20110569 Ver 1_Reports_20081121

..,,`.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA rgTFP ????
P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY LYNDo TIPPI
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 19, 2008
Polly Lespinasse
DENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1621
SUBJECT TIP Project No B-4061 - Replacement of Bridge No 90 on SR 1727
(Boggs Road) over Hagan Creek in Catawba County
Dear Ms Lespmasse
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the replacement of Bridge No 90 in
Catawba County This project is included in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for construction in fiscal year 2011
We are providing you a copy of the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), and are
soliciting information about this project to be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Categorical Exclusion If you agency has critical information that can be furnished by December
23, 2008, please feel free to do so
If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact Christy Wright at
[phone] Please include the TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments
Sincerely,
0&?-M
M Wright, P E
Bridge Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
I]Vicinity Map
2] NRTR
MAILING ADDRESS
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
BRIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT UNIT
1551 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1551
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE WWW NCDOT ORG
LOCATION
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITOL BLVD - SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604
1
I 1
11 I i ??'? %
f ? 8 I i}1 /y1?
1 I / \
I ,
L '
1 ,
I
92
1
\ P309
2413 acs
- rrQ /
89 r
asm
0109 r 90
2m r w ' '

u? 1 Ma
153
0 = am M21 !tee

I
.
s17
two r 2 9
ti
,eov r ` T p E3 CONOVE

law
122 _-
! ]r:g
1
1
loll
VMS
r
I
? I l
I \
/
?oF vtORrH NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?4I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
CATAWBA COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO 90 ON SR 1727
OVER HAGAN CREEK
B-4061
Figure 1

?syR ?y I ??
?sr Tc?,o ?E9 D
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 90
SR 1727 (Boggs Road) over Hagan Fork
Catawba County, North Carolina
(B-4061)
(State Project No. 8.2792301)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1727(1))
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
September 2007
Replacement of Bridge No 90
SR 1727 (Boggs Road) over Hagan Fork
Catawba County, North Carolina
(B-4061)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No 90
located on North Carolina Secondary Road 1727 (SR 1727, Boggs Road) over Hagan Fork in
Catawba County, North Carolina (Figure 1) Bridge No 90 spans Hagan Fork and the adjacent
banks for a distance of approximately 61 feet The existing roadway is approximately 20 feet
wide with a total maintained right-of-way width of approximately 50 feet
The project study area is located approximately 4 5 miles east of Newton, NC (Figure 1), and is
oriented along an east-west axis Hagan Fork flows to the north through the project study area
The project study boundary (Figure 2) has been determined to be approximately 300 feet in
width (centered on the existing roadway) and approximately 2000 feet in length, encompassing
approximately 13 8 acres to encompass alternative limits Two alternatives have been
proposed for the replacement of Bridge No 90
Alternate 1 proposes that Bridge No 90 be replaced approximately 50 feet south of its current
location while maintaining traffic with the current bridge structure The proposed permanent
easement for Alternate 1 diverges southward from the existing roadway approximately 1000 feet
to the west and 525 feet to the east of the existing bridge The proposed permanent bridge will
be located approximately 50 feet south of the existing bridge The proposed easement is
approximately 2000 feet in length and extends a maximum of 80 feet south of the existing
roadway
Alternate 2 proposes that Bridge No 90 be replaced at its current location During construction,
traffic will be maintained by an approximately 3 2-mile off-site detour
Bridge No 90 was built in 1960 with a structure composed of a timber deck on timber piles The
existing bridge is to be removed without dropping components into Hagan Fork, therefore, no
potential fill into waters of the United States is anticipated NCDOT will coordinate with various
resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge
demolition are resolved
Project 06-296 03 1 B-4061, Catawba County
/
?' 26"38
G
1996 0s
rya 463
r BRIDGE NO. 90
Ro
t
\ 144
\
N T S

1
n 1 an dro ..? x ocenne , 7
goo, so
??f1',.'jf. 'i , +.- ? 1 171 J?.,, Ik I el ' 1
L`?L..• ? 7 ? a1
Iv r»I
it 11? I.. ale., f ?F l a le j ?r J my ll 1 _
-.,-- , onma , ea ? e
y'
In
\K E -
r
\?r,?' 10
_ r
zu 1 7
27
10
t 1

.
tin Wn
I C-1,
r a

nat?l?l ?7
are 7
N I `/
r.. a.
1 r"?

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMBgT OF TRANSPORTATION
14W 1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &

CATAWABA COUNTY'
BRIDGE O 90 OIL SR 1727 OVER
HAGAN CREEK
' IP NO B-4061
LOCATION MA-P
FIGURE I
Z Cl)
J?P'• iio m C/)
Q =
N
li
?O t,
4.\ C
7 C N m m (o W
x m

;
=
E ?o
Z

;? o mm
m
_Z o c
c 3L a
w c LL
U) o
W
?1r1? P /?// O

LL Z
ca

0 F O J m
Q e
CL

U')
OW __--

?.3 N
W
LL
? O
N
N
LL
J
O O
a3 C LL
`Z ca La "30
Z 5; «; O `
0 ? O Y o c? U) 2
Lu T Q a i
J O M O "'C C
U a a)- a)
U) Z
N
a
C.) a .0 .0
a) Cc
0) co

x
cs
=

72 0 (D fA y X
O
`
`

E-j

i
a
n=??o¢o?
m
?
,
_S
.
?y `tl J'?3 ?
i
S
a ; '? • ? '}? h i ,
Al
J,
:r? M1 r e+ ?I
ski
,i r s „ '' ?4'xC'?.. ,ypf ? A f, (
??? I I? a ? _
j ?.,. y?§ •r?y?? sty
?'ii?y r Y '• ?gC .Y r'
t'"
R
fy
y `l , nt'`r ?' SI
T T
,,qqy
?
t?P uya '!'4 ?'t?r?,fiC?y pa +A+,?J?, d n?-",?"Mf .r Vr
?•y'?_s? y ,? tp,
al N
tll y . y
"on
't' ;? atif t' 4 1Y' r"n
r 'Sr
ICI >
t r, ,,r
"? 4 E r t ?Rk
jn?i` ?7 s 'a k.?+¢A ' 7"7 r ,'s a •;S?=tP? ?ri?, e
j{^?';asda y P?? ? d
. 1?' ?r? x if TT
'?" kn l r k
! 3
m 44
4 ?A
b??v?fiR' 1 ;Y ?M?
3e d3 ? r'+ d > ??t
a yr" f ?
• 9 Shctti
7IV
a s v ? ?
7
?t< _ 4 jai
Is ?
? in r' +f
tw,
yy ", ,c
>w a v _ n`
ooi? A?-mow
_ i
+rCv (Q
C
cr?P Q
I?
r, -Am I `m
c
rf.
JkJ K
r '?
^^++?Z
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the project study
area Specific tasks performed for this study include 1) an assessment of biological features
within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species,
jurisdictional wetlands, and water quality, 2) a delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional areas and
subsequent mapping of jurisdictional boundaries (utilizing Trimble GeoXT Differential Global
Positioning System (GPS) technology), 3) an evaluation of plant communities and their extent
within the project study area, and 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs
1.3 Methods
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U S Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Catawba, NC [1970]
and Newton, NC [1993] 7 5-minute quadrangles), U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (Catawba, NC [1970] and Newton, NC [1993] 7 5-
minute quadrangles), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soils
Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1975), and recent aerial photography
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N C Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990) When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature
(Kartesz 1998) Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
following US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delineation guidelines (Environmental
Laboratory 1987) Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme
established by Cowardtn et al (1979) and/or the N C Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM) Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (1996) Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat
requirements and distributions were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al 1980,
Potter et al 1980, Webster et al 1985, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde
et al 1994) Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from
available sources (NCDWQ 2003, NCDWQ 2004a-c) Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data
The most current USFWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into
Catawba County (As of September 6, 2007 USFWS list) is considered in this report NCNHP
records documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before
commencing field investigations
The project study area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features For purposes
of this evaluation, the project study area has been delineated (Figure 2) Potential impacts of
construction will be limited to cut-fill boundaries for each alternative Special concerns
evaluated to the field include 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water
quality protection of Hagan Fork
Project 06-296 03 4 B-4061, Catawba County
14 Qualifications
The field work for this investigation was conducted on July 7, 2004 and April 13, 2005 by
EcoScience Corporation biologists Scott Davis, David O'Loughlin, and Matt Thomas
Mr Davis is a Protect Sc entist with two years of experience in thb environmental field He
holds a bachelor's degree in environmental science with a concentration in ecology from North
Carolina State University He is proficient in the identification of eastern woody tree and shrub
species and in the identification of southeastern wetland flora Professional expertise includes
jurisdictional area delineation, plant and wildlife identification, protected species surveys,
community mapping, and environmental document preparation
Mr O'Loughlin is a Senior Scientist with three years of experience in the environmental field He
is working toward a M S in forestry from North Carolina State University, with minors in botany
and statistics He has taken pertinent courses including dendrology, botany, ecology, and
wetland soils His professional expertise includes natural resources assessment, stream and
wetlands delineations and environmental document preparation
Mr Thomas is a Project Scientist with two years of experience in the environmental field He
holds a bachelor's degree in environmental science with a concentration in ecology from North
Carolina State University Professional expertise includes jurisdictional area delineation, plant
and wildlife identification, stream assessment, community mapping, and environmental
document preparation
1.5 Definitions of Area Terminology
Definitions for descriptions used in this report are as follows Project Study Area denotes the
area bounded by proposed construction limits, and has been determined to be approximately
300 feet in width (centered on the existing roadway) and approximately 2000 feet in length,
encompassing approximately 13 8 acres, Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0 5 mile
on all sides of the project study area, and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented
by a 7 5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map with the project occupying the central
position
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located within the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina This ecoregion is characterized by dissected irregular
plains, some low rounded hills, ridges, and isolated monadnocks, and low to moderate gradient
streams with mostly cobble, gravel, and sandy substrates (Griffith et a/ 2002) The project
study area is located within a gently sloping floodplain valley Elevations within the project study
area range from a high of approximately 830 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at
the eastern end of the project study area, to a low of approximately 795 feet NGVD within the
stream channel Land uses within and adjacent to the project study area consist of woodlands,
agriculture, residential lots, a powerline corridor, and roadside shoulders
Project 06-296 03
5 B-4061, Catawba County
Based on soil mapping for Catawba County (SCS 1975), the project study area is underlain by
five sod series Appling sandy loam (Typ1c Hapludults), Cecil sandy loam (Typic Hapludults),
Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), Hiwassee clay loam (Typic Rhodudults), and
Pacolet soils (Typic Hapludults) Chewacla loam occurs in the floodplam and on floodplain
slopes of Hagan Fork, and the remainder occur on upland slopes and ridges Chewacla loam is
considered to be non-hydric with hydnc inclusions in Catawba County (NRCS 1997), and
underlies approximately 5 9 acres, or 43 percent of the project study area
The Appling series (10 to 25 percent slopes, eroded) consists of well-drained sods on lower
slopes bordering drainages Permeability is moderate, depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet,
and the seasonal high water table occurs at depths greater than 7 feet
The Cecil series (2 to 10 percent slopes, eroded) consists of well-drained soil on gently sloping
to moderately steep upland slopes and ridges Permeability is moderate, depth to bedrock is
greater than 5 feet, and the seasonal high water table occurs at depths greater than 10 feet
The Chewacla series (0 to 2 percent slopes) consists of poorly drained soil in floodplains that
were formed in recent alluvium This soil tends to be flooded frequently Permeability is
moderate, depth to bedrock is greater than 4 feet, and the seasonal high water table occurs at a
depth of 1 foot
The Hiwassee series (6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded) consists of well-drained sod on the upper
parts of upland slopes Permeability is moderate, depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet, and
the seasonal high water table occurs at depths greater than 5 feet
The Pacolet series (10 to 25 percent slopes) consists of well-drained, gently sloping to
moderately steep soils on uplands, often along drainageways Permeability is moderate, depth
to bedrock is greater than 5 feet, and the seasonal high water table occurs at depths greater
than 5 feet
2.2 Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-08-32 of the Catawba River Basin
(NCDWQ 2003) This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050101 of the South Atlantic/Gulf
Region The structure targeted for replacement spans Hagan Fork The N C Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) has assigned Stream Index Number 11-76-5-(2) to the reach of Hagan Fork
that lies within the project study area (NCDWQ 2004a)
The project study area contains two streams Hagan Fork and one unnamed tributary (UT) to
Hagan Fork Hagan Fork flows generally north through the middle of the project study area
The UT is located in the eastern half of the project study area The UT flows northward into the
project study area, passes through a culvert under Boggs Road, bends west and flows
approximately 300 feet to a confluence with Hagan Fork approximately 30 feet north of the
existing bridge (Figure 2)
Project 06-296 03 6 B-4061, Catawba County
Hagan Fork enters the project study area as a well-defined, third-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over a cobble, gravel, and sand substrate (containing some silt and boulders) At
Bridge No 90, Hagan For) is approximately 25 feet wide with banks' of approximately 8 feet in
height Moving away from the bridge, the banks of Hagan Fork range from 4 to 8 feet and are
steeply sloping During field investigations, the water level appeared below the normal high
water mark and ranged from below 1 foot to approximately 3 feet in depth Water clarity was
good, with visibility to the substrate, and flow velocity was moderate No persistent emergent
aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream Hagan Fork may provide good aquatic
habitat for mussels and benthic macroinvertebrates due to the observation of little siltation within
the stream and the varied channel substrate composition Opportunities for habitat within
Hagan's Creek include overhanging trees, undercut banks, and leaf packs
The UT enters the project study area as a well-defined, first-order, perennial stream with rapid
flow over a cobble, gravel, and sand substrate (containing some silt) In the southeastern
quadrant formed by Hagan Creek and Boggs Road, the banks of the UT range from
approximately 2 feet high as it enters the project study area to approximately 6 inches as it
nears the culvert under Boggs Road In the northeastern quadrant of the project study area, the
banks of the UT range from approximately 2 to 4 feet and are steeply sloping During field
investigations, the water level appeared below the normal high water mark and ranged from 0
inches to approximately 1 foot in depth Water clarity was good, with visibility to the substrate,
and flow velocity was rapid No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the
stream Opportunities for habitat within the UT include overhanging trees, undercut banks,
fallen logs, and leaf packs
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin A Best
Usage Classification of WS-IV has been assigned to this reach of Hagan Fork and its unnamed
tributaries WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in moderate to
highly developed watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses Class C waters are suitable
for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body contact with
waters on an organized or frequent basis No designated High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters
occur within 1 0 mile of the project study area (NCDWQ 2003) However, the reach of McLin
Creek from Catawba County SR 1722 to Lyle Creek (Stream Index Number 11-76-5-(2)) is
designated as a watershed Critical Area (CA) (NCDWQ 2004a) This reach of McLin Creek lies
approximately 0 8 mile north of the project study area and receives the waters of Hagan Fork
The NCDWQ has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in the
Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2003) Hagan Fork is currently listed by
the NCDWQ as Supporting its designated uses No benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring
stations occur within one mile of the project study area (NCDWQ 2003)
Project 06-296 03 7 B-4061, Catawba County
The N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies
according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130 7, hereafter referred to as the
N C 2006 Final Section 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2006) The list is a comprehensive public
accounting of all impaired waterbodies An impaired waterbody is one that does not meet water
quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and anti-
degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131 The standards violation may be due to an
individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment The
impairment could be from point sources, nonpomt sources, and/or atmospheric deposition
Some sources of impairment exist across state lines North Carolina's methodology is strongly
based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b) guidelines
(EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B) Those streams attaining only Partially Supporting (PS) or Not
Supporting (NS) status are listed on the N C 2006 Final Section 303(d) list Streams are further
categorized into one of six parts within the N.C 2006 Final Section 303(d) list, according to
source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately support
aquatic life Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Carolina has developed a priority
ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those
waterbodies provide to the State Hagan Fork is not listed on any section of the N C 2006
Section 303(d) list
Sub-basin 03-08-32 of the Catawba River Basin supports 50 permitted, point source discharges
with a total discharge of over 14 4 million gallons per day Seven of the permitted discharges
are classified as mayor dischargers, collectively discharging over 10 5 million gallons per day
Two mayor dischargers, Duke Energy Company's Marshall Steam Station and McGuire Nuclear
Power Plant have no limits set on discharges The 43 remaining permitted dischargers are
classified as minor, with six having no limits set on discharges (NCDWQ 2004b) The County
Valley WWTP is a minor discharger located approximately 14 miles upstream of the project
study area on Hagan Fork The MCLin Creek WWTP is a minor discharger located
approximately 0 9 mile downstream of the project study area at the function of Hagan Fork and
McLin Creek No other dischargers are located within 2 0 stream miles of the project study
area Mayor non-point sources of pollution within the Catawba River Basin include runoff from
construction activities, agriculture, mining, failing septic systems, and urbanized areas
Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are mayor problems associated with non-point source
discharges (NCDWQ 2004c)
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control
measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of Erosion,
Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures) These measures
include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff,
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways, re-seeding of
herbaceous cover on disturbed sites, management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing
compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality, and avoidance of direct
discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation
Project 06-296 03 8 B-4061, Catawba County
2.3 Summary of Potential. Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in
the project study area
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Hagan Fork, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway Long-term impacts resulting from
construction are expected to be negligible In order to minimize impacts to water resources,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area
disturbed/maintained land, disturbed alluvial forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and alluvial
forest Plant communities were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of
each (Figure 2) These communities are described below in order of their dominance within the
project study area Wildlife directly observed in a plant community or determined to be present
through evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, etc ) during field investigations are indicated with an
asterisk (*) In addition to terrestrial communities, approximately 0 9 acre (7 percent) of the
project study area is encompassed by the impermeable surface of SR 1727
Disturbed/maintained Land- Approximately 8 2 acres (59 percent) of the project study area is
disturbed/maintained land This community includes roadside shoulders, agricultural fields, a
power line corridor, and residential lots Disturbed/maintained land within the project study area
Project 06-296 03 9 B-4061, Catawba County
consists primarily of roadside shoulders and woodland edges in the northwest quadrant formed
by the intersection of SR 1727 and Hagan Fork, unused agricultural fields, woodland edges, and
roadside shoulders in the northeast and southwest quadrants, and a residential lot and adjacent
woodland edges and roadside shoulders in the southeast quadrant In addition, the power line
corridor runs along the south side of SR 1727
Roadside shoulders, agricultural fields, and the residential lot are dominated by seeded and
native grasses and weedy forbs including fescue (Festuca sp ), goldenrod (Solidago sp ), white
clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Tnfol?um pratens), woolly mullein (Verbascum thapsus),
dandelion (Taraxacum offic?nale), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), vetch (V?c?a sp ), and
aster (Aster sp ) These areas contain scattered native and ornamental shrubs and saplings
including blackberry (Rubus sp ), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occ?dentalts), flowering dogwood
(Corpus flonda), eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), weeping willow (Salix babylon?ca),
persimmon (D?ospyros v?rg?n?ana), and crepe myrtle (Lagerstroem?a ?nd?ca)
Within open portions of the project study area, it can be expected that mammalian, avian, and
reptilian diversity will be limited to species adapted to fragmentation and disturbance This area
consists primarily of a residential lot and agricultural fields fragmented by the impervious surface
of SR 1727 and forested areas Open areas within the project study area may provide an
easily-traveled corridor between forested communities as well as specialized habitat for
herbivore, granivore, and insectivore foraging resources, but little cover from predation
Insectivores which take advantage of the wide variety of insects and insect larvae typically at
hand in such areas include American robin* (Turdus m?gratonus), eastern bluebird (S?alia s?a/?s),
common grackle (Qu?scalus qu?scula), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skunk* (Eumeces fac?atus), American toad* (Bufo
amencana), northern cricket frog (Acns crep?tans), eastern mole (Sca/opus aquaticus), least
shrew (Cryptotis parva), and red bat (Las?urus borealis) Herbivores which graze many of the
grasses and forbs present such as fescue, white clover, and goldenrod include meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvan?cus), woodchuck* (Marmota monax), hispid cotton rat (S?gmodon
h?sp?dus), and white-tailed deer (Odoco?leus v?rg?n?anus) Grarnvores which feed upon the
seeds of grasses and herbs such as fescue, goldenrod, Queen Anne's lace, and wooly mullein
include northern cardinal* (Cardmalis card?nahs), American goldfinch (Carduelis trnstis), house
finch (Carpodacus mex?canus), field sparrow (Sp?zella pus?/la), mourning dove* (Zena?da
macroura), and eastern harvest mouse (Re?throdontomys humulis) Other wildlife which may,
occur within open portions of the project study area include carnivores such as red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jama?cens?s), rat snake* (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern garter snake (Thamnoph?s s?rtalis),
and red fox (Vulpes vulpes), omnivores including American crow* (Corpus brachyrhynchos),
raccoon* (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (D?delph?s
virg?n?ana), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolma), and scavengers such as turkey vulture*
(Cathartes aura)
Along woodland edges, the power line corridor, and slopes adjacent to the maintained road
right-of-way, the sapling/shrub layer consists of individuals of eastern red cedar (Jun?perus
v?rg?n?ana), southern red oak (Quercus rubra), flowering dogwood, blackberry, and raspberry
(Rubus sp) Vines present include Japanese honeysuckle (Lon?cera japon?ca), Virginia creeper
Project 06-296 03 10 B-4061, Catawba County
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia)
Representative herbs include Queen Anne's lace, ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
Christmas fern (Polystichum achrostichoides), dog fennel (Eupatonum capillifolium), vetch,
pokeweed (Phytolacca amencana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and sphagnum moss
(Sphagnum sp )
Several wildlife species are well-adapted to using the ecotone of open areas and wooded
communities Raccoon* and Virginia opossum are opportunistic omnivores and will consume a
wide variety of food They may be found close to streams or near residences The herbivorous
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus flondanus) also prefers brushy clearings and shrubby woodland
edges Birds commonly found in shrubby areas and along forest/grassland ecotones include
the omnivorous northern mockingbird*-(Mimus polyg/ottos), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum),
and brown-headed cowbird* (Molothrus ater), and the granivorous indigo bunting (Passenna
cyanea), and eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) Insectivorous species such as eastern
fence lizard and gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), granivores such as eastern chipmunk
(Tamias stnatus), and predators including black racer (Coluber constrictor), timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo kneatus) also utilize this habitat
One wet area dominated by grasses and herbs lies predominantly within disturbed/maintained
land in the southwest quadrant formed by the intersection of Hagan Fork and Boggs Road
(Figure 2, Wetland 1) This low, wet area supports hydrophytic vegetation such as box elder
(Acer negundo), sedge (Carex sp ), spikerush (Eleochans sp ), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest - Approximately 3 2 acres (23 percent) of the project study area
is encompassed by mixed pine/hardwood forest This community occurs on floodplain slopes
and uplands in the project study area This community consists of a mature forest characterized
by a closed canopy with a relatively dense understory and occupies the eastern portion and part
of the western portion of the project study area
In this community, the canopy is made up of tulip poplar (Linodendron tulipifera), white oak
(Quercus alba), willow oak (Q phellos), red maple (Acer rubrum), white ash (Fraxinus
amencana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and Virginia pine (Pinus wrginiana) The
subcanopy/shrub layers include saplings of canopy species, flowering dogwood, redbud (Cercis
canadensis), blackberry, and sassafras (Sassafras albidum) Vines include common greenbrier,
muscadine grape, Japanese honeysuckle, and Virginia creeper Representative species of
herbs include Christmas fern and poison ivy
This community should provide good food for wildlife while its stratification creates numerous
shelter opportunities Many species may frequent this area, including those that also utilize
disturbed alluvial forest Other wildlife species which may be found within this portion of the
project study area include insectivores such as summer tanager (Piranga rubra), pine warbler
(Dendroica pinus), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), spring peeper (Pseudacns
crucifer), and gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), the granivorous pine siskin (Carduelis pinus),
Project 06-296 03 11 B-4061, Catawba County
and predators such as southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), great horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), and barred owl (Strix vana)
Disturbed Alluvial Forest - Approximately 1 1 acres (8 percent) of the project study area is
disturbed alluvial forest This community occurs within the floodplain of Hagan Fork within the
western portion of the project study area and consists of a mature forest characterized by an
open canopy with an open understory Canopy species include river birch (Betula nigra),
sycamore (Platanus occidentahs), black willow (Salix nigra), willow oak, red maple, box elder
(Acer negundo), tulip poplar, white ash, and sweetgum (Liqurdambar styraciflua) The
sapling/shrub layer consists of canopy species as well as blackberry and pokeweed Herb
species consist of jewelweed and sedge, while vines present consist of muscadine grape
Though fragmented and relatively small in size, this community should provide food for wildlife
while its stratification creates numerous shelter opportunities Many species may frequent this
area, including some that also utilize disturbed areas such as Virginia opossum, meadow vole,
red bat, raccoon, eastern mole, eastern box turtle, and white-tailed deer The proximity to a
clear and fast-flowing water supply (Hagan Fork) is also beneficial Wildlife species which may
take advantage of food sources such as herbaceous vegetation, oak mast, or seeds from red
maple, white ash, tulip poplar, and sycamore include herbivores such as gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolmensis) and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), granivores including northern
cardinal*, song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Carolina chickadee* (Poecde carohnensi's), tufted
titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus), eastern chipmunk, and
southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), and omnivores such as brown thrasher and blue
jay (Cyanocitta crrstata) Some wildlife species that may take advantage of cover, such as the
forest floor duff layer, loose bark, and arboreal areas, or prey upon species utilizing these
habitats include insectivores such as northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Carolina wren* (Thtyothorus
ludovicianus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), eastern
wood-pewee (Contopus virens), American toad, five-lined skink, upland chorus frog (Pseudacrls
tnsenata), southeastern shrew (Sorex longrrostrrs), southern short-tailed shrew (Blanna
carolinensis), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), and white-spotted slimy salamander
(Plethodon cylmdnceus), and carnivores including sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus),
eastern screech owl (Otus aslo), eastern garter snake, copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrtx),
timber rattlesnake, and gray fox (Urocyon cineareoargenteus)
One wet area dominated by grasses and herbs lies predominantly within disturbed alluvial forest
in the northwest quadrant of the project study area (Figure 2, Wetland 2) This low, wet area
supports hydrophytic vegetation such as box elder, sedge, soft rush, sycamore, and black
willow
Alluvial Forest - Approximately 0 5 acre (4 percent) of the project study area is alluvial forest
This community occurs adjacent to both sides of Hagan Fork This community consists of a
mature forest characterized by a closed canopy with a relatively open understory Canopy
species include river birch, sycamore, box elder, southern red oak, and sweetgum The
sapling/shrub layer consists of canopy species as well as tag alder (Alnus serrulata), Chinese
Project 06-296 03 12 B-4061, Catawba County
privet, and pokeweed Herb species consist of poison ivy and jewelweed, while vines present
consist of common greenbrner and muscadine grape
Though relatively small in size, this community should provide good food for wildlife while its
stratification creates numerous shelter opportunities Many species may frequent this area,
including those that also utilize disturbed alluvial forest Wildlife diversity and density may be
expected to be somewhat greater than in disturbed alluvial forest due to greater food and
shelter resources Many of these wildlife species are adaptable and can eat a wide variety of
plant and animal material when the preferred food is absent In addition, many of these species
can be found within disturbed areas, brushy edges of the forest, within heavy underbrush, or
amongst shrubby plants Migration between communities of the project study area may be
frequent based on the needs of each species for food, cover, protection from predators, and
nesting
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Amphibians observed within the corridor are limited to bullfrog", (Rana catasbeina) and southern
leopard frog* (Rana utnculana) Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians expected to
occur within the project study area vicinity include green frog (Rana clamitans), eastern
musk
turtle (Stemotherus odoratus), and two-lined salamander (Eurycea bishneata)
No sampling was undertaken in Hagan Fork to determine fishery potential Minnow-size fish
were observed but not identified during the field survey Fish species that may be present in
this reach of Hagan Fork include smaller fish species such as creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), margined madtom (Noturus rnsignis), rosyside dace (Clmostomus funduloides),
redlip shiner (Notropis chr6ticus), and spottad shiner (Notropis hudsonius)
Several species of invertebrates were identified within Hagan Fork These include water
striders (Family Gerndae) and crayfish (Family Cambandae)
3.3 Summary of Terrestrial Communities
Plant communities within the project study area were delineated to determine the approximate
area and location of each (Figure 2) A summary of plant community areas within the project
study area is presented in Table 1 In addition to these areas, approximately 0 9 acre of the
project study area is occupied by the impervious surface of SR 1727
Table 1 Terrestnal Commurnti
Plant Community
Disturbed/Maintained Land
Disturbed Alluvial Forest
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Alluvial Forest
Total
es within the Project Study Area
Acres Percent of project stud area
81 59
11 g
32 23
05 4
69 94
Projected impacts to natural plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are generally
restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments
Project 06-296 03
13 B-4061, Catawba County
Little area of natural plant community is expected to be permanently impacted by the proposed
project Temporary impacts present the greater amount of impact to natural communities, and
although these impacts are considered to be short-term, re-growth of this community to pre-
project stand age and ecological function will require several decades
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential
improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins Construction noise and
associated disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory
wildlife movement patterns
Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement
will be minimized through stringent erosion control measures There are no special restrictions
beyond those outlined in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated to be avoided by bridging the
stream system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity Short-term impacts associated
with turbidity and suspended sediments may affect benthic populations Temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of stringent erosion control measures After bridge construction, temporary
detour structures and approaches will be removed and the areas reseeded
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the project study area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328 3)
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) system for classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats was used to determine the type of each wetland present (Cowardm et al 1979)
Section 404 jurisdictional areas are depicted by Figure 3 Amanda Jones of the USACE was
contacted on November 23, 2005 to verify the jurisdictional area delineations
Hagan Fork exhibits characteristics of a well-defined, third-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over a gravel and sand substrate with some boulders This stream contains
several vegetated point bars composed of sand and gravel Hagan Fork can be classified as
rivenne, upper perennial with an unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of gravel and sand
(R3UB2) The UT can be classified as a well-defined, first-order, rnvenne, upper perennial
stream with an unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of sand and silt (R3UB2)
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12 5
percent) of the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987) The project study area
contains two vegetated wetland areas (Wetlands 1 and 2)
Project 06-296 03 14 B-4061, Catawba County
One wet area dominated by grasses and herbs lies predominantly within disturbed/maintained
land in the southwest quadrant of the project study area (Wetland 1) This low, wet area
appears to receive runoff from Boggs Road, the agricultural fields and forested area to the west,
and flood water from Hagan Fork This area may be classified as palustrine, persistently
emergent, and seasonally flooded (PEM1C) and supports hydrophytic vegetation such as box
elder, flatsedge, spikerush, soft rush, and jewelweed Soils exhibit hydnc chromas while
hydrology indicators include water marks on trees, water-stained leaves, and oxidized
rhizospheres This system would be considered a "riverine" wetland by the NCDWQ, based
upon its location within the Hagan Fork floodplain
One wet area dominated by grasses and herbs lies predominantly within disturbed alluvial forest
in the northwest quadrant of the project study area (Wetland 2) This low, wet area appears to
receive runoff from Boggs Road, the residential lot and forested area to the west, and flood
water from Hagan Fork This area may be classified as palustrine, persistently emergent, and
seasonally flooded (PEM1C) and supports hydrophytic vegetation such as box elder, flatsedge,
soft rush, sycamore, and black willow Sods exhibit hydric chromas while hydrology indicators
include water marks on trees, water-stained leaves, drainage patterns, and oxidized
rhizospheres This system would be considered a "nvenne" wetland by the NCDWQ, based
upon its location within the Hagan Fork floodplain
Information pertaining to jurisdictional areas within the project study area is summarized in
Table 2
Table 2. Jurisdictional Areas Within the Project Study Area
Jurisdictional Area Linear Feet Acres
Hagan Fork 326 0 16
UT 519 0 03
Wetland 1 - 0 13
Wetland 2 -- 0 18
Total 845 0 05
The existing bridge is expected to be removed without dropping components into Hagan Fork
Therefore, no fill is expected to be deposited into waters of the United States
4.2 Permit Issues
4.2.1 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional areas are anticipated from the proposed project As a result,
construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in
charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP)
23 (67 FR 2020, 2082, January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the U S
Project 06-296 03 15 B-4061, Catawba County
WETLAND 1 ---
r?
I ? N
I V
I
I
I
I
3
I
I
3 4 /
V /

BRIDGE
NO. 90
WETLAND 2
LEGEND
PROJECT STUDY AREA
JURISDICTIONAL
STREAM BOUNDARIES
I I JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
BRIDGE
150 0 150
SCALE IN FEET
l,liPnl Fi GI'ct U.r 6, I- bi
BRIDGE GWN ES FIGURE
Uoi
REPLACEMENT NO. 90 (B4061) MAR 2007
t SR 1727 (BOGGS ROAD) 5 ?..
• OVER HAGAN FORK 1 =150
CSC Y re ? ii
Catawba County, North Carolina 04-193
expected with bridge construction The NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water
Quality Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3632) If temporary structures are necessary for
construction activities, access fills, or dewatenng of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087,
January 15, 2002) permit and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3634)
will be required Impacts to vegetated wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020,
2078) and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3624) In the event that
NWPs 23, 33, and 3 will not suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated
approach improvements may qualify under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the
Wilmington USACE District The NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for GP 031 (GC 3627) Notification to the Wilmington USACE District office is
required if this general permit is utilized
4.2.2 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Envionmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508 20) Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to waters of the United States According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the U S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE, in determining
.appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should
be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and 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 road shoulder widths All efforts will be made to decrease impacts
to surface waters
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action In accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092, January 15, 2002, the USACE
requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function
and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability
of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all
Project 06-296 03 16 B-4061, Catawba County
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required Compensatory actions often
include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States
Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site
Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts Temporary impacts to
floodplains associated with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed
areas with native riparian species and removal of temporary fill material upon project
completion A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and NCDWQ
4.3 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed
(P) for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U S C 1531 et seq) The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term
"Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16
U S C 1532)
One federally protected species is listed for Catawba County (as of the USFWS list) dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), which has aefederal status of
Threatened
Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf-flowered heartleaf)
Threatened
Family Anstilochiaceae
Date Listed April 4, 1999
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a small, spicy-smelling, rhizomatous perennial herb with long-
stalked leaves and flowers Leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, leathery, and dark green
above and paler below, the upper leaf surface is often patterned with pale green reticulate
mottles The leaves grow to about 2 4 inches long and form a dense, spreading rosette The
flowers, which appear in April and May, are solitary, flask-shaped, fleshy and firm, and have
three triangular lobes This species differs from related species by having smaller flowers with
calyx tubes that narrow distally rather than broaden Dwarf-flowering heartleaf is found in acidic
sandy loam on north-facing wooded slopes of ravines in the Piedmont of North and South
Carolina This species typically occurs in oak-hickory-pine forest where hydrologic conditions
range from moist to relatively dry, but also may be present in adjacent pastured woodland This
species is typically found in moist duff at the bases of trees or mountain laurel (Kalmla latifolia)
(Kral 1983)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION-
NO EFFECT
NCNHP files list occurrences of dwarf-flowered heartleaf approximately 1 1 miles to the
northwest and 13 miles to the southeast of the project study area Suitable habitat for this
species does exist within the project study area A systematic plant-by-plant survey within the
original 7 4-acre project study area conducted on April 13, 2005 by ESC biologists Scott Davis
Project 06-296 03 17 B-4061, Catawba County
and David O'Loughlin revealed no individuals of dwarf-flowered heartleaf Therefore, this
project is anticipated to have NO EFFECT on this species
Federal Species of Concern - The September 6, 2007 USFWS list includes a category of
species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) FSC are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing In addition, FSC listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant 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, as amended NCNHP files list no documentation for
FSC species within 2 0 miles of the project study area (Franklin and Finnegan 2006, LeGrand
and Hall, 2006) Three FSC species are listed for Catawba County (as of September 6, 2007)
and are listed in Table 3
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern listed for Catawba County

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status*
Southern Appalachian eastern woodrat Neotoma flondana haematorela Yes T
Catawba crayfish ostracod Dactyloctyhere vsabelae No SR
Sweet pinesap Monotropsvs odorata Yes SR-T
"Jtate Status i = tnuangereu, Jl. ? opuumb u1 %,vliuC111, OR - JIy11111.0.my 1.a1c, a11w .+..-• - ?•y•••••r •••v -
species' range (Franklin et al 2006, LeGrand et al 2006)
Habitat for the woodrat consists of forests, mainly in moist areas Scattered woodlots along
watercourses in and near the project study area may contain habitat for the Southern
Appalachian eastern woodrat However, NCNHP records do not document any occurrences of
this species within 2 0 miles of the project study area Sweet pinesap habitat is pine forests and
mixed deciduous woods of the northern piedmont and mountains of North Carolina (Radford et
al 1968) Though suitable habitat for this species exists within the project study area, no
individuals were observed Very little is known of the Catawba crayfish ostracod Therefore,
information regarding habitat and life history is unavailable It may be inferred however, that
habitat is closely tied to suitable habitat for the Catawba crayfish Crayfish were observed
within Hagan Fork, and therefore, suitable habitat for the Catawba crayfish ostracod is likely to
exist
Project 06-296 03 18 B-4061, Catawba County
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L M , V Carter, F C Golet, and E T LaRoe 1979 Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States USFWS/OBS -79/31 Fish and Wildlife
Service, U S Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 103 pp
Environmental Laboratory 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical
Report Y-87-1 U S Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS
169 pp
Franklin, M A and J T Finnegan 2006 Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N C Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh
Griffith, G E, J M Omernik, J A Comstock, M P Schafale, W H McNab, D R Lenat, T F
MacPherson, J B Glover, and V.B Shelbourne 2002 Ecoregions of North Carolina
and South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary table, and
photographs) U S Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia
Hamel, P B 1992 Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC 437 pp
Kartesz, J 1998 A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands Biota of North America Program
Kral, R 1983 A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Region, Atlanta, GA Technical Publication R8-TP 2 1305 pp
LeGrand, H E, S E McRae, S P Hall, and J T Finnegan 2006 Natural Heritage Program List
of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N C Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh
Martof, B S, W M Palmer, J R Bailey, and J R Harrison Ill 1980 Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC 264
PP
Menhinick, E F 1991 The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh 227 pp
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 1997 U S Department of Agriculture
Hydric Soils, Catawba County, N C Technical Guide, Section II-A-2
Project 06-296 03 19 B-4061, Catawba County
N C Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) 1996 A Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2003 Catawba River Basinwide Assessment
Report North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2004a Basinwide Information Management System
(RIMS) (http //h2o enr state nc us/bims/Reports/reportsWB html) North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2004b List of Active Permits (online) Available
http //h2o enr state nc us/NPDES/documents/BIMS 031604 As [April 8, 2004] North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2004c Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2006 Water Quality Assessment and Impaired
Waters List (online) Available http //h2o enr state nc us/tmdl/General 303d htm North
Carolina Departme-it of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh [October 2006]
Palmer, W M and A L Braswell 1995 Reptiles of North Carolina The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC 412 pp
Potter, E F, J F Parnell, R P Teulings, and R Davis 2006 Birds of the Carolinas The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC
Radford, A E, H E Ahles, and C R Bell 1968 Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC 1183 pp
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, N C 222 pp
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N C Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Raleigh
325 pp
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1975 Soil Survey of Catawba County, North Carolina, USDA
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Project 06-296 03 20 B-4061, Catawba County
U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1987 Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald
Eagle in the Southeast Region U S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service 8 pp
U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2004 Catawba County Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online) Available htt //nc-
es fws oov/es/cntylist/Davidson html [Listed date February 5, 2003, Search date
March 29, 2004] Y S Fish and Wildlife Service
U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2002 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (online)
Available hgL//www nwi fws qov [March 29, 2004] U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Webster, W D , J F Parnell, and W C Biggs, Jr 1985 Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC 255 pp
Proiect pF_2ga nq
21 B-4061, Catawba County
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site B-4061, SR 1727 over Hagan Creek Date 7/7/04
Appiicant/Owner NCDOT County Catawba
Investigator EcoScience Corporation / Scott Davis State NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ?No Community ID Maintained/disturbed
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ?Yes ®No Transect ID SA07
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ?Yes ONo Plot ID upland
(If needed, explain on reverse )
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Festuca sp H - 9
2. Tnfolium repens H FACU 10
3 Rubus sp S - 11
4 Daucus carota H - 12
5 Taraxacum offianale H FACU 13
6 Carex sp H - 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excludinFAC- 33-67%
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs
? Other
® No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations
Depth of Surface Water
Depth to Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Sod
0 (in )

12+ (in )

12+ (in )
n r?
Pr1 V
C
C
CJ Drift Lines
? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Sod Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Chewacla loam Drainage Class PD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Fluva quentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? ?Yes ® No
Profile Descnptions
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-8 10yr 4/4 clay loam
8-12 10yr 4/4 10yr 4/2 20% clay loam
Hydnc Sod Indicators
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sods
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Sods
? Agwc Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydnc Sods List
? Reducing Condrtions ? Listed on National Hydnc Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydnc Sods Present?
®Yes ?No (Check)
?Yes ®No
E]Yes ®No
(Check)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ?Yes ®No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site B-4061, SR 1727 over Ha gan Creek Date 717/04
Applicant/Owner NCDOT County Catawba
Investigator EcoScience Corporation / Scott Davis state NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ?No Community ID Maintained/disturbed
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ?Yes ®No Transect ID SA07
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ?Yes ®No Plot ID wetland
(If needed, explain on reverse )
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Speces Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Acer negundo S FACW 9
2 Impatiens capensis H FACW 10
3 Platanus ocadentalis C FACW 11
4 Quercus phellos C FACW- 12
5 Acer rubrum C FAC 13
6 Vitis rotundifolia V FAC 14
7 Eleochans sp H - 15
8 Carex sp H - 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC 75-100%
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs
? Other
® No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations
Depth of Surface Water 0 (in )
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in )
Depth to Saturated Sod 12+ (in )
Mand Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
® Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
® Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Senes and Phase) Chewacla loam Drainage Class PD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Fluva quentlc Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? ?Yes ® No
Profile Descriptions
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-4 10yr 4/4 10yr 4/2 20% clay loam
4-12 10yr 4/1 10yr 4/4 20% clay loam
Hydnc Sod Indicators
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Hishc Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Sods
? Aquc Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydnc Sods list
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydnc Sods List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
1. -
11
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ?No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ?No
Hydnc Sods Present? ®Yes ?No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ?No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site B-4061, SR 1727 over Ha an Creek Date 717/04
Applicant/Owner NCDOT County Catawba
Investigator EcoScience Corporation / Scott Davis State NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ?No Community ID Disturbed alluvial forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) ?Yes ®No Transect ID SB05
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ?Yes ®No Plot ID wetland
(If needed, explain on reverse )
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Saiix nigra S OBL 9
2 Acer negundo S FACW 10
3 Juncus effusus H FACW+ 11
4 Piatanus ocadentalis C FACW 12
5 Carex sp H - 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAG 80-100%
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Wetland Hydrology Indicators
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators
? Aenal Photographs ? Inundated
? Other ? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
® No Recorded Data Avail
bl
a
e ® Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? Sediment Deposits
Field Observations ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water 0 (in ) ® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
® Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit 12+ (in ) ? Local Sod Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sod 12+ (in ) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
SOILS
Map Un l Name
(Series and Phase) Chewacla loam Drainage Class PD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Fluva quentlc Dystrochre pts Confirm Mapped Type? DYes ® No
I
i

Profile Descriptions
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc
0-6 10yr 4/4 10yr 4/2 30% clay loam
6-12 10yr 4/1 1 Oyr 4/2 30% clay loam
Hydnc Sod Indicators
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Hishc Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sods
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Sods
? Agwc Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydnc Sods List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydnc Soils List
® Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes DNo (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes DNo
Hydnc Sods Present? ®Yes DNo
Remarks
(Check)
this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ?No
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site B-4061, SR 1727 over Hagan Creek Date 7/7/04
Applicant/owner NCDOT County Catawba
Investigator EcoScience Corporation J Scott Davis State NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ?No Community ID Disturbed alluvial forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ?Yes ®No Transect ID SB05
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ?Yes ®No Plot ID upland
(If needed, explain on reverse )
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Festuca sp H - 9
2 Trifolium repens H FACU 10
3 Rubus sp S - 11
4 Platanus ocadentalis C FACW 12
5 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 25-75%
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photographs
? Other
® No Recorded Data Available Welland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
? Sediment Deposits
Field Observations ? Drainage Pattems in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water 0 (in ) ? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
? Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit 12+ (in ) ? Local Soil Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sod 12+ (in ) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
SOILS
i
Map Unit Name
(Senes and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup)
Profile Descriptions
Depth
(inches) Horizon
0-8
8-12
Chewacla loam Drainage Class
Field Observations
Fluvaquentlc Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type?
PD
?Yes ® No
Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
10yr 4/4 clay loam
10yr 4/4 10yr 4/2 30% clay loam
Hydnc Sod Indicators
? Histosol
? Histic Epipedon
? Sulfidic Odor
? Aquic Moisture Regime
? Reducing Conditions
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks
? Concretions
? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sods
? Organic Streaking in Sandy Sods
? Listed on Local Hydnc Sods List
? Listed on National Hydnc Sods List
? Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophybc Vegetation Presents ®Yes ?No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ?Yes ®No
Hydnc Sods Present? ?Yes ®No Ils this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ?Yes ®No
I Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02