The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210427 Ver 1_FINAL NRTR_20210222 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROY COOPER JAMES H. TROGDON, III GOVERNOR SECRETARY December 17, 2020 MEMO TO: File FROM: Jeffrey L. Wyatt, Division Environmental Officer SUBJECT: Natural Resources Memo INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace a failed bridge on SR 1465 (Cheatham Ford Road) in Alexander County. The proposed bridge will be on same alignment. PROTECTED SPECIES Endangered Species Act Protected Species As of June 17, 2020, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list three 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 December 11, 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 Hexastylis species were observed. A review of NHP records on December 17, 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 December 11, 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 December 17, 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 December 11, 2020 the area was assessed for suitable bat habitat. The forested area adjacent to the bridge as well as portions of the remaining bridge was found to provide suitable habitat (Bat habitat assessment form was not conducted on the bridge due to safety). Natural Heritage Program records document the nearest Northern Long-Eared Bat location approximately 30 miles northwest of the proposed project area. The closest listed underground mine, per NHP database is the O F Patterson Mine, 1.5 miles west 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 December 11, 2020 using recent color aerials. The South Yadkin River is sufficiently large and open enough and 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 660-ft radius outside the project study area was conducted, but no nests were observed. Additionally, a review of the NHP database on December 17, 2020 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of 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 Yadkin River basin [U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03040102]. One stream was identified in the study area (Table 2). The location of the stream is shown in attached figures. 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) South Yadkin River - 12-108-(5.5) WS-II-C; HQW/ WS-IV - ~65 48 The South Yadkin River west of the existing bridge location is classified as a WS-II- Critical area and High-Quality Waters (HQW). There are no waters classified as Outstanding Resources Water (ORW), within the study area or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. South Yadkin River is not listed on the final 2018 303(d) list of impaired waters. No other surface waters/wetlands were identified within the study area. The NRCS soil survey indicated the study area contained RnA—Ronda loamy sand (0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded) with a minor component, Hatboro, undrained, which is listed as hydric soils. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. One jurisdictional stream was identified in the study area (Table 3). The location of this stream is shown in attached figures. All jurisdictional streams in the study area have been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation. Table 3. Characteristics of jurisdictional streams in the study area Map ID Length (ft.) Classification Compensatory Mitigation Required River Basin Buffer SA 150 Perennial Undetermined Not Subject Total 150 No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area. N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules South Yadkin River is not subject to any N.C. river basin buffer rules. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters There are no Section 10 Navigable Waters within the study area.