HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201981 Ver 1_Meeting Request Review Doc Attachment_20201217 (3) NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replace Bridge 3 on SR 1529 (Durham Street Extension)
over an Unnamed Tributary to the Haw River
Alamance County, North Carolina
TIP B-5346
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1529(10)
WBS Element No. 46060.1.1
�yoRrH o
I
o 4 90
f7
*1
z�
�OF IRO-
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Natural Environment Section
June 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS 1
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 1
3.1 Soils 2
3.2 Water Resources 2
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES 3
4.1 Terrestrial Communities 3
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed 3
4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest(Piedmont Subtype) 3
4.1.3 Terrestrial Community Impacts 4
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife 4
4.3 Aquatic Communities 4
4.4 Invasive Species 5
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES 5
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. 5
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits 6
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern 6
5.4 Construction Moratoria 6
5.5 N.C.River Basin Buffer Rules 6
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters 6
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation 6
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts 6
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts 7
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species 7
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act 7
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species 7
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat 7
6.0 REFERENCES 8
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 4. Terrestrial Communities Map
Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Appendix C Stream and Wetland Forms
Appendix D Qualifications of Contributors
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soils in the study area 2
Table 2. Water resources in the study area 2
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area 3
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area 4
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area 5
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area 5
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT)proposes to replace bridge
number 3 on SR 1529 (Durham Street Extension) over an unnamed tributary (UT) to the
Haw River(TIP B-5346) in Alamance County (Figure 1). The following Natural
Resources Technical Report(NRTR)has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion(CE) for the proposed project.
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS
All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Natural Environment Section
standard operating procedures and July 2012 NRTR template. Field work was conducted
on March 19, 2013. Jurisdictional areas identified in the study area were verified by
Andy Williams of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Amy Euliss of the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ) on June 5, 2013. Documentation
of this jurisdictional determination is pending. The principal personnel contributing to
this document were:
Principal
Investigator: Beth Reed, PWS
Education: B.S. Marine Biology, 1989
M.S. Coastal Zone Management/Oceanography, 1991
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1992-
Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, stream assessment, natural
communities assessment, T/E species assessment, quality assurance
and quality control for deliverables
Investigator: Jason Hartshorn
Education: B.S. Environmental Technology and Management, 2011
Experience: Environmental Analyst, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2011-Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, GPS, stream assessment, GIS figures
Additional personnel who contributed to portions of the field work and/or documentation
for this project were Laura Cooper and Tad Hardy. Appendix D lists the qualifications of
these contributors.
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The study area is located in the piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina(Figure
2). Topography in the project vicinity is comprised of gently rolling to hilly landscapes.
Elevations in the study area range from 550 to 610 feet above sea level. Land use in the
project vicinity consists primarily of forested areas with low density residential housing
and agricultural areas.
1 June 2013
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
3.1 Soils
The Alamance County Soil Survey identifies ten soil types within the study area(Table
1).
Table 1. Soils in the study area
Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status
Helena sandy loam (2 HcB2 Somewhat Poorly Drained Hydric*
to 6% slopes)
Helena sandy loam(6 HcC Somewhat Poorly Drained Nonhydric
to 10% slopes) _
Helena sandy loam(6 HcC2 Somewhat Poorly Drained Nonhydric
to 10% slopes) _
Ioedell sandy loam(2 to IbB Moderately Well Drained Nonhydric
6% slopes)
Iredell sandy loam(2 to IbB2 Moderately Well Drained Nonhydric
6% slopes)
Iredell sandy loam(6 to IbC2 Moderately Well Drained Nonhydric
10% slopes)
Local alluvial land Ld Well Drained Nonhydric
Mecklenburg loam(6 MbC2 Well Drained Nonhydric
to 10% slopes)
Mecklenburg loam(10 MbD2 Well Drained Nonhydric
to 15% slopes)
Mixed alluvial land Mc Poorly Drained Hydric
*- Soils which are primarily nonhydric,but which may contain hydric inclusions
3.2 Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the Cape Fear basin [U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03030002]. Three streams were identified in the study area
(Table 2). The location of each water resource is shown in Figure 3. The physical
characteristics of these streams are provided in Table 3.
Table 2. Water resources in the study area
Stream Name Map ID NCDWQ Index Best Usage
Number Classification
UT to Haw River SA 16-13 WS-V; NSW
UT to Haw River SB 16-13 WS-V;NSW
UT to Haw River SC 16-13 WS-V;NSW
2 June 2013
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area
Bank Bankful Water Channel
Map ID Height Width Depth (in) Substrate Velocity Clarity
(ft) (ft)
Sand, Slightly
SA 5 7 8 Gravel, Slow Turbid
Cobble
SB 2 5 6 Sand, Slow Slightly
Gravel Turbid
Sand,
SC 7 20 12 Gravel, Fast Clear
Cobble
There are no designated anadromous fish waters or Primary Nursery Areas (PNA)present
in the study area. There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), trout waters, or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II)
within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. No streams within the project study area,
or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area, are identified on the North Carolina
2012 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters.
No benthic sampling stations or fish monitoring data is available for any streams in the
study area or within 1.0 mile of the study area.
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
4.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: maintained/disturbed and
mesic mixed hardwood forest. Figure 4 shows the location and extent of these terrestrial
communities in the study area. A brief description of each community type follows.
Scientific names of all species identified are included in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
Maintained/disturbed communities make up the majority of the study area including
roadside shoulders, mowed lawns, and fallow agricultural fields. Areas in the
easternmost portion of the project study area have been recently cleared for residential
development. The vegetation observed in this community type was comprised of early
successional canopy species such as sweetgum and loblolly pine. Low growing grasses,
shrubs, and herbs present in this community include fescue, multiflora rose, and
broomsedge. Vines present include blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and greenbriar.
4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest(Piedmont Subtype)
Mesic mixed hardwood forest communities are located along the moderate hill slopes in
the project study area. Dominant species in this community include American beech,
3 June 2013
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
sweetgum, American elm, sycamore, tulip poplar, and red maple in the overstory.
Species in the understory consist of American holly, red cedar,American beech, red
maple, red oak, and Chinese privet. Herbaceous and vine species observed were limited
to Christmas fern, greenbriar, and horsetail.
4.1.3 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of grading and paving of portions of the study area. At this time, decisions
regarding the final location and design of the proposed bridge replacement have not been
made. Therefore, community data is presented in the context of total coverage of each
type within the study area(Table 4). Once a final alignment and a preliminary design
have been determined,probable impacts to each community type will be calculated.
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
1 Community _ Coverage (ac.)
Maintained/Disturbed 5.1
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest(Piedmont Subtype) 1.4
Total 6.5
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed
habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those species actually observed
are indicated with *). Mammal species that commonly exploit the open habitats, forested
areas, and stream corridors within the study area include the eastern chipmunk, common
mouse, gray squirrel, eastern cottontail,raccoon, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed
deer. Birds that commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include the red-shouldered
hawk, American crow*, eastern meadowlark, yellow-bellied sapsucker,pileated
woodpecker, Carolina chickadee, mourning dove*, and tufted titmouse. Reptile and
amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study area include
the corn snake,black rat snake, black racer, eastern box turtle, American toad, eastern
fence lizard, northern dusky salamander, and five-lined skink.
4.3 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities in the study area consist of both perennial and intermittent
piedmont streams. The perennial unnamed tributary to the Haw River(SC) could support
shiners, sunfish, snapping turtle, Asiatic clams, and crayfish. The intermittent streams in
the study area are relatively small in size and would support aquatic communities of
spring peeper, crayfish, and various benthic macroinvertebrates including amphipods and
isopods.
4 June 2013
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
4.4 Invasive Species
Three species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found
to occur in the study area. The species identified were multiflora rose (Threat), Chinese
privet (Threat), and Japanese honeysuckle (Moderate Threat). NCDOT will manage
invasive plant species as appropriate.
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Three jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area(Table 5). The locations of
the streams are shown on Figure 4. USACE and NCDWQ stream delineation forms are
included in Appendix C. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of
each jurisdictional stream are detailed in Section 3.2. All jurisdictional streams in the
study area have been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream
mitigation.
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area
Map ID Length (ft.) Classification Compensatory River Basin
Mitigation Required Buffer
SA 71 Intermittent Yes (1:1) Not Subject
SB 92 Intermittent Yes (1:1) Not Subject
SC 224 Perennial Yes Subject
Total 387
*-Mitigation ratio determination based upon the USACE/NCDWQ field review on June 5,2013.
One jurisdictional wetland was identified in the study area(Figure 3). Wetland
classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 6. The wetland in the study
area is within the Cape Fear River basin(USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002). USACE
wetland delineation forms and NCDWQ wetland rating forms for the site are included in
Appendix C. Descriptions of the terrestrial communities at the wetland site are presented
in Section 4.1. Wetland site WA is included in the mesic mixed hardwood forest
community.
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area
Map NCWAM Hydrologic NCDWQ Wetland Area
ID Classification Classification Rating (ac.)
WA Headwater Forest Riparian 40 0.09
Total 0.09
5 June 2013
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits
The proposed project has been designated as a Categorical Exclusion(CE) for the
purposes of National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) documentation. As a result, a
Nationwide Permit(NWP)23 will likely be applicable. A NWP No. 33 may also apply
for temporary construction activities such as stream dewatering,work bridges, or
temporary causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation.
The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize
project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required then a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification(WQC) from the NCDWQ will be needed.
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
Alamance County is not under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) and no Areas of Environmental Concern(AEC) occur in the study area.
5.4 Construction Moratoria
No construction moratoria apply to any waters in the study area. In a letter dated April
10, 2013, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission did not request a
moratorium.
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
Streamside riparian zones within the study area are protected under provisions of the
Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules administered by NCDWQ. Table 5
indicates which streams are subject to the buffer protection rule. Potential impacts to
protected stream buffers will be determined once a final alignment and design have been
determined.
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
No waters in the study area have been designated by the USACE as Navigable Waters
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable in choosing a preferred alternative and during project design.
6 June 2013
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or design of
the preferred alternative.
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the preferred
alternative. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement
Program(EEP).
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of September 22, 2010, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has not
listed any federally protected species for Alamance County.
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites,typically
within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a
1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on May 23,
2013 using 2010 color aerials. The Haw River is located approximately 0.6 miles east of
the project study area. Surveys were conducted by KHA biologists throughout areas of
suitable nesting habitat on March 21, 2013. No bald eagles or nesting sites were
observed. Suitable nesting trees were observed to be sparse within the study area and
within 660 feet of the study area. A review of the NCNHP database, updated April 2013,
revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Due to the results of the survey, lack of known occurrences, and minimal impact
anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this
species.
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
No candidate species are listed for Alamance County.
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat
No designated Essential Fish Habitat occurs in the study area.
7 June 2013
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
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.
Environmental Laboratory. (2010). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region. United
States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gadd, L.E., Finnegan, J.T. 2012. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
Kirkman, L.K., C.L. Brown, and D.J. Leopold. 2007. Native Trees of the Southeast—An
Identification Guide. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. 370 pp.
LeGrand, H.E, Finnegan, J.T, Hall, S.P., Leslie, A.J., Ratcliffe, J.A. 2012. Natural
Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press. 264 pp.
NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources—Division of Water Quality.
2009. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan—2009. Raleigh,North
Carolina.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources—Division of Water Quality.
2012. 2012 Final 303(d) List. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/assessment.
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources—Division of Water Quality.
2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and
Their Origins,Version 4.11. NCDENR,NCDWQ, Raleigh,North Carolina.
N.C. Department of Transportation. 2012. The Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina.
N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and
Threatened Species of North Carolina. Raleigh,NC. 134 pp.
8 June 2013
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5346,Alamance County,N.C.
N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team(WFAT). 2010. North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Method(NCWAM)User Manual. Version 4.1.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation.
Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press. 222 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1960. Soil
Survey of Alamance County,North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. April 2012.
List of Hydric Soils. Published April 2012.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Lake Burlington,North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5 minute series).
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,Virginia,
and Maryland. Chapel Hill,University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
9 June 2013
Appendix A
Figures
/ .20 \\ B - -
\\
1654 1699 1547 01 \\ \��� 153
a a 1803
1547 a�\ 31
o�
/
!‘ti .\`,a Bridge #3 1803
'` f-1806 _ _ _
•
lir tea' �,. rn
Fi ti� 1657 1623 - till,. \'� 1807 r 1530
1638 1664 / 0 1665
�■ 1O o r a\ 2701
.34 p
1636 1637 2503 " \\
1521
It' �' 1514 is .os 1666 lri� -� .t6
.15
0
ek
/ ` 11 .04CD 1623 .20
O. o
.24 .10 1639 \\. ,
/ •C' 1639 0 1514
zo • 1520
20
k(513 1659 \1629 1519 a�
q `� 1645 1514 1518\— 7
.m
08 \._ .13 1626 \\'� °
I
r 1513 '-
2 1642 1517 '> a �°
i — n 1650 \\ .7,-
1682 .15 .04 1516 4 \\ °
r .13
1 L .11 10 .o� ,‘O
1643
'N 1509 o s7 1688 '?° 168944
AO N 1512
1 r _r -'a \
1 '30
1510 .20 .14 43 qA GLEN RAVEN /// 15
co - 1511 0 1640 -7 1648 (UNINC.) ' 1515 /%a -_ — —P— — — — —P — _ 21 /l
1647 1508 1507 1517 05.06 — — p
00 .i� .06 21 • y '
1522
•Z , \ I'
vliurlrPxr��f?, . 11
yllnion
• ''''aAar "deN J %aF-t4a"6-490 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Q r dingo'r .- p, TRANSPORTATION
P :m e1 u - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
71I.44 4:4MA �i ,c: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT&
r:
'�•��us�ievt so p_�ApS�° ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
a° sham 51 f
,1 wow . . p
F ALAMAh ALAMANCE COUNTY
w le e REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 3 ON SR 1529
lBibial OVER UNNAMED CREEK
?f B-5346
Figure 1
ire n''. '41 II
i .11 \.1.1) -au .:::14%— 'm- -Im...1.1.1L. % L.—memilli 11. 1m7.11Pr
151: :1. .
I ...Nil%
f r .
%.• 11101 if ii 1 'mills 1. I. • r .. .. • - .1_
I .14 spy .
T —.,
•
di‘"..dmol II •
\ )
a4 ..
\ 9 ':' J l ../ k:
• le I g
•I ti1
f IV
\ — 1 ,...".1-- r . \l'ipp. .4,. , ..r. _
1110 ( _- 'ifiLak o
ao —N......)
.) • . ‘-:1:11hit
or.fre—\
4.:. ____....._ jib..., -..., 4111)...\:4111114.6_ mi...._. er
111,91;i
mmjnememeinie. I . - ...L.G. ... ..liti:11% q.1.7-151 I 1. I . dm or
. .
- iI is
11111.1.1
F f• II
1—Thi. .:, .Iri.h 0 ji .1- \ ...:::,.'.11411
r 1 a
Legend ii
ti
Project Study Area ;.ill '
a •
I 4 jr41.1%II
'� F
W�6—E 1
0 200 400 600 800 Feet 'i
II
I I I I I
s f
• .11:„...:1,._ . c.
(4`)RTHS North Carolina Figure 2: Project Study Area
y
¢, Department TIP Project: B-5346
, of Bridge #3 on SR1529 over UT to the Haw River
7‘.,„,t,,,if Transportation Alamance County, North Carolina
1.
■Y ,1 +� � yI' I 4i,K ,
, t,t, ''.0 .,,,ci,, IV"
i 6 . . i., ,, .
. *r tf---- ,1 ,..
lil It ' tab . ,,i ,
4 1
iL,
NNei r }~o : .
1111004i
W
—rr
• •I, 4%.i.,' i
ik k
Re `
*If •,,ito, ,e,.. v. , ' ...- vain
r: ...... ,,I,, 11.--,
i' / MaddAl
w
i Oile ''' Ift '-e.
•` ' Ik
, . -,, , . '%- -
VI It: 4 1� P. it
y „,p 50 ,ire' ;++
p x
,,tip r �� .o• pm.� s: t
afrt
•
$ 1..'' , , , . I 0
.. N ... \> i'.% ., NI ti -4 :,,,,
s-.. .,,, � _ate - �' ' ' r
•
t . '- ° $ 14' I ,R t" • •A
Legend \
r
i v
y •
Jurisdictional Stream ' � ~
44, i R i i j1 1 tr #t '
Wetland
Project Study Area .., ;k Ok t
. t
0 100 200 300 400 Feet &- , likt ‘,
, 1•y a. .
i
li. "Fillrliiiii11011111V:` ' - ' -..t , - _ , , - v v
R
t4 t'.L f ¢ 4 r 44 4 .
�rF"°pr"c-Qo North Carolina Figure 3: Jurisdictional Features Map
rg' y`, Department TIP Project: B-5346
�9 i, of Bridge #3 on SR1529 over UT to the Haw River
pp ,,, Transportation Alamance County, North Carolina
■Y ,1 +� � yI' 4 i,K ,
ifit
, i ,
, . . .
_.,
0. , ,
�,{� i +' 1 ,, I
,tv
,, w or
I� h"fir �� h �'I
4 . . _ .
f • f ,,,,,
110044.
P li'lliCe
;. ," red 55
ti 1,.. '
1-1. -, ; 1, 4 ../N, / 'I
46'" . - :' ript,,t lit ..,-to.
•
, � �'
Pt-
�i tikf1 " _ , %)tik 0 , -,-.
ey 1 1• 1 ', a r �•
..,,4,,, e 4.,18,
x <
y 0.
p 1110 Y
, -- , le.
.., . .,, 4 li, , 1,, . • t ,,' " . " • '''' ''' ,,t • "1., •,` cf) 1
it',,, ,, ,,, , „, ,.it:,.,. ,, i it. „, - .... .,.. - ''. fats ,..;
Aiikli
fl 1 # v; 4.,j -,y W e a•i ' .y
44044
.* . F ,pry r1 } WI IP hr
— J ^ t '_ ae,, ... ,
Legend �. .
Project Study Area '` ,it''
Terrestrial Communities t T - e,,,.. ..,„k , ,,oi . ,,,,
ft �. 7 ,•
b.
4
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest i ` _.
Egr
111 Maintained/Disturbed "
Oki. a.A' + r • 3.,4 1i .y Ar x ,4 tSinj Yh 1r_
i 0 100 200 300 400 Feet & , s { ." ,,T ` II k�,+
I I I I I ,,4
"°Rr"°QAo North Carolina Figure 4: Terrestrial Communities Map
p'I Department TIP Project: B-5346
°' of Bridge #3 on SR1529 over UT to the Haw River
^�o,,RA% Transportation Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendix B
Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Plants
Common Name Scientific Name
American beech Fagus grandifolia
American elm Ulmus americana
American holly Ilex opaca
Blackberry Rubus argutus
Broomsedge Andropogon spp.
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Fescue Festuca spp.
Greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia
Horsetail Equisetum hyemale
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora
Red cedar Juniperus virginiana
Red maple Acer rubrum
Red oak Quercus rubra
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Animals
Common Name Scientific Name
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
American toad Bufo americanus
Amphipod Order Amphipoda
Asiatic clam Corbicula spp.
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Black racer Coluber constrictor constictor
Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta
Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis
Common mouse Mus musculus
Corn snake Pantherophis guttatus
Crayfish Subfamily Astacoidea
Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina
Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus fisheri
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus mallurus
Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus
Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna
Five-lined skink Plestiodon fasciatus
Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis carolinensis
Isopod Order Isopoda
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Northern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus
Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus
Shiner Notropis spp.
Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina
Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer
Sunfish Lepomis spp.
Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginianus
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus
Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius
Appendix C
Stream and Wetland Forms
North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form,Version 4.11
Date: 3/19/2013 Project/Site: TIP#B-5346 Latitude: 36.1313
Stream SA
JEvaluator: Hartshorn(KHA) County: Alamance Longitude: -79.4783
B.Reed(KHA)
Total Points: 24 Stream Det- '•• circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemer ,'erennial e.g.Quad Name: Lake Burlington
if>_19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 11 Absent Weak Moderate I Strong I Score I
I1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 1
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple- 0 1 2 3 1
pool sequence -
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 1
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 0
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 1
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 2
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0
artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter _ 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris _ 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
16. Organic debris lines or piles _ 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes =3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL= 1.5; Other=0 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SA is a linear, channelized stream that drains from a culvert
outlet and connects to SC but connects offsite. SA appears to be mostly
maintained through groundwater flow, but conveys stormwater flow during rain
events based on wrack lines observed in the channel. The banks are steep,
and bankfull depth is approximately 5' at a width of 7'. The upper reaches of
SA are rocky, but close to the UT, substrate becomes sandy.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site# (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: NCDOT, TIP-B5346 2.Evaluator's name:B. Reed (KHA), J. Hartshorn (KHA)
3.Date of evaluation:03/19/2013 4.Time of evaluation:2:00 pm
5.Name of stream:Stream SA 6.River basin:Cape Fear
7.Approximate drainage area:25 acres 8.Stream order: First Order
9.Length of reach evaluated:50' 10.County:Alamance
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):n/a
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 36.1313 Longitude(ex.-77.556611): -79.4783
Method location determined(circle): ✓❑.�PS❑Topo Sheet❑[)rtho(Aerial)Photo/GISJther GIS❑Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
Stream SA is located 1000' southeast of the intersection of Durham Street Ext and Routh Rd.
14.Proposed channel work(if any):n/a
15.Recent weather conditions:Within 48 hours of field evaluation, NOAA/NWS recorded 0.27" of rainfall.
16.Site conditions at time of visit:Sunny and clear, approximately 60 degrees F.
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: ['Section 10 ❑Tidal Waters ❑Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters ❑Outstanding Resource Waters ❑ Nutrient Sensitive Waters El Water Supply Watershed, (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: n/a
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: 10 %Residential %Commercial %Industrial %Agricultural
5 %Forested 85 %Cleared/Logged %Other( )
22.Bankfull width:7' 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):5'
24.Channel slope down center of stream: ❑Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) ❑Moderate(4 to 10%) 11 Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight nOccasional bends ❑Frequent meander Very sinuous ❑Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review(e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 33 Comments:
Stream SA is a linear channelized stream that drains from a culvert outlet to the main UT to the Haw River(but connects
offsite). SA appears to be mostly maintained through groundwater flow. The USGS map shows a pond upstream of SA, but
only historic evidence of a pond exists on site. The most recent aerial imagery(2010)shows a cleared grassy field where the
pond appears on the USGS.
Evaluator's Signature 07cv (s'n' 01'°"" Date 03/19/2013
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
TIP# B-5346
Stream SA
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation=0; strong flow=max points) 0—5 0 4 0 5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0—6 0 5 0 5 1
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0—6 0—4 0—5 3
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0—5 0 4 0 4 3
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points)
a Groundwater discharge
U5 (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 0—3 0 4 0 4 3
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0 4 0—4 0—2 1
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
',2', 7 Entrenchment/floodplain access 0 5 0 4 0—2 0
p"' (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0—6 0 4 0—2 0
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0—5 0 4 0 3 0
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)
10 Sediment input 0—5 0—4 0—4 3
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points)
11 Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0—4 0—5 2
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0—5 0 4 0 5 1
(deeply incised=0; stable bed&banks=max points)
F, l Presence of major bank failures
13 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
(severe erosion=0;no erosion, stable banks=max points)
1-1
Ad' Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) 0—3 0 4 0 5 2
F�
c 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production 0—5 0 4 0 5 2
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0—3 0—5 0 6 1
F (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
d Habitat complexity
Fi 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
.0 (little or no habitat=0; frequent,varied habitats=max points)
P:1 Canopy coverage over streambed
• 18 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
x (no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0—4 0 4 1
(deeply embedded=0; loose structure=max)
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
20 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0 4 0—4 0 4 0
O (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0—4 0—4 0—4 0
- (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0—6 0 5 0 5 1
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 33
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form,Version 4.11
Date: 3/19/2013 Project/Site: TIP#B-5346 Latitude: 36.1309
Stream SB
JEvaluator: Hartshorn(KHA) County: Alamance Longitude: -79.4778
B.Reed(KHA)
Total Points: 27 Stream Det- '•• circle one) Other
Stream is at least intermittent Ephemer ,'erennial e.g.Quad Name: Lake Burlington
if>_19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 12 Absent Weak Moderate I Strong I Score I
I1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 2
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple- 0 1 2 3 2
pool sequence -
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 0
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 0
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 0
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 1
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 0
artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter _ 1.5 1 0.5 0 1
15. Sediment on plants or debris _ 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles _ 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes =3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 7.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 0
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 1
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL= 1.5; Other=0 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SB is a moderately sinuous channel that flows through
maintained residential yards. A few mature trees are present along the reach
and many other young trees have been planted for ornamental purposes along
the banks. Numerous adult frogs were observed in the channel. SB has a
confluence with the main UT to Haw River offsite, and flows subterrain for a
approx. 20'through a large root system to meet the UT. Width 5', depth 2'.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site# (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: NCDOT, TIP B-5346 2.Evaluator's name:B. Reed (KHA), J. Hartshorn (KHA)
3.Date of evaluation:03/19/2013 4.Time of evaluation:2:35 pm
5.Name of stream:Stream SB 6.River basin:Cape Fear
7.Approximate drainage area: 10 acres 8.Stream order: First Order
9.Length of reach evaluated:75' 10.County:Alamance
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):n/a
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 36.1309 Longitude(ex.-77.556611): -79.4778
Method location determined(circle): ✓❑.�PS❑Topo Sheet❑Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GIS3ther GIS❑Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
Stream SB is located 100' northwest of the intersection of Durham Street Ext and Durham Meadows Dr.
14.Proposed channel work(if any):n/a
15.Recent weather conditions:Within 48 hours of field evaluation, NOAA/NWS recorded 0.27" of rainfall.
16.Site conditions at time of visit:Sunny and clear, approximately 60 degrees F.
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: ['Section 10 ❑Tidal Waters ❑Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters ❑Outstanding Resource Waters ❑ Nutrient Sensitive Waters El Water Supply Watershed, (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: n/a
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21.Estimated watershed land use: 45 %Residential %Commercial %Industrial %Agricultural
50 %Forested 5 %Cleared/Logged %Other( )
22.Bankfull width:5' 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):2'
24.Channel slope down center of stream: ❑Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) ❑Moderate(4 to 10%) 11 Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight nOccasional bends ❑Frequent meander Very sinuous ❑Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review(e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 38 Comments:
Stream SB is a small channel that meanders between two residential yards. Landscaping around the channel indicates that
the stream is likely maintained or managed for aesthetic purposes. Frogs were observed in the channel, but the offsite
connection to UT to Haw River is subterrain and drops approximately 6'through a mature tree root system.
Evaluator's Signature 07cv (s'n' 01'°"" Date 03/19/2013
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
TIP B-5346
Stream SB
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation=0; strong flow=max points) 0—5 0 4 0 5 2
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0—6 0 5 0 5 1
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0—6 0—4 0—5 2
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0—5 0 4 0 4 3
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points)
Groundwater discharge
.0 5 (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 0—3 0 4 0 4 3
,—i Presence of adjacent floodplain
z 6 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
{2', 7 Entrenchment/floodplain access 0 5 0 4 0—2 0
a (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0—6 0 4 0—2 0
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0—5 0 4 0 3 1
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)
10 Sediment input 0—5 0—4 0—4 3
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points)
11 Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0—4 0—5 2
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0—5 0 4 0 5 3
(deeply incised=0; stable bed&banks=max points)
F, l Presence of major bank failures
13 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
(severe erosion=0;no erosion, stable banks=max points)
1-1
Ad' Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) 0—3 0 4 0 5 3
F�
c Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 2
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0—3 0—5 0 6 1
F (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
d Habitat complexity
Fi 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
�,,,,i (little or no habitat=0; frequent,varied habitats=max points)
P4 Canopy coverage over streambed
• 18 0-5 0-5 0-5 1
x (no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0—4 0 4 1
(deeply embedded=0; loose structure=max)
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
20 0-4 0-5 0-5 0
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0 4 0—4 0 4 2
O (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
O 22 Presence of fish 0—4 0—4 0—4 0
- (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0—6 0 5 0 5 1
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 38
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality-Stream Identification Form,Version 4.11
Date: 3/19/2013 Project/Site: TIP#B-5346 Latitude: 36.1304
Stream SC
JEvaluator: Hartshorn(KHA) County: Alamance Longitude: -79.4773
B.Reed(KHA)
Total Points: 40 Stream Determination imla einP
Other
Stream is at least intermittent Lake Burlington
Ephemeral Intermitt t Perennial .g.Quad Name:
if>_19 or perennial if>_30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 23 Absent Weak Moderate I Strong I Score
I1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple- 0 1 2 3 3
pool sequence -
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 0
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 2
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 0
9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3 3
artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 9.5
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 0
14. Leaf litter _ 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris _ 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles _ 0 0.5 1 1.5 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes =3 3
C. Biology Subtotal = 7.5
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 3
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 1
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 0
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL= 1.5; Other=0 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Stream SC is a large perennial channel that is an unnamed tributary
to the Haw River. SC may have been historically realigned or channelized to
allow construction of residential houses. SC has a rocky substrate with very
large and diverse sized rocks/boulders. Multiple riffles and pools are present
through the evaluated reach. Bankful depth is approximately 7'with a width of
approximately 20'.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site# (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1.Applicant's name: NCDOT, B-5346 2.Evaluator's name:B. Reed (KHA), J. Hartshorn (KHA)
3.Date of evaluation:03/19/2013 4.Time of evaluation:3:05 pm
5.Name of stream:Stream SC 6.River basin:Cape Fear
7.Approximate drainage area:300 acres 8.Stream order: Second Order
9.Length of reach evaluated: 100' 10.County:Alamance
11.Site coordinates(if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12.Subdivision name(if any):n/a
Latitude(ex.34.872312): 36.1304 Longitude(ex.—77.556611): -79.4773
Method location determined(circle): ✓❑.sPS❑Topo Sheet❑Ortho(Aerial)Photo/GISJther GIS❑Other
13.Location of reach under evaluation(note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s)location):
Stream SC is located 200'northwest of Little John Ln and 200'southeast of Durham Meadows Dr. SC crosses beneath Durham Street Ext.
14.Proposed channel work(if any):n/a
15.Recent weather conditions:Within 48 hours of field evaluation, NOAA/NWS recorded 0.27" of rainfall.
16.Site conditions at time of visit:Sunny and clear, approximately 60 degrees F.
17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: ['Section 10 ❑Tidal Waters ❑Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters ❑Outstanding Resource Waters ❑ Nutrient Sensitive Waters El Water Supply Watershed, (I-IV)
18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO If yes,estimate the water surface area: n/a
19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21.Estimated watershed land use: 30 %Residential %Commercial %Industrial %Agricultural
50 %Forested 20%Cleared/Logged %Other( )
22.Bankfull width:20' 23.Bank height(from bed to top of bank):71
24.Channel slope down center of stream: Flat(0 to 2%) Gentle(2 to 4%) ❑Moderate(4 to 10%) 11 Steep(>10%)
25.Channel sinuosity: Straight nOccasional bends ❑Frequent meander Very sinuous ❑Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review(e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 58 Comments:
Stream SC is a large perennial channel that is a UT to the Haw River. SC may have been historically realigned to allow
construction of residential houses in the area. SC has a rocky substrate with large and diverse rocks. Multiple riffles and pools
are present along the evaluated reach.
Evaluator's Signature 07`v''°"' ` c"`"°"1-n' Date 03/19/2013
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment,please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1
TIP B-5346
Stream SC
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERISTICS SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
Presence of flow/persistent pools in stream
1 (no flow or saturation=0; strong flow=max points) 0—5 0 4 0 5 3
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0—6 0 5 0 5 3
(extensive alteration=0;no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0—6 0—4 0—5 2
(no buffer=0;contiguous,wide buffer=max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0—5 0 4 0 4 3
(extensive discharges=0;no discharges=max points)
Groundwater discharge
.0 5 (no discharge=0;springs,seeps,wetlands,etc.=max points) 0—3 0 4 0 4 3
,—i Presence of adjacent floodplain
z 6 0-4 0-4 0-2 0
(no floodplain=0;extensive floodplain=max points)
: 7 Entrenchment/floodplain access 0 5 0 4 0—2 1
a (deeply entrenched=0;frequent flooding=max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0—6 0 4 0—2 0
(no wetlands=0;large adjacent wetlands=max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0—5 0 4 0 3 3
(extensive channelization=0;natural meander=max points)
10 Sediment input 0—5 0—4 0—4 3
(extensive deposition=0;little or no sediment=max points)
11 Size&diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0—4 0—5 3
(fine,homogenous=0;large,diverse sizes=max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0—5 0 4 0 5 3
(deeply incised=0; stable bed&banks=max points)
F, l Presence of major bank failures
13 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
(severe erosion=0;no erosion, stable banks=max points)
1-1
Ad' Root depth and density on banks
14 (no visible roots=0;dense roots throughout=max points) 0—3 0 4 0 5 3
F�
c Impact by agriculture, livestock,or timber production
15 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
(substantial impact=0;no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0—3 0—5 0 6 4
F (no riffles/ripples or pools=0;well-developed=max points)
d Habitat complexity
Fi 17 0-6 0-6 0-6 4
�,,,,i (little or no habitat=0; frequent,varied habitats=max points)
P4 Canopy coverage over streambed
• 18 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
x (no shading vegetation=0;continuous canopy=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0—4 0 4 3
(deeply embedded=0; loose structure=max)
Presence of stream invertebrates(see page 4)
20 0-4 0-5 0-5 2
(no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0 4 0—4 0 4 0
O (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
00 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4 2
- (no evidence=0;common,numerous types=max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0—6 0 5 0 5 3
(no evidence=0;abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 58
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM— Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: TIP# B-5346 city/county: Alamance County Sampling Date: 3/19/2013
Applicant/Owner: N.C. Department of Transportation State: NC Sampling Point: WA-UP
Investigator(s): J. Hartshorn (KHA), B. Reed (KHA) Section,Township, Range: Boone Station
Landform (hillslope,terrace,etc.): Terrace Local relief(concave,convex, none): Convex Slope(%): <1%
Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 36.129200 N Long: 79.475900 W Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: HcC - Helena sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ Nol , (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 map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No
✓ Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No v
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓
Remarks:
The uplands adjacent to wetland WA are moderate hillslopes, and WA-UP was taken on a low terrace near
the foot of the hillslope southeast of WA. NOAA/NWS recorded 0.27" of rainfall in the last 48 hours.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of Iwo required)
Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply) — Surface Soil Cracks(B6)
Surface Water(A1) True Aquatic Plants(B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8)
—
High Water Table(A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Drainage Patterns(B10)—
Saturation (A3) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16)
-Water Marks(B1) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
- Sediment Deposits(B2) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) Crayfish Burrows(C8)
- Drift Deposits(B3) 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(B5) — Geomorphic Position(D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3)
Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Microtopographic Relief(D4)
Aquatic Fauna(B13) _—
FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓❑ Depth(inches):
Water Table Present? Yes I No IhII Depth(inches): 16"
Saturation Present? Yes 11 No Depth(inches): 12" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No 1
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WA-UP is located on a low terrace at the foot of a moderate hillslope southeast of WA. The data
point location is approximately 1' higher in elevation than the wetland surface, and is approximately
20' southeast of WA-WET. No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed at the data point
location.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WA-UP
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1.Liquidambar styraciflua 350/0 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 4 (A)
2.Platanus occidentalis 10% N FACW
lun eras virginiana 10% N FACU Total Number of Dominant 7
3. i P g Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species 57,1%
5. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: (A/B)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
8 Total%Cover of: Multiply by:
55% =Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) FACW species x 2=
1.Carpinus caroliniana 10% Y FAC FAC species x 3=
2.Acer rubrum 10% Y FAC FACU species x 4=
3.Ligustrum sinense 5% N FACU UPL species x 5=
4. Cornus florida 5% N FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index =B/A=
6.
7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2-Dominance Test is>50%
9
3-Prevalence Index is s3.0'
10. ._.
4-Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
30% =Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1.Polystichum acrostichoides 10% Y FACU ^ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
2.
3. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present,unless disturbed or problematic.
4. -
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines, 3 in.(7.6 cm)or
7 more in diameter at breast height(DBH),regardless of
height.
S.
9 Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines, less
than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
10. m)tall.
11.
Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants, regardless
12. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10% =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1.Lonicera japonica 5% Y FAC height.
2.Rosa multiflora 5% Y FACU
3.Iledera helix 5% Y NI
4.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes No
15% =Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
The canopy cover throughout the uplands adjacent to WA is well established, and herbaceous cover is sparse.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:WA-UP
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type/ Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4" 10YR 3/2 100% Loam
4-8" 10YR 3/3 100% Loam
8-14" 10YR 4/3 80% 10YR 3/6 20% C M Loam
1Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M-Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol(Al) Dark Surface(S7) ❑ 2 cm Muck(Al 0)(MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) ❑ C• oast Prairie Redox(A16)
—
Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) ri P• iedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)
Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147)
_ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) — Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface(All) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ O• ther(Explain in Remarks)
—
Thick Dark Surface(Al2) ❑ Redox Depressions(F8)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1)(LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
E
Sandy Redox(55) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix(56) ❑ Red Parent Material(F21)(MLRA 127,147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer(if observed):
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No J
Remarks:
WA-UP is approximately 1' higher in elevation than the adjacent wetland surface. The area may
have been historically disturbed, based on spoil piles dumped debris present approximately 10' east
of WA-UP. There is also an old drinking water well approximately 30' southeast of WA-UP.
Soils were saturated at depths of 12", and the water table was observed at a depth of 16".
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: TIP# 8-5346 city/county: Alamance County Sampling Date: 3/19/2013
ApplicanilOwner: N.C. Department of Transportation State: NC Sampling Point: WA-WET
Investigator(s): J. Hartshorn (KHA), B. Reed (KHA) Section,Township, Range: Boone Station
Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Flat Local relief(concave, convex, none): Concave Slope(%): <1%
Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 36.129300 N Long: 79.476000 W Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: HcC - Helena sandy loam NWI classification:
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes I No, _ (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 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 I No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I No
Remarks:
WA is a low-lying wetland at the base of a topographic crenulation that has been historically impounded
by Durham Street Ext. The topography flattens out within WA. NOAA/NWS recorded 0.27" of rainfall in
the last 48 hours.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required:check all that apply? _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6)
✓ Surface Water(A1) _ True Aquatic Plants(B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8)
✓ High Water Table(A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns(B10)
✓ Saturation(A3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _ Moss Trim Lines(B16)
- Water Marks(B1) — Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
- Sediment Deposits(B2) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) —Crayfish Burrows(C8)
- Drift Deposits(B3) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
Algal Mat or Crust(B4) C Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)
Iron Deposits(B5)R Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) ✓ Geomorphic Position(D2)
— Shallow Aquitard (D3)
HWater Stained Leaves(B9) — 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): 6rr
Saturation Present? Yes fi No Depth (inches): 3" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes I • I No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Drainage patterns are present throughout the wetland. Consolidated upgradient drainage braids as
the topography flattens out within the wetland. Surface water is present throughout the majority of
the wetland (depths less than 6"), however the data point location was chosen on a small rise
between drainage patterns without surface water to allow analysis of the soil profile.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata)-Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: WA-WET
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. Ulmus americana 35% Y FACW That Are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
2.Acer rubrum 20% Y FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3.Liquidambar styraciflua 10% N FAC Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species 83.3%
5. That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: (NB)
6.
7 Prevalence Index worksheet:
8. Total%Cover of: Multiply by:
65% =Total Cover OBL species x 1 =
SaplincilShrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) FACW species _ x 2=
1.Acer rubrum 5% Y FAC FAC species x 3=
2. Ulmus americana 5% Y FACW FACU species x 4=
3.Ligustrum sinense 2% N FACU UPL species x 5=
4, Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index =B/A=
6.
7 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2-Dominance Test is>50%
9.
10 _ 3-Prevalence Index is 3.01
4-Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting
12%o =Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1.Festuca sp. 10% Y FAC - Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
2.
3. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6. Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines, 3 in.(7.6 cm)or
7 more in diameter at breast height(DBH), regardless of
height.
8.
9 Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines,less
than 3 in.DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft(1
10. m)tall.
11.
Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants, regardless
12. of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
10% =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) Woody vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
1.Rosa multiflora 5% Y FACU height.
2.
3.
4.
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6. Present? Yes LI1 No
5% =Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Wetland WA has an established canopy layer dominated by American elm. The understory is sparse, and the
herbaceous layer is largely absent except for small pockets of an unknown fescue-type grass. Heavy shading from the
canopy cover and high saturation in the wetland is likely limiting understory growth.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:WA-WET
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-4" 10YR 4/2 100% Loam
4-8n 10YR 4/2 75% 7.5YR 4/4 25% C M Loam
8-16" 10YR 5/2 60% 7.5YR 4/6 40% C M Clay
'Type: C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Loc atio_n: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol(Al) Dark Surface(S7) D 2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon(A2) Palyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147,148) ❑ Coast Prairie Redox(A16)
Black Histic(A3) Thin Dark Surface(59)(MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147,148)
—
_ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) NI Loamy Greyed Matrix(F2) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)
_ Stratified Layers(A5) 0 Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136,147)
_^ 2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) . Redox Dark Surface(F6) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) . Depleted Dark Surface(F7) ❑ Other(Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface(Al2) . Redox Depressions(F8)
—
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1)(LRR N, • Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 136,122) 'indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
ESandy Redox(S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix(S6) ❑ Red Parent Material(F21)(MLRA 127,147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer(if observed):
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No
Remarks:
Soils at WA-WET were saturated at depths of 3", and the water table was observed at a depth of
6". Concentrations were found beginning at 4", and increase with depth. The data point location is
approximately 8' from surface water on all sides (located on a small rise between drainage patterns
in WA).
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth version B-5346
WA
Project Name: TIP# B-5346 Nearest road: Durham Street Ext
County: Alamance Wetland area: 0.09 acres Wetland width: 55 feet
Name of Evaluator: J. Hartshorn (KHA) Date: 4/25/2013
Wetland Location Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile
on pond or lake upstream,upslope, or radius)
on perennial stream X forested/natural vegetation 35 %
on intermittent stream X agriculture, urban/suburban 60 %
within interstream divide X impervious service 5 %
X other: Topographic Crenulation
Dominant vegetation
Soil Series 1) Ulmus americana
predominantly organic 2) Acer rubrum
(humus, muck, or peat) 3) Liquidambar styraciflua
X predominantly mineral
(non-sandy) Flooding and wetness
predominantly sandy semipermanently to permently flooded
or inundated
Hydrolic factors seasonally flooded or inundated
X steep topography X intermittently flooded or temporary
ditched or channelized surface water
total riparian wetland width>_ 100 ft no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
X Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be appllied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water Storage 2 x 4.00 = 8
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 0 x 4.00 = 0
T Pollutant removal 5 x 5.00 = 25
Wildlife habitat 1 x 2.00 = 2
N Aquatic life 1 x 4.00 = 4
G Recreation/Education 1 x 1.00 = 1
Total Score 40
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within IA mile radius.
Appendix D
Qualifications of Contributors
Investigator: Laura Cooper
Education: B.S. Environmental Studies, 2011
Experience: Environmental Analyst, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2011-Present
Responsibilities: Stream delineations, GPS, stream assessment, natural community assessment
Investigator: Tad Hardy, EIT
Education: B.S. Civil Engineering, 2011, M.S. Civil Engineering, 2012
Experience: Transportation Analyst, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2012-Present
Responsibilities: Document preparation, natural community assessment