20190233 Ver 1_17BP10R107_Union_FINAL_NRTM_October 2018_20190225

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Replacement of Bridge No. 159 (Union Bridge) on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) over
Polecat Creek
Union County, North Carolina
WBS Element No. 17BP.10.R.107
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Division of Highways — Highway Division 10
October 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
lAINTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................1
3.0 PROTECTED SPECIES ........................................................................................................1
3.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ....................................................................1
3.2 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................2
4.0 WATER RESOURCES AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..............................3
4,1 Water Resources
�:
4.2 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S ................................................................................3
4.3 Construction Moratoria ...................................................................................................4
4.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules .........................................................................................4
4,5 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters .................................................4
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................5
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map
Appendix B. Qualifications of Contributors
Appendix C. Mussel Survey Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Union County .........................................1
Table 2. Potential streams in the study area .............................................................................. 3
Table 3. Potential surface waters in the study area .................................................................. 3
Table 4. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional streams in the study area ....................... 3
Table 5. Characteristics of potential jurisdictional wetlands in the study area ..................... 4

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum ProjectNo. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes the replacement of
Bridge No. 159 (Union Bridge) on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) over Polecat Creek in Union
County, NC (Figures 1-2). The following Natural Resources Technical Memorandum
(NRTM) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a State Minimum Criteria
Determination Checklist (MCDC) in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
2.0 METHODOLOGY
This investigation was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental
Coordination and Permitting's (ECAP) Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports
Procedure and references the latest ECAP NRTR Template (November 2017). Field work
was conducted on January 16, 2018, September 5, 2018, and September 25, 2018. Potential
jurisdictional areas identified in the study area are expected to be verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR). It is anticipated that the USACE will cover the potential features associated
with this project under a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD). The principal
personnel contributing to the field work and document are provided in Appendix B.
3.0 PROTECTED SPECIES
3.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of June 27, 2018, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists three federally
protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), for Union County (Table 1).
For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is included below along
with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area.
Table 1. ESA federally protected species listed for Union County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Biological
Status Present Conclusion
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Yes No Effect
Rhus michauxii* Michaux's sumac E Yes No Effect
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E Yes No Effect
E — Endangered
*
Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)
Carolina heelsplitter
USFWS optimal survey window: year-round
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter eXists within the study area. Therefore,
surveys were conducted by Three Oaks biologists Tom Dickinson and Nancy Scott
on September 25, 2018. Please see the attached mussel survey report (AppendiX
C) for survey details.
October 2018

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum Pro�ect No. 17BP.IO.R.107, 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
The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and enforced
by the USFWS. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity
to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting
sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile radius of
the project limits, was performed on January 15, 2018, using the most currently-available
orthoimagery. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential
feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review
area, a survey of the study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not
conducted. Additionally, a review of the July 2018 NCNHP database revealed no known
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
October 2018
2

Natural Resources Technical Memorandum ProjectNo. 17BP.IO.R.107, 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] 03040202). 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)
Polecat Creek Polecat Creek 13-49-1 C 3-4 6-10 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 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.
One potential surface water (i.e., tributaries, ponds, or basins) was identified in the study
area (Table 3).
Table 3. Potential surface waters in the study area
Surface Water Jurisdictional Map ID of Area (ac) in
Connection Stud Area
PA No None 1.05 acres
4.2 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
One potential jurisdictional stream was identiiied in the study area (Table 4). The location
of this stream is shown on Figure 3. Polecat Creek is shown as a named blue-line channel
on USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle mapping. Therefore, a NCDWR stream
identification form was not completed. A North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
(NCSAM) form is provided in a separate PJD Package. Polecat Creek has been designated
as a warm water stream for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 4. Characteristics of otential 'urisdictional streams in the stud
Map ID Length Classification Compensatory
(ftl Mitigation Reauired
Polecat Creek 606 Perennial
Total 606
Yes
area
River Basin
Buffer
Not Subiect
Two potential jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Table 5). The
locations of these wetlands are shown on Figure 3. All wetlands in the study area are
located within the Yadkin — Pee Dee River basin (USGS HUC 03040202). 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 ProjectNo. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
Table 5. Characteristics of jurisdictional wetlands in the study area
Map ID NCWAM NCWAM Hydrologic
Classification Ratin Classification
WA Flood lain Pool Hi h Ri arian
WB Flood lain Pool Low Ri arian
Total
4.3 Construction Moratoria
No moratoria are recommended at this time.
4.4 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Area (ac) in
Study Area
0.01
0.01
0.02
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.
�.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 Proiect No. 17BP.IO.R.107, Union Countv, N.C.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory.1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
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: 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 Proiect No. 17BP.IO.R.107. 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

�irlut'�
�:'�t:f�c./ �
�fi�ld�l T�dl�
.\
.
\
1
i
�
i
�
�
�_
k��- �
i
, i'
��
����„�L�J �,-�.r
hdonroe�
�
�
�° z +�` S. � ,t�x,
„y ' 4� 'C
',,.'�6 f i�°` F� tl1 Y 5.
k �" $ �
Ar k`'#i
r > ` t`"+>
� ��. �' �
r a
,.d ...:�,Pi�S,e,
,
; � . �
� ; ♦.
�' F ,ti` �
�"'��o,\ � V„#�,
{� � q Pa F
��, $d ��
����'` �' ��
2 �t4,� At
�Ct`�� �3` h ��' „�*,�' .
, �,; a yr; .
�pj ' E ' w �
°.*�e " 9�� `("E h � y .. � `�;�::
� � `1
i
�' � � �`^ � �
,
, � �
� �� b� i, �F�,� z� � t�Pa �N,L w�'. Y�+�rp�� .R�` "��� a c!4
t x �' y 4 # yr',, ,Y, y
i R'�" # �?. ,� ��a`�• ¢�''� ,� y��, .��¢ � , e :.� � � , �;'
--- � I y� ��$ , � �'�'�+:� .r• �{' � � �1� o�'+�' :4c .
�__ ��, � r.\ �� � �' ,,� "� �14 `.�,,1 a .��
OOpenStreetMap (and) 3�, �,' � ' �� ' $� �` ' � =R'� °„�' �
� � � � � ` � x � �x� � �r ..
contributors, CC-BY-SA ��":�� `' �, � ^� �� �,� ,�,� � {r a
� x � vr„�. Ay�i . "�at � i��' �' � a� � ,
��.. , � .�,,..d'� Y. ♦.�7 N�'a` 'a' r . E �r�,r'� ;.+ � � A� a�� .;��a5'`�,,�n � `` 5.,.
�
��
� � ZY� s � t �` , .. a � � .� � t.
p..
� � '�L �: � �it�r �'q",�t �4`�^ 'L�� r. � .a.. � q fi b.f y ��
. .. � ..� k' p ! \ d� . ` w=tc � � W �, � } ..
� � 4 ,�. �C�� .o-'�« � � ; � �, � �i ky�' �;
; . ..���, _ w�����9�',�„$ �� a �,r,�� �. '�_ .. ,Y � 4� i�. .
� , * ��, ` i � �"�'! �ti ` � * t� ,� � �� � * .
�r �•�.��� +�' � W .;�y�"t�y` Y'^t' � � � '� � ,. ,�� � i� a' � , . �
�, . �� � , r — , � �� � �- a "� �,� , ` b ' �
�
� �, � �,,:;� � Bridge 159 x`'. ,��►`� � � x » ,�,: ''� is �^ +� s� � �����
�, /.
°�. .. ��� ' ' �"' �'* ���."�,�, �,j ' " C So pe Rd 1 '� l�: � " ' � ��a �� � ,�q.
�
� '� �
+3 Q \ �y
`Y `
� a a��. 7� . � # ���y.
�� �, i , � �,. ,_ __
..,, �� .: �,�.-�-- � �,,�
��'�:,A� ^�` . ��j� � • �"� �„ . rf'— ,� �,�
i — rr- � �r ,�_�
�i� �? ,� � � '�" °"�� ..�'t � �ta. � f, � �r� -" � �?�.
� �.,,��''°� �l�aQ� �
l,�.r � � �
::� $
4
� � � � � ���.�
14'
i
, +:*..»ro '�' �py �t, ° r.
�"'♦�S` J 4T2!
��,�-y� ,�.t o-, ,.
IC '^1 `.� k � �
! � �`
R "
t
+�� �iy iw�� 4� �`�d
,., . . w, -. R
�, '
� ,�
�� .� �« .
� `'�,. ��`��F �
•1 �
`���`� � .�+�,��.. ���
",, u1.�S,,f �'.
0 Bridge 159
NHD Stream
Road
, � Study Area
�___� County Boundary
�p
�'�� �' `4. �'
n
�oi
�
�
��
; � x �`;"tn�.. � "r�
:f �— � a.� {�'��.
r-- r— 4d
,�;,� �� 3
�� �� �;
�c � ��s ,
:� q ��F � �, �
F; ,�'+���"< � _
� � d r �y; �`
'&: r':
,;��
a 'qk\ i�. y��'Yd:.
���������� :��.
� � .: � r:'�
,�� �� . � _ o _ ta � - , . � ��`F�`�' � r
� � . . - � � j s, g4 �. .�++�za � , ..
. �" � CA�`-� "
� �r,,...r.,r.� �� � .'p4�� � +�� k'�r � r�-
��
� ��
� ;,`
:�, ��� ,
� e e
�
' w
?a
y�� a +�.
� . ��° ����1F� � � "�py��" i. . ,.
e,. �54��? ',r *� .� .,. ..�.�1�
4.. ,� � �,� .
��r +���y,� �,R,
�,�; . � 'S�a } '�+f��l��ia� *"�i�r��. ;
"t !
�.1 . ,�„�:_ � � .�,
�� _.._. _ . '
;. � <'` :,' "'�'+r- a clt,`>cm" : ;
�`� � "ffi� "�'. N �"�.
' � � �y y
� � +�Y � V4�" �q�,` # /
w c+o'i�'Y.:p" j `"F�'� .., � M Yk
1 3�.R� a��'.
��r a� `�"'" �� ' ' �� °y, �
e`
Y
�J` • �- �� k6���`7F'� ��'r�'' _
�%S �'W�� t _
, �,
������ ,�s� �E�, ��.�� + =� _
.f'� 1 � ° 41 A��. g ,/' �
� #� ° . aP^ ` �, ��R
p.0 ,Y." k . 1��� r .: e.,
R7� ' '� a � r + � � °. � t � � �� �''� .
«�
�, . r4 4 �,� t f.._ ti � c '� � ��K �;
��r�.' � . � - �� `� � • '� �i1 � �' � ' �� n � ���+'',� i.
. � ,* a�` �. , � $. ��.i+,i�itiR..i' 4 ..�i"1'�'x.iA�..
��
ti �,:.
,�� � � .��;,t���.`°�,A ',,.. � J I
�
S�_`c\�EER/�C Prepared For:
��v xoxrx
� � y~� OF � c49oy9
W •��� 1'��7
o� a T � � �
� 99jl-^- tiQ
y
f `�N�d�33N\`���'S ��yr OF tApd`'�oe
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
Project Vicinity Map
Union County, North Carolina
oate: August 2018
Scale: 0 200 400 Feet
I i I
Job No.:
18-601
Drawn By: Checked By:
NMS NDH
J
Figure

�-
� Bridge 159
Potential Perennial Stream
Potential Wetland
Potential Pond
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 +i�/n " �
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 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
Jurisdictional Features Map
Union County, North Carolina
�ate: August 2018
Scale: 0 100 200 Feet
I i I
Job No.:
18-601
Drawn By: Checked By:
NMS NDH
Figure

,.� 4 ��:..i� v \ ` �� .... "' . •� � y r
� � +c � �' X` a .
�, ��;,. � � � �'� m .
�� , a� �. � . Ti�
. t � , � .
;.'��,, M.�: w�� . � �,,� ',� '�:yn, �, �"v�.t R �t� � � `A,�'_�� ` �,,�����,[",r ,� �" �. '�: � �y ,�
�� a F \ �nt ',w�'s . � !�`•��i'9 � �b� i a � \ �,:. � si�'R'""^n'�.,,..n,,>�
� � �` ��
�
'C� �'t't, °�� �; s o,� �'."'S`'� s��'�k�' '�'�'�'� � v, :,�r ��k �, � � .�,
-�: ,_.
b �,,,,�• ° ;��'G � C r �� \ ` � � � �? +ii' E _ . 4 ,
�t _ i h � i
�
. fia�+��". e `�f � � �. ��v0@ �X �-'N Y � rt. aR � :'�°� . . �1�.
� �� v y �'LM.`� " .�'�,�`� ;,�� � ��, ,i' fI� ' �;
, � �. � � � � � ; �� 6 ,�; �,,
�
�.y, `"���a'� �' ,; `"�` �' �, � � \ '1�" �� �;�; � � � : ' •
��'k�`�` ��°� �� „�,� �;��� ���'a �` ,Xt\^ '`�� '� , � a ` i' �"� � �
�+ '#"�� �� �}� � , � �;A �� ,� ""� ��� �tp. ,��r� � �
� � �'�. X t� �. � � � , C ,� �
r
r,- s r �t �2,'��' �.
i'� � � � y, . � f � i '�C1�� � � � ,.�,t .y�� . � n 4q .. , y -. ��A . .
��
4 � �y ��,f ;� � �
�' � ' ,� r�� ` ��_ y.,,� r ° � +a�� 4, � �� .�: � � �"
. ;?' �\ ; LS �� l ��� �rk� �,� � . k� .
�
�� ��" 1 � ��� ` �\ � ��' r � _ ,p��, � . . �� ��..
. � y, " y#��� y,y�, ,�r�* � ' r
� y�� 4^�� '^ a `� `y ,h � + ��`��'+'f' yd n t m . �'Y:i . s a1 � h � .
'Y` \ ) \� � � » � i. .. h .!{, . �.:k R � T R � �C ,
-' �. �� � � � �� � � F ;� s � � �� � �1�� ,�` y ��za+ �t�� a V � ��� h t" l•
.t
�i � u. - �
'v�. ��� � �� � � ., a ��K. � n_• � '1
� K t� \ ��\� 1 \`°�' � � \\, � t2 ' ' ���r- �r , � �'�' �
� � �„\'� � S . \� v . �.% �e � 4A . t �, h � , . � . � � -"\� i,�` � � � , . ,�..
� ►, .�a�, �i;',`��, ,"�.� ,'���� �s '��� ?', a �' *;''.`p .. ectfRd ' ��
�.
��s � ,,,.?. '�" � � ' �" �� pros �
� �, ��,. ".r WB �� � ��
;�; �?� - ' ; "1 /
� � Polecat Creek �/.�,�+'°
� . . �� . ���+N�rA.
�,`<
Bridge 159 ,.�,��,�,,;' ':�t�I y�k'�� �
. . , �.y �c ;���wy �y ,��� .:1p,, � �� o
� �t
��' �� ��� �'e���WA
� - e.
kitio„ . a . .� '� ri�C+�
�
PA
�
. . y r � ;,4�� ��
, ���� �
�� � �.
,_ , .
,.�, �
�� ��
��
�-
. � £ :��
-��,� �:�" "
�-
� �Ss��`�"
� � ��,
���x�
� Bridge 159
Potential Perennial Stream
Road
Potential Wetland
Potential Pond
"_ � StudyArea
/ `
;�. �
j��� '` �
s.,� -. ,,::
��k �
�
¢h
� ,.��
}�.
.�..,
, - ...�.
�� .
�� � _
�
j�
1' � `.�
�R4 M C��`' I
��� �� ,
�a ` a� ���', iK.�� . ..a
� � � ` ...� .
�.��=._ �-��
�.,:: .
' � m� �� �` :{�
�� a =y
,
r ��� ��s1,. - �-
- F� ��'
, . ,� �, ,
' , . � �� �'�.:
. , �� ��
a�.
. .. , �.bt -:
�
u _�� ��
` ';e�,:'� � {yNC
�
� x
�� �, ,
���
_ � �. �`,
�� ,
S�_`c\�EER/�C Prepared For:
��v xoxrx
� � y~� OF � c49oy9
W •��� 1'��7
o� a T � � �
� 99jl-^- tiQ
y
f `�N�d�33N\`���'S ��yr OF tApd`'�oe
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
Jurisdictional Features Map
Union County, North Carolina
�ate: August 2018
Scale: 0 50 100 Feet
I i I
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 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, April 2017-Present
Responsibilities: Document preparation
Investigator: Kate Montieth Sevick
Education: M.S. Natural Resources Sciences, University of Rhode Island, 2004
B.A. Biology, Reed College, 2000
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Three Oaks Engineering, April 2015-Present
Environmental Specialist and Graphics Coordinator, The Catena
Group, 2004-2015
Responsibilities: GIS mapping
Investigator: James Mason
Education: M.S. Biology/Ecology, UNGCharlotte 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. 159 on SR 2169 (Prospect Road)
over Polecat Creek
WBS Element # 17BP.10.R107
Union County, North Carolina
g� k; m�;.. =
� � �
3 �:
� ` �+ ��,,
�.�. `¢ { �
'� ;� � `,�:
- ���,<,
`����11
- :,r-�-:
��.µ ���
At
v rY
�° �: ���
i: _ . � '. .
� s'r � �; `g :
._ _,�..d' .�
�.. . . ' . �.�.1'.�i'x T�y M us � .
Polecat Creek during the survey efforts
�Y � �
�� . , p�� i�
;�
L
T 'ke�.
� � +•` �.
;:�.
sr � . �
��. . � ���. ^
Prepared For:
F N08 q
4
t
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
p `�
October 1, 2018

Prepared by:
��,��t�E�1Pl,y�.
� �
� �
�� �
�����
324 Blackwell Street, Suite 1200
Durham, NC 27701
Contact Person:
Tom Dickinson
tom.dickinson(a�threeoaksen�ineerin .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: Polecat 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. 159 over Polecat Creek on SR 2169 (Prospect Road) in Union County (Appendix A, Figure
1). The project will impact Polecat 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 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 the targeted species in approximate river
miles (RM) from the project crossing. Data are from both the NC Natural Heritage Program
database (NCNHP 2018) most recently updated in July 2018 and the South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources (SCDNR 2017) (Figure 2).
Table 1. Element Occurrences
EO Distance from First Last EO
S ecies Name EO ID Waterbod crossin river miles Observed Observed Status*
Carolina Heelsplitter 8399 Lynches 17.5 June 1997 June 1997 �
River
Atlantic Pigtoe 22093 Lanes �50 September September c
Creek 2002 2002
*: C: NCNHP Current; �: SCDNR does not designate
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
Polecat Creek is located in the Upper Lynches River subbasin (HUC# 03040202) of the Yadkin
Pee Dee River basin. Polecat Creek flows approximately 7.2 river miles (RM) to its confluence
with the Lynches River.
2.1 303(d) Classification
Polecat Creek is not on the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) -
Division of Water Resources 2016 Fina1303(d) list of impaired streams (NCDEQ 2016). There
is one 303(d) listed stream within a five-mile radius of the subject bridge (Waxhaw Creek), but
that stream is not within the same Hydrologic Unit as Polecat Creek. The closest 303(d) listed
stream within the same Hydrologic Unit as Polecat Creek is Hills Creek, which is approximately
12.3 RM downstream of the subject bridge (in South Carolina). Hills Creek is impaired for
biology (SCDNR 2016, Figure 3).
2.2 NPDES discharges
There are no NPDES dischargers upstream of the Polecat Creek survey area. There are no
NPDES discharges within a five-mile radius of the subject bridge (USEPA 2018, Figure 3).
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 1

3.0 TARGET FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 Lasmigona decorata (Carolina Heelsplitter)
3.11. 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
Polecat Creek 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.
Polecat Creek 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).
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 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
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job # 18-601 Page 4

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).
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.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job # 18-601 Page 5

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: Polecat Creek
Habitat in the surveyed portion of Polecat Creek consisted of a sequence of shallow run/riffle
and pool habitat with water depth ranging from a few inches to 2 feet deep. Substrates were
dominated by sand and silt, with areas of gravel, cobble, and bedrock. The channel ranged from
5 to 10 feet wide with stream banks 3 to 8 feet high, which were significantly eroded and scoured
throughout the surveyed reach. The water was slack in many sections and showed signs of
eutrophication. The reach was surrounded by agricultural fields, pasture, and a confined animal
feeding operation (upstream), with a small buffer of trees. It was noted during the survey that a
pasture on the right descending bank of the stream had grazing cattle, which appeared to have
access to the stream. This has contributed to the eroding banks and allowed cattle manure to be
directly deposited in the stream.
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. 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:
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 6

➢(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 mollusks were found during 1.0 person-hours of survey time in the reach.
7.0 DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
No freshwater mussel species were found during these surveys. Instream habitats were
significantly degraded from surrounding animal agriculture use. 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 Polecat Creek.
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 Polecat 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 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
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 7

8.0 LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J. M. 1995. Monitoring the Swift Creek Freshwater mussel community. Unpublished
report presented at the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and Management of
Freshwater Mussels II Initiative for the Future. Rock Island, IL, UMRCC.
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North
Carolina Freshwater Mussel Conservation Partnership, Raleigh, NC, 101 pp, 10 color
plates.
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland
Species from the Southeastern United States as Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act. Apri120, 2010, 1,145 pp. Available online at:
https://www. fws.gov/southeast/pdf/petition/404-aquatic.pdf
Clarke, A.H. 1985. The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part II: Lasmigona and
Simpsonaias. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoolo�v, 399: 75.
Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations; and a
monograph of the genus Anculotus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J.
Dobson, 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1-76, 8 pls.
Conrad, T.A. 1835-1840. Monography of the Family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh
water bivalve shells) or North America, illustrated by figures drawn on stone fi^om
nature. 108 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. Dobson.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion Silt as a Factor in Aquatic Environments. Ecology 17: 29-42.
Fuller, S. L. H. and C. E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in
the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Nautilus 87(2): 59.
Goudreau, S. E., R. J. Neves, and R. J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of Sewage Treatment Effluents
on Mollusks and Fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. USFWS: 128 pp.
Johnson, R.I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) of
the southern Atlantic slope region. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology.
140: 263-449.
Keferl, E.P. 1991. "A status survey for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). A
freshwater mussel endemic to the Carolinas." Unpublished report to US Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Keferl, E.P. and R.M. Shelly. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, (Lasmigona decorata), and the Carolina elktoe, (Alasmidonta robusta),
Unpublished Report to the U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: 47.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 8

Lea, L 1852. Descriptions of new species of the family Unionidae. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 10 (New Series): 253-294, 218 plates.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater
mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the
Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island IL. 270 pp.
Master, L. 1986. Alasmidonta heterodon: results of a global status survey and proposal to list as
an endangered species. A report submitted to Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 10 pp. and appendices.
McMahon, R. F. and A. E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalvia. Pp. 331-429. IN: J.H. Thorpe and
A.P. Covich. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates.
2"aedition. Academic Press.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan,
and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation and
Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island IL.189 pp.
Neves, R. J. and J. C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat Ecology of Juvenile Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia:
Unionidae) in a Headwater Stream in Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 1(5): 1-
7.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Water Resources.
2016. 2016 North Carolina 303(d) List. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-
report-files
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2018. Biotics Database. Division of Land and Water
Stewardship. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
July 2018 version.
O'Neill, C. R., Jr., and D. B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): an
unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Pennak, R. W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, Protozoa to Mollusca. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Savidge, T. W., J. M. Alderman, A. E. Bogan, W. G. Cope, T. E. Dickinson, C. B. Eads,S. J.
Fraley, J. Fridell, M. M. Gangloff, R. J. Heise, J. F. Levine, S. E. McRae, R.B. Nichols,
A. J. Rodgers, A. Van Devender, J. L. Williams and L. L. Zimmerman. 2011. 2010
Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks in
North Carolina. Unpublished report of theScientific Council on Freshwater and
Teresstrial Mollusks. 177pp.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 9

Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachusetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2016. 2016 South Carolina 303(d) List.
www. scdhec. gov/homeandenvironment/water/impairedwaters/overview/mindex. htm
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2017. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered
Species in South Carolina. Accessed September 20, 2018.
https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=lpDPB402GWRHyPS SyvGeiorNdtU
4qtXm65vdOvvk #map:id=3
Starnes, W.C. and G.M. Hogue. 2005. Investigations into potential fish hosts for the Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Final Draft Unpub. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC. 29 pp. plus appendices.
Strayer, D. L., S. J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide assessment of populations of
Alasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae). J.N.
Am. Benthol. Soc., 15(3):308-317.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. NPDES facilities by permit type.
NPDESPERMIT_WMERC. Accessed September 19, 2018.
https://watersgeo. epa. gov/arcgis/rest/services/OWPROGRAM/NPDESPERMIT_WMER
C/MapServer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992a. Special report on the status of freshwater
mussels.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The Red Book). FWS, Ecological Services, Div. of Endangered
Species, Southeast Region. Govt Printing Office, Wash, DC: 1,070.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan, Atlanta, GA: 47.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina Heelsplitter; Final Rule, Dept of
the Interior. Federal Register 67(127):44501-44522.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Draft Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 34 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-
Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Asheville, NC, 31 pp.
https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year review/doc3992.pdf
Polecat Creek 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.
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 11

APPENDIX A
Figures
Polecat Creek Mussel Report October 2018
Three Oaks Job #18-601 Page 12

�:���-
��,�.:�"� :,:
;��.����" � ry���"
r• �_�tV.L..I�L_ r- w� }T�y,If,. '� �� _ � I � Q
r i •^r�" " � ¢+� � ' t�t
.'.ii l�e�s� + ���; �� ,�4��,f��
1; r �n Tr�9�� +f �,'o' ��_`�,.•f� r �,.���",r•�,"'�
f" i •S' .f,���,� r '�� µ • h �
.- + *;� � yJ,�f.,e�;` #: �y��'�
•h.i "'y���Sf �
r�.'.nnroe� + ��f '���" �' �'.,�'��,.��
} i I .a .:� �• � e�'*� �j� �` .
I J . ,. . . � {f .
l + : �� �r+ �--
1 I ��Yp��� � '�
i + � � � a��
I � �`Lf �``. 'r'�r6r+.,/�r r�� �'�4i'� .�.: �'
a + .�" � t4"•r:' r� K .� '+1.:.r.�g,� s +. "�n. y fp�,:�
__—�____� � � ±F • .
� r. ' - r,p..� J y� '�" +}'1^�I��, . ` . , �.,-
�_—... [ - .. �+'W� '� �� err ""}� . . . `3�� „
.. C)pE17STCE�'�MBp ��Cld} ��� .�..,,a vi,fis�. ��"�e' � • T�'v� r,!-' � .*►��:r' r.'.
contribuiprs. CC-BY-SA ��r �+� .�. .� .' �^''�r`� � f� _ r f�+y�.: ��,yt rt��,•r��`�
'y, �:�:��" a�",�_+ i. �,�
R�I�''"w�' � " ,'F,�*" -.���r':"1r" . �
r-+�y4 ^-,. ,r �
.
* � �'�►��. ,,±P � �,..,} �'fy.� �:ti �!Le.
� � .
r
. fr ,�.. �f' -• . - . � . ,. �,.
' _. . � . � � �'� 'M��. Y,t f .,
�'�ti r� l � w r
. �. � * �'_. ,�, - � "'� ..,,,Lt
� + `h�� ,+- �,,s, : at�'"'��c'�.'� � e ,� t . '� , �'+�i � f .
�� 'R�+ i�"/�'y�",s-" ,"`,��a► � � �� _ �'•.
..�� � x. G ���.J Yr�.' �-�. � � � _
L+ I''� , f ��'
. �?+k�`,� � "� � ", BridgP_ 15� �� �'� r.� -�, � , f � ".
T � �; A� '� • �% •,
\ ; �r, �, �;
��� y G . � � � . . F
",� �ry � :
IT �ry
i� � � ti �. � � : •
`� !,i � r� �� «��•
��►,.- � �,, '"' �''�_ .
� + �; r , �r�#r, � �'�• +`-«;�'�j'� ".r
� ��r , �ii' 1 �' �• '� j . � �
.�� ! �.�_ r� - - � -- � -y+� 7':�� •
�f �.+,;•.:di�
.:d
.�^" fwi"�=..X�,�c���,�j�r
r' �r �tl;�
�":� '� '�.�".�,�
i��-` t' T�"- �",�+� Jr �
/ �
�..��,�,;j•�.�
. ._•_,., �,,.�
�"" f .,�ul� ►x*�'R.�M
. ��' - � ��� *
' , - �1
, Bridge � �9 '�'.'�'
�j
5urveyReach �`�
r; .�� �
NHQ St�eam � "�+.x �
i ��l ti
f�i?8C� "�' .` �9
r�i ` �:�.
�'
� 5tudy Area
�___� County 8vundary
���� �
v�
� � , � la'��
� � {, r�r" . k�'+ � 1,� � _
;1����iC ��.1"r- �j'!y �,.
�'_-rr� •_�,'�.��
Y`�,.r�:-� .r�,�,
'j �
� L �
� �
� �•' .
*s�s��:a
_ .,
.��
1
�` � j!�
. •° .
�` "
.���.��. _� : �.
„
!� '' °+�'
�. � r r:.. r�
4C � �"-"
� _
,
�r '� ,�•:.=�
n..i i �
,� � .
� :
�.'
�
�r. . ....* , .
.ir.,••,��y j'�?
�� �'.�'�'::`� '
»,r ��„r�
� r �r+ .. �' .
. r '6"J�
:r
,,, r/;�. •
£ - - _�
�
: '�
��..�.t'' . �� #'��
� .- * - 'r � wi
� � . �
��
�"_` ._ . � r ..
� ��
. �►*�
,
.i�,;,,r��,,.
�r iv►� �'i
..•
� . � f...
Q r -.l .q"�! �
� � .��
�:��;�'"�--"`q �
�. _ �
.�
� -!
[,��+_�����l�/� Prepared For:
�SS'� _v� .F �� 4
9�
a 'a
,� � p� � �;
Q M J� g
� � � �� � a44O �
� '�''''�d��3�1`�� F t �
�� f.
Replacement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
(Prospect Rd� ❑ver Pal�cat Creek
17BP.10.R1(}7
Project Vicinity Map
Union County. North Carolina
aate:September 2D18
Sca�e: 0 2f76 40a Feet
� , �
.10h �IO
1e-sa�
O�awn By: Ch.er,ked $y
NMS 'fE❑
Figure

�
Z731
Bridge 159
�� f�'� ED ID. 22093 �
� l�
�
' �� �
� �� �
�
f �
�
Lir�j�
S �'�z�l \
�
�
�. I
Sf
/
/7 ' (�',(, 'cS'[t` � ' �I ' �
J� C]
� � � j .�� .;_•�a.,d Sti° �
at C��� �s� �
h�c��Ji4a�' S�'�' �Q BI�,�C'� �
���;�• ` i� • a G �ek�'° °�r
So �h��n�r�fvc��.�reek �2� Z Si9 ��"
� � P,fB�t �l�n�� � �
ruye•i
n �
�ta�G �
�- ��� � a
TU�� �ee `�
t} �y o r f
� ` � '�� � � f}
� �ub1��J
.� L
�3 ��
� ��� � � �
4y 1
� Sridge 159 �
DNR Element �eeurrence
Carolina Heelsplitter
CNHP Element �ccurren�e
Carolina Heelsplitter
Atlar�t3c Pigtae
NHD Stream
Caunty Boundary
� �y � t�
z�' z
C3 i D
z �
�� ¢
,
I
�S���IKEERIy��
0 � 1'}'�'�„
...
4
'� � ���
�
r'�°'°'�d��3�1�
Prepared For:
F N6RTy
� ayn
a `a
�p � � �a
J� g�~
� a440
F t �
_�
Replaeement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
{Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
NCNHP Element occurrences
Unian Caunty. North Carolina
r ` ��� � -
E0 ��: $399 s�f �
� Ea��:z�s� � .
r � � �m` ' ''�r
EO I D: 1025� EC3 I �: C199 '�.-��
� `� o�' �
�� ED'ID:5142 �umBranc
� � �� �� ,�
�. E❑ ID�5658 -'Er[){li�:��i 35 �
. �. ft r ,-�..<,n � �
EO �q�42f �� ~ EO.ID: 3245�" M.�rg�r�� �
i �,s. f
��' .,.-�� �- ���'�� ` EDIID: 941 ���e
E� ID: 538 � �p ID: 7382 �� �-� �
�yG�� � � � E❑ I�:_2196 �o�
�D.1 �: 7253
�1 � � �� f�)�ner� treetMap�tansil co�t�ib�ittors. C
aate:���ember 2018
Sca�e:
'J 1 2 `A.IES
1 . I
.,ch nr�
� a-s��
Oi&Wll B'y: (:h.orF�@� j',4
�vn�is r�❑
Figure

�S���IKEERIy��
0 � 1'}'�'�„
...
4
'� � ���
�
r'�°'°'�d��3�1�
Prepared For:
F N6RTy
� ayn
a `a
�p � � �a
J� g�~
� a440
F t �
Replaeement of Bridge 159 on SR 2169
{Prospect Rd) over Polecat Creek
17BP.10.R107
3�3{d} Listed 5treams and
NP�ES Discharges
Unfan Cour�ty. �larth Carolina
aate:���ember 2018
Sca�e:
'J 1 2 `A.IES
1 . I
.,ch nr�
� a-s��
Oi&Wll B'y: (:h.orF�@� j',4
��� ��❑
Figure