The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20190199 Ver 1_17BP10R112_Anson_FINAL NRTM_October 2018_20190213NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Replacement of Bridge No. 19 on SR 1710 (Allen Street) over Cedar Creek Anson County, North Carolina WBS Element No. 17BP.10.R.112 � �o� �V^'� �4� 9 f� � y n �}I � p � ,�4 Q` O fiN'� o� TRAN�e 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 ................................................................................ l 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 4,5 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 G Mussel Survey Report LIST OF TABLES Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Anson County ......................................... l Table 2. Potential streams in the study area .............................................................................. 3 Table 3. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area ....................... 3 Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area ..................... 4 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.112, Anson Countv, N. C. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of Bridge No. 19 on SR 1710 (Allen Street) over Cedar Creek in Anson 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 Anson 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 Anson County Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological Status Present Conclusion Lasinigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Yes No Effect Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E Yes No Effect Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E Yes No Effect E — Endangered Carolina heelsplitter USFWS optimal survey window: year-round Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter exists within the study area. Therefore, surveys were completed on September 25, 2018 by Three Oaks biologists Tim Savidge and Logan Williams. Please see the attached survey report (Appendix C) for survey details. October 2018 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Proiect No. 17BP.10.R.112, Anson Countv, N.C. Red-cockaded woodpecker USFWS optimal survey window: year-round; November-early March (optimal) Biological Conclusion: No Effect Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat evaluations were conducted on September 5, 2018. While there are a few small pockets of marginal foraging habitat present in study area (open to semi-open pine stands 30-60 years in age), larger, more cohesive foraging and nesting habitat for RCW (open to semi-open pine stands > 60 years in age) is not present within the study area. Thinned pine plantations within the study area contain pines < 30 years in age. A review of the July 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known RCW 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 one known Schweinitz's sunflower occurrence (Element Occurrence [EO] No. 80) within 1.0 mile of the study area, approximately 1.0 mile away from the project. 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 project 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 proj ect 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 proj ect study area. October 2018 2 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.112, Anson 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] 03040104). One potential stream was identified in the study area (Table 2). The location of this stream is shown on Figure 3. Table 2. Potential streams in the study area NCDWR Bank Bankfull Best Usage Depth Stream Name Map ID Index Height width Number Classification �ft) (ft) (in) Cedar Creek Cedar Creek 13-21 C 15-20 40-60 3-24 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 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. One potential jurisdictional stream was identified in the study area (Table 3). The location of this stream is shown on Figure 3. Cedar Creek is depicted as a named blue-line channel on USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle mapping. Therefore, an NCDWR stream identiiication form was not completed. Due to Cedar Creek's high ecological integrity, a North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) form was also not completed. Cedar Creek has been designated as a warm water stream 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 Cedar Creek 571 Perennial Yes Not Sub�ect Total 571 One potential jurisdictional wetland was identified within the study area (Table 4). The location of this wetland is shown on Figure 3. All wetlands in the study area are located within the Yadkin — Pee Dee River Basin (USGS HUC 03040104). North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) forms and USACE wetland determination forms for the site are included in a separate PJD Package. October 2018 3 Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Project No. 17BP.IO.R.112, Anson Countv, N. C. Table 4. Characteristics of jurisdictional wetlands in the study area Map ID NCWAM NCWAM Hydrologic Area (ac.) in Classification Ratin Classification Stud Area WA Flood lain Pool Hi h Ri arian 0.03 Total 0.03 4.3 Construction Moratoria No moratoria are recommended at this time. 4.� N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules This proj ect 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.10.R.112, Anson 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. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Environmental Laboratory.1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual, memorandum from Major General Arthttr 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: Anson 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. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis).2017. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_red-cockaded woodpecker.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.10.R.112, Anson Countv, N.C. United States Geological Survey (USGS).1983. Ansonville, 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 Q ��,\NEER�,y� � o +�� y. i �i� / � `�N�d�33N\`��' Prepared For: y~� OF N�T x CQ oy9 9 'v91� `. � e ��yr OF tAP�s�o Replacement of Bridge 19 on SR 1710 (Allen Street) over Cedar Creek 17BP.10.R112 Project Vicinity Map Anson County, North Carolina �ate: August 2018 Scale: 0 250 500 Feet � � Job No.: 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure � � Bridge 19 Potential Perennial Stream Potential Wetland � 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 Q ��,\NEER�,y� � o +�� y. i �i� / � `�N�d�33N\`��' Prepared For: y~� OF N�T x CQ oy9 9 'v91� `. � e ��yr OF tAP�s�o Replacement of Bridge 19 on SR 1710 (Allen Street) over Cedar Creek 17BP.10.R112 Jurisdictional Features Map Anson County, North Carolina �ate: August 2018 Scale: 0 150 300 Feet � � Job No.: 18-601 Drawn By: Checked By: NMS NDH Figure Q ��,\NEER�,y� � o +�� y. i �i� / � `�N�d�33N\`��' Prepared For: y~� OF N�T x CQ oy9 9 'v91� `. � e ��yr OF tAP�s�o Replacement of Bridge 19 on SR 1710 (Allen Street) over Cedar Creek 17BP.10.R112 Jurisdictional Features Map Anson County, North Carolina Date: August2018 Scale: 0 100 200 Feet � � Job No.: 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, T&E surveys, 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: Education: Experience 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 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 8 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. 19 on SR 1710 (Allen Street) over Cedar Creek WBS Element # 17BP.l0.Rll2 Anson County, North Carolina Prepared For: F R9A H 4 c R f QF 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 3, 2018 Cedar Creek during the survey efforts Prepared by: ��1�iE f �p�,��,� � � � � �� dr�3�� 324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200 Durham, NC 27701 Contact Person: Tim Savidge tim.savidge(a�threeoaksen 'nig 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 ....................................................................................... 4 4.1 Alasmidonta varicosa (Brook Floater) ............................................................................. 4 4.1.1. Species Characteristics .............................................................................................. 4 4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements .................................................................... 4 4.1.3. Threats to Species ..................................................................................................... 5 4.1.4. Species Listing .......................................................................................................... 6 5.0 Survey Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Cedar Creek ........................................................ 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. 19 over Cedar Creek on SR 1710 (Allen Street) in Anson County (Appendix A, Figure 1). The project will impact Cedar Creek 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 Anson County. The Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) is being considered for listing by the USFWS and is also known to occur in Anson County. Table 1 lists the nearest element occurrence (EO) for the 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/Duck >50 August 1987 March 2017 C Heelsplitter Creek 21776 Brown Creek 18 July 1987 July 1987 H Brook Floater 20865 Rocky Creek 30 August 1993 August 1993 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 Brook Floater. 2.0 WATERS IMPACTED Cedar Creek is located in the Upper Pee Dee River subbasin (HUC# 03040104) of the Pee Dee River basin. Cedar Creek flows approximately 5.9 river miles (RM) to its confluence with the Pee Dee River. 2.1 303(d) Classification Cedar Creek is not listed on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources 2016 Fina1303(d) list of impaired streams. There are no 303(d) listed streams within a five-mile radius of the subject bridge (NCDEQ 2016, Figure 3). 2.2 NPDES discharges There are no NPDES dischargers upstream of the Cedar Creek survey area. There are no NPDES discharges within a five-mile radius of the subject bridge (USEPA 2018, Figure 3). Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 1 3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS 3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter) 3.1.1. 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: Pee Dee River Basin: 1. Duck Creek/Goose Creek — Mecklenburg/Union counties, NC 2. Flat Creek/Lynches River — Lancaster/Chesterfield/Kershaw counties, SC Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job # 18-601 Page 2 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; • 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. Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 3 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). 4.0 OTHER TARGET SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS 4.1 Alasmidonta varicosa (Brook Floater) 4.1.1. Species Characteristics The Brook Floater, described from the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, by Lamarck (1819), is a small mussel reaching a maximum size of around 70 mm. The shells of the Brook Floater are long rhomboid in outline with a yellowish to greenish smooth perisotracum, which darkens to brown in adults, with green to black rays possible. The ventral margin can be straight, but is frequently arcuate, especially in older individuals. The posterior ridge is broad, somewhat inflated, and round. There is a second faint ridge above and together the posterior ridges end in a biangulate margin. The posterior slope is flat to slightly concave, usually with numerous short, low corrugations radiating toward the posterior margin. The umbos are large, a little inflated, projecting little above the anterior margin, and are directed anteriorly. Each valve has one small thin, triangular pseudocardinal tooth. Lateral teeth are vestigial or lacking. The nacre is glossy, bluish white, and grades into pale orange in the umbo cavity. The foot and mantle color are usually bright orange in color. 4.1.2. Distribution and Habitat Requirements The Brook Floater ranges from the lower St. Lawrence River Basin in Canada south to the Atlantic drainages of South Carolina. While still common in some areas, the species has experienced significant declines throughout its range. In North Carolina, it is found in the Roanoke, Neuse, Cape Fear, Pee Dee and Catawba River basins (Clarke 1981, Adams et al. 1990, Bogan 2002). According to Ortmann (1919), the Brook Floater is most abundant in small streams with gravelly bottoms, and prefers strong currents; thus, it is frequently found in and near riffles. Johnson (1970) stated that the Brook Floater "lives among rocks on gravel substrates; also on sandy shoals, especially in rapids and riffles of small rivers and creeks". According to Fuller (1977) the characteristic habitat of the Brook Floater is the sand floors or gravel riffles of small, upland, rapidly flowing, oxygen-rich streams in upper portions of river systems. Eugene Kefrel in Adams et al. (1990) noted that the Linville River of the Catawba River Basin population of this species occurred near the mouth of the Linville River and Lake James. Most of the naiades collected or observed were found in a sandy or silt substrate in the cracks between medium to Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job # 18-601 Page 4 large boulders along a steep bank in 1 to 3 feet of water. Habitat in the Chatuga River of the Savannah River Basin is described as bedrock crevices in swift rapids (John Alderman, personal observations). Williams et al. (1993) lists the Brook Floater as Threatened and it is considered Endangered in NC. 4.1.3. Threats to Species The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-point discharge, stream modifications (impoundments, channelization, etc.) have contributed to the decline of this species throughout its range. 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 the river basins within the Brook Floaters'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 Brook Floater. Concern has been raised over competitive interactions for space, food and Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job # 18-601 Page 5 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 Brook Floater or the Pee Dee River Basin. 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 Tim Savidge (Permit # 18-ES0034) and Logan Williams conducted the survey on September 25, 2018. 5.1 Stream Conditions at Time of Survey: Cedar Creek The water was running low and clear at the time of the site visit; however, habitat in the surveyed portion of Cedar Creek appears to have been considerably altered by the recent flooding associated with tropical storm Florence. Based on wrack lines, it appears that water levels in the creek were over the bridge. The channel averaged 12 to 18 feet wide for the majority of the reach; however, there were several areas where the channel was considerably wider as a result of bank scour. The widest (approximately 35 feet) being the scour pool just below the bridge. The highly eroded banks were up to 12 feet high and had totally collapsed in some areas. With the exception of a bedrock outcrop at the downstream extent of the reach, the substrate consisted of newly deposited loose sand and gravel up to two feet thick. Instream habitat consists of riffle and run sequences, with numerous pools created by large trees that have recently fallen into the stream. Water depth ranged from six inches to three feet deep during the site visit. The channel was bordered by forest on both sides of the stream. 5.2 Methodology 5.2.1. Mussel Surveys Mussel surveys were conducted from approximately 1,312 feet (400 meters) downstream of the respective 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. Cedar Creek Freshwater 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. Additionally, if encountered, relative abundance for freshwater snails and freshwater clam species was to be 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 2.0 person-hours of survey time. No other mollusk species were 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 and Brook Floater, do not occur within the surveyed portion of Cedar Creek. Based on these survey results, impacts to these two species 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 Cedar Creek. 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 is not currently federally protected and biological conclusions are not necessary at the time of the writing of this report, if this species were to receive federal protection, the appropriate biological conclusion is as follows: Biological Conclusion Brooke Floater: No Effect Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 7 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Adams, W. F., J. M. Alderman, R. G. Biggins, A. G. Gerberich, E. P. Keferl, H. J. Porter, and A. S. Van Devender. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh. 246 pp, Appendix A, 37 pp. Alderman, J. M., Personal Observations. 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. 1981. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part L• Pegias, Alasmidonta, and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 326:1-101. Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoolo�v, 399: 75. Conrad, T.A. 1835-1840. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades ofLamarck, (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. 1977. Freshwater and terrestrial mollusks. In: John E. Cooper, Sarah S.Robinson, John B. Fundeburg (eds.) Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. 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. Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 8 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. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. 1815-1822. Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertebres. 8 volumes. 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. Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 9 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. Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part IIL• Systematic account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):xvi-384, 21 pls. Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Savidge, T. W., Personal Observations. Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering, Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp. Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue. 2005. Investigations into potential fish hosts for the Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 29 pp. plus appendices. Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317. 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. Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 10 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 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. Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 11 APPENDIX A Figures Cedar Creek Freshwater Mussel Report October 2018 Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 12 3 % ! 'r �` µ � '�r `+ ',�' ,:� EOI� .; � '1. � 20869 ,� � ; � 5 + ,.,"`� � ,,�� c., - COLINTY `y # ti° �ati Ea f�; I ---,�---, �-�-- - ------ �� - —"` -- -- �_ _ �_�_ -- � � 20824 ---� - --- CA&ARRUS CO�JfViY - " �: - ~ �' , � - �'�`: ,;,�` . ' j Y' : � rt [ .. '' 'NC44-.` _ �• _ �V f�. '-'� �` �0857 - - %'I , f`� I J S , . , � y � �y � _ �, 1 , r.�� ti a9 �� s - , �� _ �Qy � , _ } L 4 ra _ -ca .y �'''s J� � � s -.�,� <ti� �L ! "`•� � � ;, ��:;s =.� ��., Q-f I '� rx .. : � � Q?Y� ur m��tP ' r '- E� I�: 2Q821 � r:� � r, �fl�..�� 1 {.__ 4 x�l.�i �,. �f f ia n �.r r' � ti ' � '� ��_ A �� 5'' � R' . `� _ { .� �n.l:y . l. I . 1� 9;� � �! `,�1��`� '\�l4 V hp�+ � �'r..n kC24 , � V '{� C �Q �0. �VRvS .,�`-�4`i � f Yf: � f( �.. rY \ 1jl v - 1 1 �'r/ ; + �� [{ _ �. 1 1'��` � 1 r y.:w( L A " � I -J 1 � ' _ �: r • `y J �'�' �:;'' f '`I ,� � ,r � U� t �EQ I0; � "�. __ `,..� � � ...r 1 21G54 � �pUNTY - ' - �-� :` L i� ��`� �`y � - i ,n�,.. _ `-'` � = _ � ��- �� `� � �,��. cc�ur�rY -�~ - �. , + N Go_ ,--- �. �`°,�� `� �p � _� � , � ,�,�.,,� ��` � � �+ .�t ;'` II rvso� �o , _ `S � .` , � � i - Y R1Cl�IM � G�v � �,;i;;= f � - ��-, j - � _- ��.:s;t . �``s ':',•, � L�.r` �ED I�' 21776 �� r-, � ,,�i` � � k r, � ` -. €"��~` ,� � ` �� % � '�``"' ��' 6rid e 19 /.!f F 4 ,� ` f _ � � � _ � �� 1 - �' +�`��y i/��' �� r� �.� fJ� ' � I l ' n:rt �6� � �. .. � � l +� i S:r. , li"r x � �- � � ..�o- . _ /' tr -li��;Y��; . 1L,'.:'• p � _��.. n,. F d - � �, � � . � ... ir.�� , N�' �i�� `r f . c zi� � � �` esh �f u � _ � � �.-....-r} O � • . _ � '-. �,.. �+• � - � � ,.._ '._ 2 d � �+ � .r � . -- _ � c-, _ o , a � � E. � � �ridge 19 . ;� � s - � , �� _ :.. L� � _ �3� ,1rx-r i/ .4 � p. s, ❑ � f-r: rx .4 r _ t -L .�.+e^; ,�. Stream �z + � �.�.�,,,, �,,:;� " k NCNHP Element �ccurrence �¢ �� ''- ` Y' f • '' � � ` Carvlina Heelsplitter ` _ .� �' � ussz 4ti�,i" Braak Floater , �� ; ---, + � ,�."`: - � ,�', _ �_ � County eoundary + �"� c�� ppen.StreetMap {a�cij contributors, CC-BY-SA — r ��— �� [,��+_��l�/� Prepared For: �SS'� _v� .F �� 4 �� a `a ,� � p� � �; Q M J� g � � � �� a44O � � '�°'°'�d��3�1`�� F t � Replacement of Bridge 19 �n SR 1714 �Allen 5treet) aver C�dar Creel� ��eP.�o.��z NCNHP Element occurrences Anson Caun#y, North Carolina oate:��ember 2018 Sca�e: o i 2 ^n�ies � .10b M1PO 18-6a1 O;awn By: Checked S.v NMS TE❑ Figure � � � �� t` . _�. � . �.� � L �N G�Q29432 , �i �,�` r.�. � r��r � � , r � � ��•L �`` ` .�' � � - r� IVC4�28159 .t � r;, ,� `�, r``� � , �iNC008Q322 _ _ _ `, .�- � NC{}043�32 �;< A} � _ _ � ` � � � � �': IVL.JIIVL� � VJ } "J _ 1�. `L'� � , _ NGdD215�8 ST �` J �. �, -a�� `'� _ �, _� . �� =- �-/ �"` � ,� flU�T�_ o,�" '.�-� aG,i� � , o N�G�M�� G �NT'� � �' `� M. . GQ � � - -- —_ - R�CH��p .. ., i �- � �r�c�os�s�Ncoos$o$� - = � � n, ��,.,; -� � � �'�:.h�:, l ` ��S � j = ` .�� .,�- _ °N� c� �4 -�� _ ,_ ` _ �j' Q�N' , . � L;: _ , • ��'-, _ ;.,f��,��,`�t,� rr `` � s w,r { - .. r '� �� t� ;,, !r frr � - �, .��' ;i3�ti'�' k `-�. + `- �� "� Bridge 19 �� , , � - ,z..,�., a�� I�, = r,� I y�, /� _ � _��r., r-�•�r��r•, tir�sn ; ` r _ Q "� � �'� � , ` ,a�� A,r � - - .�, ; � ,.. � �� ti i � � + , �ir;�, � — . `�ti :� � � \ - i ■ ;.,,> � ;. _._ - NC0074390 .:,'.. _ _ - esb � r� � rn, NG(?�$12$1� ,� �f -- , !i . �.:' ,%iFP i0iit � = r1 �� _ _ A! it " ; {,y ; � � � ";;: ''"'� ^� NC0043320 � hi�l1/� � � � �'� •� � .�,,,�..., t ,,,,� - A[COD204�T - .,:. � �,,,. � ,� NPOE5 Dis�harge y. � " `'' `' '• _ _ �,: r �'` � Major `-r;.� _ ��f 5•�' .�:mc�� . .c .d b Minor �.� /�' Bridge 19 303(d7 Listed 5tream — 5tream . ,,� . ---, ; Caunty Baundary -------- -------- --- us s1 xr:�:: v^'� s�-- � �- �; — - �` - :i :� '� NC00414�8 [,�p_��l�/� Prepared For: �SS'� _v� .F �� 4 �� a `a ,� � p� � �; Q M J� g � � � �� a44O � � '�°'°'�d��3�1`�� F t � Replacement of Bridge 19 �n SR 1714 �Allen Street) aver C�dar Gr��k �7eP.�o.��z 3�3{d} Listed 5treams and NP�ES Discharges Anson Caunty, North Carolina oate:��ember 2018 Sca�e: o i 2 raiies. � . v .10b M1i0 18-6a1 O;awn By: Checked S.v NMS TE❑ Figure