20110692 Ver 1_Complete File_20110725

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Depa^-nent of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
June 11, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., P.E., Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator G-i-?
SUBJECT: Review of Natural Systems Technical Report for Bridge No. 175 on SR 1901, Burke
County, State Project No. 8.2853301, TIP Project B-4046.
In reply to your request for comments on proposed bridge replacement projects, NC Division of Water
Quality staff have the following recommendations:
¦ White Oak Creek (stream index 11-129-2-6) is classified as WS-111 trout ORW.
¦ Care should be taken in removal of the existing bridge and any debris lost in the stream should be
removed.
¦ Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, case 1 (9-20-99 policy).
¦ DWQ recommends that the bridge be replaced with the bridge. The new bridge should be designed
so that there are no piers in the stream channel.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a §401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Marcella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
M-
to
1'DM
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 175 ON SR 1901
OVER WHITE OAK CREEK
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4046
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2853301
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4046

PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
FEBRUARY 2002
r;? >
I4

f
1
1
1
G

TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 175 ON SR 1901
OVER WHITE OAK CREEK
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4046
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2853301
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4046
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
1 2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................4

1
1
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................10
3.1 Biotic Communities ............................................................................................................10
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology .....................................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ............................................................................................3
2.1 Regional Characteristics ...................................................................................................4
2.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Water Resources ...............................................................................................................5
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification .......................................................................................5
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters ..................................7
2.3.3 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................8
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring ..................................................................................8
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges .....................................................9
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts .............................................................9
3.1 .1 Altered Right-of-Way Communities ...................................................................... 11
3.1 .2 Open Fields .......................................................................................................... 11
3.1 .3 Landscaped or Developed Areas ..........:.............................................................. 13
3.1 .4 Successional Sapling and Scrub/Shrub Communities ......................................... 13
3.1 .5 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forests .............................................................. 13
3.1 .6 Montane Oak/Hickory Forest ................................................................................ 14
3.1 .7 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area ................................................................... 15
3.1 .8 Aquatic Community ............................................................................................... 16
NCDOT
Page i
02/98/2002
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '
I
10
3.1.8.1 Flora ......................................................................................................... 16
3.1.8.2 Fauna ....................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ................................................
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ................:............................................................................... 17
17
,
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts .................................................................................................... 17
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ........................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................................ 18
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected ..................................... 18
4.1.2 Permits .................................................................................................................
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition .................................................................................... 19
20
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ...................................................................... 20
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ........................................................................................... 21
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................................................................................. 21
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................ 22
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 24
LIST OF FIGURES '
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................
Figure 2. Water Resources and Physiography of the Region .................................................................... ..2
..6
'
Figure 3. Biotic Communities of the 8-4046 Project Area .......................................................................... 12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. - Federally Protected Species of Burke County ...........................................................................22
Table 2. - Federal Species of Concern for Burke County ...........................................................................23
LIST OF APPENDICES '
Appendix A: Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in Burke County, North Carolina ...........................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Qualifications of Principal Investigators .............................................................................. B-1
Appendix C: Wetland Data Forms ...........................................................................................................C-1
Appendix D: DWQ Wetland Rating Sheets .............................................................................................D-1

1
1
NCDOT Page ii 02/16/2002
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this report is to inventory and
describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which have a
probability of being impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable
impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will
minimize resource impacts.
' This report identifies areas of articular environmental concerns that m
P may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should
be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this document
are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary boundaries and design. If design parameters
and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge Number 175 on SR 1901 in Burke County, North
Carolina. The proposed project crosses White Oak Creek approximately 0.7 mile (1.1 kilometers) north of
Mount Gilead Church and 1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers) south of Brushy Knob (Figure 1).
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource information
pertaining to the project area was collected and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary
investigation of the project area include:
r
r
1
r
r
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Casar 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for Casar 7.5-
minute quadrangle (1995).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project area
(1:1,200 scale).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil
Conservation Service) provisional soil survey of Burke County, North Carolina (unpublished).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Discharges and RCRA Map accessed via EPA's
EnviroMapper Program (September 2001).
Water research information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR, 1999; 2000, 2001). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the project area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service list of protected and candidate species (3 March 2001) and from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (NCNHP, 2001).
NCDOT Page 1 02/18/2002
\I
TIP 84046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
yUU r
1924 ' 1909
1908
19 7
B-4046 _
1904 1910,
2028
J (? V i
901
1924
1 - N
acob
cl,
Ramsey
co
2 1973 . '
1905 1910
4
r
ri
y
1905
rv 19 .... 1924
1906 Gasp, ;
C L E V E L A N D I.
C O U N T Y
NCDOT Page 2 0211812002

i

1
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state-listed or federal-listed species. USFWS
Recovery Plans for federal-listed species were reviewed, where applicable.
Environmental scientists on the staff of HSMM, Inc. conducted field investigation of natural
resources within the project area on 19 July 2001. Qualifications of environmental scientists who
conducted the field investigations are provided in Appendix B. Water resources were identified and
categorized, and their physical characteristics were documented while in the field. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of Natural Communities
of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) was used to classify plant
communities, where possible. Plant taxonomy was based primarily upon the Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas (Radford, et al., 1968): Animal taxonomy was based primarily upon Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia (Martof, et al., 1980), Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware (Rohde, et al., 1994), Birds of the Carolinas (Potter, et al., 1980), and Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland (Webster, et al., 1985).
Approximate boundaries of major vegetation communities were mapped while in the field utilizing
aerial photography of the project area. Wildlife identification involved active searching of known or
suspected species, incidental visual observations, incidental auditory indicators (such as birdsong and
other sounds), and secondary indicators of species presence or site utilization (such as scat, tracks, and
burrows). Predictions regarding wildlife community composition were supplemented utilizing a general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetation communities and aquatic habitat.
t Wetlands subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 were identified and delineated according to methods
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the
Corps' 6 March 1992 guidance document titled Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Values of
wetlands delineated were assessed utilizing the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1995). Wetland types were classified based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland
boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey
methods.
t 1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purpose of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations:
• Project area - denotes the area bound by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of
the project alignment.
• Project vicinity - denotes an area extending 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) on all sides of the project
area.
• Project region - denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS
quadrangle map (i.e., 60.8 square miles or 157.5 square kilometers).
NCDOT Page 3 02/18/2002
t
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography can significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality
degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the
flow and the quality of the water resources, potentially limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil
characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Burke County lies in the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian) Mountains Physiographic Province of
western North Carolina. The county encompasses 511 square miles (1,323 square kilometers) and is
primarily rural. The county ranges in elevation from approximately 935 feet (285 meters) mean sea level
(msl) where the Catawba River flows into Catawba County to 4,350 feet (1,326 meters) msl. Elevations
within the project area range from approximately 1,140 to 1,180 feet (347 to 360 meters) msl, with the
stream bed near the bridge lying at approximately 1,140 feet (347 meters) msl.
White Oak Creek is located within the upper portion of the Catawba River basin. The headwaters
of the Catawba River and its tributaries are located within the mountain physiographic region. This river
basin originates on the eastern side of the Blue Ridge Mountains and flows towards the North Carolina -
South Carolina border near Charlotte, North Carolina. The Catawba River basin, along with the adjoining
Broad River basin, forms the headwaters of the Santee-Cooper River system, which flows through South
Carolina to the Atlantic Ocean. The Catawba River basin encompasses all of Burke and Catawba
Counties, as well as portions of Alexander, Avery, Caldwell, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell,
Mecklenburg, Union, and Watauga Counties. There are 58 municipalities located in the Catawba River
basin, with several areas of the basin being classified for water supply use. Over 45 percent of the land in
the Catawba River basin is covered in forests (NCDENR, 1999).
2.2 Soils
The portion of Burke County within the project area (NRCS map panel B-9) has been mapped by
NRCS under the currently provisional (unpublished) soil survey. Official soil series descriptions were also
obtained by the NRCS (USDA: http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/osd). A brief description of unofficial
soil types observed during field investigation is as follows:
• Fluvaguents- difl w nts complex along the stream bed (unmapped by NRCS but observed during
field investigation).
• Fontaflora-Ostin Complex - flooded (0 to 5 percent slopes) (Fol3) consists mainly of very deep,
well-drained Fontaflora soil and nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, well and moderately well-
NCDOT Page 4 02/18/2002

t

TIRB-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
drained Ostin soil. These soils occur on floodplains of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. The
Fontaflora soils formed in recent alluvium that is sandy or loamy in the upper part and sandy-
skeletal in the lower part. The Ostin soils formed in coarse textured alluvium containing large
amounts of sand, gravel, and cobbles. Permeability ranges from moderately to very rapid. Runoff
is slow. These soils are occasionally or frequently flooded. This soil complex is not listed as
hydric soils of Burke County; however, it is listed as a soil complex that typically contains
inclusions of Nikwasi hydric soils (USDA, 1996, 1999).
• Evard-Cowee Complex - stony (30 to 50 percent slopes) (EvE) consists mainly of very deep, well-
drained, steep Evard soil and moderately deep, well-drained, steep Cowee soil. These soils occur
on mountainside slopes. In places the surface layer contains gravel. Permeability is moderate in
the Evard and Cowee soils and surface runoff is rapid in bare or unprotected areas. These soils
underlie the moderately steep land surfaces in the northern portion of the project area. Neither
soil comprising this complex is listed as a hydric soil of Burke County (USDA, 1996, 1999).
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards, and water quality aspects of water resources, along with their relationship to major regional
drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
The project area begins just south of the floodplain of Jacob Fork. A perennial stream, White Oak
Creek, comprises the single water resource within the project area (Figure 2). The portion of White Oak
Creek flowing through the project area is located within the Catawba River drainage basin. The Catawba
River basin is the eighth largest river basin in North Carolina, encompassing 3,279 square miles (8,493
square kilometers).
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050102 (the South Fork Catawba drainage basin). Under
the North Carolina DWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as Subbasin 03-08-35 (the Henry Fork, Jacob Fork, Clark Creek, Indian Creek, and
South Fork Catawba River Subbasin).

2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams and rivers have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWQ). The assigned best usage classification reflects water quality conditions and
potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the named streams to
which they flow.
The single water resource located in the project area, White Oak Creek, is designated as DWQ
Stream Index Number 11-129-2-6. White Oak Creek in the project vicinity and nearby Jacob Fork have
NCDOT Page 5 0211812002

TIP 84046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
r r jt ?? ??f,rf ?. ? ? • ?„ it /'t..` '?!, \' ?.
44
II ;.?';'? ' 2,000' 4,000'
u;•
, r ?_. ?/: ••,?' ?V.
1?:? r 1i•' ???' SCALE: 1"=2,000' .J\i t:\• (,?''? ??•
fl yV_. ,:'! lJr L• 445 \? /••?
'Ix
2-1
?1 r' err%;??• r%/ . ?, r-? -.p ?. • ;.?:? ?v ri /i r '
jIX
01
ti r
10 Lj
?? rt? '??''}?` `? 1 I?•?, j r/ t natr VY ,•?\, • •O {.. /.,•?? _+{` ??. '\•'t? •'0?.? n
r--e,,1 j,1? ._ : i C :;; r / ?`? .?.`'? L. ' y ; •tiye
) ! ! ??'? S"• -??j j rf?`? t S?I' ?t ?J { / O {'/? ../
f !! rjr?/' '.% \
??+1' + %??. f/ f r?? 1 ?l • ? .? _J ? L :?,,1 ? ? r1 ' 1. 11'I ?? Y L, 1 %r•.` ,••• •••`, .
67
•? ?i?_, j' r ?r ,?,; f l rye- f %\\v^I
r l J - ?l? J i /' ;i? r,: ?? ?- \ r? •? fi ?!
'.-? _ l/J,`;'.r•!.+? rl i?t.? ,1Natll?.?•. / ?? .. .'S ._•?'.?. `rJr..n0?'.?1??% ?:i'? %??,,' •.1 •,, -3? ..
yh ?pFTti WATER RESOURCES AND PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
SR 1901 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
OVER WHITE OAK CREEK (TIP B-4046) FIGURE 2
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Excerpted from USGS Casar 7.5-minute Quadrangle, 1995)
NCDOT Page 6 0211812002
' TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' been assigned a primary water resource classification of "WS III" and supplemental water resource
classifications of "Tr" (Trout Waters) and "ORW" (Outstanding Resource Waters). Class "WS III" refers to
waters that are protected "as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes."
These waters are found in low to moderately developed watersheds.
¦ The surface water classification of `?r" is a "supplemental classification intended to protect
freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout". As stated in the standards, this
' designation affects wastewater quality but not the type of discharges, and there are no watershed
development restrictions except stream buffer zone requirements of the North Carolina Division of Land
Resources.
The surface water classification of "ORW" is a "supplemental classification intended to protect
unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or national
ecological or recreational significance." These waters must have an excellent rating from the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality and have one of the following: (1) outstanding fisheries, (2) unusually
high level of water-based recreation, (3) a special designation such as North Carolina or National Wild and
Scenic Rivers or National Wildlife Refuge, (4)_ important. part of state--or national park or forest, or(5)
-- -- --
ecological or scientific significance (rare or endangered species or research areas). No new or expanded
' wastewater discharges are allowed on these waters and the North Carolina DWQ will enforce stormwater
controls within these watersheds.
' Surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW) occur within 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) of the
project area. The following waters are HQW by definition: WS-I, WS-11, SA (shellfishing), ORW, and waters
' for which the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has received a petition for reclassification to either WS-1 or
WS-11.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters

1

t
As previously discussed, White Oak Creek comprises the single water resource within the project
area. The proposed project crosses White Oak Creek on SR 1901 approximately 0.7 mile (1.1 kilometers)
north of Mount Gilead Church and 1.3 miles (2.1 kilometers) south of Brushy Knob. White Oak Creek
ranges in width from approximately 10 feet (3.0 meters) to 15 feet (4.6 meters) within the project area.
Observed depths at the time of field investigation ranged from several inches (several centimeters) in
riffles to approximately 1.5 feet (0.5 meter) in deeper portions of runs. At the time of field investigation, the
average water depth of the creek was estimated at 4.0 inches (10 centimeters) and the stream was
flowing at an estimated velocity of 1.5 feet per second (0.5 meter per second). Water levels appeared to
be at or near the ordinarily high water level at the time of investigation. An abundance of brown algal mats
was observed in White Oak Creek where an intermittent stream draining a pond drains into the creek Oust
upstream of the bridge).
The substrate of White Oak Creek in the project area is comprised of sediments ranging in size
from fine sand to small boulders. White Oak Creek is relatively straight and featureless within the project
area. This portion of the stream exhibits deeper portions of runs resembling shallow, weakly defined
NCDOT Page 7 02/25/2002
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
pools. The stream channel exhibits moderately steep banks and a simple trapezoidal cross-section. '
Within the project area, White Oak Creek is characterized by a well-defined series of riffles and runs, with
the riffles generally being as wide as the stream and extending distances equivalent to at least twice the
width of the stream. No sand bars or major channel meanders were observed.
The stream banks are low, moderately steep, and well-vegetated with a generally healthy '
assemblage of small trees and shrubs. As a result, they exhibit indicators of low erosion. The riparian
vegetation zone ranges from 40 to 60 feet (12 to 18 meters) in width throughout most of the project area;
however, small, breaks are present where the stream flows through the right-of-way. Vertical bridge ,
abutments laterally confine the stream below the existing bridge. The stream banks are comprised of
unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of primarily alluvial origin and, to a lesser degree, colluvial origin.
A relict stream meander supporting wetlands occurs adjacent to a sandy levee-type feature in the
southeast quadrant of the project area. An intermittent stream draining a pond flows into White Oak
Creek in the southwest quadrant of the project area, just upstream of the existing bridge. A small amount
of angular stone riprap has been placed at the confluence of the intermittent stream and White Oak
Creek. ,
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of water resources within the project area. Potential sediment ,
loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point and nonpoint sources are evaluated. '
Water quality assessments are made based on published resource information and existing general
watershed characteristics. This data provides insight into the value of the water resources within the
project area with respect to their ability to meet human needs and to provide suitable habitat for aquatic '
organisms.
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms that are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa of intolerant groups '
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera or "EPT) present and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection is also
calculated for the sample. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic '
index and EPT taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment.
No previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist on White Oak
Creek within the project area or upstream of the project within the project vicinity. Although not within the '
project vicinity, benthic monitoring station B-21 of Subbasin 03-08-35 is located at SR 1924 and Jacob
Fork, approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 kilometers) downstream of the project area. The confluence of White Oak
Creek and Jacob Creek is located approximately 1,200 feet (366 meters) downstream of the project area. '
NCDOT Page 8 0212512002
1
' TIP 84046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Station B-21 was given a rating of "excellent" in 1997 (NCDENR, 1999).
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges
A point source discharge is defined as "any discharge that enters surface waters through a pipe,
1 ditch, or any other well-defined point" (NCDEHNR, 1993). The term commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Discharges from stormwater collection systems at industrial
sites and in large urban areas are also considered point source discharges. Point source discharges
within North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any point source discharger is required to apply for a permit.

r

Pine Mountain Property Owners is a registered point discharge source (NPDES Permit Number
N00036935) located within the project area. The Pine Mountain Property is a private facility of sewerage
systems located on Jacob Fork Creek. The industry class applied to the discharge is identified as "X" (an
industry that has not been categorized under EPA's Effluent Limitation Guidelines). No violations appear
on record (EPA, 2001).
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or
snowmelt (NCDEHNR, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint
source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of nonpoint
sources pollution in North Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1993). Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal waste can be transported to receiving streams and waterways via runoff - potentially
elevating concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be the source of
bacterial contamination and can elevate the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on
poorly drained soils can contribute to the influence of stormwater pollutants into surface waters
(NCDEHNR, 1993).
Under the NC Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) program, the Upper Catawba River
Hydrologic Unit (03050102), within which the project area is located, is classed by DWQ as a UWA
Category "I" watershed for nonpoint source pollution. Under this classification, the watershed is identified
as a watershed "needing restoration". The water quality within the South Fork Catawba watershed varies
widely from upstream to downstream, ranging from "Outstanding Resource Waters" to areas impacted by
industrial and municipal discharges. The waters that have been assigned a high priority for restoration are
located well downstream of the project area - specifically, Clark Creek, which is a mixed use watershed
draining the communities of Hickory and Newton (NCDENR, 2000).
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream
banks, removal of riparian canopy, instream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of
revegetation operations, and installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources
are likely to result from the aforementioned construction activities:
NCDOT Page 9 0211WO02

TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '

Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing associated with
increased erosion potential in the project area during and immediately following construction.
Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface

water and groundwater during construction. '
Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed
land surfaces.
A short-term increase in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum
products) from construction equipment and other vehicles.
Changes in and possible destabilization of water temperature regimes due to removal of '
vegetation within or overhanging the watercourse.
Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff. '
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) will be strictly
enforced during the construction phase of the project. Impacts will be minimized to the fullest degree
practicable by limiting instream activities and by revegetating stream banks immediately following the
completion of grading. Because the project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) trout county, the NCWRC may require a moratorium for instream construction from November
to March.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Thi
ti
d
ib
he
s sec
on
escr
es t
biotic communities observed within the project area, as well as the
basic relationships between flora and fauna within these communities. Biotic resources assessed as part
of this investigation include discernable terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities within the project area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and
past and present land uses.

Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities
and are classified in accordance with the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
A
i
ti
S
h
f
l
d W
kl
19
e
'
pprox
ma
on (
c
a
a
e an
ea
ey,
90) where applicable. Representativ
animal species likely to
inhabit or utilize biotic communities of the project area (based on published range distributions) are also
discussed. ,
3.1 Biotic Communities

Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain portions of the
project area, making boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Six discernable terrestrial communities
are located within the project area (Figure 3). Four of these communities have been altered to the extent
that they cannot be classified as a natural vegetation community under the Classification of Natural
Communities of North Carolina. These altered communities consist of: (1) altered right-of-way '
NCDOT Page 10 02/1&2002

TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
communities, (2) open fields, (3) landscaped or developed areas, and (4) successional sapling and
scrub/shrub communities. Two communities within the project area retain enough of their natural
characteristics as to be classifiable under the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina.
These natural communities consist of (1) a Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest along White Oak Creek
and (2) an isolated Montane Oak/Hickory Forest. In addition to the aforementioned terrestrial
components, the aquatic community associated with White oak creek was assessed within the project
area.
3.1.1 Altered Right-of-Way Communities
These communities are located along the right-of-way bordering on SR 1901 and SR 1904
(Communities No. 1 of Figure 3). Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early
succession through mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation management practices. It is estimated
that 0.76 acre (0.31 hectare) of this community exists within the project area.
Few woody plant species were observed at the time of site investigation within altered rights-of-
way communities of the project area. Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site
investigation include sweetgum seedlings (Liquidambar styraciflua), blackberry (Rubus sp.), common
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), common plantain (Plantago
major), common chickweed (Stel/aria media), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), white clover (Trifolium
repens), crab grass (Digitaria sanguinalis), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), aster (Aster sp.), and unidentified
grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).

3.1.2 Open Fields
. These communities consist of an open field in the northeast quadrant and an open field in the
southeast quadrant of the project area (Communities No. 2 of Figure 3). These communities occur on
gently to moderately sloping land surfaces underlain by well-drained soils of the Fontaflora-Ostin soil
complex. It is estimated that 1.36 acres (0.55 hectare) of this community exist within the project area.
No mature trees occur within these communities. The successional nature of the vegetation
community suggests that the open fields have lain fallow for several or more growing seasons. Woody
vegetation observed within the open field at the time of field investigation includes eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and blackberries (Rubus sp.). Herbaceous plant
species observed include unidentified grasses (Poaceae), curly dock (Rumex crispus), common milkweed
(Asc/epias syriaca), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), bitter
nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), Curtis' goldenrod
(Solidago curtisft), pokeweed (Phyto/acca americana), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and bush
clover (Lespedeza sp.).
NCDOT Page 11 0211812002

TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

i

3.1.3 Landscaped or Developed Areas
These areas occur around a general store in the northwest quadrant of the project area and at the
entrance to a residential community in the southwest quadrant (Communities No. 3 of Figure 3). These
communities occur on gently to moderately sloping land surfaces underlain by well-drained soils of the
Fontaflora-Ostin soil complex. It is estimated that 0.81 acre (0.33 hectare) of this community exists within
the project area.
Dominant plant species observed at the time of site investigation include eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), assorted cultivars, crab grass (Digitaria sanguinalis), unidentified grasses
(Poaceae), common chickweed (Stellaria media), dandelion (Taraxacum ofcinale), common plantain
(P/antago major), and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).
3.1.4 Successional Sapling and Scrub/Shrub Communities
These communities occur in the southwest and southeast quadrants of the project area, outside
the state right-of-way and the floodplain of White Oak Creek (Communities No. 4 of Figure 3). These
communities appear to be highly altered remnants of once-larger natural forested communities. Well-
drained soils of the Fontaflora-Ostin soil complex exhibiting relatively high chromas underlie these
communities. It is estimated that 0.38 acre (0.15 hectare) of this community exists within the project area.

J

The successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities, as mapped, support a small percentage
of mature trees. Dominant tree and sapling species observed at the time of site investigation include
sycamore (Platanus occidentalls), tulip tree (Liriodendron tu/ipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Dominant shrub species observed at the
time of site investigation include smooth sumac (Rhus g/abra), blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis), privet
(Ligustrum sp.), and witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the
time of site investigation include Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisit), goldenrod (So/idago sp.), joint head
(Arthraxon hispidus), frost aster (Aster pilosus), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), Joe-pye-weed
(Eupatodum frstulosum), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the
time of site investigation include tick-trefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and grape (Vitis
sp.).
3.1.5 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
These communities (Communities No. 5 of Figure 3) occur along the banks and floodplain of
White Oak Creek in all quadrants. It is estimated that 0.49 acre (0.2 hectare) of this community exists within
the project area. The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest occurs upon a gently sloping floodplain
terrace perched approximately 2.5 to 4.5 feet (0.8 to 1.4 meters) above the stream bed. The terrace is
largely underlain by well-drained soils of the Fontaflora-Ostin soil complex exhibiting relatively high
chromas, but where poorly drained conditions or semi-permanent flooding prevail, hydric soil inclusions
(possible Nikwasi soil inclusions) are observed. Portions of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
NCDOT Page 13 02/18/2002
TIP 84046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
underlain by these hydric soils have been mapped as wetlands and are discussed below and in section
4.1 of this report.
Dominant tree species observed within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest at the time of
site investigation include sycamore (P/atanus occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow buckeye
(Aesculus flava), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), black oak (Quercus velutina), and black cherry
(Prunus serotina). Dominant sapling and shrub species observed at the time of site investigation include
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), green ash saplings (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), eastern red cedar saplings
(Juniperus virginiana), black raspberry (Rubus sp.), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and witch-hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include
Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago cuftisit), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), nettle (Urtica dioica), jack-in-
the-pulpit (Asimina triloba), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), and violets (Viola sp.). Dominant vine species
observed at the time of site investigation include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), riverside grape (Vitis riparia),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
Wetlands Component: The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest contains several narrow bands
of wetlands that are generally less than 3.0 feet (1.0 meter) wide within the project area. These bands of
wetlands occur along the lower and middle stream banks of White Oak Creek. These wetland bands are
dominated by hydrophytic vegetation including sycamore saplings (Platanus occidenta/is), red maple
saplings (Acer rubrum), green ash saplings (Fraxinus pennsy/vanica), tag alder (Alms serrulata),
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), black
raspberry (Rubus sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum),
dotted smartweed (Po/ygonum punctatum), ciearweed (Pilea pumila), violets (Viola sp.), joint head
(Arthraxon hispidus), sedges (Carex sp.), riverside grape (Vitis nparia), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The soils within the
wetland areas are comprised of low-chroma fine sandy loams that were saturated within the upper 12
inches (30 centimeters) at the time of field investigation. The wetlands also exhibited sediment deposits,
water-stained leaf litter, and drift lines. The wetland occurring within the relict meander in the southeast
quadrant of the project area is dominated by ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), and marsh fern (Thelypteris pa/ustris), and is underlain by saturated organic muck.
3.1.6 Montane Oak/Hickory Forest
A Montane Oak-Hickory Forest occurs along a southeast-facing slope within the northwest quadrant
of the project area (Community No. 6 of Figure 3). This community occurs on moderately steeply sloping
land surfaces underlain by well-drained soils of the Evard-Cowee soil complex. Soils within this community
are relatively thin and scattered rock outcrops are present. It is estimated that 0.1 acre (0.4 hectare) of this
community exists within the project area.
Dominant tree species observed within the Montane Oak-Hickory Forest at the time of site
NCDOT Page 14 02/18/2002
I TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

11

1

11
investigation include black oak (Quercus velutina), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), mockemut hickory
(Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer
rubrum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), white pine (Pinus strobus), and scrub pine (Pinus
virginiana). Dominant sapling and shrub species observed at the time of site investigation include
American holly (Ilex opaca), witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), Juneberry (Amelanchier sp.), redbud
(Cercis canadensis), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and flowering dogwood (Comus florida). Dominant
herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include false Solomon's seal (Smilacina
racemosa), wild yam (Dioscorea vil/osa), rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera repens var. ophioides), violets
(Viola sp.), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens). Dominant vine species
observed at the time of site investigation include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), glaucous greenbrier (Smilax glauca), grape (Vitis sp.), and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
3.1.7 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area
Most of the communities within the project vicinity have been altered or affected by man's
activities to varying degrees. -Due to forest tract fragmentation common to the project region, species that
require large contiguous tracts of forests are not likely to utilize the site on a normal basis. Certain
opportunistic wildlife species, such as the woodchuck (Marmota monax), can be expected to utilize edge
habitat present within the project area. Due to the relatively small size of the project area and the fact that
many wildlife species are capable of moving between and/or utilizing adjoining communities, no distinct
terrestrial wildlife habitat can be assigned to any one terrestrial plant community within the project area.
An eastern cottontail rabbit (Sy/vilagus floridanus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) were
the only mammals observed in the project vicinity at the time of field investigation; however sign for the
following mammals were observed: tracks of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and tracks of
raccoon (Procyon lotor). Other mammals common to the project region which can be expected to
periodically utilize habitat of the project area include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews and
moles (Insectivora), beaver (Castor canadensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttal6), hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floddana), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus),
woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius),
woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), black bear (Ursus americanus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), eastern spotted
skunk (Spilogale putorius), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and bobcat (Felis rufus).
The communities on the project area provide limited but suitable habitat and forage areas for a
variety of birds. Birds observed at the time of field investigation include the common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).
Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were observed on the ponds in the southwest quadrant of the project area.
Songs and/or calls of the following birds were also noted within the project vicinity at the time of field
NCDOT Page 15 02/1&2002

TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
investigation: Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), hairy woodpecker
(Picoides villosus), and downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). A wide variety of resident and
migratory songbirds can be expected to periodically utilize forested tracts immediately t6the south of the
project area. The open landscaped areas and the croplands within the project vicinity provide probable
hunting grounds for birds of prey, such as hawks and owls.
No reptiles were observed within the project area at the time of field investigation. A variety of
reptile species may, however, use the communities located in the project area. These animals include the
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus). Amphibian species observed in the project area consisted of green frogs (Rana clamitans)
along White Oak Creek. Terrestrial insects observed include organpipe mud daubers (Tryploxylon sp.),
cicadas (Magicicada sp.), and an unidentified species of horned forest spider. Fish species are discussed
in following sections.
3.1.8 Aquatic Community
The aquatic community of the project area consists of White Oak Creek below the ordinary high
water line. Dominant aquatic habitats within this section of White Oak Creek include cobble/boulder
substrate, leaf packs, and snags. The stream within the project area is characterized by a well-defined
riffle and run sequence. The riffles are as wide as the stream and extend for distances equivalent to at
least twice the width of the stream. Gravel and cobble substrate was less than 20 percent embedded on
the day of investigation. Pools are absent. A forested riparian zone 40 to 60 feet wide (12 to 18 meters
wide) is present within all portions of the project area and the stream is well-shaded. Small breaks in the
riparian vegetation zone exist at the bridge and localized eroded areas are present.
3.1.8.1 Flora
No aquatic vegetation was observed below the ordinary high water line of White Oak Creek at the
time of field investigation. A narrow band (generally less than 3.0 feet (1.0 meter) wide) of hydrophytic
vegetation occurs along the lower to middle portions of the stream banks and outside of the stream within
a relict meander in the southeast quadrant of the project area. This hydrophytic vegetation is discussed
as a component of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest of section 3.1.5.
3.1.8.2 Fauna
Aquatic vertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation consist of the
green frog (Rana clamitans), rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae),
yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), several unidentified minnows (Cyprinidae), and unidentified juvenile
finfish. Aquatic invertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation include the
following: crayfish (Cambaridae), snail (Pleuroceridae), mayfly larvae (Heptageniidae), stonefly larvae
(Perlidae), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and water strider (Gerridae).
NCDOT Page 16 02/18/2002
TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1
1
1
1
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant
communities found along the proposed project area often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
wildlife. The proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these species, thereby
diminishing fauna numbers. Additionally, the reduction of habitat within the project area concentrates
wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, therefore causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease, predation, and starvation.
Ecological impacts can also occur outside of the project area because of habitat reduction.
Typically, those areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. The increased traffic noise and reduction/change of habitat, while attracting other
wildlife, may displace existing wildlife further from the roadway. The animals displaced by construction
activities may repopulate other areas suitable for the species. However, the increased animal density can
result in an increase in competition for the remaining resources.
Construction of the project will result in certain unavoidable impacts to biotic resources within the
project area. Following development of project alternatives, temporary and permanent impacts will be
assessed from the perspective of impact areas (the acreage or square footage of affected biotic
communities) and from the perspective of resource functions and values, where possible. Impacts to the
previously identified communities will not exceed those acreages stated in their respective sections.
Practicable means to avoid or minimize impacts were evaluated and recommended, where applicable.
Temporary impacts will be subject to restoration.
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
The replacement of the bridge over White Oak Creek at SR 1901 (TIP Number B-4046) will result
in certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic community of the creek. Probable impacts will be
associated with the physical disturbance of the benthic habitat and water column disturbances resulting
from changes in water quantity and quality. Significant disturbance of stream segments can have an
adverse effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of
aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities:
Inhibition of plant growth.
Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation, which can lead to increased
nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can, in turn, lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of
dissolved oxygen levels.
Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in turn, lead to clogging of feeding
structures of filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
NCDOT Page 17 02/1812002
TIP B4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '
Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.
Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project
area will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable
guidelines pertaining to best management practices. Means to minimize impacts will include (1) utilizing
construction methods that will limit instream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the stream bed
as needed, and (3) revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
The following sections provide an inventory of resource areas and species and an assessment of
possible impacts for (1) waters of the United States and (2) rare and protected species. Waters of the
United States and rare and protected species are of particular significance when assessing, impacts
because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. The following sections address
those measures that will be required in order to comply with regulatory permit conditions prior to project
construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Certain surface waters considered significant to interstate commerce and wetlands adjacent to
these waters fall under the broad category of 'Waters of the United States" (as defined in codified federal
regulation 33 CFR 328.3). The discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States is
regulated by the Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Regulated surface waters typically consist of standing or flowing waters that have
commercial and/or recreational value to the general public. As a category of waters of the United States,
wetlands are defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions°.
. To determine whether wetlands exist within the project area, vegetation, soils, and hydrology are
assessed using criteria set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical
Report Y-87-1). As specified in the Manual, wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology - all three of which must be present for an area to meet
the federal definition of a wetland.
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected
No wetlands have been mapped within the project area under the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) program. Although not mapped under the NWI program (because of their limited extent), a narrow
discontinuous fringe (generally less than 3 feet (0.9 meter)wide)) of hydrophytic vegetation occurs along
the lowermost portions of the stream banks and on several small terraces along White Oak Creek. This
hydrophytic vegetation is associated with intermittently flooded and seasonally saturated, gleyed and/or
NCDOT Page 18 02/18/2002
' TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' mottled soils, and is discussed as a component of the bottomland forest of section 3.1.5. Also unmapped
under NWI, is a ten-foot-wide (three-meter-wide) (approximate), crescent-shaped, forested wetland within a
' relict stream meander located in the southeast quadrant of the project area. It is estimated that 0.06 acre
(0.02 hectare) of wetlands exists within the project area.
' Despite the fact that the stream bank wetlands are located adjacent to a perennial waterway, their
relatively steep slopes, limited extent, and proximity to cleared and landscaped areas limit certain of their
values. Utilizing NCDENR's Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the stream bank
' wetlands within the project area have been estimated to have the following ratings for values assessed: 4 of
20 for water storage, 12 of 20 for bank/shoreline stabilization, 15 of 25 for pollutant removal, 6 of 10 for
wildlife habitat, 16 of 20 for aquatic life value, and 3 of 5 for recreation/education - for a total rating of 56.
The NWI map for the Oak Hall 7.5-minute quadrangle depicts the portion of White Oak Creek
' flowing through the project area as a permanently flooded, upper perennial riverine habitat with an
unconsolidated bottom (R3UBH of USFWS classification). Three hundred and sixty feet (110 meters) of
waters of the United States exist along White Oak Creek within the project area. The NWI map also
' depicts two ponds, portions of which fall within the southwest quadrant of the project area, as
- diked/impounded, palustrine habitat with unconsolidated bottoms (PUBHh of USFWS__classification).. _As
these ponds appear to be impounded portions of natural intermittent stream courses flowing through the
' project vicinity, they would most likely be considered waters of the United States as well.
' 4.1.2 Permits
Based on wetland field indicators observed at the time of field investigation, waters of the United
States, including wetlands, subject to regulation under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the North
Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification program have been delineated and mapped within the proposed .
project area. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated to occur as a result of project
' construction. As a result, proposed construction activities will require permits and certifications from the
various state and federal regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.
Based on past experience with similar actions, if non-tidal wetland impacts at each bridge crossing
are less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) and none of the activities jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, the action would be
considered a Class II Action as defined under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.115(b). As a Class II Action,
' bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement would qualify as a Categorical Exclusion as defined
under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.117.
' As a categorically excluded Class II Action and a public linear transportation project in non-tidal
waters, bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement impacting less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of
' waters of the United States at a stream crossing could be authorized under the provisions of a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Nationwide 23 Permit for Categorical Exclusions or a Nationwide 14 Permit for Linear
Transportation Projects, respectively. The proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county;
' therefore, authorization of the project by the COE under the provisions of a nationwide or individual permit is
NCDOT Page 19 0212512002
TIP 8-4046
conditional on concurrence of the NCWRC.
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
If the proposed work cumulatively impacts more than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of non-tidal waters of the
United States, an Individual Permit may be required at the discretion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
unless authorization is granted under the provisions of Department of the Army General Permit Number
198200031 (for NCDOT bridge crossings). If the proposed work involves greater than 1.0 acre (0.4 hectare)
of wetland impacts, the Corps could not make a discretionary determination regarding Nationwide Permit
applicability nor could the General Permit option be exercised and therefore, an Individual Permit would be
mandatory.
In addition to the aforementioned permit requirements, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will be
required for the project prior to issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity
that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters
to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land disturbance. A DWQ Section
401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Individual Permit.
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
The bridge addressed under TIP Number 8-4046 is located on SR 1901 over White Oak Creek in
Burke County. The possibility exists that demolition materials (such as asphalt, concrete rubble, portions
of the deck timbers, etc.) could be inadvertently dropped into waters of the United States during bridge
demolition. Should this occur, such materials would be removed from waters of the United States as soon
as possible, where conditions allow. The resulting temporary fill associated with bridge demolition will be
described later.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The 14 December 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the Department of
the Army on Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines sets forth the policy and procedures to be
used in the determination of the type and level of mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
Clean Water Act. The purpose of the MOA is to implement the objective of the Clean Water Act to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including wetlands. As
part-of the MOA, a project assessment procedure is set forth requiring a sequential assessment of (1)
impact avoidance, (2) impact minimization, and (3) compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Adherence to sequencing during project planning and design stages is intended to assist in attaining a
goal of no net overall loss of wetland functions and values.
The impact avoidance stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all appropriate
and practicable alternatives for avoiding impacts to waters of the United States. Cost, existing technology,
significant adverse environmental consequences to other resources, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes are considered in identifying "appropriate and practicable" avoidance alternatives.
NCDOT Page 20 0212512002

I TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
The impact minimization stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all
measures that would minimize unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States to the fullest degree
practicable. The final determination regarding the availability of practicable minimization measures lies
with the reviewing regulatory agencies and, if it is determined that additional minimization measures are
available, such measures will be required through project modifications and/or permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation measures are not considered until such time that it has been
demonstrated that no practicable avoidance alternatives exist, and that all practicable measures for
minimizing unavoidable impacts have been incorporated into project design. Compensatory mitigation
includes such measures as restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation. Where possible,
mitigation should be in-kind and within the same watershed as near to the impacted area as conditions
allow. Compensatory mitigation is conventionally required for projects authorized under Individual Permits
or certain Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare) of all
wetlands and/or 150 feet (46 meters) of streams within or adjacent to tidal waters. Under the nationwide
permit program, the District Engineer must be notified if proposed discharge to wetlands will exceed 0.1
acre (0.04 hectare). Discharges to wetlands exceeding 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare), for which authorization
under a Nationwide Permit 14 is being sought, require submittal of compensatory mitigation plan as part of
' the Notification.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires that any action likely to adversely
affect a species listed as a federally protected threatened or endangered species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species (such as state-listed threatened or
endangered species) may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species

1

Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 22 March 2001, the USFWS lists
six federally protected species for Burke County (Table 1). Brief descriptions of the characteristics and
habitat requirements for these species are provided in Appendix A.
A review the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats indicates no occurrences of federally protected species in the project area. No individual
organisms or populations of any of the species listed in Table 1 were observed within the project area at
the time of site investigation. Suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) was
observed in portions of the oak/hickory forest of the northwest quadrant of the project area. Additional
surveys for small-whorled pogonia will be conducted in the spring of 2002 during the typical flowering
period for the species. Suitable habitat for other species on the list is not present.
NCDOT Page 21 02(16/2002

TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '
i ame i. reaerany rrotectea Species for Burke county
Scientific Name Common Name _ Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Threatened
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Threatened
Liatris helleri Heller's.Blazing Star Threatened
Hudsonia montana Mountain Golden Heather Threatened
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled Pogonia Threatened
Note:
. "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
. "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
A federal species of concern (FSC) is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists 12 federal species of concern in Burke County (Table 2). Federal species of concern are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and-are not subject to any of the provisions included
in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. The status of these
species is subject to change so their status should be periodically monitored prior to project construction if
individuals or suitable habitat is present within the project area. In addition to the federal program,
organisms that are listed as endangered (E), threatened (T), or special concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program on its list of Rare Plants and Animal Species are afforded state
protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 2 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area. This species list is provided for
information purposes, as the protection status of these species may change in the future.
NCDOT Page 22 0211812002

t

n

TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for Burke County

Scientific Name
Common Name ,NC Habitat
Status `Present
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian Woodrat --- No
Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat -- No
Alasmidonta vadcosa Brook Floater T Yes
Ophiogomphus edmundo Edmund's Snaketail Dragonfly SR Yes
Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy Snaketail Dragonfly SR Yes
Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary Butterfly SR Yes
Juglans cinerea Butternut - No
Monotropis odorata Sweet Pinesap C No
Saxifraga carohniana Carolina saxifrage C No
Cephaloziella obtusilobula A Liverwort C No
Plagiochila sullivantY var. spinigera A Liverwort C No
T A "Threatened" species is any native or once native species that is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is
designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
C A "Candidate" is any species that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
SR A "Significantly Rare" species is not listed as "E", 'r, or "SC", but which exists in the state in small
numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
t
1
1
1
1
NCDOT
Page 23
02(1912002
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT t
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington D.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey; and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
264pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Basinwide
Planning Program. December 1999. Catawba River: Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Accessed September 2001.
httn://h2o.enr.stat n . i /ba inwid / atawba_wq-manaaement_ htm.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2000
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. (as revised through 2 February 2000) Raleigh, North
Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Basinwide Information
Management System. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports: Catawba River. Accessed 10
September 2001.
httn://h2o. nr.stat _.n . /bim /r .ports/basin andwat rbodi /hydro/Catawba IL.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management 1993. Classifications of Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth
Version.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection of
surface Waters.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Element Occurrence Search Report: Burke County,
North Carolina. httpi//www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html. Updated July 2001.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R:P Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of
North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
NCDOT Page 24 0211812002

1
t

1

t

1

TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Memo to USACE
district from Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., 6 March 1992, signed
by MG Arthur E. Williams, Directorate of Civil Works.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils. 1996. NRCS National Hydric Soils List.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. Hydric Soils, Burke
County, North Carolina. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2. June 1999.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Updated through July 2001. Soil
Survey of Burke County, North Carolina. (unpublished).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Official Soil Series Descriptions
(OSD). http:l/www.statlab.mastate.edo/soils/osd. Accessed 21 September 2001.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Casar 7.5-minute Quadrangle,
North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services. 2001.
Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Burke County. Updated 22 March 2001.
http7//nc-eg-fws.goy/es/countyfi:.html
U.S. Geological Survey. 1995. Casar, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
NCDOT Page 25 0211812002

1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIP 8-4046
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX A
Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in Burke County, North Carolina
NCDOT
02/1812002
TIP Project No. B-4046 Bridge NO. 175 Burke County over White Oak Creek
Stream is 6-8 feet wide at bridge and bridge is wooden with plank floors and is approximately 25
feet long. The bridge spans the stream with one pier in the channel near one side. White Oak
Creek is classified as WS-III-ORW.
Care should be taken in removal of the existing bridge and any debris lost in the stream should be
removed. Removal of raparian vegetation should be kept at a minimum. The new bridge should
be constructed so there are no piers in the stream channel.
Mike Parker r?11119?
May 2, 2002
MAY 9 '
2002 ?9`
' TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: Endangered, 1967; Threatened, 1995
' Characteristics:
The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head and tail with a dark brown
body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not fully develop the white head and tail until the fifth or
sixth year. Fish are the primary food source, but bald eagles will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles
(both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average about 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) from head to
tail, weigh approximately 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) and have a wingspan that can reach 7.0 feet (2.1
' meters). Generally, female bald eagles are somewhat larger than the males.
Distribution:
Bald eagles breed primarily in the eastern third of Texas (mostly east of 1-35) and winter wherever open water
' occurs.
Habitat:
' Habitat includes quiet coastal areas, rivers or lakeshores with large, tall trees. Man-made reservoirs have also
provided habitat.
Bald Eagles in North Carolina:
In 1982, there were no bald eagle nests in North Carolina. In 1998, there were 17 nests, and in 2000, there were 34
nests. Several new'nests have been located so far during the 2001 nesting season. The bald eagle's recovery has
led to a proposal for de-listing the bald eagle from the Endangered/Threatened Species List.
Threats to Species:
The decline of the Bald Eagle coincided with the introduction of the pesticide DDT in 1947. Birds of prey at the top of the
food chain, such as eagles, ingested relatively high levels of the pesticide, which was concentrated in the fatty tissues of
' their prey. Eagles contaminated with DDT failed to lay eggs or produced thin eggshells that broke during incubation. In
1972, DDT was banned in the United States, and a slow recovery for the Bald Eagle began. Loss of nesting habitat due
to development along the coast and near inland rivers and waterways also has resulted in decreasing numbers of bald
eagles.

1

1
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) adults have white heads and tails, a dark brownish black body, with yellow
bill, eyes, and feet. Immature species are variable in plumage but generally have a dark brown, blotchy head, tail
and bodies; brownish bill, yellow feet, and pale yellow-gray eyes. They are normally found near water, but during
migration may occur in any part of the state. Their size is approximately 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) long with a 7.0 feet (2.1
meters) wingspan.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 19 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT A-1 02/18'2002
TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Spreading Avens (Geum radiatum) Endangered
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Characteristics:
Spreading evens is a perennial herb. Spreading evens is topped with an indefinite cyme of large, bright yellow
flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they arise from horizontal
rhizomes. Plant stems grow 7.9 to 20 inches (20 to 50 centimeters) tall. Flowering occurs from June through
September, and the fruits (achenes) are produced from August through October.
Distribution:
The species is restricted to a few, scattered mountaintops in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
Spreading avens was originally known from 16 sites, and 11 of these sites still support populations. Three of the
remaining spreading avens populations are in Ashe County, North Carolina. Two others are situated on the Mitchell
County, North Carolina/Carter County, Tennessee line; and on the Avery/Watauga County line in North Carolina.
One population each remains in Avery, Transylvania, Watauga, Buncombe, and Yancey Counties, North Carolina.
Seven of these 11 avens sites have less than 50 plants each. In fact, three of the seven sites support less than 10
individuals.
Habitat:
The species inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes that are exposed to full sun. The adjacent
spruce/fir forests are dominated by red spruce (Picea rubens) and a federal candidate species, Fraser fir (Abies
frasen). Heller's blazing star (Liatris hellen) and/or Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea), both federally-listed
as threatened species, are also present at some sites. The substrate at all the population sites is composed of
various igneous, metamorphic, and metasedimentary rocks (Massey et al, 1980; Morgan, 1980; Kral, 1983;
Department of the Interior, 1990).
Threats to Species:
The species is being seriously impacted by recreational and residential development. Their population sites occur on
open mountain summits, which are prime areas for recreational facilities. The construction of trails, parking lots,
roads, buildings, observation platforms, and other facilities, combined with the increased foot traffic from sightseers,
has already severely decreased populations. Eight of the remaining 11 spreading avens populations face increasing
impacts from soil compaction, soil erosion, and trampling. In addition, the spruce/fir forests surrounding these
species' populations are suffering from airborne pollution and an exotic insect pest, the balsam woody aphid. It is not
known as yet how the decline of these forests will affect the species. Scientists speculate that the moist habitat
required by both species may become drier. It's already known that spreading avens individuals located on dry sites
usually fail to produce seeds. Also, because of the plants' low numbers and the scarcity of their habitat, there may be
little genetic. adaptability within populations. The species also faces threats from collection, natural succession
(becoming over-shaded and crowded by other woody species), and natural events such as rockslides.
References:
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 5, 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: Determination of Endangered Status for Geum radiatum and Hedyotis purpurea var. montana.
Federal Register, 55:66:12793-12797.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest- Related Vascular Plants of the South.
USDA Forest Service Tech. Publication. R8-TP2.600-603 and 1074-1077.
Massey, J.P. Whitson, and T. Atkinson. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Plant Survey of 12 Species In the
Eastern Part of Region IV. USFWS Contract 14-160004-78-108. Report.
Morgan, S. 1980. Species Status Summary for Geum radiatum Michaux: Species General Information System:
Species, Population, Habitat, and Threat Inventory.
Terrell, E. 1978. Taxonomic Notes on Houstonia purpurea var. montana (Rubiaceae). Castanea. 43:25-29.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Spreading evens (Geum radiatum), of the rose family, is characterized by stems 8.0 to 20 inches (20 to 51
centimeters) tall and an indefinite cyme of large bright yellow flowers. Leaves are mostly basal, with large terminal
lobes and small laterals arising from horizontal rhizomes. The flowers occur from June to September. They are
found in the Southern Blue Ride Mountains on (1) high elevations cliffs, rock crevices, and steep slopes in full
sunlight with soil composed of thin gravelly soils or (2) grassy balds near summit outcrops on high elevations from
4,200 to 6,300 feet (1,280 to 1,920 meters) and in the vicinity adjacent to spruce/fir forest (red spruce (Picea rubens)
and Fraser fir (Abies frasen).
NCDOT A-2 02118/2002
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
TIP B-4046
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 19 July 2001. Spreading evens is reported to occur at elevations ranging from 4,200 to 6,300 feet
(1,280 to 1,920 meters) (msq. The maximum elevation of 1,180 feet (360 meters) (msl) within the project area is
considered too low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were
observed within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT A-3 0211812002
TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Dwarf Flower Hearleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) Threatened
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Date Listed: April 14, 1989
Characteristics:
This species has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus Hexastylis. The flowers of most
individuals are less than 0.4 inch (1.0 centimeter) long, and their sepal tubes are narrow, never more than 0.2 to 0.3
inch (0.6 to 0.7 centimeter) wide even in flower. Flower color usually ranges from beige to dark brown; sometimes it
is greenish or purplish. The flowers are jug-shaped, and the plant's dark green leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen,
and leathery. Plant stalks are long and thin, originating from an underground root. Another name for this species is
dwarf-flowered wild ginger.
Distribution:
This species is found in the Upper Piedmont regions of South Carolina and North Carolina.
Habitat:
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and nearby slopes; in boggy areas adjacent
to creekheads and streams; and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the most important habitat
requirement. The species needs Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam soils to grow and
survive. Provided the soil type requirement exists, the plant can survive in either dry or moderately moist habitat. For
maximum flowering, the plant needs sunlight in early spring. Creekheads where shrubs are rare and bluffs with light
gaps are the habitat types most conducive to flowering and high seed production. Seed output is lowest in bluff
populations with a lot of shade.
Threats to Species:
Timber harvesting, urbanization, conversion from woodlands to pasture, reservoir construction, pond construction,
trash, and insecticide use are threatening the remaining populations. The eight populations in Greenville, South
Carolina are all endangered by residential, industrial, and commercial expansion. The largest population in South
Carolina (1,400 plants) once contained over 4,000 plants, but this population was reduced by reservoir construction
in Spartanburg. Any use of insecticides in or around plant populations could reduce flies, thrips, and ants, thus
decreasing the likelihood of plant pollination.
References:
Blomquist, H.L. 1957. A Revision of Hexastylis of North America. Brittonia 8255-281.
Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 71. April 14, 1989. Pp.
14964-14967.
Gaddy, L.L. 1980. Status Report on Hexastylis naniflora Blomquist. Unpublished Report Prepared Under Contract to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 32 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1981. The Status of Hexastylis naniflora Blomquist in North Carolina. Unpublished Report Prepared
Under Contract to the Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 63 pp.
Gaddy, L.L. 1987. "A Review of the Taxonomy and Biogeography of Hexastylis- (Aristolochiaceae)". Castanea
52(3)186-196. September 1987.
Otte, D.K.S. 1977. The Pollination Ecology Hexastylis arifolia and Hexastylis minor in the Area of Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. M.A. Thesis 79 pp.
Rayner, D.A. et al.. 1979. Native Vascular Plants Endangered, Threatened, or Otherwise in Jeopardy in South
Carolina. S.C. Museum Commission Bulletin No. 4. Columbia, S.C.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Dwarf flower heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) is a member of the birthwort family (Aristolochiaceae). They have
leathery evergreen leaves, which are dark green and heart shaped; and long, thin stalks that originate from an
underground stem. Flowers are jug-shaped, beige to dark brown, and 0.4 inch (1.0 centimeter) long, with narrow
sepal tubes around 0.3 inch (0.7 centimeter) wide (flower is sometimes greenish or purplish). It flowers from mid
March to early June. They are found in acidic sandy loam soils; along bluffs and nearby slopes, hillsides, and
ravines; and in boggy areas adjacent to creek heads and streams. The soil types are Pacolet, Madison, or Musella.
They need sunlight for maximum seed production.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
NCDOT A-4 02/18/2002
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIP 8-4046
investigated on 19 July 2001. No Hexastylis species were observed in the project area. No suitable habitat was
observed within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NGUUI
A-5
02/18/2002
TIP B-4046 NATURAL R '
ESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Mountain Golden Heather (Hudsonia montana) Threatened
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Date Listed: October 20, 1980
Characteristics: ,
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked fruit capsules. It usually
grows in clumps of 4.0 to 8.0 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and about 6.0 inches (15 centimeters) high, and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of 1.0 to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter) across. The plants have the general aspect '
of a big moss or a low juniper, but their branching is more open; their leaves are about 0.25 inch (0.60 centimeter)
long; and the plant is often somewhat yellow-green in color, especially in shade. The leaves from previous years
appear scale-like and persist on the older branches. The flowers appear in early or mid-June, and are yellow, nearly
1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) across, with five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5
inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks, and are roundish with three projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist after
opening, and may be seen at any time of the year.
Distribution:
This plant is found only in Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, at elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (853 to
1,219 meters). Originally discovered on Table Rock Mountain in 1816, mountain golden heather has since been
found at several other sites in Linville Gorge and on Woods Mountain. All sites are on public land within the Pisgah
National Forest. Mountain golden heather is known from several localities within its range with the total number of
plants possibly numbering 2,000 to 2,500. Monitoring is needed to determine if the plant's abundance may be cyclic.
Habitat:
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and Leiophyllum
dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant persists for some time in the partial shade of pines,
but it appears less healthy than in open areas.
Critical Habitat:
Critical habitat includes the area in Burke County bounded by the following: on the west by the 2,200-foot (671-
meter) contour; on the east by the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary north from the intersection of the 2,200-foot

(671-meter) contour and the Short Off Mountain Trail to where it intersects the 3,400-foot (1,036-meter) contour at ,
the "Chimneys"; then follow the 3,400-foot (1,036-meter) contour north until it re-intersects with the Wilderness
Boundary; then follow the Wilderness Boundary again northward until it intersects the 3,200-foot (975-meter) contour
extending west from its intersection with the Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south. At this point, the
boundary extends due east until it intersects the 2,200-foot (671-meter) contour. (The Woods Mountain sites were
unknown at the time Critical Habitat was designated.)
Threats to Species:
Threats to the species include fire suppression and recreational activities such as hiking that result in a loss of plants
due to trampling and soil compaction. Competition with other shrubs has also reduced size and vigor of populations.
The small size and number of populations increases the plant's vulnerability to extinction through both natural and

man-made factors. ,
References:
Morse, L. E. 1979. Report on the Conservation Status of Hudsonia montana, A Candidate Endangered Species.
Prepared by the Cooperative Parks Study Unit of the New York Botanical Garden. 37 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Mountain Golden Heather Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Atlanta, Georgia. 26 pp. ,
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana) is a member of the rockrose family (Cistaceae) that is characterized
as a small needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers nearly 1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) across and long-staked fruit
capsules. It is usually growing in clumps 4.0 to 8.0 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and 6.0 inches (15
centimeters) high. The flowers are made up of five blunt tipped petals, and flowering occurs from mid-June to July.
Non-flowering plants resemble large moss or small juniper with leaves about 0.25 inch (0.60 centimeter) long and
somewhat yellow-green in color. Fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks that are roundish with three
projecting points at the tips. They are found in exposed quartzite ledges at elevations from 2,200 to 3,400 feet (671
to 1,036 meters), between bare rock and sand myrtle-dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The
plant can persist for some time in the partial shade of pines to open areas.
NCDOT A-6 02/18/2002

TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 19 July 2001. Mountain Golden Heather is reported to occur at elevations ranging from 2,800 to
4,000 feet (853 to 1,219 meters) (msl). The maximum elevation of 1,180 feet (360 meters) (msl) within the project
area is considered too low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were
observed within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

1

1
1

1

t
1
NCDOT A-7 02(1&2002
11
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Date Listed: October 6, 1994
Characteristics:
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem 3.7 to 9.8 inches (9.5 to
25 centimeters) tall terminating in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and
measure up to 3.1 by 1.6 inches (8.0 by 4.0 centimeters). A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the
top of the stem. Small whorled pogonia's nearest relative is I. verticillata, which looks similar but can be distinguished
by its purplish stem and by differences in the flower structure. 1. verticillata is much more common and widespread
than the small whorled pogonia. When not in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana) also
resemble small whorled pogonia. However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus Medeola,
which has a solid, more slender stem.
Flowering occurs from about mid-May to mid-June, with the flowers apparently lasting only a few days to a week or
so. In addition, this plant doesn't necessarily flower annually. Usually only one flower is produced per plant. If
pollination occurs, a capsule may be formed which can contain several thousand minute seeds. No evidence of.
insect pollination has been observed. This plant is believed to be self-pollinating by mechanical processes. The
flower lacks both nectar guides and fragrance. There is no evidence for asexual reproduction. Individual plants may
not flower every year; and extended dormancy, although not scientifically documented, is purported to occur under
certain conditions.
Distribution:
This plant formerly occurred in 48 counties in 16 eastern states and Canada, but when listed as endangered in 1982
it was known to exist in only 16 counties in 10 states, and one county in Ontario, Canada. By 1991, 86 sites in 15
states were known, and by 1993, there were a known total of 104 sites in 15 states. Most populations are centered in
the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in New England and northern coastal Massachusetts. The 23 populations
in the Southeast Region occur in North Carolina (five populations); South Carolina (four populations); Georgia (13
populations); and Tennessee (one population). Most southeastern populations number less than 25 plants. South
Carolina has one population of over 25 plants, and Georgia has two populations numbering about 100 plants. Small
whorled pogonia is also known from Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and
Ontario, Canada.
This plant was reclassified from endangered to threatened because the number of known populations increased
from 34 in 1985 to 104 in 1993. In addition, the species' 1992 revised recovery plan stipulates that at least 25
percent of the plant's self-sustaining populations were protected through public ownership or private landowner
management agreement. According to the October 6, 1994 Federal Register notice, which officially down-listed the
species, a total of 46 small whorled pogonia sites are currently protected rangewide, 24 of which have self-sustaining
populations. In the southeast, North Carolina has two protected sites, both of which are viable; South Carolina has
four protected sites; two of which are viable; and Georgia has seven protected sites, four of which are viable.
Habitat:
This species is generally known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. It occurs in habitat where there is
not relatively high shrub or sapling coverage.
Threats to Species:
The current status of small whorled pogonia is attributed to loss of habitat and over-utilization for scientific and
private collections. However, some populations observed for a number of years have also declined for unknown
reasons.
References:
Correll, D.S. 1950. Native Orchids of North America. Chronica Botanica Co., Massachusetts. 399 pp.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. October 6, 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: Final Rule to Reclassify the Plant Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia) From Endangered
to Threatened. Federal Register 59:193. p. 50852-50857.
Luer, C.A. 1975. The Native Orchids of the United States and Canada. New York Botanical Garden. W.S. Cowell
Ltd., Ipswich, England. 361 pp.
Mehrhoff, L.A. 1980. Abstracts of Papers to be Presented at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 12-16
July 1980. Botanical Society of America. Miscellaneous Series Publ. 158 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotra medeoloides) Recovery Plan First Revision.
NCDOT A-8 02/18/2002
I TIP B-4046
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1

1
t

1
t
1

1
t
Prepared by Susanna L. von Oettingen for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Massachusetts.
75 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Small Whorled Pogonia Recovery Plan. Prepared by Peter G. Poulos for U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Massachusetts. 45 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) of the Orchidaceae family is characterized by its hollow stem that is 3.7
to 9.8 inches (9.5 to 25 centimeters) tall and its whorl of five to six light green elliptical leaves that are somewhat
pointed and measure 3.1 by 1.6 inches (8.0 by 4.0 centimeters). Flowering from May to June, the flower is yellowish
green and is produced on top of the stem. When not in bloom, the plant resembles the Indian cucumber-root (stem
not hollow). The plant is found in open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soils of third growth upland forest. The areas
are generally flat to moderately sloped to the northern or eastern direction, in habitat of relatively high shrub cover or
high sapling density with flecks of sunlight play on the forest floor throughout the day. Soils are acidic sandy loams
with low to very low nutrient contents.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 18 July 2001. No individual organisms or populations were observed within the project area. Suitable
habitat for small-whorled pogonia (Isotda medeoloides) was, however, observed in portions of the oakthickory forest
of the northwest quadrant of the project area during the 19 July 2001 investigation. Additional surveys will be
conducted in the spring of 2002 during the flowering period for the species.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
NCDOT A-9 02/18/2002
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helien) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: November 19, 1987
Characteristics:
Healer's blazing star is a perennial herb that has one or more erect or arching stems arising from a tuft of narrow pale
green basal leaves. Its stems reach up to 1.3 feet (0.4 meter) in height and are topped by a showy spike of lavender
flowers, which are 2.8 to 7.9 inches (7.0 to 20 centimeters) long (Porter, 1891). Its flowering season lasts from July
through September, and its fruits are present from September through October (Kral, 1983; Radford et al., 1964).
This plant is differentiated from other similar high altitude Liatris species by a much shorter pappus, ciliate petioles,
internally pilose corolla tubes, and a lower, stockier habit (Cronquist, 1980; Gaiser, 1946). Work is being conducted
on populations in two locations, which may result in their being reclassified as a new taxon (Sutter, in preparation). If
so, these plants will still remain protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Distribution:
Healer's blazing star is endemic to the northern Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Although nine populations
were originally reported, only seven still exist. A former population in Watauga County was allegedly destroyed by
residential development, and one in Mitchell County apparently succumbed to intensive recreational use. Four of the
seven remaining populations are in Avery County with one population each remaining in Caldwell, Ashe, and Burke
Counties.
Habitat:
The plant exists on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in shallow, acid soils, which are exposed to full sunlight.
Threats to Species:
Commercial and recreational developments pose the greatest threats. Heller's blazing star is threatened not only by
the construction of buildings, roads, and other facilities, but also by the associated habitat disturbances such as soil
erosion and compaction. Unintentional trampling by hikers is another danger. Of the seven remaining populations,
five occur on privately owned land, one on Forest Service land, and one on National Park Service land. Four of the
sites in private ownership are recreational facilities. The two sites in public ownership also undergo heavy
recreational use. Potential threats to the latter two sites include the use of aerially applied fire retardants, road
construction, and the issue of permits for mineral exploration. Only the site owned by The Nature Conservancy
receives full protection from human disturbance; three of the seven sites receive partial protection. In future years,
woody vegetation may overcrowd and overshade the plant making it impossible for the species to survive unless this
threat is mitigated by proper habitat management and planning. The species' small numbers, possible lack of
genetic variability, natural rocksiides, and severe storms or droughts are also threats.
References:
Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular Flora of the Southeastern U.S., Vol. 1 (Asteraceae). UNC Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. P. 204.
Gaiser, L.O. 1946. The Genus Liatris. Rhodora 48:572-576.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants of the
South.
Tech. Publ. R-8-TP-2. USDA Forest Service. Pp. 1191-1194.
Massey, J., P. Whitson, and T. Atkinson. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Plant Survey of 12 Species in the
Eastern Part of Region 4. Report Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Under
Contract 14-16-004-78-108.
Porter, T.C. 1981. A New Liatris from North Carolina. Rhodora 18:147-148.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1964. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. UNC
Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Pp. 1048-.1051.
Sutter, R. In Preparation. Taxonomic Analysis of Liatris helled, a North Carolina Endemic.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Threatened
Status for Liatris helled. Federal Register, 52(223):44397-44401.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Recovery Plan for Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helled Porter). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 24 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Healer's blazing star (Liatris hellen) is of the aster family (Asteraceae), and is characterized by lavender spiked
flowers with one or more erect stems with a maximum height of 16 inches (41 centimeters). The flowers arise from a
NCDOT A-10 02/1&2002
TIP B-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. It differs from other Liatris by its much shorter pappus (half the length of
corolla tube or less), ciliated petioles, internally pilose corolla tubes, and lower, stockier habit. They are found in high
elevations along ledges of rock outcropping and cliffs in shallow acid soils in full sunlight. Flowering occurs from July
to August.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 19 July 2001. Known populations of this plant occur at elevations of 3,500 to 6,000 feet (1,067 to
1,829 meters). The maximum elevation of 1,180 feet (360 meters) (msl) within the project area is considered too low
to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect

1
1

I

1

I
NCDOT A-11 02/18/2002

1
t
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIP 8-4046
APPENDIX B
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Qualifications of Principal Investigators
NCDOT
02/18/2002

TIP 84046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigator: Martin L. Mitchell
Education: B.U.S. (double major in Geology and Biology), University of New Mexico
M.A. in Marine Science, College of William and Mary
Certification: Professional Geologist
Virginia License Number 001351 (1997)
Experience: Project Manager/Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc. 1988 to present.
Project Manager/Environmental Scientist, The BSC Group, 1986 to 1988.
Wetlands Ecologist / Coastal Geologist, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering, Wetlands and Waterways Division, 1984 to 1986.
Geologist, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1981 to 1983.
Expertise: Wetland delineations, wetland function and value assessments, wetland mitigation and
stream restoration, biotic community inventories and mapping, threatened and
endangered species investigations, environmental regulatory permit processing.

Investigator: Anne L. Timm
Education: B.A. Biology, Luther College
Master of Environmental Science, Indiana University
Certification: Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols Certification through NCDWQ
Experience: Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc., 2000 to present
Intern, Fallwood Nature Center, 2000.
Data Management Assistant, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Bureau of Watershed Management, 1997 to 1998.
Science and Biology Teacher, U.S. Peace Corps, 1994 to 1996.
Aquatic Biology Research Assistant, PEW Research Fellowship,
Luther College, 1993.
Expertise: Aquatic and wetland habitat assessments, biotic community inventories and mapping,
rapid bioassessment, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and identification, wetland
delineation, wetland function and value assessments, wetland habitat restoration, GPS
surveys.

NCDOT
8-1
02/182002
t TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1

7
J

1

1
APPENDIX C
Wetland Data Forms
NCDOT 0211812002

t

1

1

1
i
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4046 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 19, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NE3U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Spar-mar
1. Jualans niara Stratum Indicator
Tree UPL Dominant Plant Species Stratum IndjGatn
9. Camosis radicans Vine FAC
2. Liriodendron tulioifera Tree FACU 10Arisaema triohvllum Herb FACW-
3. Aescu/us octandra Tree NL 11.
4.Ouercus velutina Tr UPL 12.
5. Lindera benzoin S/S FACW 13.
6. Urtica dioica Herb FAC+ 14.
7. Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 15.
g. Parthenocissus auinauefolia Vine FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 60%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

-Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
M Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
1

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
Fontaflora-Ostin complex (18A)
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Class: Well drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description-
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
?inche Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Ab ndan . / .nntrast_ Structures- etc.
A 7.5YR 4/6 FINE SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
H
1

1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4046 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 19, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NE3W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratu m IndicatoL Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Lindera benzoin
2. Viola so. Herb
Herb FACW 9.
10.
3. Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 11.
4. Camosis radicans Vine FAC 12.
5. Microsteaium vimineum
6. Sambucus canadensis Herb
Herb FAC+
FACW- 13.
14.
7. 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream, Lake, 'or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) -Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in limit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Fontaflora-Ostin complex (18A)
Drainage Class: Well drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Feld Observations
Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile Description-
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Hord (M ns II Moist) (M me ll Moist) Abundanr-e/Contract- Struct ur .c etr
A SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
- Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Fontaflora-Ostin map units, or
fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
r
1
1
1
1
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4046 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 19, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT CO -/City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID: .
Is-the area a potential Problem Area? N5 Plot ID: NW1W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Alnus serrulata S/S FACW 9.
2.Imoatiens caoensis Herb FACW 10.
3. Camvsis radicans Vine FAC 11.
4. Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 12.
5. Vitis rioan . a Vine FACW 13.
6. Microsteaium vimineum Herb FAC+ 14.
7. Soehmeria cvlindrica Herb FACW 15.
B. Polvoonum Dunctatum HHrb FACW 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primer y Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) - Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: surface (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Fontaflora-Ostin complex (18A) Drainage Class: Well drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile Descri to ion.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
lin "hP? Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Ahundance/Contrast- Structures- etc
A SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Fontaflora-Ostin map units, or
fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
1

I

Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

i
117

1

u
H
0
I
7

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4046 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 19, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: SE1U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
1. Platanus occidentalis Stratu
Tree m Indicator
FACW- Dominant Plant Species
9. Solioado caesia var. curtisii Stratum
Vine Indicator
FACU
2. LOodendron tulinifera Tree FACU 10.Euoatorium fistulosum Vine FAC+
3, Rhus o/abra S/S NL 111onicera iaoonica Vine FAC-
4. Menisoerrnum canadense Vine FACU 12. Vitis vuloina Vine FAC+
5. Smilax bona-nox Vine FAC 13. Hamamelis virainiana S/S FACU
6. Toxicodendron radicans
7. Llaustrum sinense Vine
S/S FAC
FAC 14. Prunus serotina
15. S/S FACU
8. Rubus so. S/S 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) -Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
-Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water. (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
1
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Fontaflora-Ostin complex (18A) Drainage Class: Well drained
Feld Observations .
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Description-
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsall (Mansell Moist) Ahimdanre/Contrast- Struchiras etc"
A 7.5YR 4/5 SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

E

1

P

0

17
E
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4046 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 19, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: SE6W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indj %atn Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicate
1. Platanus occidentalis S/S FACW- 9. Vitis rioaria Vine FACW
2.A/nus semilata
3_ Rubus so. S/S FACW
S/S 10Po/vaonum ounctatum Herb FACW
11.Pilea oumila Herb FACW
4. Impatiens caoensis Herb FACW 12.
5. Boehmeria cvlindrica
6. Leersia orvzoides
7. Toxicodendron radicans Herb. FACW
Herb OBL
Vine FAC 13.
14.
15.
8. Microsteoium vimineum Herb FAC+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surf ace Water: (in.) -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) -
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
1
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Fontaflora-Ostin complex (18A) Drainage Class: Well drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile Descri tion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mimsell Moist) Abundan . / .ontrast_ Structures eA SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
- Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (E(plain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Fontaflora-Ostin map units, or
fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
1
1
1

t
1

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B4046 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 19, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT CO -/City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? N) Plot ID: SW6U
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulioifera Tree FACU 9. Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
2.Junioerus viroiniana S/S FACU- 10,,lualans mars S/S UPL
3. Carninus caroliniana S/S FAC 11.Hamamelis virainiana S/S FACU
4. Lindera benzoin S/S FACW 12.
5. Comus florida S/S FACU 13.
6. Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 14.
7. Rosa multiflora S/S UPL 15.
8. Lonicera iaoonica Vim FAC- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 36%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

Drift Lines
Field Observations: _
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in,) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.
DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Fontaflora-Ostin complex (18A) Drainage Class: Well drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profit . D _c r' tlp ion_
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) fMansell Moist) Abundance/rontrast_ Structures, eta
A 7.5YR 4/5 SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions . _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (E(plain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO .
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3192 1
u

0
7

F

0

1

1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4046 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 19, 2001
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: Burke County
Investigator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: sw4W
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant SpPriec
1. Alnus serrulata Stratum
S/S Indicator
FACW Dominant Plant Soxies Stratum IridlGatn
9.
2. Arthraxon hisoidus Herb FACU+ 10.
3, Microsteaium vimineum Herb FAC+ 11.
4. Imoatiens caoensis Vine FACW 12.

5. Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 13.-
6. Boehmeria cvlindrica Herb FACW 14.
Viola so
7 Herb 15.
.
.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 83%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
-Other (Explain in Remarks) -Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available -Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations: XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Fit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12 (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
-Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Fontaflora-Ostin complex (18A) Drainage Class: Well drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Typic Udifluvents Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile DPCri tp ion•
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches))- Horizon (M nseil Moist) (MuncP_ .ll Moist) Abundance/Contrast_ St ict ,r s P_ tr_
A SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime - Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions - Listed on National Hydric Soils List
- Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within Fontaflora-Ostin map units, or
fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
TIP 8-4046 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
1
1
1
I APPENDIX D
1
1
1
1
DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets
NCDOT 02/16/2002
1

n

F

r]
1

0

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
Project Name NCDOT B-4046 Bridge Replacement NRTR Nearest Road SR1901
County Burke Wetland Area < 2 acres Wetland Width 3 feet
Name of evaluator Martin Mitchell (HS M, Inc.) Date 7/18/01
Wetland Location
- on pond or lake
x on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Adjacent land use
(within Y2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
x forested/natural vegetation 20 %
x agriculture, urban/suburban 78 %
x impervious surface 2 %
Dominant vegetation
Soil Series Fontaflora-Ostin complex (1) Platanus occidentalis
- predominantly organic - humus, muck, or (2) Alnus serrulata
peat
- predominantly mineral - non-sandy (3) Sambucus canadensis
x predominantly sandy
Flooding and wetness
Hydraulic Factors
x steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
x intermittently flooded or temporary
w surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
x Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest _ Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest - Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
_
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
* the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
weight Wetland
R Water storage 1 x 4.00 = Rating
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 3 x 4.00 = 12
T Pollutant removal 3 x 5.00 = 15
I Wildlife habitat 3 x 2.00 = 56
N Aquatic life value 4 x 4.00 = 16
G Recreation/Education 3 x 1.00 =
' *Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %Z mile
- upstream, upslope, or radius_
----------------------------------------------------------------