The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201935 Ver 1_U-6251 Buncombe CE_20210318v2019.1 U-6251 Type I(A) CE Page 1 • Type I or II Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form STIP Project No. U-6251 WBS Element 49281.1.1 Federal Project No. 1302100 A. Project Description: Construct access road for Haakon Industries in Enka Commerce Park, Buncombe County, NC. B. Description of Need and Purpose: The project provides access to industrial sites which will creates jobs and enhance the economic development potential of Buncombe County. C. Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: Type I(A) - Ground Disturbing Action D. Proposed Improvements: The project will include an access road (Enka Heritage Road) on new location from US 19/23 West to Walk Off Way. Total length of three lane roadway will be 0.21 mile. E. Special Project Information: The Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) and Tribal Consultation Responses are attached to the CE. The Cultural Resources Evaluation (Section 106) is currently in process and will be an amendment to the CE. NOTE: The following Type I(C) Actions (NCDOT-FHWA 2019 CE Agreement, Appendix A) only require completion of Sections A through D to substantiate and document the CE classification: 1, 5, 8 (signs and pavement markings only), 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20; or several other Type I Action subcategories identified in past NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreements (see Appendix D). Pre-approval as a CE does not exempt activities from compliance with other federal environmental laws. v2019.1 U-6251 Type I(A) CE Page 2 F. Project Impact Criteria Checklists: F2. Ground Disturbing Actions – Type I (Appendix A) & Type II (Appendix B) Proposed improvement(s) that fit Type I Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix A) including 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22 (ground disturbing), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, &/or 30; &/or Type II Actions (NCDOT-FHWA CE Programmatic Agreement, Appendix B) answer the project impact threshold questions (below) and questions 8 – 31. • If any question 1-7 is checked “Yes” then NCDOT certification for FHWA approval is required. • If any question 8-31 is checked “Yes” then additional information will be required for those questions in Section G. PROJECT IMPACT THRESHOLDS (FHWA signature required if any of the questions 1-7 are marked “Yes”.) Yes No 1 Does the project require formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)? ☐  2 Does the project result in impacts subject to the conditions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)? ☐  3 Does the project generate substantial controversy or public opposition, for any reason, following appropriate public involvement? ☐  4 Does the project cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts relative to low- income and/or minority populations? ☐  5 Does the project involve a residential or commercial displacement, or a substantial amount of right of way acquisition? ☐  6 Does the project require an Individual Section 4(f) approval? ☐  7 Does the project include adverse effects that cannot be resolved with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or have an adverse effect on a National Historic Landmark (NHL)? ☐  If any question 8-31 is checked “Yes” then additional information will be required for those questions in Section G. Other Considerations Yes No 8 Is an Endangered Species Act (ESA) determination unresolved or is the project covered by a Programmatic Agreement under Section 7? ☐  9 Is the project located in anadromous fish spawning waters? ☐  10 Does the project impact waters classified as Outstanding Resource Water (ORW), High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supply Watershed Critical Areas, 303(d) listed impaired water bodies, buffer rules, or Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)? ☐  11 Does the project impact Waters of the United States in any of the designated mountain trout streams? ☐  12 Does the project require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual Section 404 Permit? ☐  13 Will the project require an easement from a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed facility? ☐  v2019.1 U-6251 Type I(A) CE Page 3 Other Considerations for Type I and II Ground Disturbing Actions (continued) Yes No 14 Does the project include a Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) effects determination other than a No Effect, including archaeological remains? ☐  15 Does the project involve GeoEnvironmental Sites of Concerns such as gas stations, dry cleaners, landfills, etc.? ☐  16 Does the project require work encroaching and adversely affecting a regulatory floodway or work affecting the base floodplain (100-year flood) elevations of a water course or lake, pursuant to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650 subpart A? ☐  17 Is the project in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and substantially affects the coastal zone and/or any Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ☐  18 Does the project require a U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) permit? ☐  19 Does the project involve construction activities in, across, or adjacent to a designated Wild and Scenic River present within the project area? ☐  20 Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) resources? ☐  21 Does the project impact federal lands (e.g. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, etc.) or Tribal Lands? ☐  22 Does the project involve any changes in access control or the modification or construction of an interchange on an interstate? ☐  23 Does the project have a permanent adverse effect on local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ☐  24 Will maintenance of traffic cause substantial disruption? ☐  25 Is the project inconsistent with the STIP, and where applicable, the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? ☐  26 Does the project require the acquisition of lands under the protection of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act, the Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Act, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Tribal Lands, or other unique areas or special lands that were acquired in fee or easement with public-use money and have deed restrictions or covenants on the property? ☐  27 Does the project involve Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout properties under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)? ☐  28 Does the project include a de minimis or programmatic Section 4(f)? ☐  29 Is the project considered a Type I under the NCDOT Noise Policy? ☐  30 Is there prime or important farmland soil impacted by this project as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)? ☐  31 Are there other issues that arose during the project development process that affected the project decision? ☐  v2019.1 U-6251 Type I(A) CE Page 4 G. Additional Documentation as Required from Section F (ONLY for questions marked ‘Yes’): v2019.1 U-6251 Type I(A) CE Page 5 H. Project Commitments (attach as Green Sheet to CE Form): NCDOT PROJECT COMMITMENTS STIP Project No. U-6251 Enka Heritage Access Road Buncombe County Federal Aid Project No. 1302100 WBS Element 49281.1.1 1. Best Management Practices(BMP) for erosion control as prescribed by construction plans will be required throughout construction. NPDES Forms will be required per the NC DOT General Permit. v2019.1 U-6251 Type I(A) CE Page 6 I. Categorical Exclusion Approval: STIP Project No. U-6251 WBS Element 49281.1.1 Federal Project No. 1302100 Prepared By: Date Roger D. Bryan, Division 13 Environmental Program Supervisor Prepared For: Reviewed By: Date Mike Clark, Division 13 Project Engineer  Approved • If NO grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2 and 3), NCDOT approves the Type I or Type II Categorical Exclusion. ☐ Certified • If ANY grey boxes are checked in Section F (pages 2 and 3), NCDOT certifies the Type I or Type II Categorical Exclusion for FHWA approval. • If classified as Type III Categorical Exclusion. Date Steve Cannon, P.E., Division 13 Project Development Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation FHWA Approved: For Projects Certified by NCDOT (above), FHWA signature required. Date for John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration NC Department of Transportation 200'3 0 0' 2 0 0'DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINALUNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETEDREVISIO NS HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGNENGINEERENGINEER R/W SHEET NO.SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO. U-6230 06-M AR-2020 10:13S:\DDC\Projects\Buncom be\Enka Park\Heritage_psh.dgnwccarver AT DIV13-314826L 8/17/99 INCOMPLETE PLANSDO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITIONDOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINALUNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED100200100PLANS097CPCPCP9WVHOMINY CREEK HOMINY CREEKPUMPHOUSE20652065206520652065206520652065 2 0 6 02060206020602060 206020602060 20602060206020602055205520552055 20552055 20552055205520552055205520552055 205520552055 2055205520552 0502050 20502050 20502050205020502050 2050205020452 04 5 2045 204520452045 2045204520452 0452045204520452045 204020402 0 4 0 204020402040EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMW-1ABANDONEDMW-4MW-2ABANDONEDMW-3MW-52105 DUMP S T E R 6 YDC O MP OST COMMI NG LE DP AP E RP L AS TICH OP P E RWOOD H OP P E RGL ASS REF . TRASH RE F . 4 8 " h D OCK109EVEVD U MP S TE R6 Y DCOMP OS T C OMMIN GLE D P AP E R P LAS TICH OP P E RWOOD HO PP E RGL ASS DRIVE-IN HCHCHOMI NY CREEKU.S. HI GHWAY 1 9/ 2 3 ~~~2064.7'ELE. AT F/LSTORM INLET 2065.1'ELE. AT F/LSTORM INLET 2077.1'ELE. AT F/LSTORM INLET24"CMP15"CMP15"CMP24"CMP 24"CMPINV:2072.5'INV:2072.5'INV:2056.4'INV:2056.3'INV:2054.8'INV:2056.5'S S10+0011+0012+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0025+95.72P C = 1 4 + 9 0.6 0PT = 24+22.2710+00 11+00 12+00 12+30.34 2071'2073'2075'2074'2074'2070.5'xx x x x x x x x xxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx W V WVRUINSRUINSRUINSRECREATION FIELDGATERAMP CATWALKCATWALKCATWALKCATWALK RIP-RAP CATWALKGATEGATEGATERUINSRUINSGATEGATESIGNSTEPS~WVHYDWVWOOD & DIRTGRAVEL May 4, 2020 Roger Bryan North Carolina Department of Transportation Division Thirteen 55 Orange Street Asheville, NC 28801-2340 Re: U-6230, Enka Commerce Park Access Road Mr. Roger Bryan: The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about U-6230, Enka Commerce Park Access Road, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project. Please allow this letter to serve as the Nation’s interest in acting as a consulting party to this proposed project. The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre-historic resources in this area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project’s legal description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee cultural resources at this time. However, the Nation requests that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) halt all project activities immediately and re-contact our Offices for further consultation if items of cultural significance are discovered during the course of this project. Additionally, the Nation requests that NCDOT conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included in the Nation’s databases or records. If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Wado, Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office elizabeth-toombs@cherokee.org 918.453.5389 April 30, 2020 Attention: Roger D. Bryan NC Department of Transportation 55 Orange Street Asheville, NC 28801-2340 Re. THPO # Project # Project Description 2020-193-180 U-6230 Enka Commerce Park Access Road in Enka, Buncombe Co., NC Dear Mr. Bryan, The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties, sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase of this project. If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail Caitlin.Rogers@catawba.com. Sincerely, Wenonah G. Haire Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office 1536 Tom Steven Road Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730 Office 803-328-2427 Fax 803-328-5791 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Asheville Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Suite #B Asheville, North Carolina 28801 May 13, 2020 Bryan Ro ger Division 13 Environmental Officer 55 Orange Street Asheville, NC 28801 Subject: 20-271; U-6251 Enka Park Access Road; Buncombe Co, NC Dear Bryan Roger, This responds to your email received by our office on April 20, 2020, concerning the subject project. We have reviewed the information presented and submit the following comments and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§661-667e); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.); the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§703-712); and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.). Project Summary The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct .20 miles of industrial access for a new manufacturing facility in Enka Commerce Park of Buncombe County, NC. Project includes the installation of a traffic signal and completing the bridge construction over Hominy Creek. Surrounding land use is dominated by commercial and residential developments. This, along with maps, was the only information provided. We offer the following recommendations in the interest of protecting federally threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, as well as other fish, wildlife, and natural resources. Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species In accordance with section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and 50 CFR Part 402.01, before any federal authorization/permits or funding can be issued for this project, it is the responsibility of the appropriate federal regulatory/permitting and/or funding agency(ies) to determine whether the project may affect any federally endangered or threatened species (listed species) o r designated critical habitat. A species list for counties in North Carolina can be found online here: https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html. If it is determined that this project may affect any listed species or designated critical habitat, you must initiate section 7 consultation with this office. Please note that federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. 2 Suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project area for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However, the final 4(d) rule (effective as of February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat associated with activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150 feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1 – July 31). Based on the information provided, the project would occur at a location where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule. Although not required, we encourage you to conduct any associated tree clearing activities outside the pup season (June 1 to July 31) and/or active season (April 1 to October 31) to reduce the chance of impacting unidentified maternity roosts. Migratory Birds The MBTA (16 §U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the intentional taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. To avoid impacts to migratory birds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of any migratory bird nesting habitat within the project area during the migratory bird nesting season of March through September and avoiding impacting the nests during the migratory bird nesting season. If birds are discovered nesting near the project area during years prior to the proposed construction date, we recommend that the NCDOT, in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service, develop measures to discourage birds from establishing nests within the project area by means that will not resu lt in the take of birds or eggs; or avoid construction activities during the nesting period. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Construction activities near streams, rivers, and lakes have the potential to cause water pollution and stream degradation if measures to control site runoff are not properly installed and maintained. In order to effectively reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts, best management practices specific to the extent and type of construction should be designed and installed during land-disturbing activities and should be maintained until the project is complete and appropriate stormwater conveyances and vegetation are reestablished on the site. A complete design manual, which provides extensive details and procedures for developing site-specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent with the requirements of the North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, is available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/lr/publications For maximum benefits to water quality and bank stabilization, riparian areas should be forested; however, if the areas are maintained in grass, they should not be mowed. We recommend planting disturbed areas with native riparian species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can provide information on potential sources of plant material upon request. Stream Buffers 3 Natural, forested riparian buffers are critical to the health of aquatic ecosystems. They accomplish the following: 1. catch and filter runoff, thereby helping to prevent nonpoint -source pollutants from reaching streams; 2. enhance the in-stream processing of both point - and nonpoint-source pollutants; 3. act as “sponges” by absorbing runoff (which reduces the severity of flood s) and by allowing runoff to infiltrate and recharge groundwater levels (which maintains stream flows during dry periods); 4. catch and help prevent excess woody debris from entering the stream and creating logjams; 5. stabilize stream banks and maintain natural channel morphology; 6. provide coarse woody debris for habitat structure and most of the dissolved organic carbon and other nutrients necessary for the aquatic food web; and 7. maintain air and water temperatures around the stream. Forested riparian buffers (a minimum 50 feet wide along intermittent streams and 100 feet wide along perennial streams [or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater]) should be created and/or maint ained along all aquatic areas. Within the watersheds of streams supporting endangered aquatic species, we recommend undisturbed, forested buffers that are naturally vegetated with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation and extend a minimum of 200 feet from the banks of all perennial streams and a minimum of 100 feet from the banks of all intermittent streams, or the full extent of the 100 -year floodplain, whichever is greater.) Impervious surfaces, ditches, pipes, roads, utility lines (sewer, water, gas, transmission, etc.), and other infrastructures that require maintained, cleared rights-of-way and/or compromise the functions and values of the forested buffers should not occur within these riparian areas. Stream Crossings In the event that the project requires stream crossings, we recommend the following: Bridges or spanning structures should be used for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands. Structures should span the channel and the floodplain in order to minimize impacts to aquatic resources, allow for the moveme nt of aquatic and terrestrial organisms, and eliminate the need to place fill in streams and floodplains. Bridges should be designed and constructed so that no piers or bents are placed in the stream, approaches and abutments do not constrict the stream c hannel, and the crossing is perpendicular to the stream. Spanning some or all of the floodplain allows the stream to access its floodplain and dissipate energy during high flows and also provides for terrestrial wildlife passage. When bank stabilization is necessary, we recommend that the use of riprap be minimized and that a riprap-free buffer zone be maintained under the bridge to allow for wildlife movement. If fill in the floodplain is necessary, floodplain culverts should be added through the fill t o allow the stream access to the floodplain during high flows. If bridges are not possible and culverts are the only option, we suggest using bottomless culverts. Bottomless culverts preserve the natural stream substrate, create less disturbance during 4 construction and provide a more natural post -construction channel. Culverts should be sufficiently sized to mimic natural stream functions and habitats located at the crossing site; allow for water depth, volume (flow), and velocity levels that will permit aquatic organism passage; and accommodate the movement of debris and bed material during bank -full events. Widening the stream channel must be avoided. If you have questions about these comments ple ase contact Ms. Claire Ellwanger of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 42235. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please reference our Log Number 20-271. Sincerely, -- original signed – Janet Mizzi Field Supervisor NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Enka Heritage Access Road Buncombe County, North Carolina STIP U-6251 Federal Aid Project No. 1302100 WBS Element No. 49281.1.1 THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Division 13 December 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 1 3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .......................................................................... 1 4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES ........................................................................................... 1 4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species .......................................................... 1 4.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................. 5 5.0 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 6 6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 6 6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. ..................................................................... 6 7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 7 Appendix A Figures Figure 1. Vicinity/ Project Study Area Map Appendix B Qualifications of Contributors LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area.................................. 1 Table 2. ESA Federally protected species listed for Buncombe Co.…………………2 Table 3. Stream in study area ......................................................................................... 6 Natural Resources Technical Report STIP U-6251, Buncombe County, N.C. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct an access road from US 19/23 to Walk Off Way to serve Haakon Industries (STIP U-6251) in Buncombe County (Figure 1). The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a document for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 2.0 METHODOLOGY All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Environmental Coordination and Permitting’s Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports Procedure and the latest NRTR Template (November 2017). Field work was conducted on December 9, 2020. If necessary, jurisdictional areas identified in the study area were verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). One jurisdictional stream is present within the study area. The principal personnel contributing to the field work and document is provided in Appendix B. 3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES One terrestrial community was identified in the study area. Terrestrial community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Table 1). Table 1. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area Community Dominant Species (scientific name) Coverage (ac.) Disturbed-Maintained Poplar, Red Oak, Bamboo 0.50 Total 0.50 4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES 4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species As of December 9, 2020 the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists fifteen federally protected (threatened or endangered) species, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Buncombe County, NC (Table 2). For each species, the presence or absence of habitat is included below along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on survey results in the study area. The entire study area is within an existing industrial site and has been severely disturbed. A comment letter from USFWS is also attached. Natural Resources Technical Report STIP U-6251, Buncombe County, N.C. 2 Table 2. ESA federally protected species listed for Buncombe County. Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Habitat Present Biological Conclusion Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle T (S/A) No N/A Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E No No Effect Myotis grisescens Gray bat E No No Effect Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T No MA-NLAA Erimonax monachus Spotfin Chub* T No No Effect Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E No No Effect Bombus affinis Rusty-patched bumble bee* E No Not Subject Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E No No Effect Epioblasma florentina walker Tan riffleshell* E No No Effect Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge Goldenrod T No No Effect Sagittaria fasciculata Bunched arrowhead* E No No Effect Sarracenis rubra ssp. Jonesii Mountain Sweet Pitcherplant E No No Effect Geum radiatum Spreading avens E No No Effect Spirea virginiana Virginia sprirea* T No No Effect Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E No No Effect E - Endangered T - Threatened T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance MA-NLAA - May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect MA-LAA - May Affect – Likely to Adversely Affect NE - No Effect * - Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago) Bog Turtle USFWS optimal survey window: April 1 – Oct 1 (visual) Biological Conclusion: Not Subject Suitable habitat for the Bog Turtle is unlikely within the project study area, as the study area does not contain bogs, fens, and/or marshy meadows and lacks the mucky soils that are often associated with this species. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance are not currently subject to review. Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel USFWS optimal survey window: May – October Natural Resources Technical Report STIP U-6251, Buncombe County, N.C. 3 Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for the Northern flying squirrel is unlikely within the project study area, as a desktop review reveals the maximum elevation reached at any point within the study limits is too low to support the growth of the high-elevation mixed birch and fir forest habitat that the Northern flying squirrel requires. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Gray Bat USFWS optimal survey window: May 15 – August 15 (structure) Biological Conclusion: No Effect No structures will be constructed or impacted by the project. Hominy Creek flows through the study area but will not be impacted. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Northern Long-Eared Bat USFWS optimal survey window: May 15 – August 15 (summer) Biological Conclusion: MA- NLAA On December 9, 2020, the NCDOT surveyed the project area and no suitable habitat or signs of bat presence were evident. The project site is also more that 10 miles from a known HUC for NLEB. See the USFWS for 4d Rule applicability. Spotfin Chub USFWS optimal survey window: September – November Biological Conclusion: No Effect Historic Record. No suitable habitat within impacted area. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Appalachian elktoe USFWS optimal survey window: March 1 – November 1 Biological Conclusion: No Effect The stream that occurs within the study area is small (<4 feet width) and thereby unsuitable for elktoe. No know occurrences exist within Hominy Creek downstream of the project. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee USFWS optimal survey window: early June to mid-August Natural Resources Technical Report STIP U-6251, Buncombe County, N.C. 4 Biological Conclusion: Not Subject Suitable habitat for the Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee is unlikely within the project study area, as there are no natural grasslands or prairies within the study limits. Additionally, the study area consists of heavily maintained and disturbed grass areas which would prevent sources of nectar and pollen from accumulating, thus limiting the available food sources for the Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. No Section 7 survey or biological conclusion is currently required for the Rusty-Patched Bumble Bee. Spruce-fir moss spider USFWS optimal survey window: May - August Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat for the spruce-fir moss spider is unlikely within the project study area, as a desktop review reveals the maximum elevation reached at any point within the study limits cannot support the high-elevation habitat this species requires. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Tan Riffleshell USFWS optimal survey window: March 1 – November 1 Biological Conclusion: No Effect The record is historic and the stream is too small to provide habitat for the mussel species. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Blue Ridge Goldenrod USFWS optimal survey window: July – September Biological Conclusion: No Effect Blue Ridge Goldenrod habitat consist of rock outcrops, ledges and cliffs at high elevations (>4600 feet). No suitable habitat exists on the project. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Bunched arrowhead USFWS optimal survey window: mid-May through July Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat (bogs/seeps) for Bunched arrowhead was not present within the project study area. A review of NHP records on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Natural Resources Technical Report STIP U-6251, Buncombe County, N.C. 5 Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant USFWS optimal survey window: April - October Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat (bogs) for Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant are not present with the study area. A review of NHP on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Spreading Avens USFWS optimal survey window: June – September Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat (high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and grassy balds) do not exist within the study area. A review of NHP on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Virginia spirea USFWS optimal survey window: May – early July Biological Conclusion: No Effect No suitable habitat exists within the project area. A review of NHP on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. Rock gnome lichen USFWS optimal survey window: Year round Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable habitat (high elevation cliffs, deep river gorges) does not exist within the project area. A review of NHP on December 10, 2020 indicates no known occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. 4.2 Bald 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 10, 2020 using color aerials. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat within the review area, a survey of the project study area and the area within 660 feet of the project limits was not Natural Resources Technical Report STIP U-6251, Buncombe County, N.C. 6 conducted. Additionally, a review of the NHP database on December 10, 2020 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this species 5.0 WATER RESOURCES Water resources in the study area are part of the French Broad River basin (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 06010105). Two streams were identified in the study area. There are no designated High Quality Waters (HQW) or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within or within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. No construction moratoria are necessary for the project. The two streams are listed in Table 3. Table 3. Streams in the study area Stream Name Map ID NCDWR Index Number Best Usage Classification Bank Height (ft) Bankfull width (ft) Depth (in) Hominy Creek C 5 40 12-36 UT to Hominy Creek Site 1 C 3 8 12-24 6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. Two jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area. No wetlands are located with the project study area. A new culvert will be installed in the UT to Hominy Creek that will result in approximately 180 linear feet of impact. Compensatory mitigation will be required. Natural Resources Technical Report STIP U-6251, Buncombe County, N.C. 7 7.0 REFERENCES North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 2018. Final 2016 Category 5 Assessments – 303(d) List. Last Updated March 2018. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TMDL/303 d/2016/2016_NC_Category_5_303d_list.pdf North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, 2018. Riparian Buffers Protection Program. Last Updated 2018. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-permits/ wastewater-branch/401-wetlands-buffer-permitting/riparian-buffers-protection North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2018. Find Your HUC. Last Updated February 2018. https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicInformation/index.html?appid=ad3a85 a0c6d644a0b97cd069db238ac3 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2018. NC Surface Water Classifications. Last Updated 2018. https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index. html?id=6e125ad7628f494694e259c80dd64265 North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2020. Threatened and Endangered Animal Species: Survey Window and Responsibility. Last Updated June 2020. https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/ Environmental/Compliance%20Guides%20and%20Procedures/Animal%20Survey%20Windows %20Threatened%20Endangered%20Species%2020110408.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office – Bog Turtle. Last Updated November 2011. https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/listed_species/bog_turtle.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office – Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel. Last Updated November 2011. https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/listed_ Species/Carolina_northern_flying_squirrel.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office – Gray Bat. Last Updated November 2011. https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/listed_species/gray_bat.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. Environmental Conservation Online System – Rusty Patched Bumble Bee. Last Updated 2018. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=I0WI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina’s Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Last Updated March 2019. https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant_ survey.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office – Mountain Golden Heather. Last Updated August 2017. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_mountain_golden_ heather.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018. Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office – Small Whorled Pogonia. Natural Resources Technical Report STIP U-6251, Buncombe County, N.C. 8 Last Updated August 2017. https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_small_whorled_pogonia.html U.S. Geological Survey, 2016. Marion Quadrangle, North Carolina, 7.5-Minute Series. Last Updated 2016. Appendix A Figures 200'3 0 0' 2 0 0'DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINALUNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETEDREVISIO NS HYDRAULICSROADWAY DESIGNENGINEERENGINEER R/W SHEET NO.SHEET NO.PROJECT REFERENCE NO. U-6230 06-M AR-2020 10:13S:\DDC\Projects\Buncom be\Enka Park\Heritage_psh.dgnwccarver AT DIV13-314826L 8/17/99 INCOMPLETE PLANSDO NOT USE FOR R/W ACQUISITIONDOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINALUNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED100200100PLANS097CPCPCP9WVHOMINY CREEK HOMINY CREEKPUMPHOUSE20652065206520652065206520652065 2 0 6 02060206020602060 206020602060 20602060206020602055205520552055 20552055 20552055205520552055205520552055 205520552055 2055205520552 0502050 20502050 20502050205020502050 2050205020452 04 5 2045 204520452045 2045204520452 0452045204520452045 204020402 0 4 0 204020402040EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMW-1ABANDONEDMW-4MW-2ABANDONEDMW-3MW-52105 DUMP S T E R 6 YDC O MP OST COMMI NG LE DP AP E RP L AS TICH OP P E RWOOD H OP P E RGL ASS REF . TRASH RE F . 4 8 " h D OCK109EVEVD U MP S TE R6 Y DCOMP OS T C OMMIN GLE D P AP E R P LAS TICH OP P E RWOOD HO PP E RGL ASS DRIVE-IN HCHCHOMI NY CREEKU.S. HI GHWAY 1 9/ 2 3 ~~~2064.7'ELE. AT F/LSTORM INLET 2065.1'ELE. AT F/LSTORM INLET 2077.1'ELE. AT F/LSTORM INLET24"CMP15"CMP15"CMP24"CMP 24"CMPINV:2072.5'INV:2072.5'INV:2056.4'INV:2056.3'INV:2054.8'INV:2056.5'S S10+0011+0012+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+0019+0020+0021+0022+0023+0024+0025+0025+95.72P C = 1 4 + 9 0.6 0PT = 24+22.2710+00 11+00 12+00 12+30.34 2071'2073'2075'2074'2074'2070.5'xx x x x x x x x xxx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx W V WVRUINSRUINSRUINSRECREATION FIELDGATERAMP CATWALKCATWALKCATWALKCATWALK RIP-RAP CATWALKGATEGATEGATERUINSRUINSGATEGATESIGNSTEPS~WVHYDWVWOOD & DIRTGRAVEL Appendix B Qualifications of Contributors Principal Investigator: Roger D. Bryan Education: • B.S., Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences – North Carolina State University 1988 • M.S., Fisheries Science – Virginia Tech, 1993 Experience: • Environmental Program Supervisor, Division 13, NC Department of Transportation, 1999-Present • Fisheries Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc., 1991-1999 Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations and assessments, threatened and endangered species assessments, aquatic and terrestrial community assessments, environmental document preparation, Corps/DWR permit compliance inspections, and resource agency coordination.