The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20191016 Ver 1_B5809 NRTR_20190731NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Replace Bridge No. 75 on SR 1142 over North Fork Jones Creek Anson County, North Carolina TIP B-5809 WBS Element No. 45763.1.1 THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit Natural Environment Section September 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS...................................................... 1 3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................1 3.1 Soils.......................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Water Resources..................................................................................................... 2 4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES.............................................................................................. 3 4.1 Terrestrial Communities........................................................................................ 3 4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed........................................................................................ 3 4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest......................................................................... 3 4.1.3 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest............................................................................ 3 4.1.4 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest ........................................... 3 4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts......................................................................... 4 4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife................................................................................................. 4 4.3 Aquatic Communities............................................................................................. 4 4.4 Invasive Species....................................................................................................... 4 5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.................................................................................... 5 5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S...................................................................... 5 5.2 Clean Water Act Permits....................................................................................... 5 5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern .................... 6 5.4 Construction Moratoria......................................................................................... 6 5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules............................................................................... 6 5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters ....................................... 6 5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation............................................................................ 6 5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts........................................................ 6 5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts............................................................. 6 5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species.......................................................... 6 5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...................................................... 8 5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species....................................................... 9 5.11 Essential Fish Habitat.......................................................................................... 9 Appendix A Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Project Study Area Map Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map Figure 4. Terrestrial Communities Map Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report Appendix C Wetland Forms Appendix D Qualifications of Contributors LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Soils in the study area....................................................................................... 2 Table 2. Water resources in the study area................................................................... 2 Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area ....................... 2 Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area .................................. 4 Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area ............. 5 Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area ......................... 5 Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Anson County ..................................... 7 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridge number 75 on SR 1142 (City Pond Road) over North Fork Jones Creek (TIP B-5809) in Anson County (Figure 1). The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Natural Environment Section standard operating procedures and July 2012 NRTR template. Field work was conducted on March 29, 2016. Preliminary jurisdictional determination request is in preparation at the time of this writing. Documentation of the jurisdictional determination will be inserted into the appendices upon finalization of the document. The principal contributors to this document were: Principal Investigator: Hal Bain, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP Education: M.S. Coastal Ecology Track, UNC Wilmington, 1989 B.S. Biology, Campbell University, 1985 Experience: Senior Environmental Project Scientist, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP, 2009-Present Natural Resources Team Leader, ARCADIS, 2003-2008 Biological Surveys Group Leader, NCDOT, 1995-2003 Senior Biologist, NCDOT, 1992-1995 Biology Teacher/Coach, Wake County Public Schools, 1989-1992 Responsibilities: wetland and stream identification, natural community assessments, T/E species assessment, agency determinations, NRTR document preparation, and QA/QC Investigator: Pete Stafford, PWS, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP Education: B.S. Environmental Science, UNC Wilmington, 2000 Experience: Environmental Scientist, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP, 2001- Present Responsibilities: Preparation of forms, wetland and stream delineations, T/E surveys, natural communities assessment, NRTR document preparation Additional personnel who contributed to portions of the field work and/or documentation for this project were David Ward and John Merritt. Appendix D lists the qualifications of these contributors. 3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES The study area lies in the piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina (Figure 2). Topography in the project vicinity is comprised of gently rolling hills with narrow, level September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. floodplains along streams. Elevations in the study area range from 344-380 feet above sea level. Land use in the project vicinity consists primarily of mixed forestland, residential, and agriculture. 3.1 Soils The Anson County Soil Survey identifies two soil types within the study area (Table 1). Table 1. Soils in the study area Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status Pacolet gravelly sandy loam, 15 to PgD Well Drained Nonhydric 25 percent slopes Chewacla silt loam, 0 to 2 percent ChA Somewhat Poorly Hdric y * slopes, frequently flooded Drained * - Soils which are primarily nonhydric, but which may contain hydric inclusions 3.2 Water Resources Water resources in the study area are part of the Yadkin River basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03040201)]. One stream was identified in the study area (Table 2). The location of the water resource is shown in Figure 3. Physical characteristics of this stream are summarized in Table 3. Table 2. Water resources in the study area NCDWR Index Best Usage Stream Name Map ID Number Classification North Fork Jones WS-11 HQW North Fork Jones Creek 13-42-1-(0.3) Creek CA Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area Bank Bankful Water Channel Map ID Height Width Depth (in) Substrate Velocity Clarity (ft) ft North Fork 2 to 2.5 20 to 25 6 to 48 Silt, Sand, Slow Turbid Jones Creek Gravel North Fork Jones Creek is classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-II, and designated critical area. No waters in the study area are designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic River. There are no designated Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) present in the study area. The North Carolina 2014 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies no impaired waters within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. 2 September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. No benthic or fish community samples have been taken within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. No benthic or fish community sampling sites or ratings are listed by NCDWR within North Fork Jones Creek, its headwaters, or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. 4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES 4.1 Terrestrial Communities Four terrestrial communities were identified in the study area; maintained/disturbed, mesic mixed hardwood forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and piedmont/mountain bottomland hardwood forest. Figure 3 shows the location and extent of these terrestrial communities in the study area. A brief description of each community type follows. Scientific names of all species identified are included in Appendix B. 4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Maintained/disturbed habitat is present throughout the study area in places such as roadside shoulders and agricultural fields. The vegetation in this community is comprised of row crops, low growing grasses and herbs, including: fescue, crabgrass, clover, Japanese stiltgrass, blackberry, and violet. 4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest The mesic mixed hardwood forest community is located along the slope uphill of the floodplain. Dominant canopy species within this community consist of. American beech, white oak, southern red oak, red maple, hackberry, and sweetgum. Constituents from the canopy, along with eastern red cedar, are dominant in the understory and shrub layers. Christmas fern, roundleaf greenbrier, and poison ivy are present in the herb/vine layer. 4.1.3 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest The mixed pine/hardwood forest community exists along the ridges within the study area. Dominant species in the canopy of this community include: yellow poplar, red maple, sweetgum, northern red oak, loblolly pine, and white oak. Representatives of the canopy species along with eastern red cedar, black cherry and red maple dominate the understory and shrub layers. Christmas fern, poison ivy, roundleaf greenbrier, wingstem, and Japanese honeysuckle are present in the herb/vine layer. 4.1.4 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest The piedmont/mountain bottomland hardwood forest community occurs along the floodplain of North Fork Jones Creek where infrequent overbank flooding occurs. River birch, green ash, boxelder, American elm, American sycamore, sweetgum, willow oak, water oak, and white oak dominate the canopy while American hornbeam and American elm and constituents from the canopy species are found in the understory. Southern arrowwood, multiflora rose, and Chinese privet are present in the shrub layer. The vine/herb layer is comprised of roundleaf greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, violet, trout lily, and Christmas fern. September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. 4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a result of grading and paving of portions of the study area. At this time, decisions regarding the final location and design of the proposed bridge replacement have not been made. Therefore, community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 4). Once a final alignment and preliminary design have been determined, probable impacts to each community type will be calculated. Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area Community Maintained/Disturbed Coverage (ac.) 0.81 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.14 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.61 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.4 Total 1.96 4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those species actually observed are indicated with *). Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and stream corridors found within the study area include species such as gray squirrel*, raccoon*, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed deer*. Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include the red -shouldered hawk, American crow*, blue jay, Carolina wren*, Carolina chickadee*, tufted titmouse*, yellow-rumped warbler* and northern cardinal*. Birds that may use the open habitat or water bodies within the study area include American kestrel, red-tailed hawk*, belted kingfisher*, eastern bluebird*, eastern meadowlark, and turkey vulture*. Reptile and amphibian species that may use the project study area include the black rat snake, eastern box turtle, and American toad. 4.3 Aquatic Communities One aquatic community (North Fork Jones Creek) is present in the project study area. North Fork Jones Creek is capable of supporting such fish species as bluegill, redbreast sunfish, bluehead chub, sandbar shiner, and white sucker. Reptile and amphibian species expected to occur in these communities include the northern water snake, common musk turtle, river cooter, bull frog and the green frog. Various benthic macroinvertebrates and crayfish would also be expected. 4.4 Invasive Species Four species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found to occur in the study area. The species identified were Japanese honeysuckle (Moderate 4 September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. Threat), Japanese stiltgrass, Chinese privet (Threat), and multiflora rose (Threat). NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as appropriate. 5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES 5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. One stream was identified in the project study area (Table 5). The location of this stream is shown on Figure 3. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of North Fork Jones Creek are detailed in Section 3.2. North Fork Jones Creek, in the project study area, has been designated as a warm water stream for the purposes of stream mitigation. Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area Length Compensatory River Basin Map ID Classification ft. Miti ation Required Buffer North Fork Jones 153 Perennial Yes Not Subject Creek Two jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Figure 4). Wetland classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 6. All wetlands in the study area are within the Yadkin River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040201). USACE wetland delineation forms and NCDWR wetland rating forms for each site are included in Appendix C. Descriptions of the terrestrial communities at each wetland site are presented in Section 4.1. Wetland WA and WB are included within the piedmont/mountain bottomland forest community description. Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area NCWAM Hydrologic NCDWR Wetland Map ID Area (ac.) Classification Classification Rating Bottomland 0.12 WA Riparian 72 Hardwood Forest Bottomland 0.05 WB Riparian 64 Hardwood Forest Total 0.17 5.2 Clean Water Act Permits The proposed project has been designated as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the purposes of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. As a result, a Nationwide Permit (NWT) 23 will likely be applicable. A NWP No. 33 may also apply for temporary construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or temporary causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required, then a Section 401 Water 5 September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. Quality Certification (WQC) from the NCDWR will be needed. 5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern Anson County is not one of the twenty counties under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA). A CAMA permit from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) will not be required. 5.4 Construction Moratoria North Fork Jones Creek is not considered an NCWRC trout water or anadromous fish habitat. No moratoria will be required for this project. 5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules There are no buffer rules administered by NCDWR for the Yadkin River Basin. Therefore, these streams are not subject to buffer rule protection. 5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters There are no Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act located in the project study area. 5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation 5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts The NCDOT has attempted to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent practicable in choosing and designing the preferred alternative. No impacts to study area streams or wetlands are anticipated at this time. 5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts If impacts are determined as the project progresses. NCDOT will investigate potential on - site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities. If unsuitable on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species As of July 14, 2015, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists three federally protected species for Anson County (Table 7). A brief description of each species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS. 6 September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Anson County. Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status* Habitat Present Biological Conclusion Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E Undetermined Unresolved Helianthis schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E Yes No Effect Picoides borealis Red -cockaded woodpecker E Yes No Effect *E - Endangered Carolina heelsplitter USFWS optimal survey window: year round Habitat Description: The Carolina heelsplitter was historically known from several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and Savannah River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system, in South Carolina. In North Carolina, the species is now known only from a handful of streams in the Rocky and Catawba River systems. The species exists in very low abundances, usually within 6 feet of shorelines, throughout its known range. The general habitat requirements for the Carolina heelsplitter are shaded areas in large rivers to small streams, often burrowed into clay banks between the root systems of trees, or in runs along steep banks with moderate current. The more recent habitat where the Carolina heelsplitter has been found is in sections of streams containing bedrock with perpendicular crevices filled with sand and gravel, and with wide riparian buffers. Biological Conclusion: Unresolved. NCDOT BSG will provide this information. Schweinitz's sunflower USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late August -October Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower, endemic to the Piedmont of North and South Carolina. The few sites where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in relatively natural vegetation are found in Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights -of -way, maintained power lines and other utility rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings and edges of upland oak -pine -hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and other sunny or semi -sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for sunlight. It is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other vegetation. Schweinitz's sunflower occurs in a variety of soil series, including Badin, Cecil, Cid, Enon, Gaston, Georgeville, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Misenheimer, Secrest, Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion, among others. It is generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks. 7 September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. Biological Conclusion: No Effect A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2016, indicates no occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area. Habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is not present in the project study area. Vegetated habitat along roadside shoulders and utility easements in the project study area is managed by intense mowing and herbicide application or is densely overgrown. No sunflower species were observed during field review. Therefore, it can be concluded that this project will not impact this species. Red -cockaded woodpecker USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round; November -early March (optimal) Habitat Description: The red -cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provided foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 miles. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Habitat for RCW is not present in the study area. A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2016, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. The mixed pine/hardwood forest of the study area have trees in the 30-year class, but it is not contiguous with other pine forest, and therefore not in proximity to potential nesting habitat. No RCW were observed in the project study area. Therefore, it can be concluded that this project will not impact this species. 5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on March 7, 2016 using 2015 color aerials. A water body large enough to be considered potential feeding sources was identified. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the bald eagle is present within 1.0 mile of the study area. However, during a March 29, 2016 survey, no bald eagles or bald eagle nests were observed within the study area or within 660 feet on all sides of the study area. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on October 2015 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of nest trees and the minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species. 8 September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. 5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species As of July 14, 2015, the USFWS lists no Candidate species for Anson County. 5.11 Essential Fish Habitat There are no Essential Fish Habitat areas identified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries in the study area. 9 September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N.C. 6.0 REFERENCES Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals: North America North of Mexico. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 255 pp. Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians (Eastern and Central North America). 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 450 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Harrar, E.S. and J.G. Harrar. 1962. Guide to Southern Trees. New York: Dover Publications. 2nd ed. 709 pp. Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. 264 pp. National Geographic. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C. National Geographic Society. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth version. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2008. Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Yadkin/Pee-Dee River Basin. Raleigh, North Carolina. https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water- resources/plannin /bg asin-planning/water-resource-plans/vadkin-pee-dee N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources. 2014.2014 Category 5 Water Quality Assessments — 303(d) List. Available at http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_ library/get_file?uuid=28b97405-55da-4b21- aac3-f580ee810593&groupId=38364 N.C. Department of Transportation. 2012 Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina. North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2016. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) User Manual, Version 5. 49 pp., Appendices. Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 490 pp. Peterson, R.T., editor. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 384 pp. 10 September 2016 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5809, Anson County, N. C. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp. Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 222 pp. 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. 325 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998. Hydrologic Units -North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services. 2014. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: Anson County. Updated July 14, 2015. hlt2://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cpiylist/Anson.html United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 28 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). hqp://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/schwsun.html. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. hqp://www.fws.,gov/nces/es/Tlant survey.h United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. httn://www.usace.armv.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/reL,ulatorv/reL sunn/EMP Piedmont_v2b.pdf Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp. 11 September 2016 Appendix A Figures N F-- 4 a - 4 rdd rd S v a SR 1r42 L A O 0 109 0 City o P on, J �0 - - � D S°nes C Q North Q 0 o W Ll rCOMapNC Center for Geographic on and Analysis,; NC Dept. of 14ORTH C,, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS T c PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & OF TflP� ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT B-5809 BRIDGE NO. 75 ON SR 1142 OVER NORTH FORK JONES CREEK ANSON COUNTY VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 4 V C) 16 F Anse 74 Polkton .I j Peachland Wadesboro (j 111 Lilesville f 52 Legend M orven ❑8 a „ Q Study Area 0 I e F,%.RTIJNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & QPo ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT B-5809 BRIDGE NO. 75 ON SR 1142 OVER NORTH FORK JONES CREEK ANSON COUNTY USGS STUDY MAP v SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, WADESBORO, NC FIGURE 2 •. w -�q.i.- • .� �: .�1� 1 � •; ` '1, •t- ' • r' •. Il �' � �, 1, . r Ilk 06 Aw .�� }�"' '~ � / _ •a i a •� -sue•.. •-►•+�a��. -�h � j� q 4L # `• . MAE" .. r y r �y ROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • FaiMew IF t DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL Unionville Legend hville BRIDGE NO. 75 ON SR 1142 .e WesleyC apel Perennial Stream OVER NORTH FORK JONES CREEK MineralfSprings _ Delineated • •� "�+ , i , t .: 'cam-ANSON COUNTY -URISDICTIONAL FEATURES .> FIGURE 4 Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report Plants Common Name Scientific Name American beech Fagus grandifolia American elm Ulmus americans American hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana American sycamore Platanus occidentalis Blackberry Rubus sp. Black cherry Prunus serotina Boxelder Acer negundo Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides Clover Trifolium sp. Crabgrass Digitaria sp. Eastern red cedar Junipercus virginiana Fescue Festuca sp. Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum Loblolly pine Pinus taeda Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Northern red oak Quercus rubra Pawpaw Asimina triloba Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans Shortleaf pine Pinus echinata Southern arrowwood Viburnum dentatum Red maple Acer rubrum River birch Betula nigra Roundleaf greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia Southern red oak Quercus falcata Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Trout lily Erythronium americanum Violet Viola sp. Water oak Quercus nigra Willow oak Quercus phellos Wingstem Verbesina alternifolia White oak Quercus alba Yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Animals Common Name Scientific Name American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos American kestrel Falco sparverius American toad Bufo americanus Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Common musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus Crayfish Cambarus spp. Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Green frog Lithobates clamitans Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Northern water snake Nerodia sipedon sipedon Raccoon Procyon lotor Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Red -shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis River cooter Pseudemys concinna Sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus White sucker Catostomus commersond Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Appendix C Wetland Forms WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: B-5809 City/County: Anson County Sampling Date: 03/29/16 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland WA Investigator(s): Pete Stafford, Hal Bain Section, Township, Range: Wadesboro Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <5 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 of LRR P Lat: 34.917671 Long:-80.092813 Datum: WGS Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: PF01 E/K b Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I v l No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil .❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 571 l No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑ Soil �, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland WA meets minimum criterion for a jurisdictional wetland. This wetland is located on the headwaters of Wadesboro Municiple Lake and North Fork Jones Creek. Evidence of active beaver presence in the form of vegetation removal and dam building exists. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) ❑ ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) ❑✓ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ❑✓ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑✓ Saturation (A3) ❑✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ❑_ Moss Trim Lines (B16) ❑✓ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑✓ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ❑✓ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ✓❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑✓ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ✓❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4) ❑✓ Aquatic Fauna (1313) ✓❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑✓ NoED Depth (inches): 1-12 Water Table Present? Yes No Saturation Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (inches): surface H Depth (inches): surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 2:1 No� (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland WA meets wetland hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Wetland WA Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) % Cover Species? Status 1 Salix nigra 20 yes OBL 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 yes FACW 3 Acer rubrum 10 yes FAC 4. 7 45 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 22.5 20% of total cover: 9 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1 Salix nigra 15 yes OBL 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 yes FACW 3 Acer rubrum 5 no FAC 4 Ligustrum sinense 5 no FACU 5 Cephalanthus occidentalis 15 yes OBL 6. 7. 8. 9. 50 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1 Scirpus cyperinus 15 yes FACW 2 Dichanthelium clandestinum 5 no FAC 3 Juncus effusus 10 yes FACW 4 Carex spp. 10 yes N/A 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 40 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20 20% of total cover: 8 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1 Toxicodenron radicans 5 yes FAC 2 Campsis radicans 5 yes FAC 3 Smilax rotundifolia 5 yes FAC = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic vegetation present at Wetland WA. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 11 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 12 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 91.66666666666666 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 3 x 1 = 3 FACW species 4 x 2 = 8 FAC species 6 x 3 = 18 FACU species 1 x 4 = 4 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 14 (A) 33 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.357142857142857 ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ED 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ❑✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in heiaht. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes LZI No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 Wetland WA SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-2 7.5yr 4/3 80 7.5yr 4/6 20 C M Silty Clay Loam 2-6 2.5y 4/2 95 10yr 4/8 5 C PL Clay Loam 6-18 2.5y 5/2 80 7.5yr 3/4 20 C M Clay loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc [] Histosol (Al) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) p Dark Surface (S7) 0 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) 0 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) 0 Coast Prairie Redox (A16) ❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) I] Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 0_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: N/A Depth (inches): N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yesa No Remarks: Hydric soils are present at Wetland WA. Redox Depressions (F8) 0 Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) 0 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 0 Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 Wetland WA WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version Project Name B-5809 County Anson County Name Of evaluator P. Stafford, H. Bain Wetland location on pond or lake ✓ on perennial stream on intermittent stream within interstream divide other: Nearest Road SR 1142 Wetland area 0.12 acres Wetland width <50 feet Soil series: "predominantly organic - humus, muck, or peat e✓ predominantly mineral - non -sandy predominantly sandy H draulic factors steep topography ditched or channelized total wetland width > 100 feet Wetland t pe (select one)* ✓ Bottomland hardwood forest Headwater forest Swamp forest Wet flat Pocosin Bog forest Date 03/29/16 Adjacent land use �within'/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius) ✓ forested/natural vegetation 90 % F✓ agriculture, urban/suburban 5 % FT impervious surface 5 % Dominant vegetation (1) Salix nigra (2) Scirpus cyperinus (3) Fraxinus pennsylvanica Flooding and wetness V semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated seasonally flooded or inundated intermittently flooded or temporary surface water no evidence of flooding or surface water Pine savanna Freshwater marsh Bog/fen Ephemeral wetland Carolina bay Other: . The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels R Water storage 4 x 4.00 = 16 A T Bank/Shoreline stabilization Pollutant removal 4 x 4.00 = 4 ** x 5.00 = 16 Wetland rating 20 I Wildlife habitat 4 x 2.00 = 0 72 N Aquatic life value 3 x 4.00 = 12 G Recreation/Education 3 x 1.00 = 0 ** Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint source disturbance within '/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: B-5809 City/County: Anson County Sampling Date: 03/29/16 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland WB Investigator(s): Pete Stafford, Hal Bain Section, Township, Range: concave Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): N/A Slope (%): <5 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 of LRR P Lat: 34.917868 Long:-80.093544 Datum: WGS Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla NWI classification: PF01 E/K b Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I v l No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil .❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 571 l No ❑ Are Vegetation ❑ Soil �, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No Wetland WB meets minimum criterion for a jurisdictional wetland. This wetland is Located on the headwaters of Wadesboro Municiple Lake and North Fork Jones Creek. Evidence of active beaver presence in the form of vegetation removal and dam building exists. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) ❑ ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) ❑✓ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ❑✓ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑✓ Saturation (A3) ❑✓ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ❑_ Moss Trim Lines (B16) ❑✓ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑✓ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ❑✓ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ✓❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑✓ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ✓❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4) ❑✓ Aquatic Fauna (1313) ✓❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑✓ NoED Depth (inches): 1-6 Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): surface surface H 2:1 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No� (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland WB meets wetland hydrology criteria. Hydrology heavily influenced by Wadesboro municipal lake and beaver activity. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Wetland WB Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) % Cover Species? Status 1 Salix nigra 20 yes OBL 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 yes FACW 3 Acer rubrum 10 yes FAC 4. 7 45 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 22.5 20% of total cover: 9 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1 Salix nigra 5 no OBL 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 yes FACW 3 Acer rubrum 10 yes FAC 4 Ligustrum sinense 5 no FACU 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 30 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 15 20% of total cover: 6 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1. Dichanthelium clandestinum 10 yes FAC 2 Juncus effusus 5 yes FACW 3 Carex spp. 5 yes N/A 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. gn 50% of total cover: 10 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1 Toxicodenron radicans 5 2 Smilax rotundifolia 10 3. = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 4 yes FAC yes FAC = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 7.5 20% of total cover: 3 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic vegetation present at Wetland WB. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 10 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 90 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 2 x 1 = 2 FACW species 3 x 2 = 6 FAC species 5 x 3 = 15 FACU species 1 x 4 = 4 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 1 (A) 27 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.4545454545454546 ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ED 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ❑✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is <_3.0' ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in heiaht. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes LZI No ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 Wetland WB SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-2 7.5yr 4/3 95 7.5yr 4/6 5 D M silty clay Loam 2-6 2.5y 4/2 90 10yr 4/8 20 C M Clay Loam 6-18 2.5y 5/2 95 7.5yr 3/4 5 C PL Clay Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc [] Histosol (Al) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 0 Thick Dark Surface (Al2) 0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) p Dark Surface (S7) 0 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) 0 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) 0 Coast Prairie Redox (A16) ❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) I] Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 0_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) 0 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: N/A Depth (inches): N/A Hydric Soil Present? Yesa No Remarks: Hydric soils are present at Wetland WB. Redox Depressions (F8) 0 Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) 0 Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) 0 Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 Wetland WB Project Name B-5809 County Anson County WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version Nearest Road SR 1142 Wetland area 0.05 acres Wetland width <50 feet Name of evaluator P. Stafford, H. Bain, J Merritt Wetland location on pond or lake ✓ on perennial stream on intermittent stream within interstream divide other: Soil series: "predominantly organic - humus, muck, or peat e✓ predominantly mineral - non -sandy predominantly sandy H draulic factors steep topography ditched or channelized total wetland width > 100 feet Wetland t pe (select one)* ✓ Bottomland hardwood forest Headwater forest Swamp forest Wet flat Pocosin Bog forest Date 03/29/16 Adjacent land use �within'/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius) ✓ forested/natural vegetation 90 % F✓ agriculture, urban/suburban 5 % FT impervious surface 5 % Dominant vegetation (1) Salix nigra (2) Fraxinus pennsylvanica (3) Acer rubrum Flooding and wetness Q✓ semipermanently to permanently flooded or inundated seasonally flooded or inundated intermittently flooded or temporary surface water no evidence of flooding or surface water Pine savanna Freshwater marsh Bog/fen Ephemeral wetland Carolina bay Other: . The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels R Water storage 3 x 4.00 = 12 A T Bank/Shoreline stabilization Pollutant removal 4 x 4.00 = 3 ** x 5.00 = 16 Wetland rating 15 I Wildlife habitat 3 x 2.00 = 0 64 N Aquatic life value 3 x 4.00 = 12 G Recreation/Education 3 x 1.00 = 0 ** Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint source disturbance within '/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: B-5809 City/County: Anson County Sampling Date: 03/29/16 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: upland Form WA, WB Investigator(s): Pete Stafford, Hal Bain Section, Township, Range: Wadesboro, NC Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <5 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 136 of LRR P Lat: 34.917842 Long:-80.093215 Datum: WGS Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet NWI classification: N/A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I v l No = (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ❑, Soil ❑, or Hydrology significantly disturbed? No Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes 571 l No Q Are Vegetation Soil �, or Hydrology naturally problematic? NO (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✓ ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No �✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Upland form for Wetland WA and WB. Hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are absent from this location. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) ❑ ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ True Aquatic Plants (1314) ❑ High Water Table (A2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) ❑_ Moss Trim Lines (B16) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (62) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ Crayfish Burrows (C8) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Thin Muck Surface (C7) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) ❑ Microtopographic Relief (D4) ❑ Aquatic Fauna (1313) ❑ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes = No =Depth (inches): N/A Water Table Present? Yes= No Depth (inches): N/A k4 ✓ N/A ❑ Saturation Present? Yes" No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No� (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Upland form for Wetlands WA and WB. Wetland hydrology not present at this location. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Upland - WA, WB Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) % Cover Species? Status 1 Quercus nigra 5 no FAC 2 Fraxinus americana 10 yes FACU 3. Liriodendron tulipijera 15 yes FACU 4 Ubnus rubra 5 no FAC WA 35 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 17.5 20% of total cover: 7 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1 Fraxinus americana 5 no FACU 2. Liriodendron tulipifera 10 yes FACU 3 Ulmus rubra 5 no FAC 4 Juniperus virginiana 5 no FACU 5 Prunus serotina 10 yes FACU 6 Ilez opaca 15 yes FACU 7. 8. 9. 50% of total cover: 25 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1 Asplenium platyneuron 4. 5. 50 = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 10 5 yes FACU 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 5 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 2.5 20% of total cover: 1 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 500 sq. ft ) 1 Smilax rotundifolia 10 yes FAC 2. Lonicera japonica 15 yes FAC 3. Gelsemium sempervirens 5 no FAC 50% of total cover: 15 Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate Upland form for Wetland WA and WB. = Total Cover 20% of total cover: 6 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 6 x 3 = 18 FACU species 8 x 4 = 32 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 14 (A) 50 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.5714285714285716 ❑ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ❑ 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ❑ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in heiaht. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes LJ No ❑ Hydrophytic vegetation not present at this location. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0 Upland - WA, WB SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10yr 4/6 100 Clay Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: [] Histosol (Al) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) 0 Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) I] Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) ❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) [] Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) 0 Stratified Layers (A5) 0 Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 0_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) (] Other (Explain in Remarks) 0 Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) _0 Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _0 Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) p Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) 0 Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) 0 Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type. N/A N/A Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes= No Remarks: Upland form for Wetland WA and WB. Hydric soils are not present at this location. US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0 Appendix D Qualifications of Contributors Investigator: David Ward, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP Education: B.S. Geography, Bloomsburg University, 1999 Experience: GIS specialist, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP 2002 - Present Responsibilities: GIS surveys and mapping Investigator: John Merritt, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP Education: B.S. Biology and Environmental Science, Trine University, 1999 Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, Rummel Klepper and Kahl, LLP, June 2016-Present Environmental Biologist, NCDOT, March 2006-May 2016 Biology and Environmental Science teacher, Randolph County High Schools, August 2002-March 2006 Staff Scientist, Professional Service Industries (PSI), July 2000 — July 2002 Responsibilities: Preparation of forms, wetland and stream delineations, T/E surveys, natural communities assessment, NRTR document preparation