The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190198 Ver 1_17BP10R111_Union_FINAL NRTM_October 2018_20190213NATURAL 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 THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division of Highways — Highway Division 10 October 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................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 ...............................................................................................................3 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.� 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 G 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 Project No. 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 veriiied 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 Project 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 sufiiciently 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 Project No. 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 Classification H fght w'idth (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 or 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 identification 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 Project 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.S 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 Project No. 17BP.IO.R.111, Union Countv, N.C. 5.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory.l987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Environmental Laboratory.1992. Clariiication and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual, memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams. NC Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Resources.2018. Final 2016 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://iiles.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. Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).2017. https://www. fws. gov/raleigh/species/es_michauxs_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 Project 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 �� ": � � r ,$,$ � � a . �s � ��'. �' � ' i ��.i ��h: �;. a<�g . t �+1�s' � R g ". � �] �.: * � , b � ��g �`3.��, x��ad qF"i �.,'�if � b� �� „u I ,t�?,°,�y�,'r a.u.�r.<,a.`'.....: ".?�`t � .rit�i�R'��. �,,1 . _J�Ir.3ian,Trail Q / \ , f, � \nroe� — -- _�/ \ \ `1 . -r-- � , I � � �O OpenStreetMap (and , contributors, CC-BY-SA I � �,fi 3 i' �, .. .� � '�,-�!�'�.►r': - W� �, . � v�' ,�. e,4', ;: � 't, 4�`5 '�',.% r` ,�+ " � � �,� � � r � � � x." �� . ��.�.C. - . �---. i . �� j, ,;,;; � ~ �^� � � c g+ .� �i'�€r';�'• - � , � �� .;, a.'�q� iM� F,� _ i " ,� \\ A N � -,. ' ��; ��,'xmCJk,+ �;'� �..� 0 Bridge 326 — Road — NHD Stream NHD Lake/Pond � Study Area __� County Boundary ,. " �' ' -^"-� .. ,� ,3 . �� °�`� °�" �r � .�7;'� 'i ,.� �� . �`:�.. � � � � ' k#�� .. x r . � �` . . � � l, � . w � r �` �� .� f w ��k � A�.'�...16+a�`.I�.�� a:' �q`�' �� :,= � � n-, .,,:; � . � . . . � � tirwr � ,•� �� - � ��' �� Bridge 326 �' ; �. . �k .,,,,°.; \� i w . �� ' �'. `�#'�''+ �` `�'��' � � �. � ��;;,� ;�* • ,�i� ��-�. `'�\,�'� � s�,,,� ,y� '�, x x„ :,y�y"`x��4�' ��j..d)�� ,�i a � z �Roanoke Ch�urch Rd'��'�`'�, �•• �' � .,� ` �, ., N � �� o � .�. . �� , , � r '^� c.> rr�— � s �\ / . i i1 P�i4 ,;'�r �' s. " ' �` T�t� �� -� 1 '��' , - .� ' � � q� 1 � +i3`..�. ��-,,�..�;.}' ��+� �` ab' ``.� ; � � , _ � �� { �" zi .. f \ �A��li� �:,�, f� ;�=,..�'�s .,.y -�� +r *; r-..---� �, �,"� - . � ��' �' I ,y s�. !�� '� r� I ��$� ` �` y�,� � �� 14 q+,,�'. � t f -- �,.�, -..___ � ��: �_Y�t�� . �-_ r, �:` �,# �p}� am � � p� P.'� , ' �;a. _ _. , � ��r. 4 m �� t� � 3� � �� s' `'�! i�°�«�' r ,{ ��`� �. �` � �' -f I'� ; � � (�1' • �� '��'k � _ . �� '� � �,. � � � ' �'`- � 1Y� `: �� Y `��r�m� r f�. ' ,�� t . r . . � M . *- -� F"'�� . —� �� a -. '� � . � u�`' . > �w �,` " '1„"i� : _ r�'�' ^�� ..0 � . ��`� , ' , � ; a a1�a ` � •'��;��,` « a, '!ry� y �i,. �� .. N�� 3 �� -�.:. �� —�,�r. �;a4 � a�"�a�, �'�-'-�Gj\ , �,�'° � �.:rc„ `� _"'� �, �� "� �•�. ..�t:�. : �G\NEER/N Prepared For: �� C � �F NORTN C y yp`� � 99oyv n�+ —., . W ' �\ j;!� � q �I e '9�\:: Q�.Q ��/�]]1'�\�� fyl OF ZppN`'eo 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 �� ' i � � + � � �1 � � ' U � �� .� _� -J z i `1 1 � i �� 'v T � � � .f ----- �. \- � � � V�O;, SA •' � , �� I � � ��, � �� - , �\ s' . � ��-�, - `�� / `. . . �T� _� � � _� -�. \, .��-. �. StUmpIlCk �' � '' � �� "'�� : r�i1RCK RO Branch - - -- — - �' � �� $ � � � � � �, Bridge 326 � � �_ � � � � _ _ - i '� 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 � ��\NEER/,y� � o �i�� yj�� S� �a��33��'� Prepared For: NORTI/ y�� v e� � o q '9�\:: Q�.Q �fyl OF ZppN`'eo 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 � ��\NEER/,y� � o �i�� '�� , s� �a��33��'� Prepared For: NORTI/ y�� v e� � o q '9�\:: Q�.Q �fyl OF ZppN`'eo 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 W Job No.: 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure Appendix B Qualifications of Contributors Principal Investigator: Education: Experience: Responsibilities: Investigator: Education: Experience: Responsibilities: Investigator: Education: Experience: Responsibilities: Investigator: Education: Experience: Responsibilities: Investigator: Education: Experience: Responsibilities: 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 Wetland and stream delineations, T&E surveys Nathan Howell B.S. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, North Carolina State University, 2013 M.S. Plant and Microbial Biology, North Carolina State University, 2015 Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, 2015-Present Wetland and stream delineations and document preparation Lizzy Stokes-Cawley B.S. Conservation Biology, St. Lawrence University, 2011 M.E.M. Water Resources, Duke University, 2016 Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, Apri12017-Present Document preparation Kate Montieth Sevick M.S. Natural Resources Sciences, University of Rhode Island, 2004 B.A. Biology, Reed College, 2000 Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, Apri12015-Present Environmental Specialist and Graphics Coordinator, The Catena Group, 2004-2015 GIS mapping James Mason M.S. Biology/Ecology, UNGCharlotte 2004 B.A. Biology, Colby College, 2000 Environmental Senior Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, Apri12018- Present Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2006-2018 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 9 Appendix C Mussel Survey Report October 2018 10 Freshwater Mussel Survey Report Replacement of Bridge No. 326 on SR 1505 (Roanoke Church Road) over Stumplick Creek WBS Element # 17BP.10.R111 Union County, North Carolina Prepared For: R F NC Department of Transportation Contact Person: Larry Thompson Environmental Supervisor North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways — Division 10 lthompson�a�,ncdot. o�v 716 W Main Street Albemarle, NC 28001 October 1, 2018 Stumplick Branch during the survey efforts Prepared by: �'`''��`�' � � � � �� 324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200 Durham, NC 27701 Contact Person: Tom Dickinson tom.dickinson(a�threeoaksengineerin .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 Fina1303(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 she1L 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. 31.2. 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/iJT 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) — Edgeiield/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 iinding 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�y, 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 from 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, I. 1852. Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates. Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp. Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10 pp. and appendices. McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. 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. scdhe c. 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). JN. 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/iive_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 M�t�fh � �� _ �� .F1ran ;rail �,.f--' ,J .�° � Monrop,�---•-- .� �. �� `} - - . �� -- , �� i '—W---------�...� � DpenStreetMap (andj contributors. CC-BY-SA , ' �. r�� +� ��' � ,�, ,� �r, '-'�'� � , _. , � �. � � �� , �� . ��`- �-=�� : � � ' ��' � f , � �� S.. � :�;•.� , Y . � � � �,.. . �� . .•' ' � �� +�r 3 ' � ,� h� .$W = ♦ 'y`; jl '"�..t ,�„ , .�' ; � 1� n.-;� . ,:: ..,, � � �� • �� BrldgE 326 � �` �� s x� �.� �' Rna, �F� �r;,rr R : �� .�+� � �i � ' J'; � � a �� F � �N '�:�* u � .y.�.� _ = � .' +w ' .. -- Y � � — �, � � � � � — - '�%� � � __ , , � j , � � � : :`l ,, ' .� � i�' � _ -w- f� � .. .�. '." 4� � - � �# :;�'� . Surve R ach ,� ' � �' r ` � �� g ,, , y �. �`'� Rvad - � - � NHQ Stream NHa LakelPond � S#udy Area �_ � County Boundary ■1i � .- Mr ,+ l�'� � * . �-' �►i� .m r �.ar�e_.':; Esri,4'i�sC=1 �^ � . �' � r 1 �'�� ' � 'V W �r .. � _ �I .- • �� ¢. " ' • �r r �`y� ��lx�� Prepared Fo�k �' ` ,� W � � �� ,� r��w `��"��33�I1`��' p� F Replacement of Bridge 326 on 5R � 505 (Roanoke �hurch Road} OV2f StUIT1j711Ck Bf3C1Gh 1�BP.10.R.113 Project lli�inity Map Union County, North Cardina oate: ��{ember 2Q18 sra�e: 0 250 500 Feet I � I Jab Na �s-so� Drawn 6y: Checked By IVMS TED Figuee ��tixE�►�iy�� i � `��"��33�I1`��' Prepared For: F Npk ,� . � ��. r�' �` p0 F Replacemer�t of Bridge 325 on SR 1505 [Roanoke Church Ftd} over 5tump[ick Branch 17BP.10.R111 NCNHP Elernent �3ccurrences Unian Caunty, North Carolina oate:�pte�rsber 2018 sr�ie: ❑ T 2 Mlles 1 1 ,1ob N❑ 18-661 Drawn 6y: Checked By NMS TE� Figuee ��tixE�►�iy�� i � `��"��33�I1`��' Prepared For: F Npk ,� . � ��. r�' �` p0 F Replacemer�t oi Bridge 326 on SR 15�5 (Raanoke Church Rd} over Stumplick Branch 17BP.10.R107 303(d} Lis#ed Streams an� IVP�ES ❑ischarges Unian Caunty, North Carolina oate:�pte�rsber 2018 sr�ie: ❑� O S T Mlles 1 1 ,1ob N❑ 18-661 Drawn 6y: Checked By NMS TE� Figuee