20200207 Ver 1_U-5907 FINAL NRTR 3-20-17_20200210

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Extension of Potts Street on New Location to Sloan Street
Davidson, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
TIP U-5907
WBS Element No. 46452.1.1
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Natural Environment Section
March 2017

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 Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest...................................................................................3
4.1.2 Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest............................................................................3
4.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed
4.1.4 Terrestrial Community Impacts...................................................................................4
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife.........................................................................................................4
4.3 Aquatic Communities.....................................................................................................4
4.4 Invasive Species...............................................................................................................5
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.................................................................................5
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S................................................................................5
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits................................................................................................6
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....................................................................7
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act...............................................................10
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species...............................................................11
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat.................................................................................................11
6.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................12
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 Stream and Wetland Data 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 Mecklenburg County ........................7
Table 8. Candidate species listed for Mecklenburg County.....................................11

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to extend Potts
Street on new location to Sloan Street (TIP U-5907) in the Town of Davidson,
Mecklenburg 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
October 20 and 21, 2014 and October, 25 2016. Jurisdictional areas identified in the
study area have not been verified by the USACE or NCDWR. The principal personnel
contributing to this document were:
Principal
Investigator: Chris Tinklenberg, PWS
Education: B.A. Geography, 2007; Certificate in Geographic Information Systems,
2007
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2007-
Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, GPS/GIS, stream assessment, natural
community assessment, T/E species assessment, Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) and document preparation
Investigator: Ross Sullivan
Education: B.S. Social Psychology, 2008; Masters of Natural Resources (MNR),
Assessment and Analysis Technical Option, 2014; Graduate Certificate
in Geographical Information Systems, 2014
Experience: Environmental Analyst, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2014-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, GPS/GIS, stream assessment, natural
community assessment, T/E species assessment, document preparation
Additional personnel who contributed to portions of the fieldwork and/or documentation
for this project is William Sullivan. Appendix D lists the qualifications of this
contributor.
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 sloping hills and bluffs with
narrow level floodplains along streams. Elevations in the study area range from 760 to
840 feet above mean sea level. Land use in the project vicinity consists primarily of
March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
developed commercial areas and high -density residential housing interspersed with
fragmented forestland around Lake Norman and its tributaries.
3.1 Soils
The Mecklenburg County Soil Survey identifies six soil types within the study area
(Table 1).
Table 1. Soils in the study area
Soil Series
Mapping
Unit
Drainage Class
Hydric Status
Cecil sandy clay loam
CeB2
Well Drained
Nonhydric
Cecil -Urban land complex
CuB
Well Drained
Nonhydric
Enon sandy loam
EnB
Well Drained
Nonhydric
Wilkes loam, 4-8% slopes
WkB
Well Drained
Nonhydric
Wilkes loam, 8-15% slopes
WkD
Well Drained
Nonhydric
Wilkes loam, 15-25% slopes
WkE
Well Drained
Nonhydric
3.2 Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the Catawba River basin [U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101]. Two streams were identified
in the study area (Table 2). The locations of the water resources are shown in Figure 3.
The physical characteristics of the streams are provided in Table 3.
Table 2. Water resources in the study area
Stream Name
Map ID
NCDWR Index
Best Usage
Number
Classification
UT to Lake Norman
SA
l l-(75)
WS-IV, B; CA
UT to Lake Norman
SB
l 1-(75)
WS-IV, B; CA
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area
Bank
Bankful
Water
Map ID
Height
Width
Depth (in)
Channel Substrate
Velocity
Clarity
(ft)
(ft)
SA
8
6
12
Silt, Sand, Gravel,
Moderate
Clear
Cobble
SB
3
4
12, pooled
Silt, Sand, Riprap
N/A
Clear
There are no designated Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) or anadromous fish waters in or
within 1.0-mile downstream of the study area. There are no designated High Quality
Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) in or within 1.0-mile
downstream of the study area. No streams within the project study area, or within 1.0
2 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
mile downstream of the study area, are identified on the North Carolina 2014 Final
303(d) lists of impaired waters for sedimentation or turbidity.
No fish or benthic monitoring data is available for any streams in the study area or within
1.0 mile of the study area.
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
4.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: dry-mesic oak -hickory
forest, piedmont headwater stream forest, and maintained/disturbed. Figure 4 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 Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
The dry-mesic oak -hickory forest occurs in fragmented tracts throughout the study area.
Areas of this community type are situated on acidic upland slopes and somewhat
sheltered ridges and consist of historically disturbed tracts that were developed and then
abandoned, or have been isolated by adjacent development. White oak, post oak, southern
red oak, mockernut hickory, sycamore, loblolly pine, sweetgum, red maple, southern
sugar maple, winged elm, and black gum make up the overstory canopy, while eastern
redbud, flowering dogwood, southern arrow -wood, and black haw occur in the
understory. The vine species were limited to greenbrier, poison ivy, English ivy, and
grapevine.
4.1.2 Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
The piedmont headwater stream forest occurs in small, fragmented tracts along streams in
two locations within the study area. Areas of this community type are found on
floodplain areas around small 1 st or 2nd order streams. American elm, pecan, tulippoplar,
sycamore, loblolly pine, sweetgum, red maple, Osage -orange, green ash, and black gum
make up the overstory canopy, while Chinese privet, glossy privet, silverthorn, flowering
dogwood, and southern arrow -wood occur in the understory. Herbaceous plants found in
this community type include jewelweed, sweet woodreed, Japanese stilt -grass, and garlic
mustard. The vine species were limited to English ivy, poison ivy, greenbrier and
grapevine. Included in this community is a small floodplain depression which has been
categorized as a headwater forest wetland using the NCWAM classification.
4.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed
Maintained/disturbed areas are scattered throughout the study area in places where the
vegetation is periodically mowed or otherwise maintained, such as roadside shoulders,
residential yards, commercial lots, and overhead utility corridors. Canopy species in this
community are usually maintained or planted as ornamentals, and consist of American
3 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
elm, loblolly pine, red maple, silver maple, pecan, post oak, southern red oak, black
walnut, river birch, white oak, white ash, willow oak, and southern magnolia, with the
most frequent shrubs observed being crape -myrtle, wax -myrtle, Chinese privet, and
American holly. Herbaceous vegetation in this community is comprised of low growing
grasses, herbs, and vines, including fescue, Johnson grass, knotgrass, sunflower,
goldenrod, blackberry, and greenbrier.
4.1.4 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 roadway improvements 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
Coverage (ac.)
Dr -Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
0.7
Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest
1.2
Maintained/Disturbed
11.9
Total
13.8
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 found
within the study area include species such as common mouse, gray squirrel, eastern
cottontail, raccoon, North American beaver, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed deer.
Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include the red -shouldered hawk,
American crow, northern mockingbird, Carolina chickadee, turkey vulture, and tufted
titmouse. Birds that may use the open habitat or water bodies within the study area
include great blue heron, belted kingfisher, barn swallow, and eastern kingbird. Reptile
and amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study area
include the eastern ribbon snake, copperhead, green snake, black rat snake, black racer,
snapping turtle, eastern fence lizard, and five -lined skink.
4.3 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities in the study area consist of perennial and intermittent piedmont
streams. Perennial streams in the study area are relatively small in size and would support
eastern mosquitofish, bullfrog, and crayfish. Intermittent streams in the study area could
support aquatic communities of spring peeper and various macroinvertebrates.
4 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
4.4 Invasive Species
Six species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found to
occur in the study area. The species identified were garlic mustard (Threat), Japanese stilt
grass (Threat), Chinese privet (Threat), English ivy (Moderate Threat), Johnson grass
(Moderate Threat), and silverthorn (Moderate Threat). NCDOT will manage invasive
plant species as appropriate.
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Two jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 5). The locations of
the streams are shown on Figure 3. The NCDWR stream identification forms are included
in Appendix C. The physical characteristics and water quality designation of the
jurisdictional streams are detailed in Section 3.2. The jurisdictional streams in the study
area have been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area
Compensatory
Map ID
Length (ft.)
Classification
Mitigation
River Basin
Required
Buffer
SA
530
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
SB
145
Intermittent
Undetermined
Not Subject
Total
675
One jurisdictional wetland was identified within the study area (Figure 3). Wetland
classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 6. The wetland in the study
area is within the Catawba River basin (USES Hydrologic Unit 03050101). The USACE
wetland delineation forms and NCDWR wetland rating form for the site are included in
Appendix C. A description of the terrestrial community at the wetland site is presented in
Section 4.1. Wetland site WA is included in the piedmont headwater stream forest
community.
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area
Map
Hydrologic
NCDWQ
ID
NCWAM Classification
Classification
Wetland
Area (ac.)
Rating
WA
Headwater Forest
Riparian
29
0.03
Total
0.03
5 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
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 (NWP) 23 will likely be applicable. 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 Quality Certification (WQC)
from the NCDWR will be needed.
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
Mecklenburg County is not under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) and no Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) occur in the study area.
5.4 Construction Moratoria
No construction moratoria apply to any waters within the study area.
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
No waters in the study area are subject to NCDWR river basin buffer rules.
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No waters in the study area have been designated by the USACE as Navigable Waters
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams to the
greatest extent practicable in choosing a preferred alternative and during project design.
At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or design of
the preferred alternative.
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
The NCDOT will investigate potential on -site wetland and stream mitigation
opportunities once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the preferred
alternative. If on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by the North
6 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services (DMS).
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of April 2, 2015, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five
federally protected species for Mecklenburg County (Table 7). A brief description of
these species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion
rendered based on survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for these species
are based on the current best available information from referenced literature and/or
USFWS.
Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Mecklenburg County
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Present
Conclusion
Myotis
Northern long-eared bat
T
Unknown
Unresolved
se tentrionalis
Lasmigona
Carolina heelsplitter
E
Unknown
Unresolved
decorate
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
Yes
No Effect
Helianthus
Schweinitz's sunflower
E
Yes
No Effect
schweinitzii
Echinacea
Smooth coneflower
E
Yes
No Effect
laevi ate
E — Endangered
T — Threatened
Northern Long-eared Bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1 — August 15
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western
North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this
species is not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean
mines are extremely rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or
where NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live
and dead trees (typically >3 inches dbh). Males and non -reproductive females
may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat also been found,
rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings,
behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on
forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings, over water,
and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type
for foraging.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
7 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
Construction activities for this project will not take place until Endangered
Species Act compliance is satisfied for NLEB. The NCDOT Biological Surveys
Group will be responsible for habitat assessment and surveys for the NLEB.
Carolina Heelsplitter
USFWS Recommended 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 Pee Dee 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: No Effect
The NCDOT Biological Surveys Group will conduct a habitat assessment and any
surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter. Further, a review of NCNHP records,
updated October 2016, indicates no known occurrences of this species within 1.0
mile of the study area.
Michaux's Sumac
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: May -October
Habitat Description: Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower
Piedmont, grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or
circumneutral, well -drained sands or sandy loam soils with low cation exchange
capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic loamy swales and
depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings along the rim of
Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of -
way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or
storm damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse
to moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of
other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the
central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is
shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing,
clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
8 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present in the study area along the
maintained railroad easement, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of -way.
However, many of the areas of suitable habitat within the project study area are
heavily maintained by mowing or the application of herbicides and present only
marginally suitable habitat. Surveys were conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists
throughout areas of suitable habitat on October 25, 2016 and no individuals of
Michaux's sumac were observed. A review of the NCNHP records, updated
October 2016, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Due to a lack of recorded occurrences and a lack of observed individuals in the
project study area, it has been determined that the proposed project will have "No
Effect" on this species.
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.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present in the study area along the
maintained railroad easement, roadside, power line, and utility rights -of -way.
However, many of the areas of suitable habitat within the project study area are
heavily maintained by mowing or the application of herbicides and present only
marginally suitable habitat. Surveys were conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists
throughout areas of suitable habitat on October 25, 2016 and no individuals of
Schweinitz's sunflower were observed. A review of the NCNHP records, updated
October 2016, indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Due to a lack of recorded occurrences and a lack of observed individuals in the
project study area, it has been determined that the proposed project will have "No
Effect" on this species.
Smooth Coneflower
9 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late May -October
Habitat Description: Smooth coneflower, a perennial herb, is typically found in meadows,
open woodlands, the ecotonal regions between meadows and woodlands, cedar
barrens, dry limestone bluffs, clear cuts, and roadside and utility rights -of -way. In
North Carolina, the species normally grows in magnesium- and calcium- rich soils
associated with gabbro and diabase parent material, and typically occurs in
Iredell, Misenheimer, and Picture soil series. It grows best where there is
abundant sunlight, little competition in the herbaceous layer, and periodic
disturbances (e.g., regular fire regime, well-timed mowing, careful clearing) that
prevents encroachment of shade -producing woody shrubs and trees. On sites
where woody succession is held in check, it is characterized by a number of
species with prairie affinities.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower is present in the study area along the
roadsides, power line clearings, and utility rights -of -way that receive abundant
sunshine and little competition in the herbaceous layer. Habitat containing
abundant sunshine and little competition is uncommon within the study area.
Surveys were conducted by Kimley-Horn biologists throughout areas of suitable
habitat on October 25, 2016 and no individuals of smooth coneflower were
observed. A review of the NCNHP records, updated October 2016, indicates no
known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Due to a lack of recorded
occurrences and a lack of observed individuals in the project study area, it has
been determined that the proposed project will have "No Effect" on 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 in
December 2016 using 2015 color aerials. One water body (Lake Norman) large enough
or sufficiently open to be considered a potential feeding source was identified. A review
of the NCNHP database, updated October 2016, revealed no known occurrences within
1.0 mile of the study area. Since there is foraging habitat present, a survey of the project
study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was conducted by Kimley-
Horn biologists on October 25, 2016, and no nests or individuals were observed. Due to
the lack of known occurrences, and the lack of observed individuals or nests, it has been
determined that the proposed project will not affect this species.
10 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of April 2, 2015, the USFWS lists one candidate species for Mecklenburg County
(Table 8). A review of NCNHP records, updated October 2016, indicates no known
occurrence of Georgia aster within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Table 8. Candidate species listed for Mecklenburg County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Habitat Present
Symphyotrichum georgianum
Georgia aster
Yes
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat
No designated Essential Fish Habitat occurs in the study area.
11 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
6.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. (2010). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version
2.0). United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
LeGrand Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
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.
NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
http://explorer.natureserve.org/. (Accessed June 2016).
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water Quality.
2014. 2014 Final 303(d) List. http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/303 d/303 d-files.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water Quality.
2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and
Their Origins, Version 4.11. NCDENR, NCDWQ, Raleigh, North Carolina.
N.C. Department of Transportation. 2012. The Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2016. North Carolina Heritage Program Data Explorer.
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/.
N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team (WFAT). 2016. North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method (NCWAM) User Manual, Version 5.
Rohde, 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.
12 March 2017

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5907, Mecklenburg County
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth
Approximation.
U.S. Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1980. Soil
Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. List of
Hydric Soils. Published April 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina's
Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. http://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/es/plant—survey.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
http://www. fws. gov/birds/management/managed-species/bald-and-golden-eagle-
information.php.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).
https://www.fxvs.gov/asheville/htmis/listed species/Carolina heelsplitter.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii).
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es—Michauxs—sumac.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis).
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/Profile/speciesProfile?spcode=AOJE.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
https://www. fws. gov/raleigh/species/es_schweinitz_sunflower. html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigate)
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es—smooth—coneflower.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina. http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1993. Cornelius and Mooresville, North Carolina,
Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
Weakley, A. S. May 2015 version. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States. UNC
Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/flora.htm.
13 March 2017

Appendix A
Figures

Lake Norman
r,
,westWba
�RcuELLCOUNTY
1' MECKLENBURG COUNTY — —
Griffith st i
✓e` n s\
Catawba,4
a I�
Ip
y'
\A 0 0.5 1Miles
oa NORTH 0 Figure 1
U-5907 Study Area Town of Davidson Vicinity Map
Streams Town of Cornelius NCDOT Project No. U-5907
Extend Potts Road
"mob oe� Lakes and Ponds Mecklenburg County to Sloan Street
""r of 're.►N$e Mecklenburg County

■
� 7
n
�E _16
•` �;
J-- _
t
I
u
c
J
�Jdr
A ,m di
'
y
F
® ' • mi m
4m
dhIF
In
. wy
W
��� ■� tp' r!. A
np wear
i r lip. F ,
j u ■ +�rp
4, • ��� N�d� ���.����-� ,� Legend
P�
Feet
0 500 1,000 ! ®+i Project Study Area
of N N Figure 2
Project Study Area
NCDOT Project No. U-5907
Extend Potts Road
'9 ear to Sloan Street
Te""r of TnpNge� Mecklenburg County

L
Windwa�
N _
Griffith St wa
A m a .
N N
St
LY -
.; N
4 epot St
Cl)
Q , , c�'` � ♦ � tea,:': a
d
Jetton
f
ataw a
C
�,.
b q VE?
kt 1 800
A, wft�.
Legend
K
Maintained/Disturbed
,d& Oak -Hickory Forest
Project '�d

Appendix B
Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Plants
Common Name
Scientific Name
American elm
Ulmus americana
American holly
Ilex opaca
Blackberry
Rubus argutus
Black gum
Nyssa sylvatica
Black haw
Viburnum prunifolium
Black walnut
Juglans nigra
Chinese privet
Ligustrum sinense
Crape -myrtle
Lagerstroemia spp.
Eastern redbud
Cercis canadensis
English ivy
Hedera helix
Fescue
Festuca spp.
Flowering dogwood
Cornus florida
Garlic mustard
Alliaria petiolata
Glossy privet
Ligustrum lucidum
Goldenrod
Solidago sp.
Grapevine
Vitis rotundifolia
Greenbrier
Smilax rotundifolia
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Japanese stilt grass
Microstegium vimineum
Jewelweed
Impatiens capensis
Johnson grass
Sorghum halepense
Knotgrass
Polygonum distichum
Loblolly pine
Pinus taeda
Mockernut hickory
Carya tomentosa
Osage -orange
Maclura pomifera
Pecan
Carya illinoinensis
Poison ivy
Toxicodendron radicans
Post oak
Quercus stellata
Red maple
Acer rubrum
River birch
Betula nigra
Silverthorn
Elaeagnus pungens
Southern arrow -wood
Viburnum dentatum
Southern magnolia
Magnolia grandiflora

Southern red oak
Quercus falcata
Southern sugar maple
Acer floridanum
Sunflower
Helianthus annuus
Sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet woodreed
Cinna arundinacea
Sycamore
Occidentalis platanus
Tulippoplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
Wax -myrtle
Morella cerifera
White ash
Fraxinus americana
White oak
Quercus alba
Winged elm
Ulmus alata
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
Animals
Common Name
Scientific Name
American crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Barn swallow
Hirundo rustica
Belted kingfisher
Megaceryle alcyon
Black racer
Coluber constrictor constrictor
Black rat snake
Elaphe obsolete
Bullfrog
Lithobates catesbeianus
Carolina chickadee
Poecile carolinensis
Common mouse
Mus musculus
Copperhead
Agkistrodon contortrix
Crayfish
Cambarus sp.
Eastern cottontail
Sylvilagus floridanus mallurus
Eastern fence lizard
Sceloporus undulatus
Eastern kingbird
Tyrannus tyrannus
Eastern mosquitofish
Gambusia holbrooki
Eastern ribbon snake
Thamnophis sauritus sauritus
Five -lined skink
Plestiodon fasciatus
Gray squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis carolinensis
Great blue heron
Ardea herodias
Green snake
Opheodrys vernalis
North American beaver
Castor canadensis
Northern mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Red -shouldered hawk
Buteo lineatus
Snapping turtle
Chelydra serpentina

Spring peeper
Pseudacris crucifer
Tufted titmouse
Baeolophus bicolor
Turkey vulture
Cathartes aura
Virginia opossum
Didelphis virginianus
White-tailed deer
Odocoileus virginianus

Appendix C
Stream and Wetland Data Forms

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth version
Project Name: U-5907 (Potts St. Extension)
County: Mecklenburg Wetland area: 0.03 acres
Name of Evaluator: Chris Tinklenberg (Kimley-Horn)
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
X on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other:
Soil Series
predominantly organic
(humus, muck, or peat)
X predominantly mineral
(non -sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydrolic factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total riparian wetland width >_ 100 ft
Wetland type (select one)
Wetland WA
Nearest road: Sloan St.
Wetland width: 50 feet
Date: 12/9/2016
Adjacent land use (within % mile
upstream,upslope, or radius)
X forested/natural vegetation 10
X agriculture, urban/suburban 80
X impervious service 10
Dominant vegetation
1) Hedera helix
2) Impatiens capensis
3) Ligustrum sinese
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
X intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
X Bottomland hardwood forest
Pine savanna
Headwater forest
Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest
Bog/fen
Wet flat
Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin
Carolina Bay
Bog forest
Other
*The rating system cannot be appllied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water Storage
2
x
4.00 =
8
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization
1
x
4.00 =
4
T Pollutant removal
2
x
5.00 =
10
I Wildlife habitat
1
x
2.00 =
2
N Aquatic life
1
x
4.00 =
4
G Recreation/Education
1
x
1.00 =
1
Total Score' 29
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within '/z mile radius.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 10/20/2014
Project/Site: Potts -Sloan Corridor
Stream SA
Latitude: 35.499662
Evaluator: C. Tinklenberg,
R. Sullivan
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.851772
Total Points: 31
Stream Determination (
Other Mooresville and
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermitte Perennial
g. Quad Name: Cornelius
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 14
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
pool sequence
0
1
2
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
1
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 11
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
2
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
T No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI
= 1.5; Other = 0
0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SA is a perennial stream that begins at a large pipe under
the Norfolk Southern Railroad and flows west under Sloan Street towards
Lake Norman. The stream is deeply incised east of Sloan Street and appears
to receive strong flows during storm events. The stream is less incised west
of Sloan Street as the topography flattens. Strong baseflow was observed and
the stream was mostly clear of leaf litter.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 4.11
Date: 10/20/2014
Project/Site: Potts -Sloan Corridor
Stream SIB
Latitude: 35.503069
Evaluator: C. Tinklenberg,
R. Sullivan
County: Mecklenburg
Longitude:-80.853212
Total Points: 25.5
Stream Deter ' circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemer Intermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name: Mooresville
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 12
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Score
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple
pool sequence
0
1
2
3
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
2
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
2
9. Grade control
C
0.5
1
1.5
0
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
0
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
T No = 0
Yes = 3
3
C. Biology Subtotal = 6
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI
= 1.5; Other = 0
0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SB is a intermittant stream that daylights on the west side
of Beaty Street at a 48" CMP into a plunge pool and flows west for --146' to
another 48" CMP that drains to Lake Norman. The stream is piped to the east
under Beaty Street and does not daylight again until outside of the project
study area, where the feature becomes ephemeral. Rip rap was observed
throughout much of the channel.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/site: Potts Street Extension
Applicant/Owner: Town of Davidson
City/County: Davidson/Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 10/20/2014
State: NC Sampling Point: WA -WET
Investigator(s): C. Tinklenberg, R. Sullivan Section, Township, Range: Deweese
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain wetland Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.499653 Long:-80.851761 Datum: NAD-83
Soil Map Unit Name: Wilkes Loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓� Non (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes = No
Are Vegetation F-1 Soil R or Hydrology R naturally problematic? (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
Remarks:
Wetland WA is a small (0.03 acres) floodplain wetland adjacent to stream SA.
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (131)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (133)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes car)illary fringe
Remarks:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
7 Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Yes No I- Depth (inches):
YesFV(+No-R Depth (inches): 8"
Yes iy l Non Depth (inches): 6°
gauge, monitoring weu,
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
✓ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
PSaturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
V( Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n NoEl
ava
Wetland WA receives hydrology from stream SA during precipitation events and from groundwater.
The water table was observed at N 8" and the soil was saturated at 6".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -WET
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. Carya illinoinensis
2. Juglans nigra
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
10% Y FACU
5% Y FACU
15% = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
1. Ligustrum sinense 15% Y FACU
2. Carya illinoinensis 5% N FACU
3. Ligustrum lucidum 5% N NI
4. Elaeagnus pungens 2% N NI
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
27%
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' )
1. Impatiens capensis
20%
Y FACW
2. Alliaria petiolata
10%
Y FACU
3. Cinna arundinacea
10%
Y FACW
4. Microstegium vimineum
5%
N FAC
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
45% = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 37.5%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
30%
x 2 =
60
FAC species
30%
x 3 =
90
FACU species
75%
x 4 =
300
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
135
(A)
450 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.33
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
X 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 Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1.Hedera helix 30% Y FACU height.
2.Toxicodendron radicans 20% Y FA
3.Dioscorea villosa 5% N FAC
4.
5.
6.
55% = Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes M
No El
The vegetation in wetland WA is not dominated by hydrophytic vegetation according to the Dominance Test and the
prevalence index is greater than 3.0. However, I have personally observed numerous wetlands in the peidmont of North
Carolina to be dominated by Ligustrum sinense. Ligustrum sinense is also listed in the USACE Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Regional Supplement as being a FACU species that can occur in and dominate wetland environments. Carya
illinoinensis is considered either FAC or FACW throughout much of its range in North America, and is quite capable of
adapting to and surviving wetland conditions. If these two species were either dropped from the list or considered as
Facultative, then greater than 50% of the dominant vegetation would be considered hydrophytic.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA -WET
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
0-3" 10YR 4/3 100%
Loamy sand
3-8" 10YR 4/1 95% 5YR 4/5 5% C M
Sandy loam
8-15" 10YR 2/1 100%
Sandy clay loam
15-20" 10YR 4/1 98% 10YR 5/5 2% C M
Sandy clay loam
20-24" 10YR 4/1 100%
Loamy sand
'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)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
148) HCoast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
✓
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Lj
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
❑
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
3Indicators
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
of hydrophytic vegetation and
8
Sandy Redox (S5)
B
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No ❑
The soil at data form location WA -WET had a depleted matrix. The water table was observed at 8"
in the soil profile and the soil was saturated at 6".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/site: Potts Street Extension
Applicant/Owner: Town of Davidson
City/County: Davidson/Mecklenburg Sampling Date: 10/20/2014
State: NC Sampling Point: WA -UP
Investigator(s): C. Tinklenberg, R. Sullivan Section, Township, Range: DeWeese
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slight hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 2-4%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR-P Lat: 35.499575 Long:-80.851834 Datum: NAD-83
Soil Map Unit Name: Wilkes loam NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓� No= (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes = No
Are Vegetation F-1 Soil R or Hydrology R naturally problematic? (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 NoIZI
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
WA -UP is approximately 35' southwest from and 5' higher in elevation than WA -WET.
HYDROLOGY
Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (131)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (133)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Iron Deposits (135)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes car)illary fringe
Remarks:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Yes � No Iy I- Depth (inches):
Yes No ✓ Depth (inches): >12"
Yes No Depth (inches): > 12"
gauge, monitoring weu,
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes n No IZI
ava
No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the upland data form location. Neither the
water table nor soil saturation were observed within 12" of the soil profile. It was difficult to auger
deeper than 12" due to the soil being hard and compact.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: WA -UP
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
1. Acer saccharinum
25%
Y
FACW
2. Ligustrum lucidum
10%
Y
NI
3. Carya illinoinensis
10%
Y
FACU
4. Juglans nigra
5%
N
FACU
5.
6.
7.
8.
50% = Total Cover
Saplino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' )
1. Ligustrum lucidum 15% Y NI
2. Celtis laevigata 5% Y FACW
3. Firmiana simplex 2% N NI
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
22%
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' )
1. Microstegium vimineum
20%
Y FAC
2. Alliaria petiolata
10%
Y FACU
3. Cinna arundinacea
5%
N FACW
4. Rubus argutus
5%
N FACU
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12
40% = Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 10 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species 50%
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
35%
x 2 =
105
FAC species
30%
x 3 =
90
FACU species
40%
x 4 =
160
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
105
(A)
355 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.38
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 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 Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1.Hedera helix 10% Y FACU height.
2.Dioscorea villosa 5% Y FA
3.1oxicodendron radicans 5% Y FAC
4.
5.
6.
20% = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? YesF No IZI
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The area surrounding the upland data form location was not dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: WA -UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirn
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc2
0-6" 10YR 4/5 100%
6-12" 5YR 5/6 100%
the absence
Texture Remarks
Loam
Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, 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)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
❑
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) B Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
Lj
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
❑
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
3Indicators
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) of hydrophytic vegetation and
8
Sandy Redox (S5)
H
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6)
❑
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes n No W1
No indicators of hydric soil were observed at the upland data form location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

Appendix D
Qualifications of Contributors
Investigator: William Sullivan
Education: B.S. Natural Resources — Ecosystem Assessment, 2016; Minor in Forest
Management, 2016
Experience: Environmental Analyst, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2016-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, GPS/GIS, stream assessment,
T/E species assessment, document preparation