.. a,. .. _,,.. . � �- - , r...` �.., —_g . ��- .f.- -.�� . .. . ��..*^ ,��- -�� -t- .. , . � . . . � � - •f,e . . �'� - .' i . v . �y, . . �" '- � �jV,' ' • .. . , .. � � "'�E. -_ ' ti , . . ..�.�; ,.,, -i. . ., 9; �^ .,., � . . ..� . ' '.... , . . F . �+:� , .. .�y,�Y �,1ry,. , .. .� : . ♦ �..� +� �frr- � 'S r - � �'i. r � - ;. � , , . �' . • � - � � -. , . � , . � � �. - . . , _ M, . _ . �. . . "�f , ., ,. � � � .: . . . ... . : . , . _ � � � , �- � . . . , , , �.. . . . � .. . . ' , � . . _ � , , � . - . #1. t� Y �ti .'Y , �� i - , , . • �k . . :. � . _ . . ,_ . . �.j . . . . � _ .:: , � � .. � , .. Prelimina & ., �r - , .�:�"'y�� ,� � . ; . . ; ''� � .f . � �/ . ��, , �. . ,� �� t..�'�� .,� .s. � �."ti. ".ti'_� - �`".�� . y.t.. � 1 , ;�� .,:. M ••: . � � ; .• � `., , , = = 5.., , r ��. _ j �, � � � _: � � � t' ; Sub ect to Chan e t � a � � ,� .�� , s. . . ;_, � ,� :.. ,:; - •�` :��.; �� r.,,a� �e �- J 9 . ; ` � L' . ` , w �, .�� ,. , �. '� �t • �+� r ,q ��, ,. �w r . � • - . __._ . � . �k : h -; . , ir ; '-¢� • 'v M1, � � � r t . � �� `�� , '. : . ..: . .�. , r . .. . �b. . i , r.�` ' . ' �t. . AP. � � $�. : ` .r - � i ♦ . ..� . , � ... ,� � i _ i �* ' ' � 'W ' '..Yw. - � 'fi � - .�L k . � ` • 6. � .�.� �� _ . �..� � ..� �' .�. F:..� .. �� `�. y .. �� . .. .. ', � .. � . �.. :V H '�. � � .. �.. 1 � ��. ,¢ '� �.. �' . ,y .,E� „: � , �'' W *y a� 'C 5 , ., P' . f':6 �. . �.. . ,�,y,(, .(' .,� ��... �3.:Z� ' .'.ti, �'�i' f �' :•�� - ' r �� ,�' ' .M a y � � :b S. ,y @_: . 1•. � • ` x!. t� . �" . Y . A . _ / � t �: ' . .��r � . � �... ., ". , . ! " • ' „ ' * ' ' r . . ^ . . : . ' . t t_° •. ""�, . �. �:'� � ,: '. "� ` ' � •j41�., � �� . " °. � r. � JF' , �� '�, . �. , '� . .�+ . �. � , � � � s w. . �^�+, ti � � � + �'-. ' ,�', , ,'. �. - . . '. . ''}�,. � � ... ''�° I" . �i,,Y , ' " ��1� � �`�? . , , . ,� o- a y,,.�l �R-?' _ „p ,: _,� 5y t . t'- .ii - {�, �/ 4 'C � � Y %. 'u'. 1 " SF r+ - - i' d � � ��Y r � �I.. � � ., � . w • : . . -•i� �� . . ,.. , _ q � .y �,, ,�:s+' :t -t .e "�. a ,-"�:' ,.� �y ,� R `;�''� �5: ,� _ � _ _ , C: _ �. ^ A _� ,, -x , � »� .. ��. �4' ./� Y� _ ��m ^ 4 . i ��f '-S ' 1� a k. � � . . . . � . ' , : , ' '� . r� �' :x' , �.: �. ' •.. ,., , .�� .-�„ .r„ . . ^ . �,. .,,� ., .� '�: � . � .�� `.� � ' ; . . �° � � . . M. .� �p - . , i�y . , � `°.. ' ,.� i �a:. --\. ' ! . .... � . .._- - F . . yy. __.� . :. � — ' +. �- ... �� < . ,�. � � , , � . t�r, . _ .. q � -•�� t '1 �. � w . . �,P.. , � � T ., . . �'ti, `��e� ,��`: . y ' '�'�. s � "r �., �',... s • w,= y ,,, �• , ' ",s �! � �j'y. v i' � ' ; ' '- /y� .,=,...� �. .� . . , . . �• � . ., � ,,, . �-,. .,-.� /� ,�+ °-:� , �. j � � ,' , . ''yV�'. .._ ...� . � ��. 1 t�. , - • �Z, - S;. r. a. �. _ � � . i , i� -" ' • fi'�" .� i aY ' '" � �/ ., � ��' •.,: W �.. �,� , � , .-•_ ,�. ,''�.�; .�� ., ,�'�,�,� . � � ,, _ _ �T�° � , � , • . ; ,� F ._-�-._ `T� .� - . • .Iqc, -S` �.i t',�..'4,' . J�'' ,�, , k. „ 'i� •1�r . � } . , . .- . , ��r : . ..� a y '+,�_, k.. �" . ' �. �•g^� '. �" :. '..'� �.♦ 1.� �... ��...' �`�� .,,r , y�-Vi �iK'.t�'f,e �� f" "7r .�i �� . - " r: i Y � �� • :r. § t . w. �A ,'�\�^.��,@-• �, yr�s'� �r x'�; � .�•.- .,�k ,.� �. \^ _ ,. - .,_, �ti�., ,� - 'R � : : . - �'�4��'�. l . '�. ��'- �� t .� ti � � � ' ' � � � .. } r " � f , � . .•�,y�' `; ,s:.+. " .' r �S �`-t•� �� •�,.y, +:� u '+~,, , t�tiy,�r.t ;��,F` A � � � . , • , • ;: , _ . /�o - -� ��Y.�.�;�.- • '.t. Start of Pro ect -�' ,f - , .�_ {� � . �` ,; � � '� �:_ ,�� . I . .,_. - . _ � . . . , a : �� :r. �� a � � � . �.1: J .'�., � �. '.� r i' f � .. � ,�J'KY' ' � -- - - � ,. npk � �'h.` -.:�,.; �• , _ . . , ;;• � � *t � .3`'t�� : �,,. ',,-: . . � - Q . � _,.,. �, .1,�';� -. u, �_r . - � � �,. _ � � . � �"C h.e �i i _.� ,» �. ' zy , � ,.. . . - . _ Chu J r Ha�t t k; ��_ ''4_ •, -f r �� `F;, y. _ ,��fy �. , - . �'c �,•';. `. .�.� a l4 4,__ i ^ �� ti �- aT ZU• �p • 4 � '� _ . , R _ ; . h �� , . �+� ' , � �<. .: � • � . _. , . , - . a . �,tc t . ��•Y" - C� - � � , . a^L a � v .. �� '� . _ �" � � • �` ti � z�}y �' � � "� +r��"r � • �," -� .yp� t�' �` ;�a�Aa � �,u �,�,,� ,� . � !1.� ., . . \' Me.I T� � �' �1 ^ � "�� . , y rl�� '� ... `�rs..a - . . 1 .# w., :y.'�.1 i ,. , . � � �. ` ��i�.-i�' `4� " �'� ,�r r '�r� � , . �` � �� .� � ,� �,� . ., �a *.. � ' * ' - _ � � ��+� ,. � �. � �� _ � L'' ,;��,� � '� _ - .r . . . - .. v;. �,ti�. e . .. . :..� 'a�� ' � ,�'f �„y'�: � . � s-'.+ � �� :.' t W'` �� ::A �-' , Y� .� �!��k y��°^� r�!, �..' , �y �'r+yy �`�' � +. '7�'� - Z - , JP � '�, � V Union County Parcels . . ' �. S. 4 � 1 f s�_ y ..� �! �. . . . ��y _ i 1. { ' . [ , �*, �r` .i� r•' �, � s r 0 125 250 l . i. � i � � s� „ ra'. �;� ~ ' � , ,'L .. . , y ,5' �. �' ., `. �' ..; J ed, , `� � � r ' �' � . '"C �� t� � ... i - ra i �A/. �- � '-»=� �. � . ''�, � � • ' .': . �� ;� , • •� ,� � .,�.. ,�� i '> �" ' " .'•.!_ .. ; '... � �� --,�� 4�..� : � � ^y - .�• � - •.� � >� "�� e. • 3 .£ `�'{.i� . ., ._ "'ti ��. - . . . .. f' �i ��.- . . . �4-.. ,.,� � a��',� ,,F, .� �,� �. ',! , ,�:. 4 st 1 1� , .� ..�..'' r�-„-''�.,� ' . � . �,. � '. . . , �. .. s .,. . . . , ti '.� ' ' � ' ,� �a � t . � . � , , �,. '+ .S� � ' r :� Y � � .•� � `� � �' { '�.�� , �.�. 1 ., „ � , , x". . r . ' P. ..�-, y � , ., �- �. �r`aA �'., '•- ''� . "Itr. # r{, � -"i' '� �._ � t � ��':4�i� �.. � � �� . .� � .. ... . r � �, .. � r . _ . . � . �� . . � . �� l�. � ,"� 1�:: .. . .. , . � �, a .3 rF . _ ..'�" , . `1-�•'. � . . � . . � , . ... .� -._ : . l � .. ' - . - � - � � �. ,� .k, � � � !y �' `� �14 . ,: . _.:� W � .. _, '�1�4. � •�"�� .. :�, `' �'.'�.� �w :� �;�,' . _ , . -� . ; � y . " � l K + �s�r�e,�,,.a...��._ � ". , , . te��-i[y . � � . � ... . . � .: a � . . .�F _ 4 .<,ti. ♦ . . .* " ' �. �'.. ° r . � , - ._. . . � ' .. . _, _ . . " _ `, . 9 . * '� .. . _. 1rf+il 4� lf+ ,i . -. r � _ : ,. _ , �'� '�'+'�„ , . �a "�" , .� � € i t ; „ • �.. �� ;; -� � � • �4 i * , ... ,:� : .� : 5 Y' � � � � �:,, . . . 1_ .. � .�_ ,_ ,, _ �,. ;, � •. , Church Road _ - �_. ---� � �, _ ,. � . � � �, �. 4� _ : : : , . . . •, .. � : � .; � . a n okke - -- — __ �. � �• .. . _ --� - . , ,� � _, -. _ , . . . \ � - - � � Ro .. .. .� - - _ .:.. -� ��. , , ` ' ,� a� � _ , , ,. ; : ,: . � , �. ., � � ii�;' 'r_ � �`� ' _.�. - . + . -- ' �.r -''; ,� � � ��4 ,: ' ".. � `� �. . . r :�� r , .. -�- � � � F . �.'�` � - � , , :�: a� y � �^�, _ t` . :.h : . . � _ . ' r . - 'r . .' ..Ka..;� -. I� i�Y � . ��Fy' p ��' � #_ � � ��., - i ..'. -., � . . . � ��+ � � �1 _`,t • �.• - �� ` � � .� .i . 1. �i + - . .� � . t ,�y� i.. � A . .. ' ��. . '. ' T+ 1, ' _ . . ' , . : i � _ � e � ♦ �,r { +_ f �� . ... . P w' _ 4 ��'d �� : � . ,� �y.. :� e .� .. '. �; + �ya �. , .,. I � . . _ ' _ � ., . _ # . , _ . . "y .,_..�. � �"� - ' �, � `_, ' - �' - ., � � , 1 . .. � .� t ' . - . ...�. . -. � � �Y- ' , . . , . ,�p, : ��.� __ .� �; �`'d ! � � _ � .. „ p _� ,: � k , . '; . ' r . ,. . ;_ , ,, , . �P, .,�M�i� �; . . , , . , ,� . w 4 , ,� ___� ��: y, �G s�� , -� � - � � � �� °�e ,s . , .- �: . . . , End of Pr ct : � '� • , � , ,� ��' °� � �'�� c° � ,. : � �. : ^ ' �ti� . '.' j .-. . 1 �1.=. - . r(R, , ' . ' 4 ' . ' y . _ �1 � . � � �-. � � . ,r � . ,S ,4. V . . �� . .. . " �. . _.. . -. � . ,..i.� ' I . . � . � �� . ."��_� ... . � .. ',, ti Y4 yya . i�`.- , .. - �` . , ; :_ � =��, � . �' -., ,� �:- - `. �'�- �' "+i�, �lr � ':�} ' . � �mA r` ' i ��a �G � #, � ` - - .. f , .:: , _. , � '4�, '=„ . 1`�� - -, - , .. -- � . �r �,;. - . ;� : :.vr , ' ,. . , , ' , ' _�'� ' � i� � :l� :. . ' . � ;.;.� . i} .�., �� . w'`�� r, O�`.I A I' i��` ' �� ' f.l I�� . . .4 "1 , _ A � .. - . . . � f � � , t �' . � � �•�R� � , � � _ � � ,# , �;� , �� '' . . . . ,. n , . _ � ,. _ ,�r , ' ;,� ^ - � � • . , , � #�C t �; e` ' � e rt , ,. �•c :, - � �; � _r � � ��w „ _ J , : � . • ^ .. .,k .•-, �ta d' •'�. . . _ . .. . �ti! . ff :� �'. � . .} , �,,k . ' � _, .• �` . .�f' �!`'. v . .. - . . : �� . . . ._ . .,. �.: � . ' � i � �: ,.. ��;., d. : � �,,. �: : : .f� , � — � �'� . � � ' r , . � _ � . � .. , 4 .. .. . ' • . - �� . . , � ' y�`�' �;,� �� i4�� ,L �1+-',� l�.�r�;�.., . - �. ` .;Ll-'" . � +� *�. is„ . . . 4 . . . - �. , � . �_'� � � y'+i_'4 �� •;, 1 �' �. . - � ��'� .. `:�. � � � � �',�� *�� . , � _ ., { -13'�4, _ �i. ' ., ti �� _ ,,�1�,t - , 4' � `� ,� � + .. , . , � ... . r�,i'.-y� � q . � � �. - i , ._ , '477 . a ',� { .:i . 4.��t . .� y�� .,� , a - ,. � 1 1..! ..: � _ �,�`•4 .. r � � . . � LT _ y} � 4�y1 . ' � y�� , ,� ,,.Y .. JI '�i ` +,1. , ti. ' � � � W, �w "M� .�a.. �; . • 9�� . � � � � - � . . � i � y . t `j � ... JT . '��: F � �(�,� � � �� • '. - �� _ - .. � ..a :: .' .. �r �:;� °,, ��...-"1t� ti . , , , ', :. �, R , .. ; .. � . , . , � . ,,, ; : , . �, - _ , _. . . _ ., . ;. .:;., ��: ��"E CBCC...3 G� ; Department of Transportation � gridge No. 326 � TIP No. 17BP10R111 Study Area '_- .�.- NCDOT Division 10 Bridge No. 326 Replacement TIP No. 17BP10R111 Project Limits over Stumplick Branch NCDOT TIP No.17BP.10.R.111 Rivers & Streams Union County, North Carolina Study Area Map November 2018 Service La er Credits: NC Center for Geo ra hic - �.. �S ' ,;p� � i ; �, LL�:^'�. _ . 500 � Feet �� r�,a � � +� � � � -� �,+�r 6 -ti � - �,, 1 �� 2" '� � � ..� ` •� s*�E'�{" ' ~ �� `. t� � .� �`� � ' �4� � .��i + '��s � � "y� . � , � w: s+� � � „ o � � .''� � �'iI�y � �y, s-. ^ ,�� ' � ��` * �� ti "� .� �.r " ^C-0 - '�\" �` y. � • � : � 'a�M,° `�� . `s r ` '`- `~ ,� ? . t E:..- �- ��"�`.; ''�, `. . -.,�'.ti�' �, � .-i,, • �.�i�'1�`" f'.. � ' ��i "��` �� _ , � *,� �� L=. :,:• r - �.:. r. +� :: �, �: E • u.. ,� . � +,� 1 �. � � . 4 ti` r` �- r�' � , ='�l� , � `, �1',:' . }��.� `K ''�� . � . �ti . .y,�' � ^at �o..,"� '� ..�, .-�� _�.k �,. ..,.� .. �� .;7r�a �}� _ . .ii -; � ,� �, :,� ' ., , ' � ' - . �i4: '�: �C " j� � °>; �.� �� r��. i rr- # � � - r . � �"�e � 4"� �� - �4 �. � w., . .. . yy ��►�. f� � 0. �'�. ' . � . -t #�� _. '� �� • �� ,. ' :i-�n . � :. ' �y . �e' ��'� 'b�e . a . ,-. • � � � ��s � _ +,r+��" ; '+1�y� •�"y°� � '� � 4 S'.x' �,x �`, E" ��, rL � ,,y�} � '�a ;,� � �' s�`�`�'� '��".', , '�VF 4 3�� :. � '� ��' �'i'. s . � � � � � _ {� ( }� � " . • ��' i : o- �� . • �i ` ' � Y. � Y�� ,. v�.. 1' 'y j �,.� ��yyy,,, 4 ,.. ' � .�:r . iy7 � � q A � 'i ` . w � . } i� �'� � ? � �� y. . 4' ' fr . "� r ' 4 � • t i e . �. , , l , , .. , . �... . � . ' , � . . � .L ..,., ✓: ; . ' : : . �. . 4 0 � .. � � e _ ,: `�"y{: � • .��. tiy`,�s' y' +� �� `" ;.. • ;�'.•. ,, � `� �� , R . wit� �� ' T, y� • �. k� �� . R� •~ �:'� + - �'' �` ,� � • - � ,� t �� ^��. +; e # ��;�'t' ;� ,,, � '�'� �' ' ti �� F = � ti�, �,'h Y:. �� y 1 � b " :� , Y�l� ,, �+� �e.'4� . . �'4. �r �� . � I �•�+ ''t.. � ,t ,y;ti-„�! .. � 4 .�{.o--.'" r. �•��-� ` � ��'• �" �. 1.1. ti:Vs �� X�,,. �� _�� 4� y ,. �,. '� ^ IF �' ` r 5 �� i �' 1 � ., � . � t 4 � �� `�,'� � ' r�_ �.• t� � a .�,5� . ,�� `_�' , �. �,�� . � : ,k w ' � � ,4, c; ` -�� \ � . "�� 4', x; . �'%� �'��u�� `�.�'��` ��' '-. _ �w� - s , ,,N;. T" � �.� v, l•."�� •.: Y .�' '.-� h .'S' ��4�� ;�� 9 . � _ • �� `.� �G i �`� � 'k: 2 �F ..� , :� ��`1ti� � � ` � 'i''-�� ' � �y � � � � � - _..� • � _ ,n _�� v� '��3 � e�+ l �i ,: '•�s �� . �.. , :� 4 � l } \. � � t�• - � i - �— — - — — r� ; — i � Cabarrus i � � � � County , �Stanl y �� Montgomery � � County County Mecklenbur� ' , , ! County � „ �� -�, ) , , _ ,. . _��.� Y� � \-, i �_ Anson � Richmond , " Union County County ; � councy � `� � Project � � � viciniry _ _ _ _ , _ '4 Appendix B 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Appendices U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SAW-2018-01851 County: Union U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Bakers NOTIFICATION OF NRISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Property Owner: North Carolina Deuartment of Transportation Mr. Larry Thompson Address: 716 W. Main Street Albemarle, NC 28001 Telephone Number: 704-301-4881 E-mail: lthompson(a�ncdot.�ov Size (acres) 18 acres Nearest Town Monroe Nearest Waterway Richardson Creek River Basin Rockv River USGS HUC 030501013 Coordinates Latitude: 35.052525 Longitude: -80.536734 Location description: Roanoke Church Road and Stumulick Branch Creek, north of Monroe, in Union Countv, NC. Indicate Which of the Following Applv: A. Preliminary Determination � There appear to be waters on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The waters have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation maps, Figures 1-3, dated 8/1/2018. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. ❑ There appear to be waters on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the waters have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters at the project area, which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps. B. Approved Determination ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ❑ There are waters on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ❑ We recommend you have the waters on your project area/properiy delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps. ❑ The waters on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly suggest you have SAW-2018-01851 this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years. ❑ The waters have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. ❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808-2808 to determine their requirements. Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Ms. Nicholle Braspennicks at 704-510-0162 or Nicholle.M.B raspennickx(�a,usace. armv. mil. C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary iurisdictional determination form dated 10/12/2018. D. Remarks: None. E. Attention USDA Program Participants This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work. F. Appeal5 InfOPmatiOn (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B. above) This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address: US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer 60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable. **It is not necessary to submit an RFA fnrm to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.** DigiWlly signed by � MATfHEWS.MONlE.K128C86]633 n 7 j DN: c=US, o=U.S. Governmenl, ou=DOD, ou=Pq, C��S 1�Vgula�0� O�rClal. ou=USP,m=MATiHEWS.MONTE.K1]04861633 jl oa�e: zoie.io.iz izsssz oa•oo• Date of JD: 10/12/2018 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable SAW-2018-01851 The Wilmington District continue to do so, please is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm ape�f?p=136:4:0 AW-2018-0185l NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: North Carolina Department of � File Number: SAW-2018-01851 � Date: 10/12/2018 Attached is: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Permit or Letter of See Section below I� : 0 0 � PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permissi PERMIT DENIAL APPROVED JURISDICTTONAL DETERMINATION PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION SECTION I- The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatorvPro�ramandPermits.aspx or the Coros re�ulations at 33 CFR Part 331. A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirery, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. SAW-2018-01851 E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record. POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION: If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may appeal process you may contact: also contact: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer Attn: Ms. Nicholle Braspennickx CESAD-PDO Charlotte Regulatory Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division U.S Army Corps of Engineers 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15 8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Charlotte, North Carolina 28262 Phone: (404) 562-5137 RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day notice of an site investi ation, and will have the o ortunit to artici ate in all site investi ations. Date: Telephone number: Signature of appellant or agent. For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to: District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Ms. Nicholle Braspennickx, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to: Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Phone: (404) 562-5137 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 10/12/2018 B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Mr. Larry Thompson, 716 W. Main Street, Albemarle, NC 28001 C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, NC DOT/SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Rd.), Bridge 326, over Stumplick Creek, SAW-2018-01851 D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Roanoke Church Road and Stumplick Branch Creek, north of Monroe, in Union County, NC. (USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES) State: NC County: Union City: Monroe Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.052525 Longitude: -80.536734 Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Richardson Creek E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): � Office (Desk) Determination. Date: September 28, 2018 ❑ Field Determination. Date(s): TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WffiCH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY JURISDICTION. Estimated amount of Geographic authority to Type of aquatic aquatic resources in which the aquatic resource Site Number Latitude (decimal Longitude (decimal review area (acreage resources (i.e., ��may be" subject (i.e., degrees) degrees) wetland vs. non- and linear feet, if Wetland waters) Section 404 or Section applicable 10/404) Stumplick 35.052482 -80.536744 511 linear feet Non-wetland 404 Branch Stream A-I 35.053547 -80.538374 282 linear feet Non-wetland 404 Stream A- 35.053015 -80.537256 514 linear feet Non-wetland 404 P Stream B 35.052587 -80.536282 213 linear feet Non-wetland 404 1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate. 2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information: SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply) Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where indicated far all checked items: � Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor: Figures 1-3, from Three Oaks Engineering, dated August 2018. � Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor. � Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale: ❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ❑ Corps navigable waters' study: ❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ❑ USGS NHD data. ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: ❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: ❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s): ❑ FEMA/FIRM maps: ❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929) ❑ Photographs: ❑Aerial (Name & Date): or ❑Other (Name & Date): ❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: � Other information (please specify): Stream Stumplick Branch flows to Richardson Creek which flows to Rocky River. Rocky River, in turn, flows to the Pee Dee River, an interstate water of the U.S. Corps of Engineers regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a)(5) assert Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over tributaries to other waters of the U.S. Therefore, Stumplick Branch may be a water of the U.S. Streams A-I, A-P and B flow to Stumplick Branch. Therefore, Streams A-I, A-P, and B may be waters of the U.S. IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarilv been verified bv the Corqs and should not be relied uuon for later iurisdictional determinations. � Digitaltysignedby � MATIHEWS.MONIE.K.128066)633 DN: r—U5, o=U.S. Government, � ou=DOD,ou=CKl,ou=USP, � rn=MFTfHEWS.MONTE.K128486J 633 Da�e:2018.10.1] 13:SA:40-04'00' Signature and date of Regulatory staff inember completing PJD 10/12/2018 Signature and date of person requesting PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is impracticable)1 � Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an action. � / ~s . � ,. �. CiOY�i� \ / � y�i lk p� �`i \�� } 1 R e�. � : "P �� L.. k. �/ \l ^'� '�. S� .. � S � �� J �A . ' * � ^i}etTr % ��"'�_J"�,- � �} �,y,� �.,i - �'.r:� E. i,y/;� � i � �t�r� f a�� § �` � � � . . � 't .*��. ji :3�}T�,-,i� i v'R� i i, :,,� y �'i, -.�., � _. % � I x Y� f � ^K �ryp ��a Y,. � #�� r . Y �'� I �+ .•R. '►.. � �S � � s'r� � ��,`Mlb `.'py . � � , � � r C,` \ n�t6�filOP-- i }i.�+�. �,y, '� � .t. �r, +�r � 1,�. y,� �°, \�� ' i �.�,_��t �'T �4hy4 r J Ji� ; •'"'a.. �'� � ' A ...-.. t.s�.-i°'� 34�� '.. �. � y i � t�+ . " �' 'ti':°.. - - - ;r I I � n� � . � � � � . � I I � � � ` �n I I �y, _ ^� ? '--- ' ' O OpenStreetMap (and) � �;, contributors, CGBY-SA :r,,,�*,, , � � � � � � ,� � r � � � �---- r +�,�e�� ,�' . ,, �s ,.�, ,�,. 4 �; . .< � .�,. . . �---� , �K � , f + a � �` -�,^ ��, �� ..;_a �.^,'�� F� `�,.,' . � �.y, � � .-�,�.k ��` `�.: �A,�*'�.� �t �'�� , �• y a nW�' w. � �.. i. ., V� , ro � r s . .� � `rw x � �� . � r, a , .. � � �'`� °'.. �' s �� 9 rj;�� 7;s r'` � � . >> . r .�.-� 7,, ��- � w 1�'�`` W ,.,� ,. � A. t ,y . � 1 . 7 . �'p • '.S�' �'� � �A .�"a � f �� tfr ` J��A •S �F.�. l' ,� x� ..�s �� , �� . x w° '� 't � � � j �' `. � "'� � ), a � , r �;�> � ,�" � k � r Bndge 326 �� P�.�. � � �' ��,, , � t - i z � �l' � �4. FKi Y�. i`'�yV� .'1y '�' . ; � � ' . ? �, � *'�: :,r ra'� -�,, 7 ;� �� F� �, . : e � � � �� ' < , : �:` � �.�.a�,�'"�i,.*� �% , - � . .� , �: x enf_r .. � .,. ` . p:'• �;,.��. . . a �r� " r � ,,,, - � � �-" Roano��ke Church Rd ``«"�; � � . ., _ _ � "� - ? .�'; '� , . .�h,r: , � o " e- �. : . � r�-�—�— . _ ,�.� � � , � �;� l� r+i ; r ,�� r�+ • / k �� ' r . , ,�" ,�. / .... � .. . E ' �� n .,. MW, . -��t pp� / I �' '�` . yy" +� � :, r� � � .i ..,+' �r- � y �' 'i�!.,' s ��// / ' � � � �. ,. ./ IG".�� , � `� '` �g.,• ., ' ��y�� • . S•; � ' f�` �" � � v- � � . ;�..� , !f :.i j [ +�. . n , � r . .� ' i� -.-e •`, � ��"' , } f � �" , y � . . . . � . 9f ,, � , � ... y.� •,� .r---- � ''�' ; � , ��'`, � . �� . � ; ,,,,,�„ ,. �. ,r._ s � ,.,. �.. , . ��n r--1.. �" �� -.. �� _ � �� ; S r�--' , r �•� k ��...-.: �q� %'t' y �� , wj��a�.F�. ..� �� . -i/l� � � '-. F.� �"�'�` "'x` �y:� '�,, � '. t �. . ' F !�' �, � �� : �, �°Y�, . ` � �pt�` . �� .: A; + � r � � , `,,':, � .� ��(` ' r l � c ,yy` ,. �.' m .� �. "�'a 's..� . . . r+'�r' a ��, ��' y�� cp;F ��E � � �� ti' - f ^ �. U `� •. f .ar! �Q' '�Z��.{.S , � .q.'� t. +'� � "Y��R '=r �` �:+ A " � ' � i�� 'p� �- � ; ,�-. � y. y.. ` + 7�-Y�'4, � 0 Bridge 326 ''�+�..� :,� ' F P"''k T_ µ . � Road �':�� . ` +�� , � . ,' � r ' �,_�� , , . �� f'� Y;�w�•k.��..�.�. � �t�+,� �' la�,."�4-.�-� '� � � N H D Strea m .�,� '��'� �'�vs` .�� i�� . `� � • _'��'.''r� � � �' # � �� y d� a t . � ,.: yr.. - .. x�� +k�+A �• ,�. ;. � x\�. �i ,- 4 ; .: r'C `�` �'I��.� ,,� � ..,'�.!kh . .. - R C—� # ! -':... R � . _ � � C� NHD Lake/Pond ��,..� � • � - � ,,� w-- � �— .� s. a r �� . - ; - y � a �-r'> Ik : � '� y� ��r. �' '� + r�# „� � � �. . �� Stud Area ��' � � , �_ ? ° � ' y ,� ,, '� „�� ,�' , Y .,�_ �---� �� ` . r�,� a �,� N � - '�, � ' Count Bounda � � : � a .�" � "_ � �_—_� Y rY �,��f .,� `' �� , C Cente�;ior Geographic'kl�ormation & An,alysis c�G��E��'�� Prepared For: �'.l� � 4 . a� r� e q y �� , O `P � � � p9� � f x �� $Y N�4] ]��°' �£y� F tA��S�a Replacement of Bridge 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch 17BP.10.R.111 Project Vicinity Map Union County, North Carolina oate: August 2018 Scale: 0 250 500 Feet I i I Job No.: 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure ��1NE�RIyG. _ y 0 � w � � 0 ��y/ ��''� �3�l11 Prepared For: �. `� ,'� � � p v � � �� t �� r aF � ° Replacement of Bridge 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch 176P.10.R.111 Topographic Map Union County, North Carolina Date: August 2018 Scale: 0 50 100 Feet i � i Job No.: 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure r=+��! �'�`="� `_ � - , '� , _�� I' . :Y . ._._... h .� . .. � � � � ` ' =,�'�'; ` , �, . �,�, ,�� _ =ti,�� , � . a�tnl ... �.x� .. . • .h- , ,'�� qti,. 1-�� v.t� �e t L 4 r F :'r�, ? j�,° �a 1;+� 9pr ,= ' v '� '^A,.� � �;.', � x � 7,p y* � � . ; hs,k*,� r � . `� „4 r a � a� -.• � '�iy,� 4 . . � « .� . �t 3�� .y�1 � . � � ��l +� *+ � � . � ry .* . ,� �+ Wp r`t '•. � '�.,fi �� t� rk�j�+�'c ��it�, � .idi � c'� ��r;,>�# w�. ,� �� 4 .:'y �'.fw4� 4 c °%�`�: . `� ��.�'" } .�fiq � �. �r '` ^ { 1�*"y S - �y^ �d * �•�{'R .." �� C ? � �� r� .. ,,�� .w .� . y , � � �" ��• � �::%f ,• y ` � .�* . '� �`s • �� "� �.� '� . ��! f • ��ti r . , ' , -�'r,4, � f.�` '� '� " �'#t" � '� a ." ,�, ` .� � � y-� r�� '� �, ..'�'�,�}'3�,�',�'' �� y�; � 7 .q� ` °� � �.. \1t � �'�( '��4.a ��: � �,.� � nb`nt '�l "p �+'��,� `� _� r �. ;�•""" �ti `� �� ti i� � - � '- , : '� � � �i,. � � . � r �,� ' � �, t:, 1� " ,�.;�' '��..� � � � �� -�� ,�4.5� ti. � ., ..� � . �'°"�,�� ,� �- r;-,�"" ` � � � " �'��►�, � k �� * � � ^,� � ,: � ,� � � -s ,,, �'_ � � y � �r'4d�+1`_.'y� Rfi ffir � n � 1l��..� �� .� � '�e ,�. �'iC� � . . � � ,� . . �'' � � ,�'","'.�"4 �' � � � � - � M "� 1 ,,� -"�'' r`'�, _� p'�`r �� .�- { �'��+"�`�. ��r�a'. � �� .� �.� LY x 's '} 3 ',.}* .. '�';.� � t ��_�7t. , . �i� '�� ,�.��'•'i,�j,� k �� ' ' 4` '� � � � 4 - t . i -. ; ., ;� �' +� , � ti,�y � # •,�-'`: � 4 ""+�, � p" �. r�4.�� , �`;y � � � d r� " y `,� �s �y� `, - � «�. �,'L'�,-'�� ,v2r"€�,°= s �,�`- �� p, } �� . '�t �Y'ti�� _a.�,'�-:� � ��. � �. ��"�;..*�'!r ��``� �, �'� r f � �'4 '�"` l�� ,,�; �'� �, , } , �� \..'� i� � ,. ' r� � •l �;�' �� £f�� ! � � • Mi y. �'i�� "'� �g,:``�pr� '• - � '� 1 � �� -�#' �^w • . � �'" �_ `f �.i k �y, > c:•'�, i�' w4 �• i., '+� ��.'k,� i".: •r � , � c� ,� � �:`. ��, } �^ , w� ""� t.. rr'' � .�, �, t.", �''f :t "3 `� ��'' � , � ,�tl� .ta � t 1� � -+,+' � ' M�',,,� -� � G �p . � SA �+,.''4� �•, �r� � A � ,. ' y t.. y. � �� a� i � i . MK }_'�' i ��i*. k��l ��Q,� $ - c .r�i:'4 � �' � �,. �1 . ,{ 'y _s�} � � C .'�T�� •'{�a.. ,'".1 .. ^V�i ��o. � ,�,�' ., t�' ( � � 4X�':i� �'i. \ • . � � ' �: �- yy i4 ' A� �a?�� ti ;u�-- ='a'3.. ` 1r` : � � ' `y7 '4. F ��,� ,I` 7. b . ��i' z � ..�'1 �' °7�� ' � ,w`-�, *x �,il( � } �' #'. � { �� +I�tr �i`. �. i�� +, y� �' . "Airy . , � � ;� �.. .,� - ��..:� � e� �- , '4;K st � ; -=,, 4 y"', s q d� �")� ;',L� ' c, �•. ` �� F . � � � � , < �., �� :�;�� ,.�. ��_ �� ^.[ y� .. 'L � SB ,F� +.�°t�` r . � � �` \ 4�- k �. , `�`� , °� � . * ,� �� , :�,� � �►'� . .� �' ��} :�, ,,'Stumplick BranchY �,:; .,1� �` y �*�'��''� �`' ' �'4: �, �` . : ,� , r .. * . ,,,� c ,. . ,�1R�� r;,,..� ' .,a.1�1��} g' +�,rti �+ ' � i-�,. ''� �- � Roanoke Church Rd # �� "� �.N �. � "�,' a i.. ,�� " ' - r� " , . . _. �� -+,. � y ' - - 1 � � �'� `�`� �J` �Bridge 326 � _ � . � ._ ' �,' . � �� R�`+„ A- �� .Y �� . � . � xY ' �N- t � � �e r �.� �`�� .e 0 Bridge 326 Potential Perennial Stream Potential Intermittent Stream Road � Study Area ��., � �, � �r .� . � �� ,, � y+ t i � d .,* + `-�� ji .. 1� � y . �_ �`� .� �� , � t'' ,,. � .� . � ; .�, �� , �L��:. . � � ,�� ; ��;� ' �� . w •� , a � # �; � � �� '� � �' � a� H� � �i, �; '•�,: ;:. for Geographic Information &Analysis ��G1HEfRly�r y v 1•TL F•i+ � � `�'��33l�1`��'�' Prepared For: xoar� e 9 /� 9 i� �� +�Q 4 �� x 9� � �x :� �£y� F tA��S�v . Replacement of Bridge 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch 17BP.10.R.111 Jurisdictional Features Map Union County, North Carolina Date: August 2018 Scale: 0 50 100 Feet i � i Job No.: 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure Apnendix C 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Appendices NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Replacement of Bridge No. 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch Union County, North Carolina WBS Element No. 17BP.10.R.111 ��oF r�aRrN �� . I,� �� ,, � � �a � �� Q� TgaNSe� THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Highways — Highway Division 10 October 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS lAINTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................1 3.0 PROTECTED SPECIES ........................................................................................................1 3.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ....................................................................1 3.2 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................2 4.0 WATER RESOURCES AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..............................3 4,1 Water Resources �: 4.2 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S ................................................................................3 4.3 Construction Moratoria ...................................................................................................4 4.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules .........................................................................................4 4,5 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters .................................................4 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................5 Appendix A. Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Project Study Area Map Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map Appendix B. Qualifications of Contributors Appendix C. Mussel Survey Report LIST OF TABLES Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Union County .........................................1 Table 2. Potential streams in the study area .............................................................................. 3 Table 3. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area ....................... 3 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum ProjectNo. 17BP.IO.R.111, Union Countv, N.C. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch in Union County, NC (Figures 1-2). The following Natural Resources Technical Memorandum (NRTM) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a State Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist (MCDC) in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 2.0 METHODOLOGY This investigation was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental Coordination and Permitting's (ECAP) Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and references the latest ECAP NRTR Template (November 2017). Field work was conducted on January 16, 2018, September 5, 2018, and September 25, 2018. Potential jurisdictional areas identified in the study area are expected to be verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). It is anticipated that the USACE will cover the potential features associated with this project under a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD). The principal personnel contributing to the field work and document are provided in Appendix B. 3.0 PROTECTED SPECIES 3.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species As of June 27, 2018, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Union County (Table 1). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area. Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Union County Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological Status Present Conclusion Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Yes No Effect Rhus michauxii* Michaux's sumac E Yes No Effect Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E Yes No Effect E — Endangered * Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago) Carolina heelsplitter USFWS optimal survey window: year-round Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter exists within the study area. Therefore, a mussel survey was performed by Three Oaks biologists Tom Dickinson and Nancy Scott on September 25, 2018. Please see the attached mussel survey report (Appendix C) for survey details. October 2018 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Pro�ect No. 17BP.IO.R.111, Union Countv, N.C. Michaux's sumac USFWS optimal survey window: May-October Biological Conclusion: No Effect The USFWS lists this species as a historic record for Union County, NC. However, suitable habitat (e.g., dry, clayey, early successional roadsides and utility rights-of- way) for Michaux's sumac is present within the study area. Therefore, surveys for Michaux's sumac were conducted on September 5, 2018; no plants were found. A review of the July 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known Michaux's sumac occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Schweinitz's sunflower USFWS optimal survey window: late August-October Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat (e.g., dry, clayey, early successional roadsides and utility rights-of- way) for Schweinitz's sunflower is present within the study area. Therefore, surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted on September 5, 2018; no plants were found. A review of the July 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known Schweinitz's sunflower occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Northern long-eared bat Since this project is state-funded, the USACE will act as the lead agency for issues related to the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Therefore 4(d) does not apply. The USACE has developed a Standard Local Operating Procedure for Endangered Species (SLOPES) to address NLEB when they are the lead agency, which NCDOT will follow for this project. The requirements of the SLOPES for NLEB will be completed prior to Let and will be submitted to USACE. Survey/assessment data will be provided by Three Oaks; additional project- and design-related information will be provided by Division 10. 3.2 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of the project limits, was performed on January 15, 2018, using the most currently-available orthoimagery. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the July 2018 NCNHP database revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. October 2018 2 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum ProjectNo. 17BP.IO.R.111, Union Countv, N.C. 4.0 WATER RESOURCES AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Water Resources Water resources in the study area are part of the Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrologic Unit [HUC] 03040105). Three potential streams were identified in the study area (Table 2). The locations of these streams are shown on Figure 3. Table 2. Potential streams in the study area NCDWR Bank Bankfull Best Usage Depth Stream Name Map ID Number Classi�cation H f� t �f th (in) Stumplick Stumplick 13-17-36- wS-III 4-6 6-12 3-14 Branch Branch 9-4 Unnamed Tributary (UT) SA 13-17-36- WS-III 1-2 3-4 1-6 to Stumplick 9-4 Branch UT to 13-17-36- Stumplick SB 9_4 WS-III 1-2 3-4 0 Branch There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply Watersheds (WS-I ar WS-II), trout waters, designated anadromous fish waters, Primary Nursery Areas (PNA), or impaired streams listed on the North Carolina 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters within or within 1.0 mile of the project study area. No potential surface waters (i.e., tributaries, ponds, or basins) were identified in the study area. 4.2 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. Three potential jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 3). The location of these streams is shown on Figure 3. NCDWR stream identiiication forms and North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) forms are included in a separate PJD package. These potential streams have been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation. Table 3. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area Map ID Length Classification Compensatory River Basin (ft.) Miti ation Re uired Buffer Stum lick Branch 511 Perennial Yes Not Sub�ect SA-I 282 Intermittent Undetermined Not Sub'ect SA-P 514 Perennial Yes Not Sub�ect SB 231 Intermittent Undetermined Not Sub�ect Total 1,538 October 2018 3 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Proiect No. 17BP.IO.R.111, Union Countv, N.C. No potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Figure 3). 4,3 Construction Moratoria No moratoria are recommended at this time. 4.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules This project is located in the Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin; therefore, streamside riparian zones within the study area are not currently protected under provisions of any Riparian Buffer Rules administered by NCDWR. 4,5 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters There are no streams within the study area designated by the USACE as a Navigable Water under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. October 2018 4 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Proiect No. 17BP.IO.R.111, Union Countv, N.C. 5.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory.1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksbttrg, Mississippi. Environmental Laboratory.1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual, memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams. NC Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources.2018. Fina12016 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water% 20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303d/2016/2016 NC_Category_5_303d list.pdf. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP).2018. Natural Heritage Data Explorer [Web Application]. NCDNCR, Raleigh, NC. Available at www.ncnhp.org. (Accessed September 13, 2018). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0, ed. J. F. Berkowitz, J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).1996. Soil Survey of Union County, North Carolina. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).2017. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.1 L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/plant_survey.html. (Accessed September 13, 2018). USFWS. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Union County. Updated June 27, 2018. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/union.html. USFWS. Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).2011. Updated November 2012. https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/listed species/Carolina heelsplitter.html. USFWS. MichauY's sumac (Rhus michauxii).2017. https : //www. fws. gov/raleigh/species/es_michaw�s_sumac.html. USFWS. Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).2017. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_schweinitz sunflower.html. October 2018 5 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Proiect No. 17BP.IO.R.111. Union Countv. N.C. United States Geological Survey (USGS).1971. Tradesville, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (1:24,000 scale). Weakley, Alan S. (Working Draft of September 2015). Flora of the Southern and Mid- Atlantic States. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), North Carolina Botanical Garden. Chapel Hill, NC. 1,320 pp. October 2018 6 Appendix A Figures October 2018 f ��iT;e r;',3t l � •,,s" j�z3�1 T�;:�I _i 0 {,harlrqQ.. J^� �t' I I � I � I � I I I � I I � � -------- — �--- O OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA � �_ r �_ ��'�1 �f 1i1 �+Y Vt ��, �1 . ..�� 'ih �i+�� . ., � ,�, �� ; Y z� �,,• '� .� t g � � . �. : �'�� ' T'' � `M 4 4 , �µ �'..�lFl=,. *�.'�� . a 4. ��. �,'`- �� r. j. . . �.�� `��• ^�i.` ` ,�. r�L<o- . . � �� } �',�,�w.:.•'�» ;,A � � .i'��,�`�I.o� � �� e.. '��` .�"�,',-" F r' /�'��`` „j� �e.' � � ��'s, -0.�.-f-�r.�`�,5'� � �a�. �i'. � - � � � � � � q+r.p �: ` .., +e ,T �` .r , � rvr �. a,; , . • r..� ., ,;�,dr„� ��' r .�e ':.. .�► �k ` . s .e..'s, a,. �:-.. r ,x,s` � �.: . '�� 4 �' f— . ' �C• � � ��c a31+ Y ,�y ��.. . , � ,�.:. 4 r��3t , f..+ '��»�j E� i�1„�.+�Cy t' '{�:: � �� J `w {� F -�. s � � � .. a r .. ' "s,�." i' a ° �. y'% � r � ��° � g �:�.r � i �� ` �Y Y'v.k �� 4�� .1 ,� ' +_t�� . �* t .. ,,,n d p� `n' . aJ w4 },�' ia > -ti, ` � ., r � .s S"t C#�.'. �. p � �, +� . �,�, ,, � �tis .. +� �I � . � � .. � '�� . � Bridge 326 �� ; � � � � � ` _ � � ��.�r�b�� , � . 4 "� * �,� , � . ,� '' �; " ,� `"`- ,;, ' _ � + "�� er'"' � . = a.."`�w� "` - . �' � . �� '�� r, . . N."� . �, _ , ; ' � _ �'R � a ` , p-'' Roanoke4Church Rd �"*�`a o 4 � � � •. �r . � .r-�-----'� ��, �.^ �. _ . � � � .� � � �..�`. � � ��i. c.> �n � Y�� ' , .. � '�!� �� ,. � y� � � F � ` �� IF . �PT��r .:�y `� .,�'t"" �t° r`� � r � , �` 6.�,,� � ! �'''„� , _+ �-.�-: `��-i y �y,. , f. , ^� � j�yg�� " r �L�• �•'i� ' "!�!�`� �� _.. .,_�. x . r �C' X `.t_' � si'� � I�� . .. �� 4y., �# . a �-------"r'I � '�R'.�. ♦�, V� �M1�! �a j. Y � � �p. � �...�- �-..��;r � �� # ��. � � � fr, _;.,;�; � ' � �"'=,;� :� � ��. � � 4, �: - . y1�,'� '�i � r� ��:1� �91�'� . " �� ; �� y . . ` ��, � �'� U � � �{�ti� �p � t � , �.�s �. � �' �;. _ 0 Bridge 326 Road NHD Stream NHD Lake/Pond � Study Area �_ _� County Boundary ` a�1. j1 �� •,:•... i�i� �S r� �'�� "_ f � T . y �,� .�, . � � �',� " -? `, p �P . . ' ,'� �9t*'.y'�.� . P- � •+"' � . ��` µ. , p � "'�' ,+i• ,. ' -f �� _,�'�U`,` � �.. '�""4 �i�►'+�... .,K.,;' .__ i'• ' 4 � `-'�R",-y '"+v{.. �� 1� � 'a�:*: � , . . µ � :..#,r (; , �'t-� +d: '� 'v.� _ �'i��.�`' . ,� �R� . �` a �e � ��1�; �� r`� � • ��F.--� r�, � .r.� � . .f'�, �'� � � t :�+p�Y r+„�1P •�,,, ,� f — � �. ,�� " .,�.' "" r - --=. �\ 'r * �.r'�. � ,'��'r,r,�F �C r: i� � y` �} f �. �¢, � � ,� �* ��r• � � � z� �`' �e � � -_ � '� :�•., �p' � A ;-�` ��r�� ' . k : � '� -• '" �r .�i�'�" ' - NC Center"for Geograplii,c lnformation &-Analysis .s (_�[�.'�E�Rf�`e Prepared For: � �3 �� J` �'" q �^�IY a C9 � � Q r3 � � � y � YY � � � �� `.I'7'` t. � � F �a� co �rr�v � 3 CI��f Replacement of Bridge 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch 17BP.10.R.111 Project Vicinity Map Union County, North Carolina oate: August 2018 Scale: 0 250 500 Feet i � i Job No.: 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure 0 Bridge 326 Potential Perennial Stream Potential Intermittent Stream � Study Area USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, National Elevation Dataset, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; U.S. Census Bureau - TIGER/Line; HERE Road Data � ��1'�EfR1ye� v ��` ��," �� rV � �� Prepared For: xoArq O' �: CqB Q r3 e ,� 1' Y= �� 4a � go � �F �qH Replacement of Bridge 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch 17BP.10.R.111 Jurisdictional Features Map Union County, North Carolina oate: August 2018 Scale: 0 100 200 Feet i � i Job No.: 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure _- . »_ _ - ---�-��__ � =�--�.+..�� - t �,. t , �•r � ` �` � �' � �; �- ;� ��` r��`,t�� ' n � �' ` � � � � Sa �,. 2� , .. . � �.��1', a# � _'y; 1M, ,�. . y�" , s, -^� i` . « � <� y , y , � `'� ,� , t ` * '�', � �' �,,�y " •. '+` �y'. �:, r, 4 � a. . �oa� i ��' �T '�' �, `�t.�'�t � �, �,� �� ., TM. � ,�, . * ' „�- �-�� -... ,.. . � ..,,� � C � r74 � , �� " � wt �, F '" .,'� �, � � '� �" w�` 1 �. �7 y .. �. }� >►r `"'�'"• ,� . �' '� �-�''� a � ., T .• �.�_ v,�',*�+y-,�>: . '° � ; ,%.k �� Ar"t � , i1. . l� vy h1�� 7Yp,� 7� 'r }•,�,+y� ,(� ` �y �S� '` i ' F i • '� A= '�„�'s°�`. . , � �, � i ,,` c��+y�,4, � �� +� � r .,} , � � `,��f� � � � I�� y�g S,� �'{ �� r: �� ,.�h,� '�.,! yw�7t y� 5`_. s�h4�.� � :14�!� �' ��"�z� �;h4 �� .. ; "r ax 7 '.•C � �k �� r .av 'k ��p^ ,;� ,��4.ak� � ��-# -5, 4^ v+ � .� &'. � +� �� ` �� i]� ,�. + '�=� �'�}T ,�. l�`�... � � � x ��.�i�� ks,*� +�. �,'"` '� , . 4 � �.: � •F^� � . � � ��'1+•14 S=�,a r9 " . �� 6 %:..., 1� .'�''.L . � �,� ' ,j� �t ��' ! � � '� . r Y �1��' a6� �1 � y} y �. : ', 'kt H � ��.:i' '�8' :L,r T� ' � '1. r ` � � :�.�� _ � � , � . . " �° . . . ♦��'`� � fi- . . ,. +t4 ' ' . .� ,_ - . � �. . .r . , . . . .. � ... _ � . � �"`• J s �1,,. �• r � � �a �« s. , � e � � . � � 7� ; i ` .., � � � . i, � t . Y.TM z . � a� �i � � y,. �y,,, %i, .,1� , . � , � ' • 7�s � i�]� ��• + �.� � lig �t r }i ��'7 s � �'# � ,,.,� � }.h. � � � �'Y`r� 4 y �.� � � 'L �� `' . . � :�� '. � � ��F +� -A � � � y `"' ^�.. �n��1 � Y *-�L. � r3'� �' a�va ��,r ��" fk � �, .,�• � �` . '� . �s,�'r,- �,�r,�, � '�: �"�1 � „ '�{�,6 ,�' '�. ' �' ��:° 4'�.a °�. ^ � ^1� � i �� ` � °"u , . r �m �, �. �"" �"�. ,. y ' � '"��^�'� `` �``�..,�_; � �'°� r.,�. •� �� , ,� �,; �, , r � ,� _ , ,�. + � � �r. ¢; �. ' ' � ` "4ti � �` ` �' �s. w, �� '"� •,� ,:t � SA +�'� ��'4` ; � ��`. `�,�y�"��. �, �v-�5., � ;.y� �il-.'}? . �, �� y ��• �"7�3.,_ k�-�y�+ � �' : ��„x � #.a;�R. � '� �� \�I. � r . � �� .P. �y��'�,�X' ��" � � -. .�,�� ..� F�'-a E��. ` � kn . t�.,, ti'� Y fd � � � i�y�k G Y . ws� � � � f� � ��' � . � ; '� _. t � ',� . �4� • i .R r �J . • � y�,:. 4 � � � � � .. { � y ! � � '� �. �' � �.,c� � '9 � � ` �� ' � �� ' d y y "'ti �a; . s'�.�, +7F�Y,�T.. 'i ,'� , � r" � - + �� ; �.:'k ti�. l��,x��/� ��.�..,� • � "�' • . . � z� pav'-... � 'T .�1 y� .SB � .'�� , ' ♦ ,� � y • er � >. iy .� + . ., .�.. �'�'�� , r N- .�,��w ��ty �.r�� .: i� � R� ` �`Stumplick Branch •.�� , � '� n� ,' �. s'dr�� . c-: �� - r^ '',� ..."�: t F^ -... {y�_ .� � ;• , r ` � �4`� ,�:s,;. `z ' � Roanoke Church Rd ' �``� � .. . -. __. � ti _ � '`� :. � � 'w'�'� � �. F : �'s � � 1�� 1 �' . y �. . `1 � , * � ��'¢�% .. � Y _ � . f.., .. r�' ,, d. � ,- . _ .. f. ,;; , - ,�; . �;° Bridge 326 � �5; f s�qAT �� i *, i•� �� h �'�� . a4�y� .. Y. -..L n �' ��. � a.*�� Bridge 326 Potential Perennial Stream Potential Intermittent Stream Road � Study Area 6 � " � '' f - 1 f +' PA �� t .� �. ��; { �• e ! f�� + i .r '�w��` � 'J� '� � ^' , 4 � y � :� �„"�,,,g : �; � ; ° . ; �,` ,, ,�' �� ' � , � �:► R�` 4 :�� ' for Geographic Information &Analysis � ��1'�EfR1ye� v ��` ��," � � �'y � �rr�v � 3 CI�-J�7 Prepared For: xoArq O' �: CqB Q r3 e ,� 1' Y= ��, � �,� � go � �F �qH Replacement of Bridge 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch 17BP.10.R.111 Jurisdictional Features Map Union County, North Carolina oate: August 2018 Scale: 0 50 100 Feet Job No.: I i I 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure Appendix B Qualifications of Contributors Principal Investigator: Education: Experience: Chris Sheats B.S. Botany, North Carolina State University, 2002 Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-March 2018 Environmental Biologist, The Catena Group, 2005-2015 Staff Scientist, Arcadis G&M, 2003-2005 Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, T&E surveys Investigator: Nathan Howell Education: B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina State University, 2013 M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, 2015 Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-Present Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations and document preparation Investigator: Lizzy Stokes-Cawley Education: B.S. Conservation Biology, St. Lawrence University, 2011 M.E.M. Water Resources, Duke University, 2016 Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, Apri12017-Present Responsibilities: Document preparation Investigator: Kate Montieth Sevick Education: M.S. Natural Resources Sciences, University of Rhode Island, 2004 B.A. Biology, Reed College, 2000 Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, Apri12015-Present Environmental Specialist and Graphics Coordinator, The Catena Group, 2004-2015 Responsibilities: GIS mapping Investigator: James Mason Education: M.S. Biology/Ecology, LTNC-Charlotte 2004 B.A. Biology, Colby College, 2000 Experience: Environmental Senior Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, Apri12018- Present Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2006-2018 Responsibilities: Document review and preparation October 2018 Investigator: Jacob Rosemond Education: B.A. Environmental Science Western Carolina University 2017 Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, June 2018-Present Responsibilities: Document review and preparation, T&E surveys Investigator: Mary Frazer Education: M.E.M Resource Ecology, Duke University B.S. Zoology, University of Wisconsin Experience: Environmental Specialist, Three Oaks Engineering, July 2015-Present Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2000-2015 Environmental Specialist, Wisc. Coastal Mgt Program, 1996-2000 Water Regulation Specialist, Wisconsin Dept Natural Resources, 1994- 1996 Biologist, Soil and Environmental Consultants, 1992-1994 Responsibilities: T & E Surveys October 2018 Appendix C Mussel Survey Report October 2018 Freshwater Mussel Survey Report Replacement of Bridge No. 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Creek WBS Element # 17BP.l0.Rll 1 Union County, North Carolina � �. � � �:� �; . ` � k�� y e. �� ,: �'� .�,+�°Rr �.�"' -- ?• �k�' . k %:_"L � �a ,'; � t J J� .., ,: . �i y. ' .�_�. r.._ ...._ .._ '� � �. rnnr.+r+� c� �� { � — t �� , �� ^� . �..�. ;�. � •;. '��,. - � _;�.. � Prepared For: RU� N T ! f � NC Department of Transportation Contact Person: Larry Thompson Environmental Supervisor North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways — Division 10 lthompson(a�ncdot.gov 716 W Main Street Albemarle, NC 28001 October 1, 2018 Stumplick Branch during the survey efforts Prepared by: ��E��ly�� eY��?l1`S`� 324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200 Durham, NC 27701 Contact Person: Tom Dickinson tom.dickinson a,threeoaksen ing eerin .g com 919-732-1300 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Waters Impacted .................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 303(d) Classification ........................................................................................................ 1 2.2 NPDES discharges ........................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Target Federally Protected Species Descriptions ................................................................ 2 3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter) .................................................................... 2 3.1.1. Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 2 3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 2 3.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Other Target Species Descriptions ....................................................................................... 5 4.1 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe) ................................................................................. 5 4.1.1. Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 5 4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 5 4.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 6 4.1.4. Species Listing .......................................................................................................... 6 5.0 Survey Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Stumplick Branch ............................................... 6 5.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6 5.2.1. Mussel Surveys ......................................................................................................... 6 6.0 Results ..................................................................................................................................7 6.1.1. Mussel Survey Results .............................................................................................. 7 7.0 Discussion/Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 7 8.0 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix A. Figures: Figure 1: Project Vicinity & Survey Reach Figure 2: NCNHP Element Occurrences Figure 3: 303(d) Listed Streams and NPDES Discharges 1.0 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of bridge No. 326 over Stumplick Branch on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) in Union County (Appendix A, Figure 1). The project will impact Stumplick Branch of the Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin. The Federally Endangered Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Union County. The Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) is being considered for listing by the USFWS and is also known to occur in Union County. Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) for targeted species in approximate river miles (RM) from the project crossing. Data are from the NC Natural Heritage Program database (NCNHP 2018) most recently updated in July 2018 (Figure 2). Table 1. Element Occurrences EO EO Distance from First Last EO S ecies Name ID Waterbod crossin river miles Observed Observed Status* Carolina 21454 Goose Creek >50 August 1987 March 2017 C Heelsplitter Atlantic Pigtoe 22087 Goose Creek >50 July 1994 March 1998 C *: C-NCNHP Current; H —NCNHP Historic As part of the federal permitting process that requires an evaluation of potential project-related impacts to federally protected species, Three Oaks Engineering (Three Oaks) was contracted by NCDOT to conduct aquatic surveys targeting the Carolina Heelsplitter and Atlantic Pigtoe. 2.0 WATERS IMPACTED Stumplick Branch is located in the Rocky River subbasin (HUC# 03040105) of the Yadkin Pee Dee River basin. Stumplick Branch flows approximately 2.9 river miles (RM) to Stewarts Creek, which flows 1.3 RM to Lake Twitty. Lake Twitty flows approximately 2.2 RM to Stewarts Creek, which flows 0.4 RM to Richardson Creek. Richardson Creek flows 25.6 RM to Rocky River. Rocky River then flows 15.8 RM to Pee Dee River. 2.1 303(d) Classification Stumplick Branch is not on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources 2016 Final 303(d) list of impaired streams (NCDEQ 2016). The closest 303(d) listed stream is Stewarts Creek approximately 2.9 RM downstream of the subject bridge. Stewarts Creek is impaired for fair benthos (NCDEQ 2016, Figure 3). 2.2 NPDES discharges There are no NPDES dischargers upstream of the Stumplick Branch survey area. There are several NPDES discharges within a five-mile radius of the subject bridge. The closest NPDES Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 1 discharge is the John Glen Water Treatment Plant (Permit No. NC0080381), which is approximately 6.4 RM downstream of the subject bridge on Stewarts Creek (USEPA 2018, Figure 3). 3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS 3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter) 31.1. Species Characteristics The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), originally described as Unio decoratus by (Lea 1852), synonymized with the Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) (Conrad 1835, Johnson 1970), and later separated as a distinct species (Clarke 1985), is a federally Endangered freshwater mussel, historically known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee, Savannah, and possibly the Saluda River systems in South Carolina. The Carolina Heelsplitter is characterized as having an ovate, trapezoid-shaped, un-sculptured shell. The outer surface of the shell ranges from greenish brown to dark brown in color, with younger specimens often having faint greenish brown or black rays. The shell's nacre is often pearly white to bluish white, grading to orange in the area of the umbo (Keferl 1991). The hinge teeth are well developed and heavy and the beak sculpture is double looped (Keferl and Shelly 1988). Morphologically, the shell of the Carolina Heelsplitter is very similar to the shell of the Green Floater (Clarke 1985), with the exception of a much larger size and thickness in the Carolina Heelsplitter (Keferl and Shelly 1988). Prior to collections in 1987 and 1990 by Keferl (1991), the Carolina Heelsplitter had not been collected in the 20th century and was known only from shell characteristics. Because of its rarity, very little information of this species' biology, life history, and habitat requirements was known until very recently. Feeding strategy and reproductive cycle of the Carolina Heelsplitter have not been documented, but are likely similar to other native freshwater mussels (USFWS 1996). Nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies; a larval stage (glochidium) becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts, which must be present to complete their life cycle. Until recently, nothing was known about the host species(s) for the Carolina Heelsplitter (USFWS 1996, Bogan 2002). Starnes and Hogue (2005) identified the most likely fish host candidates (15 species) based on fish community surveys in occupied streams throughout the range of the Carolina Heelsplitter. McMahon and Bogan (2001) and Pennak (1989) should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology. 3.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements Currently, the Carolina Heelsplitter has a very fragmented, relict distribution. Until recently, it was known to be surviving in only six streams and one small river (USFWS 1996); however, recent discoveries have increased the number of known populations to eleven: Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 2 Pee Dee River Basin: 1. Duck Creek/Goose Creek — Mecklenburg/Union counties, NC 2. Flat Creek/Lynches River — Lancaster/Chesterfield/Kershaw counties, SC Catawba River Basin: 3. Sixmile Creek (Twelvemile Creek Subbasin) — Lancaster County, SC 4. Waxhaw Creek — Union County, NC and Lancaster County, SC 5. Cane Creek/Gills Creek — Lancaster County, SC 6. Fishing Creek Subbasin — Chester County, SC 7. Rocky Creek Subbasin (Bull Run Creek/LTT Bull Run Creek/Beaverdam Creek) — Chester County, SC Saluda River Basin: 8. Redbank Creek — Saluda County, SC 9. Halfway Swamp Creek — Greenwood/Saluda County, SC Savannah River Basin: 10. Little Stevens Creek/Mountain Creek/Sleep Creek/Turkey Creek (Stevens Creek Subbasin) — Edgefield/McCormick counties, SC 11. Cuffytown Creek (Stevens Creek Subbasin) — Greenwood/McCormick counties, SC Habitat for this species has been reported from small to large streams and rivers as well as ponds. These ponds are believed to be millponds on some of the smaller streams within the species' historic range (Keferl 1991). Keferl and Shelly (1988) and Keferl (1991) reported that most individuals have been found along well-shaded streambanks with mud, muddy sand, or muddy gravel substrates. However, numerous individuals in several of the populations have been found in cobble and gravel dominated substrate, usually in close proximity to bedrock outcroppings (Savidge, personal observations). The stability of stream banks appears to be very important to this species (Keferl 1991). 3.1.3. Threats to Species Habitat degradation, water quality degradation, and changes in stream flow (water quantity) are the primary identified threats to the Carolina Heelsplitter. Specific types of activities that lead to these threats have been documented by the USFWS in the Recovery Plan, Federal Register and other publications (USFWS 1996, 2002, 2007, 2012). These specific threats include the following: • Siltation resulting from poorly implemented agricultural, forestry, and developmental activities; • Golf course construction; • Road construction and maintenance; Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 3 • Runoff and discharge of municipal, industrial and agricultural pollutants; • Habitat alterations associated with impoundments, channelization, dredging, and sand mining operations; and • Other natural and human-related factors that adversely modify the aquatic environment. These threats, alone and collectively, have contributed to the loss of the Carolina Heelsplitter in streams previously known to support the species (USFWS 2002). In addition, many of the remaining populations occur in areas experiencing high rates of urbanization, such as the Charlotte, North Carolina and Augusta, Georgia greater metropolitan areas. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of each of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (USFWS 1996). The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, water quality degradation, habitat modification (impoundments, channelization, etc.), urbanization and associated alteration of natural stream discharge, invasive species, and other causes of habitat degradation have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range (USFWS 1996). All of the populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity, much like the endangered Dwarf Wedgemussel (DWM, Alasmidonta heterodon, Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic events may consist of natural events such as flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways, railroads, or industrial-municipal complexes. Siltation resulting from substandard land-use practices associated with activities such as agriculture, forestry, and land development has been recognized as a major contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations. Siltation has been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants, and by direct smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of less than one inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis 1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a population of the DWM because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981). Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the diversity and abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et aL (1988) found that recovery of mussel populations may not occur for up to two miles below points of chlorinated sewage effluent. The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well documented (USFWS 1992a, Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic habitats, which results in changes in aquatic community composition. The changes associated with inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as fish community structure, which could eliminate possible fish hosts for upstream transport of glochidia. Muscle Shoals on the Tennessee River in northern Alabama, once the richest site for naiads (mussels) in the world, is now at the bottom of Wilson Reservoir and covered with 19 feet of muck (USFWS 1992b). Large portions of all of Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 4 the river basins within the Carolina Heelsplitter's range have been impounded and this could be a major factor contributing to the decline of the species (Master 1986). The introduction of exotic species such as the Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats to native freshwater mussels. The Asian Clam is now established in most of the major river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973) including those streams still supporting populations of the Carolina Heelsplitter. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1995). The Zebra Mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources and space with native mussels and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States (USFWS 1992b). The Zebra Mussel is not currently known from any river supporting Carolina Heelsplitter or the Pee Dee River Basin. 4.0 OTHER TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS 4.1 Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic Pigtoe) 4.1.1. Species Characteristics The Atlantic Pigtoe was described by Conrad (1834) from the Savannah River in Augusta, Georgia. Although larger specimens exist, the Atlantic Pigtoe seldom exceeds 50 mm in length. This species is tall relative to its length, except in headwater stream reaches, where specimens may be elongated. The hinge ligament is relatively short and prominent. The periostracum is normally brownish, has a parchment texture, and young individuals may have greenish rays across the entire shell surface. The posterior ridge is biangulate. The interdentum in the left valve is broad and flat. The anterior half of the valve is thickened compared with the posterior half, and, when fresh, nacre in the anterior half of the shell tends to be salmon colored, while nacre in the posterior half tends to be more iridescent. The shell has full dentation. In addition to simple papillae, branched and arborescent papillae are often seen on the incurrent aperture. In females, salmon colored demibranchs are often seen during the spawning season. When fully gravid, females use all four demibranchs to brood glochidia (VDGIF 2014). 4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements The range of the Atlantic Pigtoe extends from the Ogeechee River Basin in Georgia north to the James River Basin in Virginia (Johnson 1970). The general pattern of distribution indicates that the species is currently limited to headwater areas of drainages with most populations represented by a few individuals. In North Carolina, it was once found in every Atlantic Slope river basin with the exception of the Waccamaw. Except for the Tar River, it has not been found in the mainstem of these rivers in recent years (Savidge et al. 2011). It is listed as Endangered in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and as Threatened in Virginia. It has a NatureServe rank of G2 (imperiled). Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 5 The Atlantic Pigtoe occurs in medium size streams to large rivers but has experienced major declines throughout its entire range. The preferred habitat is a substrate composed of gravel and coarse sand, usually at the base of riffles, however, it can be found in a variety of other substrates and habitat conditions. 4.1.3. Threats to Species Threats to the Atlantic Pigtoe are similar to those described above for the Carolina Heelsplitter. All of the remaining Atlantic Pigtoe populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single catastrophic event. 4.1.4. Species Listing This species was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended within the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the Southeastern United States by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD 2010) and is listed as Endangered in North Carolina by NCWRC. 5.0 SURVEY EFFORTS Three Oaks personnel Tom Dickinson (Permit # 18-ES00343) and Nancy Scott conducted the survey on September 25, 2018. 5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Stumplick Branch Habitat in the surveyed portion of Stumplick Branch consisted of a sequence of shallow run/riffle and pool habitats with water levels between 2 inches to 3 feet deep. The channel ranged from 6 to 12 feet wide with stream banks 3 to 6 feet high, which exhibited some signs of erosion and scour in areas mostly upstream of the subject bridge. Substrates consisted primarily of silt and sand, with areas of gravel, and cobble; banks were composed of clay with areas of root mats. The portion of the reach upstream of the bridge was surrounded by a mature hardwood forest on the right descending bank and some forest and crop land on the left descending bank. The reach downstream of the bridge had been straightened and was lined by a narrow strip of immature trees; extensive crop lands surrounded the area. Water was low and clear during the site visit. 5.2 Methodology 5.2.1. Mussel Surveys Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream of the bridge crossing to approximately 328 feet (100 meters) upstream of the crossing for a total distance of approximately 1,640 feet (500 meters) (Figure 1). Areas of appropriate habitat were searched, concentrating on the habitats preferred by the target species. The survey team spread out across the creek into survey lanes. Visual surveys were conducted using bathyscopes. Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 6 Tactile methods were employed, particularly in streambanks under submerged rootmats. All freshwater bivalves were recorded and returned to the substrate. If present, the timed survey efforts would provide Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) data for each mussel species encountered. Relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species were estimated using the following criteria: ➢(VA) Very abundant > 30 per square meter ➢(A) Abundant 16-30 per square meter ➢(C) Common 6-15 per square meter ➢(U) Uncommon 3-5 per square meter ➢(R) Rare 1-2 per square meter ➢(P-) Ancillary adjective "Patchy" indicates an uneven distribution of the species within the sampled site. 6.0 RESULTS 6.1.1. Mussel Survey Results No freshwater mussels were found during the 1.5 person-hours of survey time. Low numbers of pea clams (Sphaeriidae) were the only mollusk species observed. 7.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS No freshwater mussel species were found during these surveys. Based on these results, it appears that freshwater mussels, including the targeted Carolina Heelsplitter or Atlantic Pigtoe, do not occur within the surveyed portion of Stumplick Branch. Based on these survey results, impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter or Atlantic Pigtoe, are not anticipated to occur as a result of project construction. Strict adherence to erosion control standards should minimize the potential for any adverse impacts to occur to the aquatic community of Stumplick Branch. Biological conclusions on potential impacts from the project to the target species are provided below. The USFWS is the regulating authority for Section 7 Biological Conclusions and as such, it is recommended that they be consulted regarding their concurrence with the finding of this document. Biological Conclusion Carolina Heelsplitter: No Effect While the following species are not currently federally protected and biological conclusions are not necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if these species were to receive federal protection, appropriate biological conclusions are as follows: Biological Conclusion Atlantic Pigtoe: No Effect Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 7 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC. Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC, 101 pp, 10 color plates. Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act. Apri120, 2010, 1,145 pp. Available online at: https://www. fws.gov/southeast/pdf/petition/404-aquatic.pdf Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoolo�v, 399: 75. Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J. Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls. Conrad, T.A. 1835-1840. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh water bivalve shells) or North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone fi^om nature. 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. Dobson. Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42. Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59. Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp. Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. 140: 263-449. Keferl, E.P. 1991. "A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). A freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas." Unpublished report to US Fish and Wildlife Service. Keferl, E.P. and R.M. Shelly. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta robusta), Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 47. Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 8 Lea, L 1852. Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates. Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp. Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10 pp. and appendices. McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H. Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. 2"aedition. Academic Press. Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp. Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1- 7. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources. 2016. 2016 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water- resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated- report-files North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2018. Biotics Database. Division of Land and Water Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina. July 2018 version. O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp. Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J. Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols, A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in North Carolina. Unpublished report of theScientific Council on Freshwater and Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp. Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 9 Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering, Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2016. 2016 South Carolina 303(d) List. www. scdhec. gov/homeandenvironment/water/impairedwaters/overview/mindex. htm South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2017. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species in South Carolina. Accessed September 20, 2018. https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=lpDPB402GWRHyPS SyvGeiorNdtU 4qtXm65vdOvvk #map:id=3 Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue. 2005. Investigations into potential fish hosts for the Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 29 pp. plus appendices. Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit type. NPDESPERMIT_WMERC. Accessed September 19, 2018. https://watersgeo. epa. gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER C/MapServer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater mussels. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule, Dept of the Interior. Federal Register 67(127):44501-44522. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Draft Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 34 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5- Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 31 pp. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year review/doc3992.pdf Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 10 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014. Atlantic Pigtoe Conservation Plan. Bureau of Wildlife Resources. VDGIF, Richmond, VA. 31 pp. Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.Conservation status of the freshwater mussels in the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18(9):6-22. Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 11 APPENDIX A Figures Stumplick Branch Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 12 r:c:t'e • � .� ,. / ��r �: . � � r ti'�.,'i...•�L--'.r � � �:�..fi"f��ll'.V;>f � r �`� °' ° r' °:' ' �� L� � �, r; I '� n�fonroe�- - I l .`1 + } I 'I � �+ fl + � r � ' ----- � -- �__ _ C� �penStreet€�1ap ian��1 contri��€tors. CC-E'!-5.�, C7 •S � ,. �s �I` -- _, � � . � � � - ,�. , . �� .� ,� � � �'._. �^" f �R _�' �� * � �� . +�'�- I� g� R='7 • '.. � '� _ ' � , ��. �= w� & . 8ridge 32� _ . 5 �� .. , 5urvey Reach ti � � , � . RQad — NHD Stream - '��"'^� •=' �'j .' � -- � r;_ ,.; w 1I �" � . � �.�. �, � �� wy � '`r � "� � in ��`�� p .+.�'�."` �—# •.. h �r � � � �� ,, i ��. +�r►+�.� ' '� �.w �l.: , �� . �� , � �} .�.,, Bridge 326 , ¢—°�—'�-` „ 7� i C!-..� : R� �.. _ "��-• � � �t , . .� � •� �� , _� .� `,� :y3 ' .��__ -�. --_ ._ � �� V ll� �, ^I � � �_, �� .,n.� ' a,� f��fa .. + �.Y �' •� � � �'' . . �ll; , a NH� LakelPvnd �� . � ��I _ ��! � Study Area ;.�r �. �"' i�e' c�i i C iy "3 l.. �_ _: � i_.._—_ry L, 1� ii ��.E �4YIhLs��.7- s� ". ., L---� County Boundary; � ��'�;�,t'� i � ��ii� � P,- J � a ��+� �, : 'y�� . ��;, ,. .,' , � �+rar+�--• -�,. , ,� _;��'.:,�: f� �G �_�•, � ` �'� ' 'f � � a �i � - - _ _. � ��1��f�� Frepared Fonr�R G� � F � g ¢ % a ... .. � . � —.�"; � � , � �� ql .� � l'��+33�1t`��' g � tR��S4�; Rep[�cement af Bridge 32G nn 5R 1505 (Roanake Church Raad} ov�r Stumplick Branch 1TBP.10,R.111 F'rp�ect Vicinity Map Union County. Aiorth Carol'sna 1 � � :,.: � � �� t5 � � _ y3 i 11 d �ate: �p#��r 2018 Sca?e: D 256 546 Feet s � � Jah hY❑ �a-so� Orawn By: Ch:ecketl $�g NM5 7Ep FI�L1fE f , r �;I C� +.'4..�� I 9 . °��f �,i` � ; � `�, � .. � �. �,.-- •- _ r � NC2n - �f � �` �� ¢F. hc:� J=.� vc�as ,,ro � '' �, � �� , ��..��. D' � -k' � f � q� ? ,,,,. , � _ - '.`� GJr ' ` - - J ' � a� -, � � : - �. y ; _ . �✓ . �� `R " OaAbw -` � �•' I r� \ G � l� `�.__ `., �,� F,:, � �] »' � " v� . g i ;'; - *�. �'s : �� J e � ,�y � ��f �� - �c� �'� %' �`a � - _ , o .c � . � � - I ��C� Y C[]U ��,��-'�� ',4"t� r:,. � , . �� n�,., f� Cya , �� ' Y �J,f'�.�� 1�: 22087 5 ,. � �� ' � � � C� ,� .,p . � € U�'L tJ� ' � � ,f J� � N C�u 1 E: �. E� 1�: � xr�" \ � � ��. . 21454 � �Ir,� FauneW .� lJry1 LrJl �I.�'�! '�. � � f 105 y� I V l �� o- . L.'� . G,i � . ��r � �� Lr:�� iv.�`� HC i18 � ��_ .d •[.i. r v��+,4�r S I � � � f -J � ,�'� `;�t� � �r� jJ �� . (' `'�` '�� t., . - � "r _ _'r ru' �! r` : �' " _ wr,a _ Fi, - _ _ � - . \� � r"r•f - � a�l�. '� -` lf;F.�:f 'n�' + I - Bridge 326 � ,. ,, �� , � _ �` ,�� a� � , ' ' r., - , ��` �'>,. � =..� _ �,9�,. �� _ f .(T,_ F _ R.• ,'f �+ +� �'3� u5 7s - -_ K� � �'� 1 . .s�; . l.rF I y.:i _ _ . .. 13nd:. � r. �,.. i �s;,' _ H ti � v fY«:ry � r, � ��r � :i«� _ �u =��<<-� N«� ,.- r - �� E i'�` � i "r �i� j ri�l. f'ii � p.... , � 4 • -. M .,u� _ � � �, - onroe _ _ ��..-'`�� . .. " .. . _ �-- - � —�_ -,WRnga[e� us �e � - f.�, r. N . , � ii - . I�:i .. u5'i4 ' �� f f 4 5[11 �'�r+�;�" ,� h+!!' �.�fi�<,. ':r ��. � � � � Bridg�326 I Stream ' `� � �''�� ';�� .,, ? iVCNHP Eiement Occurrence - � �;,,� .;,,:: �,• �+, .;��:�-" r , ,� `"� E� ID: 22093 r , `� Caralina Heelsplitter - � ,: �. - Atlankic Pigtoe ' '``' �J __ + -- ; County Bdundary � �;---�- � f L---� .�,, i .�� penStreetMa,`p {and] c�trebut�rs, CC-BY-SA ��1��f�� Frepared Fonr�R G� � F � g o- % a ... . r�++ , � "��; � � , � �� ql .: � l'��+33�1t`��' g � tR��S4�; Replace�nent of Bridge 326 an 5R 15�5 �Roanoke Church Rd} ❑ver Siumplick Bra�ch ��eP.�o.R�� NCNHP El�ment Occurrences Union County. �lorth Carolina �ate:��emher 20'!8 Sca�e: a i a nuies F . 1 Jab hYa "� 8-6Q"� 0=awn By: Checked B�g Nf�lS TEQ Flgure HFi��y H! i�i�e � i,,kv vark. f$h, hg �� .�d'� ^ ��..' a �� i � ,� : , �:-�:�;: Y�- � ''-y. �=��NC0065684 � : � �y � � ='�/� NCQ0�9841 � � .Y� 5� _ � , . �� -�ro, 4, }-' t,_ y 1,L; . \ �`, n�coas�s�$ , �y � , � � w g� �r� , „� � �F \ � t ��4 u5 ia � � �u`'�M�!�•fli . Mn��r�� •veyLve [ ti: i •��r: ��i�` �-•�;�, �, ,_�R IP�ES Discharge � � Major � Minor � Bridge326 iVC 303{d} L�sted Stream — 5trea m � County Boundary ,� n �. - .s„�;� �"`- ��x NCOQ$5812 , s+� �4, � � �� `� ' L !! �' �.�{� � ' : °M.�,f.,„.,,,� ..,:..,.. NC�[}24333 � . �� us �a a _ �; � � ussov � - � � � � ��1 ,.P^' � `rNnn.g� -�' � �-:. NC aa . �.�e�-+t� us 7a 3.� �=�' � Wiryys a.� .. []5 W 1 - - ., , • :; �_` - , �',.�� .r° ' ' ' r ; � . '�h� f�� l� � �,;.�� _ ` .. HC ZOO 4C !07 . � #��' ° � :;: � :;. {and��ontributoes yCC-BY-SR I ��1��f�� Frepared Fonr�R G� � F � g o- % a ... �. �'�i'� . � ��..; � � , � �� ql .: � l'��+33�1t`��' g � tR��S4�; ,.... �L :� � � 115 6fl1 �� rr,.,�a,;pn: �x l �"�"�:, � 6ridge 32B ', ;; � t. � � _ "- � NCOfl8�381 `r w (G - � Replacem�nt r�fi Bridge 326 on SR 15�5 {Roanok� Church Rd} over 5tumplick Branch 17BP.14.R107 3�3{d) Listed 5tr�ams and NP�ES Disch�rgEs Unian County, North CaroEina � �� :; • v,,,� e,w xmrc.w..� :f°� � ', .� .�fue�yirAc. .L�p�rrr � �M - �H- �ate:5e{�temher 20'!8 Sca�e: � � a i � n7iies F . 1 Jab hYa � a-s�� 0=awn By: Checked B�g Nf�lS TEQ Flgure Apnendix D 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Appendices Project Tracking No.: 17-12-0023 oa�'�� NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM :'. P , � ; :gQ� s a. This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not r^ =� � ;' �`� ��.:�; _� � ��'y� valid for Historic Architecture and Landsca es. You must consult se aratel with the • F= �: ° � :�Y P P Y w> .''�: � '�=.a,.�'� Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group. �,?� a. PROJECT INFORMATION Project No: WBS No: Br. No. 326 County: Document Union F.A. No: 17BP.10.R.111 Federal Permit Required? MCC Funding: � State ❑ Federal � Yes ❑ No Permit Type: usace Project Description: NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) in place over Stumplick Branch in Union County near Unionville. An offsite detour has been identified for use during construction. The current bridge is very small and the proposed length of the new project is less than 500 feet with a bridge about 50 feet in length. Preliminary design plans were provided which guide establishment of the Area of Potential Effects (APE). For purposes of this review, the APE is 500 feet in length with consideration of 50 ft to either side of the existing SR 1505 and current Bridge No. 326, or 100 ft total width. This is a state funded undertaking with federal action through USACE permitting, therefore Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act applies far archaeological review. SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions: The bridge to be replaced is in a rural setting with woods and agricultural fields adjacent to the APE. USGS mapping (Bakers) and aerial photography was studied (see Figures 1 and 2). Google streetview tool shows a very small crossing at the project area over a ditch or canal sized Stumplick Branch which may have been channelized. Plowed agricultural fields extend to the current ROW on the south side. The north side is wooded. According to USGS mapping and GIS resources (data layer created by NCDOT archaeologist Paul J. Mohler), no cemetery is present at the APE or immediately nearby. Historic maps were examined. The 1914 Soils Map of Union County (MC.097.1914d) shows SR 1505 road in roughly the same location. A structure, probably a house, is shown at that time some distance away to the west, south of the road though outside of the APE. The Office of State Archaeology was visited to review archaeological mapping and to reference any known archaeological surveys and sites. This helps establish an archaeological context for comparison. There are no recorded archaeological sites in the nearby vicinity. An environmental review for archaeology is closeby at the northwest quadrant though did not result in an archaeological survey (ER 02-9898). Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE: The bridge replacement will be constructed on the same location and alignment using an offsite detour. No new ROW is required, though there are easements in place outside of the existing ROW for construction. The new bridge overlaps the existing facility and therefore over previously disturbed soils. The majority of the APE is disturbed, a poor archaeological context. There are no recorded archaeological sites or cemeteries within the APE. A previous environmental review at the APE did not receive a recommendation for an archaeological survey. "No ARCHAEOLOCY SURVEYREQCIIRED "form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement. 1 of 4 Project Tracking No.: 17-12-0023 The context doesn't indicate a high probabilty for archaeological sites within the small, altered APE. It is unlikely that significant, intact archaeological remains would be present and impacted by the bridge replacement project. For archaeological review, this federally permitted undertaking should be considered compliant with Section 106. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION See attached: � Map(s) ❑ Previous Survey Info ❑ Photocopy of County Survey Notes FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST ❑ Photos ❑Correspondence Other: 10/12/2018 LOGIST Date "No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUIRED"form for the Amended Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement. 2 of 4 Project Tracking No.: 17-12-0023 ,� . � � . � �.. ' U`�l;' /��. � � ' � � - � 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet `+-• � , y • i �3/� � ' � - _ � rc� � J� w ' � �; � - �r�� '�'• • 6�` , � � � i . - -. ' � �� ` - � N . �_�- - �� °_ � �° i �. # � - . d � . �,� `. �' � ` y •-- . �, �, � i� �, �m - _ � . -, h', _ �' � � � S� � � _ , � �� , �.�: ', �_Y.�', I ' ti , t5 . � �� • , . � ; '-� �I • •� _ i � 1 . ,,� \ _ '� - • '� � � . - � �Z � n"'%- , 890326!`�5 ; '� . � \' . _.. - _ ', . .: -� , , � � • __ �,rY . , , . . _ l v .. �: ' • " _ �. - - ` - _ :--� , - , �"i �e,_ , 1 . � • . - - _: �.. i . _ _ ■ t- . , .. . , , �L 6 � r, Ftc�nokr CA � .. ' ' ; _ , �, `_ 'r L . `�' � ' j - . � . • r � � _ _ �� • -t..: ,_ : . -` t _ � ' + '-_. - � � �l . . �•� �— . � �1. . .. ,. .. � s _ . � r '. .' � . -� ' . � .. / � �'��— � ��y� � i..`� f � ��" ��__ ��... � � � � '` ' ` /`�` -� �� '� r, Q . �, - _ . _ _ f� ' '�' �. f y , .. � � � �1 . l:� '��,\ "� . � j � ss� � �6+.. �' � �� . -ti; : ! '� ��}{ ��,-y�� `. �� `7N � - -- ' �` _ _ --' � r . . 890360 � . , -- '''-�: iJar"'�"_'i:c . � ' � � � ' r-. '� ._- • � 7 , . -- :: • �- �'.��'�'_ � .� �� \�'�`�- �` �� _ � , C� uNioN ti Bakf.CS • - '' Z-' ` - '�. + � . 890444= � � ^ � . . � �r . �. , � . � �, ..\ � ._ i \ _-,�t , 'y �. � L�•- � , • - - . . . • s � r�-.1, 4`� `y�1�. ,� - T ��,�, , � i �- ` . `� - ''�', � .' � .1 '` � � � -T. *�` �, �.. . • .�. ` . S� -.- . �j � � � • �',1 �� ._. -' �r 4}`"�, _ ., , . � , s� . �� '�� - •j , L , ' � �//j} '''� �% } ~ � � '', '. _, _ - . � %. �' �; �' � 5 ,'a z,, ` �"`�� /j S. . �4 � ` • � � ,} �` • j,. � • • �•, � • f , . � , - � � ��y�►� 1,-ti • - __' ^ ;� � o - � ' � i � ��, 's3 ' I ' , - � � ti, ,. ' • . _ - �{ I�� _ �' . �`, y_ - � 890041 � � . ., � . � ` � � r' .• , • s .�j� ,n ��`.�`� • ,� . � ,�� Y � � - \� ` � , �:� r _.i.rat.. ('h �`�, w� � ! 4YSt \!i y 7' � 1 '•� . � � - �`� � �J"S � � � ' . .-r .. E.9� 1`� -�. �`. , r . _ � .. seoza� . �� ,�+ � � , . ` ` .., • . ��.`-��- e:. � •" � � . ��.= � a��: , �._ E� *` : � �f,- . ! , � ` � - , � �fS�V �fxC � � � : ' �f ��`� . �� . `_____ � � � � �� ' � c ' ' [`rOsSIi�iiclti ,'� .,i . - -��. * _ ,+ �� ]� - 890466 . ,. _ � 89 417 r,y_. . . ' . • . � _ � ��i{ � . • I 1 - _ '� � � , . CopyrigM�.O 20'13 Natlonal Geo9raphis; S lety. I-cube�, Esri, HERE. Garm'n OO OpenS�ree�Map�contr'bu�ors a L the G,IS user community Figure 1. Vicinity of PA 17-12-0023, the replacement of Br. No. 198 on SR 1536 (James Porter Road) over Kelly Creek/Lyon Swamp Canal in Bladen County, shown on USGS mapping (Kelly). The APE is shown in yellow. "No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUTRED` form for the Amended Minor Transportation Pr�ojeets as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement. 3 of 4 Project Tracking No.: 17-12-0023 -�.� O N � � � �L �_ � � J � � .-: 0 200 400 � UNION R � _ _ _ � � s"o�se`_ Bakers �"`'�' �i.'` - .� . 800 Feet i� � � ,_ � � �� +� o: � tM.. � � �'�`-� _ . . � � � / � � ' �� — . ' . , � _ _ f ' , a • �. , .� "� 8 ,� _ . . � . , , . ,. A . _ . ,� , �� r",,�_; . � ' �� ' ¢ -- � � , ` .�, ;�;� � � .�� .� . � �_ -� � � �-� � � . '� r ; � -- � , h' � 1l...Y e - . .�.:.� _ �� ^� N �'' - _ � � ,� . ` ' � . ,_ » . � � �,uF� .��ilalGoL (.c�Fgc.-a l� (., Jn��li aCM1E�r, r�iDS�Y31\U�AE'X,G t JVry.A.roJ J I fv.l�r �..n(ssL�l �.��.� .... Figure 2. Aerial map of the proposed replacement of Br. No. 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Branch. The approximate APE is shown in yellow. Note the possible channelization indicated from GIS stream location vs. the current branch. "No ARCHAEOLOGYSURVEYREQUTRED` form for the Amended Minor Transportation Pr�ojeets as Qualified in the 2015 Programmatic Agreement. 4 of 4 Appendix E 17BP.IO.R.111 Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist November 2018 Appendices K;' '�:�ni IWi+ '' . � Fed. Aid No: Federa[ r,o�e r.o.�;.BNa pueme� m � 17-12-0023 HI5TORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES NO SURVEY REQUIRED FORM This form only pertains to Hisroric Architecmre and Iandscapes for this project. It is not valid for Mchaeological Resources. You must consult separately with the Mchaeology Group. PROJECT INFORMATION Counry: Union 17BP.10.R.111 Document MCC e: Funding: State Federal Yes No Permit USACE es: tion: No 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Rd) over Stumplick Branch RY OF HiSTORIC ARCHICTECTURE AND LANDSCAPES REVIEW Descrintion af reveew activiNes. resulls, and conc[usians: Review of HPO quad maps, relevant background repoRs, historic designations rostey and indexes was undertaken on January 24, 2018. Based on this review there are no NR, DE, LL, SL, or SS in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). There are no properties which aze older than 50 yeazs in the APE. No survey required. a�ea: Using HPO GIS website and county ta�c dais provides reliable information regarding the sWcNres in the APE. These combined utilities are considered valid for the purposes of determining the likelihood of hisroric resoumes being present. SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION �Map(s) ❑Previous Survey Info. �Photos ❑Conespondence ❑Design Plans FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN Historic Architecture and Landscapes --NO SURVEY REQUIRED Nurori�ArcM1�rernremMf�myesNOSURVSYft£QUlF6DI�IrMLrosTmi�ndianP lu'�=wQrdnMwUre100]progmmmmicAgreement. Page 1 of 2 �� T� . �� .. . , ��1.3�"`�� _ ��v�s,E• � . I tl �r� � `q t � �� p �,:,�...�.Fq.. . . ✓< m,ma� n,rnuae,n o�,eio„a��av�'rvo su¢vuf rer+gunu:of ��I,'.timo. �m��m��+m�o�� v�vi<nn �, St�aifee m ine zomr�ns�p��an�ns�r��e�e Page 2 of 2 Rlll Vicinity Map I r� � �,�„ ... � �326 � ... :�,,:� � � r� __� �sov ti �.. a� r a�ee z ss c�a c�+ ,-.nm., .� ` �,. . � .. . �.aai . z . ., -_. : r }'��., i,t ,r _ s_. _� rl > i� vv �1S;�.i3 d� G�rr..��, 3-.A �rx C33u� � �y.a.� Ca-Y.n ^�.�.,.,_a�'��.3>.. . � _ _ .� -�'1�5.� �� zw�voe cuo - : - � uAa:ts: ar. �a['�. � - � � � 0 � � � � � U W O � � � � U � " \ _ O GRAPffiC SCALES DESIGN DATA so 25 0 so �Qp �T 2019 = 200 ADT 2039 = 400 PlANS K = WA % D = WA % 50 ]5 4 50 =00 T= 6 %• i::::��-� V = 55 MPH PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) • TfST = WA DUAL I 70 `{ Q 70 20 FUNC CLA55 = RURAL LOCAL PROFILE NERTICALI SUBREGIONAL TIER PROJECT LENGTK ISAG7H ROADW9Y 7IP PR0J8C7 178P.lORlll = 0.PB6 MILSS ISNG7H S7RUCZURB 7!P PROJSC7 l7HP.lORlll . 0.009 MDPS 71D7i1L ISAG7H 77P PROjECl l7HP.IORI7I . 0.095 MILSS PIAAS PRPPARSD BY: SSDR,IULICS SA'GII�R �QDRMP �� m, �'�1D �� ROADWAY D$SfGN MICHAEL D. HAGE. P.E. �G�R R/G9T OF WAY DAZE: � a�� MAY 76. 2078 ROBERT A ALONSO. P.E. � ncsmv a�ca� ZETIING DA1& JANUARY 16. 2019 �"�'RLAND HAYWOOD _JR. P.E. �.'__' p N011 y C� ! � � i i t~r �� TII\M\ 0�,• s� s� �a Fo� Index of Sl�eis �� p�� N�gg��g � q�gg�][,][NA �` See Sneet 7B For CorrvaMloral SymCo/s •'� '•'� �°" �"�" '^ See 1C Sl.eet Se�les For Survey Conf�W n(`_ � 7p p � n p 7 � 7 7 4 M [C 4 O i BPGA' PRO GT IJBP.IARJII s u. Rm MS 8 SSARiID V ��.5..!�=.. �� —� ..__e __.�� ... ve. .._ w`� . ��-s«- v �>_� __ s� • .�. .�F��E� w O AF��/ � s..TM��`. m � i o „ � Yn T`—� = i - �. �. 600 = � � � � r � I .# ._ . SA .S v`y I ��- 590 ° — —Y Y— � I- —� •� ' �.- . �io �� z"� -- --t s. T~ i �E �I s[ O auvs � i \\� �� Rlll Aerial a. r. `�i: ��.�'" �n ' - a J '� - �'f` y' � - '�;� �� `� . , . c�;�, € . � i' . ��` r� ; . s. �_� j `• �� __ �-� �� . �4 ` � � � M � T f y � � o� �6� � � � � �} �, _ , .�, .�. ; �� :� � �� µ � �. � . �, k� n � . � �� r. � rw , .�i. ti �r; ��+� --� � �'� � � =-�SDV _. _...._.. �' � W�"(�r • � �. � �� . w� � # . -,_:�� _; _' y,. .,.- n... -"• r .�=.-c.n.Kx.1 S�/�� 33'J,.��,. � sr�_� n -��.P. �� . _ `J� �s-�� •_ K� � !T �` ,L4...t.:f� �. • S�'n' SF _11��1��