20200962 Ver 1_NRTR_20200727

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

July 21, 2020

MEMO TO: File

FROM: Jeffrey Wyatt, Division 12 Environmental Specialist

SUBJECT: Natural Resources Memo

INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace a failed
culvert on SR 1110 (Liledoun Road) in Alexander County. The proposed culvert will be
on the same alignment.

PROTECTED SPECIES

Endangered Species Act Protected Species

As of June 26, 2018, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list four
federally protected species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Alexander
County (Table 1). For each species, a discussion of the presence or absence of habitat is
included below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in
the study area. Bald eagle will be discussed in a separate heading.

Table 1. Federally protected species listed for Alexander County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf T No No Effect
Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T(S/A) No Not Required
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Yes MA;NLAA
T – Threatened
T (S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
MA-NLAA – May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: March-May

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
An on-site investigation on July 20, 2020 indicated there is no suitable habitat for
the DFH. No north-facing slopes that are open enough for the DFH exist in the
study area. Since the survey was conducted outside the optimum survey window
multiple transects were walked but no species were observed. A review of NHP
records on July 21, 2020 indicates no known occurrence within 1.0 mile of the
study area. Due to the lack of habitat, no observed plants, and no known species
in the area, this project will have no effect on the DFH.

Bog turtle
USFWS optimal survey window: April 1 – October 1 (visual surveys); April 1-June 15 (optimal
for breeding/nesting); May 1-June 30 (trapping surveys)

Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance do not require Section
7 consultation with the USFWS. However, a July 20, 2020 survey of the study
area found no suitable habitat in the form of wet or boggy areas and therefore this
project is not expected to affect the bog turtle. A July 21, 2020 survey of the
NCNHP database indicated there are no occurrences of the bog turtle within a
one-mile radius of the project site.

Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1 – August 15

Biological Conclusion: May Affect; Not Likely to Adversely Affect
During field investigations on July 20, 2020 the area was assessed for suitable bat
habitat. The area adjacent to the culvert being forested was found to provide
suitable habitat. Natural Heritage Program records document the nearest
Northern Long-Eared Bat location approximately 24 miles northwest of the
proposed project area. The closest listed underground mine, per NHP database
is the Dagenhart Mine, 3.5 miles southeast of the project. There are currently no
known hibernaculum or maternity roost trees in Division 12 counties for NLEB;
therefore, the minor tree clearing associated with this DOT project would be
exempted from incidental take under the 4(d) Rule streamlined consultation form.
Per guidance from USFWS personnel, concurrence is granted by citing the
following website and a 30 day response period is waved.
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html

Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The Bald Eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and
enforced by the USFWS. Habitat for the Bald Eagle primarily consists of mature forests
in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized
for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water.

A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.0-mile
radius of the project limits, was performed on July 20, 2020 using recent color aerials.
The Lower Little River, however unlikely, could be considered a potential feeding
source. Since there was potential foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the
project study area and 1.13-mile radius was conducted, but no nests were observed.
Additionally, a review of the NHP database on July 21, 2020 revealed no known
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of
good habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has
been determined that this project will not affect this species.

WATER RESOURCES

Water resources in the study area are part of the Catawba River basin [U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03050101]. One stream was identified in the study area
(Table 2). The location of the stream is shown in attached maps.

Table 2. Streams in the study area
Stream Name Map ID
NCDWR
Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Bank
Height
(ft)
Bankfull
Width
(ft)
Depth
(in)
Ut to Lower Little River SA 11-69-(0.5) C 3 8 6-18

There are no waters within the project study area or within 1.0 mile downstream of the
project study area that are listed as a High-Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply
watersheds (WS-I, WS-II). Lower Little River is within 1.0 mile downstream of the
project study area and is listed on the North Carolina 2018 Final 303(d) list of impaired
waters due to due to Fish Community.

No other surface waters/wetlands were identified within the study area.