20210304 Ver 1_Bridge 110209 Burke Natural Resources Technical Report_20210326

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Replace Bridge Number 209 on SR 1623 (Mt. Harmony Rd.) over
UT to Drowning Creek
Burke County, North Carolina

TIP 17BP.13.R.153

THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Division 13

August 2018

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 ............................................................................. 4
4.3 Essential Fish Habitat ......................................................................................................... 5
5.0 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 5
6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 5
6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S. ................................................................................. 5
6.2 Construction Moratoria ..................................................................................................... 6
6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules ........................................................................................... 6
6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters .................................................... 6
6.5 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern ................................ 6
6.6 Coastal Barrier Resources System .................................................................................... 6
6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 7
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 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 Burke County. ............................. 2
Table 3. Streams in the study area ................................................................................. 5
Table 4. Characteristics of jurisdictional streams in the study area ........................... 5

Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

1 August 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace bridge
number 209 on SR 1623 (Mt. Harmony Rd.) over UT to Drowning Creek (STIP
17BP.13.R.153) in Burke 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 May 23, 2018.
Jurisdictional areas identified in the study area have not yet been verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR). The principal personnel contributing to the field work and document is
provided in Appendix B.

3.0 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES

Two terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figure 4 shows the
location and extent of these terrestrial communities. 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.)
Maintained / Disturbed Quercus phellos, Festuca sp., Pueraria
montana 3.9
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Acer negundo, Quercus alba, Quercus
phellos, Lirionendron tulipifera, Pinus
taeda, Carya tomentosa
0.9
Total 4.8

4.0 PROTECTED SPECIES

4.1 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of June 27, 2018 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists nine
federally protected species for Burke County (Table 2). 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.

Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

2 August 2018

Table 2. ESA federally protected species listed for Burke County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T (S/A) No Not Required
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Unknown MA-NLAA
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf T Yes MA-NLAA
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T No NE
Hudsonia montana Mountain golden heather T No NE
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia T Yes NE
Geum radiatum Spreading avens* E No NE
Sisyrinchium dichotomum White irisette E No NE
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E No NE
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance
MA-NLAA - May Affect – Not 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 – 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. Bog turtle habitat does not exist within the study
area. There are no open, groundwater supplied wetlands or seepage slopes found
within the study area. No bog turtles were observed during field activities.
However, no specific surveys were performed due to the T(S/A) status of the
species. A review of NHP records, updated April 2018, indicates no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.

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

Biological Conclusion: May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Construction activities for this project will not take place until Endangered
Species Act compliance is satisfied for NLEB. The NCDOT Division 13
Environmental Staff will be responsible for habitat assessment for the NLEB. A
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records, updated April
2018, indicates no known NLEB occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Based upon the guidance published by the Asheville USFWS office, the
biological conclusion for Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) is a “may affect not
likely to adversely affect” for Burke County. Burke County is located in the white
nose syndrome area, but there are no known hibernacula or roosting trees within
Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

3 August 2018

the county. The criteria for the 4(d) rule has been met and any associated take is
exempt.

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

Biological Conclusion: May Affect – Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf exists in the project study (Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest). A survey of areas of suitable habitat was conducted
May 23, 2018. No dwarf-flowered heartleaf individuals were found. A review of
NHP records, updated April 2018, indicates one occurrence (EOID 22233) of
dwarf-flowered heartleaf within 1.0 mile of the study area (Figure 1).

Heller’s blazing star
USFWS optimal survey window: July-September

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There is no suitable habitat for Heller’s blazing star within the study area. There
are no high elevation ledges, rock outcrops, cliffs, or balds at elevations of 3,500–
5,999 feet above mean sea level within the study area. Elevations in the study
area do not exceed 1,110 feet above mean sea level. A review of the NHP
records, updated April 2018, indicates no known Heller’s blazing star occurrence
within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Mountain Golden Heather
USFWS optimal survey window: late May-early June

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There is no suitable habitat for mountain golden heather within the study area.
There are no rock cliffs and shrub balds at elevations of 2,800-4,000 feet above
mean sea level within the study area. Elevations in the study area do not exceed
1,110 feet above mean sea level. A review of the NHP records, updated April
2018, indicates no known mountain golden heather occurrences within 1.0 mile of
the study area.

Small whorled pogonia
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: mid May-early July

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable forested habitat for the small whorled pogonia exists in the project study
area (Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest). A survey of areas of suitable habitat was
conducted May 23, 2018. No small whorled pogonia individuals were found. A
review of the NHP records, updated April 2018, indicates no known small
whorled pogonia occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

4 August 2018

Spreading avens
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June-September

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
There is no suitable habitat for spreading avens within the study area. There are
no areas exposed to full sunlight at or above 4,200 feet above mean sea level
within the study area. Elevations in the study area do not exceed 1,110 feet above
mean sea level. A review of the NHP records, updated April 2018, indicates no
known spreading avens occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.

White irisette
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late May-July

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the white irisette does not exist in the project study area. The
study area has open, disturbed sites such as clearings, woodland edges, and
roadside embankments. However, elevations in the study area do not exceed
1,110 feet above mean sea level. A review of NHP records, updated April 2018,
indicates no known white irisette occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Rock gnome lichen
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year round

Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the rock gnome lichen does not exist within the study area.
There are no rocky outcrops or cliff habitats with a great deal of humidity and
seepage that flows only during wet periods. Elevations in the study area do not
exceed 2,180 feet above mean sea level. A review of the NHP records, updated
April 2018, indicates no known rock gnome lichen 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 April 19, 2018 using 2014 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
conducted. Additionally, a review of the NHP database on April 2018 revealed no
known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Due to the
Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

5 August 2018

lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact anticipated for this project, it has
been determined that this project will not affect this species.

4.3 Essential Fish Habitat

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has not identified any streams within the
project area as an Essential Fish Habitat.

5.0 WATER RESOURCES

Water resources in the study area are part of the Catawba River Basin [U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03050101]. One stream was identified in the study area
(Table 3). The location of each stream is shown in Figure 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)
UT to Drowning Creek SA 11-52-(1) WS-IV 4 20 18

No streams have been designated as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW). 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. The North 2016 Final 303(d) list
of impaired waters identifies no waters within the study area as an impaired water.

No jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters were identified in the study area.

6.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.

One jurisdictional stream was identified in the study area (Table 4). The location of this
stream is shown on Figure 3. North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) and
NCDWR stream identification forms are included a separate Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination (PJD) Package. All jurisdictional streams in the study area have been
designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.

Table 4. Characteristics of jurisdictional streams in the study area
Map ID Length
(ft.) Classification Compensatory
Mitigation Required
River Basin
Buffer
SA* 394 Perennial Undetermined Not Subject
Total 394
* NCSAM forms are available in the PJD package

Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

6 August 2018

6.2 Construction Moratoria

No streams in the study area have been identified as trout, anadromous fish, or primary
nursery waters. Therefore, no construction moratorium anticipated.

6.3 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules

The project is located within the Catawba River basin. Streamside riparian zones within
the study area are not protected under provisions of the administered by NCDWR

6.4 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters

No streams within the study area have been designated by the USACE as a Navigable
Water under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

6.5 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern

Burke County is not under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA).

6.6 Coastal Barrier Resources System

No Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units exist within the study area.
Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

7 August 2018

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. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version
2.0. Vicksburg, Mississippi

Menhinick, Edward F. 1991. Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. Charlotte: North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 227 pp.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed by NCDOT: October 19,
December 14, 2010).

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources.
2010. Basinwide Assessment Report. Catawba River Basin.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning/water-
resource-plans/catawba-river-basin

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water
Resources. 1999a. Internal Guidance Manual - N.C. Division of Water Quality
Stream Classification Method.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water
resources. 2010. North Carolina Stream ID Manual Version 4.11.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ws/401/waterresources/streamdeterminations

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources.
Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List 2016 303(d) list.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/303d/303d-files.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. NC
Water Classifications by Standards. http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Guide to Federally Listed
Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. North Carolina Species.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species.aspx. (Accessed: June 19, 2018)
Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

8 August 2018

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Fourth Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, NC. 592 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006.
Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina.

United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Plants
Database. http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Appropriation Act of 1899.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/sect10.cfm

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Determination of Hudsonia montana to be a Threatened Species, With
Critical Habitat. 45 FR 69360-69363.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides) Recovery Plan, First Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 75 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Spreading Avens Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
GA. 32 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. White Irisette Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
Georgia. 22 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for Rock Gnome Lichen
(Gymnoderma lineare) (Evans) Yoshimura and Sharp. Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Recovery Plan for Liatrus helleri Porter
(Heller’s Blazing Star). First Revision. Atlanta, GA. 25 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North
Carolina’s Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species.
http://www.fws.gov/nces/ es/plant_survey.html. (Accessed by NCDOT: December
14, 2010).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, Draft. Asheville, NC. 51 pp.

Natural Resources Technical Report 17BP.13.R.153, Burke County, N.C.

9 August 2018

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long-Eared Bat Interim
Conference and Planning Guidance. USFWS Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidanc
e6Jan2014.pdf. (Accessed by NCDOT: February 20, 2015.)

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Northern Long-Eared Bat Project Planning
Guidance. Asheville Ecological Services Field Office.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Bog Turtles in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/reptile/bogtur.html. (Accessed by NCDOT: February 22,
2008).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Burke County, NC.
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/burke.html. (Accessed: June 19,
2018).

Appendix A
Figures

Dwarf-Flowered HeartleafEO - 22233
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI,Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISUser Community Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Replace Bridge Number 209 on SR 1623over UT to Drowning Creek Burke County, North Carolina
Study Area
Known DFHL PopulationMay 2018 ²0.5 0 0.50.25 Miles
Project Location:Burke County, NC
Lat 35.7274 / Long -81.4482
USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, National Elevation Dataset, GeographicNames Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, NationalStructures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; U.S. Census Bureau - TIGER/Line; HERERoad Data Figure 2: USGS Map
Replace Bridge Number 209 on SR 1623over UT to Drowning Creek Burke County, North Carolina
Study Area
May 2018 ²1,000 0 1,000500Feet
Data Source: USGS TNM Topo Base MapLongview
S
AS
A
NCCGIA
Figure 3: Jurisdictional Features Map
Replace Bridge Number 209 on SR 1623over UT to Drowning Creek Burke County, North Carolina2014 NC Statewide Aerial ImageryMay 2018 ²150 0 15075Feet Study Area
Perennial Stream
NCCGIA
Figure 4: Terrestrial Communities Map
Replace Bridge Number 209 on SR 1623over UT to Drowning Creek Burke County, North Carolina
2014 NC Statewide Aerial ImageryMay 2018 ²150 0 15075Feet
Study Area
Maintained/Disturbed (3.9 ac)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (0.9 ac)

Appendix B
Qualifications of Contributors

Principal
Investigator: Joseph Sullivan
Education: M.S. Natural Resources 2011
B.S. Biology 2008
B.A. Environmental Studies 2008
Experience: Environmental Scientist, KCI Associates of NC., 2015-Present
Environmental Scientist, Carolina Ecosystems Inc. 2013-2015
Ecological Technician, N.C. Dept. Cultural Resources 2009-2012
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, GPS data collection, stream
assessment, natural communities assessment, T/E species assessment,
document preparation

Investigator: Tommy Seelinger
Education: B.A. Biology, 2013
Experience: Environmental Scientist, KCI Associates of NC., 2012-Present
Responsibilities: Document review