19970044 Ver 1_Complete File_19970129

.moo
n r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 29, 1997
RECEIVED
JAN 2 9. IVY/,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL SO 1ENCES
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Catawba County, Replacement of Bridge No. 54 over Jacobs Fork Creek
on SR 1008 (Zion Church Road), Federal Project No. BRZ-1008(4), State
Project No. 8.2791401, T.I.P. No. B-2813.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 54 will be replaced at the existing location with a bridge 87 meters
(285 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. Traffic will be detoured along existing
secondary roads during construction. No jurisdictional wetland communities are present in
the project area.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(6). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
of th ment to the North Carolina
to this project, and are providing one copy o
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in. a nstruction of the project.
the 401 General Certification N 2745 (Cate rical Exclusion) will appl
We anticipate y
tl
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincer y, ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. R. W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Ms. Michele L. James, P & E Project Planning Engineer
Date: 1'93
Rei,ised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2813
State Project No. 8.2791401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1008(4)
A.
B.
Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 54 at the existing location
on Zion Church Road (SR 1008) over Jacobs Fork Creek in Catawba County.
The new structure will be a bridge 87 meters (285 feet) long and 9.2 meters
(30 feet) wide. The structure will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with
1.0-meter (3-foot) offsets. To improve the design speed, it is recommended
the bridge deck elevation be raised approximately 1.0 meter (3 feet). The
approaches will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4 meter (8-foot)
grassed shoulders of which 0.6-meter (2-feet) will be paved. Traffic willbe
detoured along secondary roads during construction.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 54 has a sufficiency rating of 11.7 out of 100. The bridge is
posted for 18 tons for single vehicles and 21 tons for truck tractor semi-
trailers, for these reasons, Bridge No. 54 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type H Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
Date: 1!93
Revised: 1!94
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
4) Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
2
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23 will likely be applicable.
Prior to issuance of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23, a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification must be obtained.
The classification of Jacob Fork Creek within the project area, and its unnamed
tributary is WS-III. The project is located in a water supply watershed. However,
approximately 400m (1320 ft.) downstream of the project area, Jacob Fork Creek
is classified as WS-III CA, which denotes a water supply critical area.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: or predominantly
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominantly undeveloped watersheds) nor
Outstanding Resource Waters occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
3
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
Since the project is within 0.8 km (.5 mi) and draining to a Critical Area,
NCDOT'S Best Management for the Protection of High Quality Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Provisions to preclude
unnecessary contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will
also be strictly enforced.
Estimated Costs:
* Construction $ 1,150,000
Right of Way $ 38,000
Total $ 1,188,000
*Cost includes 15% for engineering and contingencies
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year - 1996: 2800 VPD TTST - 1% DHV - 11%
Design Year - 2020: 6500 VPD DUAL - 20% DIR - 65%
Design Speed:
80 km/h (50 mph)
The grade will be raised to meet a 80 km/h design speed. A design exception will
be requested for the proposed vertical alignment.
Functional Classification:
Minor Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division Office concurs with the proposed project.
Architectural / Historic Resources:
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
4
Date: 1!93
Revised: 1/94
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for historic architectural resources was
reviewed in the field by an NCDOT staff architectural historian. Bridge No. 54,
built in 1926, is the only property over fifty years of age located within the APE.
On December 8, 1995 representatives of NCDOT and the SHPO signed a
concurrence form stating Bridge No. 54 is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places. A copy of the concurrence form is attached.
School buses:
School buses make a total of fourteen crossings. The Transportation Director
for Catawba County prefers the road be closed during the summer months during
construction.
Utilities:
There are power lines which run along the west side of the road, crossing the road
approximately 30 m ( 150 ft.) north of the bridge.
Threshold Criteria
If any Type H actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be completed.
If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not need to
be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? 17 X-
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? I X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? r--I
? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than X
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
17, X
5

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
X
X
11 X
YES NO
U1 X
L? X
X
I?
L? X -
L? X
YES NO
X
L? X
X ?
6
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
U X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
F7
use of any adjacent property? X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 17 X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? 71 X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? u X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
7
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to question number 2:
As of April 1, 1996, the USFWS lists the dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastvlis naniflora) as the only federally-protected species for Catawba
County. A plant-by-plant survey of the project study area was conducted by two
NCDOT biologists on March 20, 1995. The results of the survey revealed that no
dwarf-flowered heardeaf were present within the project area. A known
population was visited on December 28, 1995 in order to observe dwarf-flowered
heartleaf in winter conditions. The December survey yielded the same results as
the previos survey, no dwarf-flowered heartleaf. A search of the North Carolina
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area.
It can be concluded that construction of the project will not impact the federally-
protected dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
8
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2813
State Project No. 8.2791401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1008(4)
Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 54 at the existing location
on Zion Church Road (SR 1008) over Jacobs Fork Creek in Catawba County.
The new structure will be a bridge 87 meters (285 feet) long and 9.2 meters
(30 feet) wide. The structure will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with
1.0-meter (3-foot) offsets. To improve the design speed, it is recommended
the bridge deck elevation be raised approximately 1 meter (3 feet). The
approaches will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot)
grassed shoulders of which 0.6-meter (2-feet) will be paved. Traffic will be
detoured along secondary roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
4
Efate Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
QCUJ6 eL- -
Date Project Planning Unit Head
iac"2 - , OW4
Date Pr ect Planning E - eer
For Type II (B) projec only:
ate e Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9

00
U
a?
CL4
H
06
w
O
0-1
O
I-
w
C)
w_
D
I-
N
z
w
CD
w
i ai
TIP # 5-2¢?3
Federal Aid # K7-- 1 aeb(4) County LATAWF!'a.
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
JzEPI,AGf_ Vf-oc-F, tar. r74 o? ` - lov¢? oVE? JAco6? Fo(z1c GREEiL
On D? waarz 8 M l<- , representatives of the 10 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)

Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/ consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
rv FR--
there are properties over fifty years old {?n ?edj within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as %Vcr_ 00. ti4 are
considered not eligible or the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Repres to ive, CDOT Da e
,,V, !Z rZ
FHwA, r the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
__D
Representative, STIPO Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
IP t JU r'. :,? I 2 -- Federal Aid ??? I r?'tic O4? County e ?Aw 04-
,L Oa-?oc?c-, we ---74

O.w it ih Ic1uv bv? C:aFawlaw Cc:?µ(+? }{??H,?s..i Gow?wv .ie, ?"?P? t y?r??cn?rv ??,1-cc(
rdc+' and s?Inc n - tOv ?j ??L (? tilt, ?,aw1v avcv' r?v s1s.???? ?1
? I I
trGwtairu vu) ;K
I J 1 /
,?Gt:?(7Ylss? L4'NGr*?'v ?'/+W4 ?i? G?vlGit?'v r?-?o
/r
itialed: NCDOT -- FHwAC `> _ SHPO / V
Replacement of Bridge No. 54
On SR 1008 Over Jacob Fork Creek
Catawba County
TIP No. B-2813
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1008(4)
State Project No. 8.2791401
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2813
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
BRUCE 0. ELLIS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
05 February 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 ProjectDescription .............................1
1.2 Purpose ........................................1
1.3 Methodology ....................................1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator .................2
1.5 Definitions ....................................2
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................2
2.1 Soils ..........................................3
2.2 Water Resources .... ...........................4
2.2.1 Water Impacted and characteristics ....... 4
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ................5
2.2.3 Water Quality ............................6
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........... 6
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................7
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community .......... 7
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest ......................9
3.1.3 Mixed Mesic Hardwood Forest ............ 10
3.2 Aquatic Communities ...........................10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................11
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ............................... L3
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................13
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands
and Surface Wacers ..................13
4.1.2 Permits ................................13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .....................14
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ........... 15
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ................15
5.0 References .........................................16
Table 1. Soils Phases in Project Area ...................3
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ..... 11
Table 3. Federal Candidate and State Listed
Species for Catawba County ..................16
Figure 1. Project Location ..............................1A
Figure 2 Project Study Area ............................1B
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project. The project is situated 9.6
km (6.0 mi) south of the town of Hickory in Catawba County
(Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge
No. 54 on SR 1008 over Jacob Fork Creek, and improvements to
SR 1008 (Figure 2). The existing right-of-way is 18.2 m
(60.0 ft). The proposed right-of-way is 45.7 m (150.0 ft).
Two Alternates are proposed:
1. Replace Bridge No. 54 in existing location with an off-
site detour. Project length is 340 m (1115 ft).
2. Replace Bridge No. 54 by constructing a new bridge 20 m
(65 ft) west of the existing structure, while
maintaining traffic on the existing bridge. Project
length is 505 m (1657 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design '
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Hickory), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) soil maps and NCDOT aerial photographs of
project area (1:1000). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Catawba County, 1992). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
¦
¦
¦
'1 I ?r
?rAlft
PROJECT LOCATION
B-2813
Catawba County
r r'1_1_ N
I? r
r
r
%
- •? _ _ ^ / ?; / /? _ • ?_ - -? J, ?i? ? AEI i? / •?i J/ _.,?: , + \ '
?' ,o.. ??/ r? : /' ?'?''??'•. PROJECT STUDY AREA
to B-2813 i l
Alternate 1
;', ?.,?\??, .•• ?- ??;? ; ?? , \?_ - .....--Alternate 2 'N
10 "1
' -? ?-?'?? ^1, ` f % ??//'` i'\ • - Hickory Quadrangle
I_ ?;;`?= ?.:?_ `,.?? ?. ??r \ Figure 2
ch N
tit
HAS
foo--? /? JUwbi ,I i' dom.
.Country Club
X 95A
an &316
1, - -
, 4;1
:,o 0
= _ - •`? ?w' Alluvial Forest - =
/ Agricultural Field
-ra /;??" ,?/^rr-?'--.. .` 'v;?- F ..,` ` ?.. .. 'it \?. ^ ,• \=
Water Supply
Intake -
_ Residential
xlast .,- ?,- - - _ ;/ (• (•
2
and L1. \f /? \T. LU.ral l Heritage ivTnTTn\rl I uatLa1b.
species anu sue ,v.C. Nva Program (a5e
of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Bruce 0. Ellis and Dale Suiter
on 28 December 1995. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife
identification involved using one or more of the following
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Bruce 0. Ellis, Environmental Biologist NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers
University College of Agriculture and
Environmental Science.
Experience:- Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 976-
April 1994.
expertise: Aquatic resource management; wetland
delineations; Section 7 field investigations;
NEPA investigations.
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report
are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the area bounded
by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes
an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project
study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area
represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map.
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora
and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area 'Lies within the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. The topography in this section of
Catawba County is characterized by gently rolling hills which
are dissected by broad alluvial plains. Topography in the
project area is representative of the region, where gentle
slopes grade down to Jacob Fork Creek. Project elevation
ranges between 250 and 256'm (820 and 840 ft) above mean sea
level (msl).
3
2.1 Soils
Four soil phases (Table 1) occur within project
boundaries: Cecil clay loam, Congaree complex, Pacolet soils
and Hiwassee clay loam. Cecil clay loam and Congaree complex
are the dominant soils within the project area, where they
are associated with the Jacob Fork Creek alluvial plain.
Pacolet and Hiwassee soils are present near the southern
boundary of the project area.
TnRTM 9 GATT. DRA979 TW TAF. PRCrJECT STORY AREA
Map Soil Percent Drainage Woodland Hydric *
Unit Phase Slope Class Productivity Classification
Symbol
CnE3 Cecil clay loam 10-25 well moderate non hydric
severely eroded drained
CY Congaree 0-2 well very high non hydric
Complex drained
PeE Pacloet soils 10-25 well moderately non hydric
drained high
HwC2 Hiwassee clay 6-10 well moderately non hydric
loam eroded drained high
* Information obtained from National and County lists or
hydric soils.
Cecil clay loam severely eroded, is a well drained soil
located on the lower portion of slopes and in narrow bands
along drainage ways. Within the project study area, it
dominates the northern quadrants. This soil is strongly acid
to very strongly acid and therefore, it is not suited to
crops, poorly suited to pasture and fairly well suited to
trees. Infiltration is slow and runoff is rapid. The depth
to seasonal high water table is 3.0 m (10.0 ft) or more.
Severe hazard of erosion, steep slopes and gully formation
are its main limitations.
Congaree complex is an intrically mixed association of
Congaree soils (60%) with inclusions of Buncombe and Chewacla
soils. This soil dominates the floodplain in the southern
quadrants of the project area. In the southwestern quadrant
of the project area, this soil is currently being farmed.
Congaree complex is a well drained soil on floodplains where
they are subject to frequent but brief flooding. Infiltration
is moderate and runoff is slow. Depth to seasonal high water
table is more than 1.0 m (3.0 ft). This soil is well suited
to most locally grown crops. Potential crop damage from
flooding is the only limitation for this soil.
Pacolet soils are well drained soils on uplands and are
also found in narrow bands along drainageways. This soil
occupies a small portion in the southern portion of the
project study area. Pacolet soils are strongly acid.
Infiltration is moderately slow and runoff is rapid. Depth
4
to seasonal high water table is greater than 1.5 ra (5.0 ft).
Pacolet soils are well suited to trees, fairly well suited
for pasture and generally not suited to row crops. Slope and
erosion hazard are the main limitations.
Hiwassee clay loam is a well drained soil on uplands
where it occurs in wide bands on the upper parts of slopes.
This soil is present near the southern terminous of the
project area. Hiwassee clay loam is medium acid.
Infiltration is slow and runoff is rapid. Crusts form after
heavy rains and clods form if the soil is worked when it is
too wet. Depth to seasonal high water table is greater than
i.5 fc1 (5.0 ft). Hiwassee clay loam is fairly Well suited to
locally grown crops, and it is well suited to pasture, hay
and trees. Slope and slow rate of infiltration are the main
limitations for this soil.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area
revealed soils with a silty texture. The soils did not
exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors,
accumulation of organic matter or mottling. Hydric soils, as
defined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual",.198.7, were not observed within the project study
area.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Jacob Fork Creek and an unnamed tributary to Jacob Fork
Creek (Figure 2) will be impacted by the proposed project.
Both water resources are tributaries of the Catawba River,
and are located in sub-basin no. 03-08-35 of the Catawba
River Basin. The Catawba River has its origin in the eastern
slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It flows easterly until
the outfall of Lake Hickory (Alexander County) and then
begins to flow in a southerly direction. The Catawba River
crosses the North Carolina/South Carolina state line near
Charlotte.
Within the project region,- Jacob Fork Creek meanders
easterly through the rolling hills of Catawba County until it
has its confluence with Henry Fork Creek 1.20 km (0.75 mi)
downstream of Bridge No. 54. The confluence of Jacob Fork
1 and Henry Fork Creek 1. i?tark1.s the /.he 1
Creek and Henry For?£ reek beginning of the South
Fork of the Catawba River.
5
The average width of Jacob Fork Creek in the project
area is approximately 15 m (50 ft) and the average depth is
0.6 m (2.0 ft). The maximum depth observed was 1.5 m (5.0
ft) in a pool under Bridge No. 54. The substrate is composed
of gravel, sand and silt. The banks of Jacob Fork Creek rise
2.4 m (8.0 ft) above normal water levels. The floodplain
contains evidence of overbanking which includes drift lines,
scouring and flotsam.
The unnamed tributary to Jacob Fork Creek is located in
the northeastern quadrant of the project area. The upper
reaches of the tributary have intermittent flow, while the
lower portion of the stream becomes permanent after an abrupt
drop in channel elevation of approximately 1.8 m (6.0 ft).
The tributary runs parallel to SR 1008 and is situated
10-15 m (30-50 ft) east of the roadway. This stream has its
confluence with Jacob Fork Creek 10 m,(30 ft) downstream of
Bridge No. 54. The average width of the stream is 0.6 m (2.0
ft) and the average depth is 7.6 cm (3.0 in). The substrate
is composed of sand and silt.
2.2.2 Best.Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Unnamed
streams carry the same classification as that assigned to the
stream segment to which they are tributary. The
classification of Jacob Fork Creek (index no. 11-129-2(9.5)]
within the project area, and its unnamed tributary is WS-III.
The WS-III classification denotes waters protected as water
supplies which are in generally low to moderately developed
watersheds: point source dischargers of treated wastewater
are permitted pursuant to rules .0104 and .0211 of 15A NCAC
2B .0100; local programs to control nonpoint source and
stormwater discharge of pollution are required; suitable for
all Class C uses. Class C uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
The project area is located in a water supply watershed.
However, approximately 400 m (1320 ft) downstream of the
project area, Jacob Fork Creek is classified as WS-III CA
which denotes a water supply critical area. The upgrade in
classification is due to the presence of the town of Newton's
water supply intake, which is located on the South Fork of
the Catawba River near the confluence of Jacob Fork Creek and
Henry Fork Creek.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I:
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped
watersheds) nor outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
6
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass of these organisms are
reflections of water quality. A BMAN station for Jacob Fork
Creek-is located 4.0 km (2.5 mi) upstream of the project area
at SR 1139. This station was sampled once in November 1983
and received a rating of Good/Fair.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. No permitted
dischargers are listed for Jacob Fork Creek within the
project vicinity.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location
with a road closure during construction is almost always
preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Bridge replacement on a new
location usually results in more severe impacts.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to
surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from
. construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to
interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside
vegetation removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via
runoff from exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from
highway runoff, construction and
toxic spills.
7
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area. Since the project is within 0.8
km (0.5 mi) and draining to a Critical Area, NCDOT'S Best
Managemnt Practices (BMP) for the Protection of High Quality
Waters should be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include, but
are not limited to: minimizing built upon area and diversion
of stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much
as possible. Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination
by toxic substances during the construction interval should
also be strictly enforced.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications and follow descriptions
presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in
each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references,to the same organism will
include the common name only. Faunal species observed during
the site visit are noted with an asterisk (*). Published
range distributions are used in estimating fauna expected to
be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities (Figure 2) are
identified in the project study area: maintained/disturbed,
Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest and mesic mixed
hardwood forest. Community boundaries, between the
maintained/disturbed and forest communities are well defined
without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal
species likely to occur within the study area will exploit
both communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as
movement corridors.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community is the dominant
community type within the project area. This community is
doittinated by agric:;ultural fields, and also includes
residential development and road shoulders.
8
Agricultural fields occupy the entire southwestern
quadrant of the project area. Post harvest remnants of corn
(Zea mays, various hybrids) and soybeans (Glycine max)
indicate that these were the major crops grown here last
season. The areas that were cropped were essentially devoid
of viable vegetation, resulting in large areas of exposed
soil. Small areas devoted to hay (Festuca spp.) production
are situated on the steeper slopes and within drainageways of
the agricultural landscape. The small hay fields are
currently functioning (either by design or by chance) as an
erosion control mechanism.
Road shoulder environment occurs along the entire length
of the project. Flora within this community is periodically
maintained and includes; fescue (Festuca spp.), buckhorn
plantain (Plantago laneeolata), goldenrod (Solidago spp.),
blackberry (Rubus spp.) and Japanese..honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica). Stunted woody vegetation present along the outer
edges of the road shoulder includes; tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
mu ti lora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense). The road shoulder in the northwestern
quadrant is densely vegetated by kudzu (Pueraria lobata).
Residential development is present in the southeastern
quadrant of the project area. The residential landscape
consists of lawns dominated by fescue with intrusions of the
typical lawn weeds represented by buckhorn plantain,
crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) and clover (Trifolium spp.).
Ornamental landscape plantings consist o various hybrids of
hollies (Ilex spp.), Leyland cypress (X Cupressocyparis
Levlandii) and azaleas (Rhododendron spp.).
Faunal species that would inhabit or forage in this
habitat would be species that prefer more open terrain and
those species that have adapted to exploit a human dominated
community. Faunal species that would be present include:
white tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon*
(Procyon lotor), woodchuck* (Marmota monax), eastern
cottontaiI (Sylvila_guusflorid-anus) and eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis). The black racer (Coluber
constrictor) and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) will hunt small
vertebrates in this community.
Avian species that prefer open habitat include: mocking
bird* (Mimus of lottos), crow* (Corvus brach rh nchos) barn
swallow (Hirun o rustica) and eastern meadowlark (Sturnella
magna). Red-tailed hawk* (Suteo 'amaicensis) and American
kestrel (Falco sparverius) can be found perching on tall
trees and telephone poles. Turkey vultures* (Cathartes aura)
search for carrion while soaring above the open fields.

9
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest is present along
the Jacob Fork Creek corridor and within an extensive
floodplain area east of Bridge No. 54. The alluvial forest
is greatly reduced west of the existing bridge. The
transition from alluvial forest to maintained/ disturbed
community is abrupt due to agricultural and residential
activities. The hydrology is palustrine with intermittent
flooding during high flow periods. Periodic flooding provides
nutrient input through sediment deposition making this system
very productive. However, periodic flooding can also be a
destructive factor during large storm events by undercutting
banks and eroding soils.
The forest canopy is composed of river birch (Betula
nigra), tulip poplar, sycari?ore ( Platanus occider?talis),
pawpaw (Asimina triloba), red maps (Acer rubrum) and
boxelder (A. negundo). Short leaf pine (Pinus echinata),
eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) and American beech
(Fagus grandifolia) are interspersed within the more upland
portions of the alluvial forest. The shrub layer consists of
black cherry,, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), spicebush
(Lindera benzoin), Chinese privet and saplings of the canopy
trees. The herb layer consists of giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea) and scattered individuals of Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides). Trout lily (Erythronium
americanum), May-apple (Podophyllum peltatum) and Indian pipe
(Monotropa uniflora) were observed by NCDOT biologists during
an endangered species survey conducted on 20 March 1995.
Japanese honeysuckle, cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata)
and green brier (Smilax rotundifolia) comprise the vine layer
of this community.
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest include:
two-lined salamander (Eur cea bislineata), spring peeper
(Hvla crucifer), five- fined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), gray squirre * (Sciurus
carolinensis) and raccoon*. White-tailed deer* will use this
small forest community for cover and will forage on twigs and
leaves. The alluvial forest community also offers habitat
for the Carolina chickadee'" (Parus carolinensis), Northern
cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis) and downy woodpecker*
(Picoides pubescens). The belted kingfisher (Megaceryle
alcyon) will perch in canopy trees overhanging the creek
while searching for small fish. Major predators in this
community are the barred owl (Strix varia) and copperhead
(Ankistrodon contortrix) which hunt small reptiles,
amphibians and mammals.

10
3.1.3 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The mesic mixed hardwood forest is present in upland
areas adjacent to the Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest.
This community occupies only a small portion of the northern
and southeastern quadrants of the study area. Vegetative
aspects of this community are similar to that of the alluvial
forest with the exception of a noticeable lack of floodplain
species, such as boxelder and sycamore. The canopy tends to
be dominated by upland species which include; northern red
oak (Quercus rubra), American beech and shortleaf pine.
Flowering dogwood and eastern red cedar are also found in
greater abundance. Faunal composition of this community is
similar to that of the alluvial forest with the exception of
a lower abundance of amphibian species.
3.2 Aquatic Cou mini.ties
Two aquatic communities, Jacob Fork Creek and the
unnamed tributary to Jacob Fork Creek will be impacted by
the proposed project. Physical characteristics of the water
body and condition of the water resource influence faunal
composition.of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities
adjacent to a water resource also influence the aquatic
community. No aquatic vegetation was observed within either
creek.
Fauna associated with the Jacob Fork Creek and its
unnamed tributary includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Macroinvertebrates that would find
suitable habitat in these water resources include; crayfish
(Cambaridae), mayflies (Ephemerellidae), caddisflies
(Hydropsychidae), midges (Chironomidae) and snails
(Physidae).
Amphibians and reptiles that may be found within the
streams or along streambanks include pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), spring peeper, two-
lined salamander, northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and
snapping turtle (Chelydra ser entina). The northern water
snake and snapping turtle will forage on small invertebrates
and vertebrates in this community.
Ichthyofauna associated with Jacob Fork Creek includes:
shiners (Notropis spp.), chubs (Semotilus spp.) and darters
(Etheostoma spp.), which provide forage For redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritis), bluegill sunfish (L. macrochirus),
smallmout ass (Micropterus dolomieui) and largemouth bass
(M. salmoides). White sucker (Catostomus commersonii) and
brown bu ead (Ictalurus nebulosus) will scourge creek
bottom for invertebrates. Fish (1968) reported that this
section of Jacob Fork Creek provides fair fishing for
sunfish, smallmouth bass and largertiouth bass.
, 4
11
The unnaflled triLbutaf to iacoU Cork Creek x^7111 not
contain the same diversity of fish that is present in Jacob
Fork Creek . The tributary's small size will prohibit the
intrusion of larger fish, however the small shiners and
darters, as well as fry and fingerlings of the larger species
may venture into the lower reaches of this tributary.
3.3 Suninary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way
width of 45.7m (150.0 ft). Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore actual
impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 2. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMj3NITIES
COMMUNITY ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
Maintained/Disturbed 0.44(1.10) 1.86(4.60)
Alluvial Forest 0.16 0.40) 0.18 0.44)
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.32 0.80) 0.16 0.40
Total 0.92 2.30 2.20 5.44
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Impacts calculated for Alternate 2 include the removal
of the existing bridge.
Selection of Alternate 1 results in significantly lower
impacts to biotic communities than Alternate 2. However, the
bulk of additional area impacted by Alternate 2 is in the
agricultural portion of the maintained/disturbed community.
Both Alternates have the potential to impact the unnamed
tributary to Jacob Fork Creek, which runs parallel to SR
1008. The tributary lies within the proposed right-of-way
and in vicinity of the proposed boundary for construction
limits. Therefore, extreme care must be taken to avoid
construction activities near this stream. Construction
activities would include, but are not limited to,
construction traffic, and staging and storage areas.
.

12
Plant corimtunities found within the proposed project area .-
serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife.
Replacing Bridge No. 54 and associated improvements will
reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal
nufdbers. Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into
smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to become
more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation.
Areas modified by construction (}gut not paved) viii
become road shoulders and early successional habitat. Reduced
habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway
while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early
successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for
the species. This temporary displacement of animals may
result in an increase in competition for the remaining
resources.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes
in their environment. Stream channelization, scouring,
siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-
related work will affect water quality and biological
constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may
result in long tenth effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction
include increased channelization and scouring of the
streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site.
Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which
clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish
and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered
by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow
to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity reduces light
penetration, thus decreasing the growth of aquatic
vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of
fill material at the construction site alters the terrain.
Alterations of the streambank enhances the likelihood of
erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds
the soil, thereby mitigating these processes. Erosion and
sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation
of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering
water flow and the growth of vegetation. Strearnaide
alterations also lead to more direct sunlight' penetration to
surface waters, resulting in elevations of water temperatures
and a corresponding reduction in dissolved oxygen
concentrations, w<<icij ritay impact many species.
. 01
13
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--Waters of
the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated.-conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Fotentiai wetland conununities were investigated pursuant
to the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual".
The three parameter approach was used where hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic
characteristics must all be present for an area to be
considered a wetland. No jurisdictional wetlands were
observed within the project area, however, jurisdictional
surface waters are present.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States."
A Nationwide 404 permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23, for impacts
to surface waters is likely to be applicable. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department. Projects are categorically
excluded from environmental documentation, because their
construction will neither individually nor cumulatively have
a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is
1 to the the issuance of G the i tat Lionwide #23. 1 L
required prior to Section

14
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulations.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to
adversely a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists one
federally-protected specie for Catawba County. A brief
description of characteristics and habitat follows.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) Threatened
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid March -'mid May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland,
Lincoln, Polk, Rutherford. The dwarf-flowered
heartleaf is found only in eight northern piedmont
Counties in North Carolina and the adjacent portions
of South Carolina.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf has heart-shaped leaves,
supported by long thin petioles that grow from a subsurface
rhizome. The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen, and
leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and
dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the
petioles. Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along
bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby
hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions
with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described
as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the
southeastern mixed forest.
W
15
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
A plant by plant survey of the project study area was
conducted by NCDOT biologists Hal Bain and Tim Savidge on 20
March 1995. The results of survey revealed that no
Hexastylis spp. were present within the project area. A
known population was visited on 28 December 1995 in order to
observe dwarf-flowered heartleaf in winter conditions.
Surveys conducted on 28 December 1995 during the natural
resources inventory yielded the same results as the previous
survey, no Hexastylis spp. observed. A review of the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no listing of dwarf-flowered heartleaf
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area. Therefore,
project construction will not effect the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are two Federal Candidate (C2) species listed for
Catawba County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed-or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Candidate 1 (Cl) species are defined as taxa for
which the FWS has on file enough substantial information on
biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals
to list them as Endangered or Threatened. Candidate 2 (C2)
species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to
extinction although no sufficient data currently exist to
warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of
Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists Federal Candidate and State listed
species, the species' state status (if afforded state
protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.

C
16
TABLE 3. rMERAL CAMIDAiE SPECIES CATAWBA CGL'N"LY
Status
Scientific Cartoon Name NC Fed Habitat
Name
Dactylothere Catawba
isabelae crayfish SR C2 No
ostracod
Monotropsis
odorata Sweet inesa C C2 Yes
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of
North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Fish, F.F., 1968, "A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Water in
North Carolina", North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982.
A Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
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-North
Carina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of
North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.

1/
tvC r.,ntvrc-uc,ri.
in North
Data Base
1990.
I991. nioiog:i.cai Assessment of 'water Quality
Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E. F., 3.F. Parnell and R. P. Teulings. 1980.
Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of
North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 196^0. Manual
of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chap Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
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.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985.
Mammals of the Carolinas, Virainia and Maryland. Chapel
Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.