20200538 Ver 1_Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II Report FINAL_20200421

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey

Improvements to Mountain to Sea Trail
Orange County, North Carolina

Prepared For:

Prepared By

410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

November 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 
2.0 METHODOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 1 
3.0 WATER RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 2 
4.0 NATURAL COMMUNITIES ................................................................................ 2 
4.1.1 Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ...................................................... 2 
4.1.2 Piedmont Alluvial Forest ................................................................................ 3 
4.1.3 Maintained and Disturbed Areas .................................................................... 3 
4.1.4 Natural Community Impacts ........................................................................... 3 
4.2 Aquatic Communities .......................................................................................... 4 
4.3 Invasive Species ................................................................................................... 4 
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ................................................................................. 4 
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. .................................................................. 4 
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits .................................................................................... 5 
5.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ............................................................................ 5 
5.4 Endangered Species Act Protected Species ....................................................... 5 
5.5 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................... 7 
6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 8 

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Jurisdictional Waters Map
Figure 3. Natural Communities Map
Appendix II: USACE Wetland Forms
Appendix III. NCDWQ Stream Forms
Appendix IV. Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Water Resources in the Project Study Area. ........................................................ 2 
Table 2. Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Project Study Area. ............ 2 
Table 3. Project Study Area Land Coverage . ................................................................... 4 
Table 4. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area. ..................... 4 
Table 5. Federally protected species listed for Orange County. ........................................ 5 

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 1 November2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Hillsborough proposes improvements to the Mountain to Sea Trail in
Orange County, North Carolina which includes construction of approximately 1.8 miles
of new trail segments along the Eno River between Occoneechi Mountain State Park and
the Historic Occoneechi Speedway (Figure 1). The Catena Group (Catena) performed an
Environmental Resource Survey (ERS) for Phase II of the Hillsborough Riverwalk
Project in July 2011, August 2011, and November 2012. The following ERS has been
prepared to assist in the preparation of environmental permitting for this project.

2.0 METHODOLOGIES
Catena was provided with maps depicting the project study area. Mapping resources
used during the investigations include 2010 aerial orthophotography and the United
States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. Additional
mapping resources used in this investigation include the most recent National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) Mapping, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Orange County Soil Survey.

Catena conducted the field investigations on July 13 & 14, August 2, 2011, and
November 14, 2012 under sunny weather conditions. All drainage features and potential
wetland areas were evaluated to determine if they met the criteria for jurisdictional
wetland status.

Jurisdictional delineations were performed using the three-parameter approach as
prescribed in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The Regional Supplement for Eastern
Mountains and Piedmont Region describing the parameters of hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and hydrological indicators was also utilized to complete wetland
determination forms (USACE 2010) (Appendix II).

Streams were evaluated according to the North Carolina Department of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) Identification Methods for the Origin of Intermittent and Perennial Streams
Version 4.11 (NCDWQ 2010). This evaluation is based on three stream characteristics:
Geomorphology, Hydrology, and Biology. Generally, streams are determined to be
ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial based on 26 different attributes within the three
characteristics by assigning a numeric score for each attribute. A stream reach with a
score of <19 is an ephemeral stream, a stream reach with a score of ≥ 19 and < 30 is
intermittent, and a stream reach with a score of ≥30 is perennial. Streams with scores
lower than 30 can also be classified as perennial based on biological indicators such as
the presence of fish. A stream form was completed for each identified drainage feature
on the property (Appendix III).

Jurisdictional streams were marked in the field with blue flagging and wetland
boundaries were marked with pink and black striped flagging. All flags were surveyed
using a hand-held GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy.

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 2 November2012
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
Water resources in the study area occur within the Neuse River Basin (U.S. Geological
Survey [USGS] Hydrologic Unit 03020201) (NCDENR 2009). One jurisdictional
wetland (0.29 acre) identified as Wetland 1, was observed within the project study area.
Four streams were identified in addition to the Eno River (Table 1), and are shown in
Figure 2 along with Wetland 1.
Table 1. Water Resources in the Project Study Area.
Map ID Length NCDWQ Stream ID Score Jurisdictional Status
S1 375 32.0 Perennial
S2 151 22.5 Intermittent
S3 318 46.5 Perennial
S4 239 22.75 Intermittent
Eno River ~800 59.5 Perennial

Channel dimensions were estimated and physical characteristics, such as substrate,
velocity, and water clarity were recorded. These attributes are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Project Study Area.
Map ID
Bank
Height
(ft)
Bankful
Width
(ft)
Water
Depth
(in) Channel Substrate Velocity Clarity
S1 1 1-3 0.5-4 Silt, Sand Slow Clear
S2 2-3 1-3 2-12 Silt, Sand Slow Clear
S3 6 8-14 4-12 Sand, Gravel, Cobble Slow Clear
S4 1-6 2-4 0-0.5 Sand, Gravel None N/A
Eno River 10-15 40 4-24 Silt, sand, pebble,
boulder, clay banks Slow Clear

4.0 NATURAL COMMUNITIES
The project study area is approximately 51 acres, the majority of which is forested.
Historic logging and clearing activities are evident in all community types, which have
likely contributed to low species diversity in some areas. The forested communities
match one of the following natural community classifications: Piedmont Alluvial Forest
and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Figure 3), as described in Schafale and Weakley
(1990). A brief description of each natural community type follows.
4.1.1 Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community is patchy along the south side of the Eno River adjacent to the Piedmont
Alluvial Forest community. The canopy is of uneven age. The canopy species observed
were American Beech, White Oak, Tulip Poplar, Loblolly Pine, Virginia Pine, Shortleaf
Pine, Mockernut Hickory, Southern Red Oak, Sugar Maple, Red Maple, and Black
Walnut. Subcanopy species include Eastern Hop Hornbeam, Sugar Maple, Green Ash,
Sourwood, American Holly, Flowering Dogwood, Willow Oak, Possumhaw, Winged

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 3 November2012
Elm, Eastern Redbud, Black Cherry, and Black Walnut. The shrub layer was sparse with
Yaupon, Highbush Blueberry, American Hazelnut, Strawberry Bush, and Chinese Privet.
Herbaceous vegetation was composed of Christmas Fern, Switchgrass, violets, Carolina
Jessamine, Spotted Wintergreen, Partridge Berry, Wild Ginger, Cranefly Orchid,
Greenbrier, Muscadine Grape, Crossvine, Japanese Honeysuckle, Trumpet Creeper,
Poison Ivy, Catbrier, Ebony Spleenwort, and Tick Trefoil.
4.1.2 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
This was the most abundant community type located throughout the project study area.
The canopy is of uneven age with some trees estimated to be well over one hundred years
old. The observed canopy species were Red Elm, Sycamore, White Oak, Tulip Poplar,
Loblolly Pine, Mockernut Hickory, Southern Red Oak, Sugar Maple, Red Maple, Box
Elder, Black Walnut, and Red Mulberry. Subcanopy species include Eastern Hop
Hornbeam, Sugar Maple, Green Ash, Sourwood, American Holly, Flowering Dogwood,
Willow Oak, Possumhaw, Winged Elm, Eastern Redbud, Black Cherry, and Black
Walnut. The shrub layer was sparse with Spicebush, American Hazelnut, Strawberry
Bush and Chinese Privet. The herbaceous layer consists of Christmas Fern, Switchgrass,
violets, Carolina Jessamine, Spotted Wintergreen, Partridge Berry, Wild Ginger, Cranefly
Orchid, Greenbrier, Muscadine Grape, Crossvine, Japanese Honeysuckle, Trumpet
Creeper, Poison Ivy, Catbrier, Ebony Spleenwort, Tick Trefoil, Foxtail Clubmoss,
Cinnamon Fern, and Murdannia.
4.1.3 Maintained and Disturbed Areas
The remaining portions of the project study area are composed of maintained and
disturbed areas such as residential and commercial development, existing power line
corridors, maintained fallow fields, parks, roadway surfaces, and road shoulders.
4.1.4 Natural Community Impacts
Natural communities in the project study area may be impacted by project construction as
a result of grading and paving. At this time, decisions regarding the final location and
design of the proposed greenway have not been made. Therefore, community data are
presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the project study area
(Table 4). Once a final alignment and preliminary design have been determined,
probable impacts to each community type will be calculated.

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 4 November2012
Table 3. Coverage of maintained/disturbed and natural communities in the project study area.
Community Coverage (ac.)
Maintained/ Disturbed 14.31
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 2.71
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 31.99
Roadway Corridor 1.48
Total 50.49

4.2 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities consist of both perennial and intermittent piedmont streams.
Aquatic species observed in perennial streams include Rosyside Dace, Yellow Perch,
Creek Chub, Bluegill, Redbreast Sunfish, Eastern Mosquitofish, Two-lined Salamander,
and the Northern Dusky Salamander. Freshwater mussels observed within the Eno River
include Spike, Eastern Elliptio, Yellow Lampmussel, Notched Rainbow, and Eastern
Lampmussel. Intermittent streams in the project study area are relatively small in size
and may support aquatic communities that would include Spring Peeper, crayfish, and
various benthic macroinvertebrates during normal conditions.

4.3 Invasive Species
The following 10 species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina
were observed in the study area: Chinese Privet, Kudzu, Tree-of-heaven, Japanese
Stiltgrass, Japanese Honeysuckle, Johnson Grass, Gill-over-the-ground, Multiflora Rose,
Common Dayflower, and Chinese Lespedeza (Smith 2008).

5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES

5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Four jurisdictional streams, in addition to the Eno River, were identified in the project
study area (Table 5). The locations of these streams are shown on Figure 2. USACE and
NCDWQ stream delineation forms are included in Appendix II and III. The physical
characteristics and water quality designations of each jurisdictional stream is detailed in
Section 3.2. All jurisdictional streams in the project study area have been designated as
warmwater streams. Only streams mapped on either USGS topographic maps or NRCS-
USDA soil survey maps are subject to riparian buffer rules (See Section 5.3).

Table 4. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area.
Map ID
Length
(ft.)* Classification
Compensatory
Mitigation
Required
River Basin
Buffer
S1 375 Perennial Yes Not Subject
S2 151 Intermittent Yes Not Subject
S3 318 Perennial Yes Subject
S4 239 Intermittent Yes Not Subject
Eno River ~800 Perennial Yes Subject

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 5 November2012

One jurisdictional wetland was identified within the project study area (Figure 2).
USACE wetland delineation forms and NCDWQ wetland rating forms for each site are
included in Appendix II. Descriptions of the natural communities at each wetland site are
presented in Section 4.1 (Figure 2). Plant species names follow that of the Flora of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas (Weakley 2010).

5.2 Clean Water Act Permits
Depending upon the final alignment and construction methodology, there are potential
impacts to jurisdictional features. Such impacts will require authorization under the
Clean Water Act. The specific federal and state permits required would be dependent
upon the extent of impacts and through coordination with the appropriate agencies.

5.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Streamside riparian zones within the project study area are protected under provisions of
the Neuse River Buffer Rules administered by NCDWQ. Table 4 indicates which
streams are subject to buffer rule protection. Potential impacts to protected stream
buffers will be determined once a final alignment and design have been determined.

5.4 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of September 22, 2010, the USFWS lists four federally protected species for Orange
County (Table 7). A brief description of each species’ habitat requirements follows,
along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the project
study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best available
information as per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence. The NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare plant and animal species (NCNHP 2011)
was consulted prior to the field visit to determine if element occurrences for any of the
species listed in table 5 occur within the project study area.

Table 5. Federally protected species listed for Orange County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle BGPA* No No Effect
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker E No No Effect
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedge Mussel E Yes No Effect
Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower** E Yes No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux’s Sumac** E Yes No Effect
E - Endangered
* Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
**Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)

Red-cockaded Woodpecker
USFWS optimal survey window: year round; November-early March (optimal)

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 6 November2012
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, and which are contiguous with pine
stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of
the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 miles.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the RCW does not exist in the project study area. Forests in
the study area are comprised of a closed hardwood canopy and sub-canopy.
Where pine trees occur in maintained or disturbed areas or mesic mixed hardwood
forests, they are not of sufficient age or density to provide suitable nesting or
foraging habitat. A review of NCNHP records in July 2011indicates no known
RCW occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Dwarf Wedge Mussel
USFWS survey window: year round (summer optimal)

Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the Dwarf Wedge Mussel is known from the
Neuse and Tar River drainages. This species has been reported from the Eno
River in Orange County. The mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to
moderate current and sand, gravel, or firm silt bottoms. Water in these areas must
be well oxygenated. Stream banks in these areas are generally stable with
extensive root systems holding soils in place.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat does exist for the Dwarf Wedge Mussel within the project study
area. Construction will not occur in the Eno River therefore there will be no
impacts to the Dwarf Wedge Mussel. A review of NCNHP records in July 2011
indicates no known occurrence within one 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

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 7 November2012
shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing,
clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Michaux’s Sumac is present in the project study area along
roadside shoulders and utility easements. Habitat surveys were conducted by
Chris Sheats and Kate Montieth throughout areas of suitable habitat on July 13and
14, 2011. No individuals of Michaux’s Sumac were observed. A review of
NCNHP records indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study
area.

Smooth Coneflower
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
Marginally suitable habitat for Smooth Coneflower is present in the project study
area along roadside shoulders and utility easements. Surveys were conducted by
Chris Sheats and Kate Montieth throughout areas of suitable habitat on July 13and
14, 2011. No individuals of Smooth Coneflower were observed. A review of
NCNHP records indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project
study area.

5.5 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. Suitable habitat for Bald Eagle was not observed within
the project study area along the Eno River.

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 8 November2012
6.0 REFERENCES

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 18, 2010).

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2009. Basinwide Water Quality Plan, Neuse River Basin. Raleigh, North
Carolina. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/neuse/documents/neuse.htm

N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010. Methodology for Identification of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered
and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC. 134 pp.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program Database of Rare Plant and Animal Species. 2011.
Element Occurrence Search Report: Project Study Area Search conducted in July
2011.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. North Carolina Mussel Atlas:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/wildlife_species_con/WSC_Mussel_1.htm. (Accessed:
October 20, 2010).

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.

Smith, Cherri. 2008. Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina. N.C. Department of
Transportation.
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/NEU/NEUProcedures/NCDOT_Invasi
ve_Exotic_Plants.pdf

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Interim Regional Supplement to
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and
Piedmont Region, ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, C. V. Noble, and J. F.
Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-10-9. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center.

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 9 November2012
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1977.
Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Michaux’s Sumac Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
Georgia. 30 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Smooth Coneflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA.
31 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina
Ecological Services. 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina:
Orange County. Updated 22 September 2010. http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html

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. (Accessed: December 14, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Dwarf Wedge Mussel.
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/listedspecies/dwarf_wedgemussel.html.
(Accessed: October 20, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Michaux’s Sumac in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/michsumac.html. (Accessed: December 14,
2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis).
http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/rcw.html. (Accessed: October 18, 2010).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/smooconefl.html. (Accessed: December 14,
2010).

Weakley, Alan S. May 2011 (Working Draft). Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia,
northern Florida, and surrounding areas. UNC Herbarium, North Carolina
Botanical Gardens.

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 10 November2011

Appendix I

Figures
m
St
- E Queen St � .....= {
�'T.,,E T
...-
N
�cjaret.Ln a ,- -
r o
a I
B�rnside•A� '
Tuscarora Dry-,J .
r • � r r
a
Occoneechee /^ ohn:Ear! gt
µounW6—
�raucx
,m
� m4e.Or�,-
�-
?-Ca
7
Ine
rOff. hF4 ME
y
A _
-� , ..�• wry

s
.-G"�7'J+.i '• ��-i '7 1' li* �•
�4 ��.",.
�
_ .r - ,
:� y �M '� ��r .�•
�F•�A .-.s' y'�
Bridge B3
Stream ,2 �'1
,', t
y ''�a .� � i tit.•'
�: yr• ��yy
.
�
kk
�� ;* 1 • , ' Stream 1 �375 ft)
Legend _ V►letland�';iy;- (0.29 acre) •�,�*-
- -- Streams -,A {r
r '�•� �* 4'4'"
f
Wetlands -
Segment TO
0 650 1,300 Feet , :� "'
D 125 250 Feet
Legend
Eno River
Maintained/Disturbed
c sC. j I� �4�► r�—
01k.
,,;■;. .:�.. - - �'f -,. �,�» Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Piedmont Alluvia[ Forest
-_ ij+ r _ - M .F n .. +:t''...�y=Ti Roadway Corridor
Strearn,3 (318 ft} Stream 4 (239;ft)
;sue .[ .. .. "' ` 4 1i t
Ge "�
`�"
- r 7l •j j ,.t �
/ #� ~.
l�VR�.
IL
Segment T1 , T2, and B 1 '
Ar t a 0 600 1,200 Feet
411
AV k
�Pf
V'
r' Segment T3 and B2 u
0 500 1,000 Feet
Figure
,.
The
Hillsborough Riverwalk
Date:
November 2012
Cafena
Environmental Assessment
Scale:
Group
Jurisdictional Waters
Orange County, North Carolina
As Shown
fah Na.
2010 Aerial Orthophotography
613fi
Source: NCDOT

fill
.4
Bridge B3 „+
' o' lllPl t
-r
Al
A
s '
i
Y
f
1
"•1es
it � �..
•�'-
_ .. y' -�� v
Segment TO-
0 500 _ 1,000 Feet
0 100 200 Feet
7.
Eno River
R _ Maintained/Disturbed
'CIA"4WMesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest
AA. - Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Roadway Corridor
441.
1 .•r
pt
t: '`A'�.
g � � r'
, , 5e ment T1T2and B1 x
0 500 1,000 Feet
■1 r
-I .'� .l it •*'4a 'V AA
Segment T3 and B2
0 500 1,000 Feet
I I
Figure
,.
The
Hillsborough Riverwalk
Date: November 2012
Oaten❑
Environmental Assessment
Scale:
Natural Communities
As Shown
Group
Orange County, North Carolina
201O Aerial Orthophotography
.fob No:
6136
Source- NCDOT

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 14 November2011

Appendix II

USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Projectisite: I % `
City/county:
Sampling bate:
AppitanVOwner: Iu.
i(sS , v L
State: Sampling Point-,'r: l T
Investigator(s):
Section, Township,
Range:-_
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
Local relief (concave, convex, none): {- °ink Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat
-,z `- ^�
Long: J'`1 { t Datum: t SAi3Q3
Soil Map Unit Name:
r e t v urw
NVVI classification: W Z +�J;
Are climatic! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ss`
No (1f no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil "
or Hydrology
significantly disturbed?
Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation •3 , Soil
or Hydrology .n
naturally problematic?
Of 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 C No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators {minimum of two required}
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required:
check all that ap .[v)_
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
- Drainage Patterns (B14)
Saturation. (A3)
_ Oxidized RNzcspheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Aoss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
T Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrpws (G8)
Drift Deposits (133)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (I)1)
Iron Deposits (155)
' Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aqu Lard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (513)
Y' FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (Inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes {
No Depth (inches): I r}
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca i 11 ary fringe
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring we11. aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
yid
ADS01U1e uominant indicator
nominance rest woncsneec
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
j % Cover So � eci ? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are aBL, FACW, or FAG:
(A)
Total Number of Dominant [�
����
3.
Species Across All Strata: t
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5. -
That Are 4BL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/6)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of Multiply by:
8.
a$L species x Z =
=-total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
}
FACW species x 2
1.
�tSr v.�
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2.
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
5.
Prevalence Index = BIA=
5.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
10.
4 M h! I Ad ti ' P
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1. ^
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
11.
12.
dy Vin
e Stratum (Plot s'¢e: }
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Remarks. (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
Total Cover
- orp o agica apta ons ( ra a 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-
T ��
1 ��
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.
SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excluding Trines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tali.
Herb - All herbaceous (non woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tail.
Woody vine - Ali woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
r Total Cover
r = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: '� 1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) 96 Color_(mOLS1) 36 Tyae, J oc Texture Remarks
VF
'Tune: C=Concentration. D=Depletion_ RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Sand Grains. �'Lom ion: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils°:
— Histosol (Ai)
f Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
— Thin Dark Surface (89) ({NLRA 147, 148}
(NiLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
oamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
— Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
— 2 cm Muck (Al0) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
— Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
J Iran -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matm (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (SS)
_ Piedmont F oodpiain Soils (F19) (IVILR_A 148)
wetland hydrology must he present:
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed);
B
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric SoU Present? Yes V No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: _ Ir '; efc. r i_- /� _ City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: �'�i p-T State: N� Sampling Point:-
lnvestigator(s): T: f� ."�'r Section, Township, Range: _ � SLL,
1 �
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): T��'` Slope {%}: A
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)_ H L R A 13 LO Lat- L . d� Long: -� 9 1 Datum,
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification. -
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Np (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation SOIL or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present- Yes — No
Are Vegetation : Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks-}
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site reap showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No vIs the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Na within a Wetland? Yes No -
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes N0 17,
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators_(Mrnirnurn of twq required)
Primary indicators minimum of one is required: check all that a
_. Surface Sail Cracks (36)
_ Surface Water (Al)
T True Aquatic Plants (S14)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS)
High Water Table (A2) __..
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Pattems (810)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
T pry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Craynsh Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (IRS)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (69)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
— Aquatic Fauna (B13)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
/
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes cap! ITafrin e
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: ' }`
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum {Plot size:
} % Cover Species? Status
plumber of Dominant Species .
1. -
y � A C
That Are 4$L, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total plumber of Dominant
i
2. r . q C-
3.
Species Across All Strata: (B)
a.
Percent of Dominant Species
5•
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A1B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8
Total % Cover of: Multiply by -
OBL species x 'I =
Total Cover
SaotinglShrub Stratum (Plot size:
r)
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
2, i �5 i° VA<� W
- - - -
3
J A
UPL species x'5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4. rr�, L U
5-
1,�7 L
Prevalence Index = B1A =
_
6
1 c
�L�'�
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
e
'
T
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' {Provide supporting
-I
= Total Cover
— data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
}
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
2.Tr
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4•
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7.
height.
SaplinglShrub - Woody plants, excluding Trines, less
8'
9•
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11,
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12,
Woody vine - A I woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum {Plot size:
}
height.
2-
4,
Hydrophytic
5.
Vegetation
g
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
i
Sampling Point r
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Relax Features
inches) Color (moist)_ °% Color {moist] % Tvoe' Loci Texture Remarks
RM=Reduced
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
_, Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_, 2 cm Muck (A16) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F$)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Flood plain Solis (F19) (MLRA 149)
indicators for Problematic Hydric So
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 21 November2011

Appendix III

NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
NC DWD Stream Identification Fornt Version 4_11
Date: v 1 ti
ProjectlSite: j
Latitude:
Evaluator: �.
County:
Longitude:
Y
Total Points: r-
Stream is at leasperennial
Stream Determination (air one)
Other
i(� � 9 or erennial if z 30' ;`
l if
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
e-g, Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology {Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
r2 '
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riff!"ool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
;1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodpiain
0
n]-
2
3
6. Depositional bans or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
3
9. Grade control
0
1.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
[
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 3
antficial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav [Subtotal = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
o
0-5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
C. Bioloav (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
�2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0-75, OBL _
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual-
1.5 Other = 0
Notes:
�y z
Sketch; ry _ �`✓~'• i Isnn\�W ai V 1 s '{,�y

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: V i }
Projectlsite- 5
Latitude: 3 (. i) o
Evaluator;
County:
Longitude:
Total Points: -
is at least intermittent to • ` .
Stream Dete��nnination {circle one]
Ephemeral
OStrther
if
rf ? f 9 or perennial if ? 3�'
ia 30
Intermittent .Perennial
e.g. Quad fume:
A. Geomorphology {Subtotal = }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
10' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0-5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
-artificial Onrhes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = ' -- )
12. Presence of 8aseflow
0
1
- 2
3
13. Iran oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf fitter
1.5
1
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
6,
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
G. bloloav [subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
6
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3.
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
15
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0:
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.$
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
2E. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75: ❑6L = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:��
S�
15 1
CEO
Erb

NC DW Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
ProjecflSite:
Latitude: �- }
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (c' an
Other
if z 19 or perennial if a 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial,
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
'3..
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
r 2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
j3j
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2 -
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5--
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = I ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3 `
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2 .j
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5)
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 .
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes .'3
C. Biology {Subtotal = lq,9 ") ]
18. Fibrous roots in strearbed
3'
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0 `
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
:1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
�3
ua
°t
rAr

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Dale: `,-
�,
Evaluator: Y /
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at
Stream De t na io ircle one)
Miter
if _ 13 or erennral if z 30`
l if
pereleasnnial
Ephemera ntermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
I Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
-3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
.2
3
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2)
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2.
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
"artifcial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv [Subtotal = - )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0-5 - '
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
G. Bio€ow [Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3.
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
Q
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1,5
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75: OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date., n ��S �_ �` r.•` t �
Projectl5ite: a tl�e
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County-.
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent'
Stream Determination (c'
her
if a 19 or perennial if ? 30'
Ephemeral intermittent Perennial
A
e. Quad Name:
g
A. Geomor halo Subtotal = C�)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri ie- aol sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelre4et floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
-artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav fSubtotal = l�
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
.5
15. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
` 1.
17_ Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1l�,�s )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
20. Macrobenthos mote diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
; OBL = .5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p, 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 27 November2011

Appendix IV

Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 28 November2011
Plants
Common Name Scientific Name
American Beech Fagus grandifolia
American Hazelnut Corylus americana
Black Cherry Prunus serotina
Black Walnut Juglans nigra
Box Elder Acer negundo
Carolina Jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens
Catbrier Smilax bona-nox
Chinese Lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata
Chinese Privet Ligustrum sinense
Christmas Fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Common Dayflower Commelina communis
Cranefly Orchid Tipularia discolor
Crossvine Bignonia capreolata
Eastern Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis
Ebony Spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron
Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida
Foxtail Clubmoss Lycopodiella alopecuroides
Gill-over-the-ground Glechoma hederacea
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Greenbrier Smilax sp.
Highbush Blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum
Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Japanese Stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum
Johnson Grass Sorghum halepense
Kudzu Pueraria montana
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda
Mockernut Hickory Carya alba
Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora
Murdannia Murdannia sp.
Muscadine Grape Vitis rotundifolia
Partridge Berry Mitchella repens
Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Possumhaw Ilex decidua
Red Elm Ulmus rubra
Red Maple Acer rubrum
Red Mulberry Morus rubra
Shortleaf Pine Pinus echinata
Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum

Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase II
Environmental Resource Survey 29 November2011
Common Name Scientific Name
Southern Red Oak Quercus falcata
Spicebush Lindera benzoin
Spotted Wintergreen Chimaphila maculata
Strawberry Bush Euonymus americanus
Sugar Maple Acer saccharum
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum var. virgatum
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Tick Trefoil Desmodium sp.
Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima
Trumpet Creeper Campsis radicans
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
violets Viola sp.
Virginia Pine Pinus virginiana
White Oak Quercus alba
Wild Ginger Asarum canadense
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Winged Elm Ulmus alata
Yaupon Ilex vomitoria

Animals
Common Name Scientific Name
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus
Dwarf Wedge Mussel Alasmidonta heterodon
Eastern Elliptio Elliptio complanata
Eastern Lampmussel Lampsilis radiata
Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki
Michaux’s Sumac Rhus michauxii
Northern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus fuscus fuscus
Notched Rainbow Villosa constricta
Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis
Rosyside Dace Clinostomus funduloides
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata
Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer
Spike Elliptio icterina
Two-lined salamander Eurycea cirrigera
Yellow Lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa
Yellow Perch Perca flavescens