20201820 Ver 1_U-5738 Cover Lettter_FINAL COMBINED_R_20210920

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER J. ERIC BOYETTE
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

September 17, 2021

Andy Williams Dave Wanucha
US Army Corps of Engineers NC Division of Water Resources
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Winston Salem Regional Office
Wake Forest, NC 27587 450 West Hanes Mill Road Suite 300
Winston Salem, NC 2105
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Regional General Permit and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for Julian Road Widening Project in Rowan County; TIP
No. U-5738, WBS: 50136.1.1

Dear Mr. Williams and Mr. Wanucha,

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in accordance with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to widen Julian Road (SR 2528) in Rowan County,
North Carolina.

The purpose of this letter is to request approval for a Section 404 Regional General Permit and
Section 401 Water Quality Certification. In addition to this cover letter, the following has been
included to assist your review:

• Appendix A – Wetland and Stream Impact Maps
• Appendix B – Final Natural Resources Technical Report
• Appendix C – Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Package
• Appendix D – Cultural Resource Documentation
• Appendix E – Final Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist
• Appendix F – FEMA Documentation

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will widen SR 2528 (Julian Road, an existing local arterial/minor thoroughfare)
between SR 2578 (Klumac Road) / I-85 and U.S. 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) from a two-
lane ditch section (with approximate ROW width of 60 feet) to a four-lane, divided facility (on
110-ft ROW) with a 23-foot-raised median, curb and gutter, 5-foot striped bike lanes and sidewalks
on both sides of the roadway. Existing design speed of 50 mph will be retained with the proposed
improvement of the facility to a major collector. A full movement traffic signal is proposed at
Julian Rd. / Corporate Circle (South) / W. Ritchie Rd. and a directional median crossover is
proposed at Corporate Circle (North) that allows northbound U‐turns and southbound lefts onto
Corporate Circle. A proposed triangular raised island will also create a yield condition for
eastbound Jake Alexander Blvd. to southbound Julian Road right turns, improving safety for traffic
exiting Old Julian Road. Also, new, extended or restriped turn lanes at all intersections are
proposed to expand storage.

PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve capacity and facilitate safe and efficient multi‐
modal operations by widening the roadway, controlling left turn movements with a median and
directional crossovers, and installing striped bike lanes and sidewalks.

PROJECT SCHEDULE
Currently, U-5738 is scheduled to LET in 2022.

INDEPENDENT UTILITY
This project exhibits the following characteristics of independent utility of a project:
1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address environmental
matters on a broad scope.
2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure, even if no additional transportation
improvements are made in the area.
3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable
transportation improvements.

NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
The proposed project qualifies as a Non-Major Action under the Minimum Criteria rules and a
Minimum Criteria Determination Checklist was completed to satisfy the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) documentation requirements.

RESOURCE STATUS
Water Quality Classification

The U-5738 project is located entirely in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin [U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03040103].

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

There are no designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or
water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. There are
no designated anadromous fish waters or Primary Nursery Areas (PNA) present in the study area.
Town Creek appears on the North Carolina 2018 Final 303(d) list of impaired waters for turbidity
(Collection year 2012).

Jurisdictional Determination

Waters of the U.S. identified within the project study area include 975-linear feet of jurisdictional
stream and 0.15 acres of jurisdictional wetlands.

Wetland and stream delineations have been completed for the project. The delineation was field
verified by both the USACE and DWR. USACE issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
on April 3, 2017, and the DWR issued a determination on March 20, 2017.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid
and minimize jurisdictional impacts and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken throughout the planning and
design stages, and minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.

Proposed permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas total approximately 0.050 acres of wetland
impacts and approximately 1,030 linear feet of stream impacts (424 linear feet of temporary and
606 linear feet of permanent). Tables 1 and 2 summarize the wetland and stream impacts
resulting from the proposed project as well as the compensatory mitigation requirements.

NCDOT has obtained compensatory mitigation for 257 linear feet of stream impacts from the
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to compensate for unavoidable impacts to
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proposed project.

IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES

The proposed project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the U.S. in
project area to the greatest extent practicable. However, unavoidable impacts will occur from the
proposed project. Tables 1 and 2 summarize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams,
respectively. Site numbers correspond with the permit (hydraulic) drawings included with this
application and the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, dated April 3, 2017.

The culvert extension at Julian Branch (Site 1A) was designed to match existing conditions and
as such, the culvert will not be buried in this location. Based on findings from the field, there are
no sills cast into the existing culvert which is being extended. One barrel (the left barrel, facing
downstream) is buried approximately 1-foot with sediment. The channel dimensions at the
culvert inlet/outlet do approximate the dimensions of a single barrel, and a floodplain bench is
clearly present, particularly on the outlet end. This detail is intended to match existing
conditions.

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

All impacts are located in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. Stream classification and statuses are
listed in Table 2.

Table 1. U-5738 Impacted Jurisdictional Wetlands Impacts
Site
# Reason
Impact
Type Type of Wetland
Wetland
Name
Forested
(Y/N)
Type of
Jurisdiction
Impacted
Area
(AC)
2B
Roadway
Fill/Rip Rap Permanent Headwater Forest WB Y 404/401 0.01
2D
Mechanized
Clearing Permanent Headwater Forest WB Y 404/401 0.01
3
Roadway
Fill/Rip Rap Permanent Headwater Forest WD Y 404/401 0.02
4
E&SC
Mechanized
Clearing Permanent Floodplain Pool WA Y 404/401 0.01
Table 2. U-5738 Impacted Jurisdictional Impacts
Site
# Reason
Impact
Type Type of Impact
Stream
Type
Type of
Jurisdiction
Stream
Width
(LF)
Impact
Length
(LF)
1A Culvert Extension Permanent Culvert Perennial 404/401 9 80
1B Rip Rap Permanent Bank Stabilization Perennial 404/401 9 67
1B Rip Rap Temporary Bank Stabilization Perennial 404/401 9 75
2A Bank Stabilization Permanent Bank Stabilization Perennial 404/401 3 10
2B Dewatering Temporary Dewatering Perennial 404/401 3 318
2C Utility Relocation Temporary Other Perennial 404/401 3 36
2D Roadway Fill Permanent Fill Perennial 404/401 3 177
5A Bank Stabilization Permanent Bank Stabilization Perennial 404/401 18 90
5A Bank Stabilization Temporary Bank Stabilization Perennial 404/401 18 78
5C Bridge Replacement Temporary Other Perennial 404/401 18 99

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for Rowan
County: The Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and the Northern long-eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis). Suitable habitat for Schweinitz’s sunflower is present in the study area.
Therefore, surveys were conducted by SEPI biologists on September 15, 2016, August 12, 2019
and most recently, September 7, 2021. No individuals of Schweinitz’s sunflower were observed
during any of the surveys. A review of Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records was performed
for the project by NHP staff on September 9, 2021. No known occurrences are present within 1.0
mile of the study area. A biological conclusion of No Effect was determined for this species.

In western North Carolina, the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) spend winter hibernating in caves
and mines. Surveys of the existing bridge over Town Creek and the culvert conveying the UT to
Town Creek (SB) under Julian Road were performed by NCDOT Division 9 Environmental
Officer, Amy Euliss, on September 10, 2021. Surveys followed the SOP outlined in the NCDOT
Preliminary Bat Habitat Assessment (Structures Caves & Mines) June 2021. No bats or evidence
of bats was identified in the structures.

According to the NHP Biotics Database, most recently updated July 2021, the nearest NLEB
hibernacula record is 65 miles west (Burke County) and no known NLEB roost trees occur within
150 feet of the project area.

NCDOT has also reviewed the USFWS Asheville Field office website
(http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmls/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html) for consistency with
NHP records. This project is located entirely outside of the red highlighted areas (12-digit HUC)
that the USFWS Asheville Field Office has determined to be representative of an area that may
require consultation.

We believe that Situation 1 of the SLOPES (Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered
Species Act Compliance for the Northern Long-Eared Bat in North Carolina) agreement applies
to this project.

MORATORIUMS
Construction moratoria are not anticipated for this project. There are no designated anadromous
fish spawning areas within Rowan County.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH)
The project will not impact any Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) identified by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and NMFS has not requested further consultation regarding EFH.

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A review of the project was conducted by the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on June 30,
2016. According to OSA findings, there is low probability for prehistoric and /or historic
archaeological materials to be present within the Study Area. No archaeological survey is required
for this project. Documentation of the archaeological review is included with this application.

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
A review of State Historic Preservation (HPO) quad maps, relevant background reports, historic
designations roster, and indexes was undertaken on July 12, 2016. Based on this review there are
no NR, DE, LL or SL in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). One structure is present in the APE,
greater than 50 years of age. The structure is typical of a ranch style house from that time period
and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. No survey is required.
Documentation of the historic architectural review is included with this application.

SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES

The project did not require a determination under Section 4(f)

FEMA COMPLIANCE
The project study area is located in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain (Panel 5659). As such
the project has received a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a final Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA). Copies of the CLOMR and MOA are included with this application.

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Avoidance and minimization of impacts to protected and valued resources were incorporated
throughout the design process. A detailed delineation of wetland and streams was initially
performed to ensure the limitations of impacts to natural resources. As a result, proposed
disturbance limits were shifted to avoid impacts, where possible.

The initial design proposed an aerial sewer crossing at Town Creek. Ultimately, the Town Creek
impacts were minimized by utilizing the existing crossing of Town Creek in the proposed sewer
design. Furthermore, in areas around and under Town Creek, all utilities will be installed via
directional bore. Wetland impacts have been further minimized by steepening fill slopes and
elongating erosion control basins where appropriate.

In addition, implementation of NCDOT’s Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (BMPs) will minimize impacts to water resources during the preconstruction, construction,
maintenance, and repair situations. The existing 3-span bridge over Town Creek will be replaced
with a wider 2 span structure to minimize stream impacts. The water line across the main stem of
Town Creek is proposed to be constructed using horizontal directional drilling eliminating stream
impacts at this location resulting from the utility crossing. Furthermore, the plans specify that there

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127
Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27127

will be no disturbance to the existing streambed outside of the utility location areas in SA (UT to
Town Creek) that runs parallel the project.

INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Existing rules for the Water Quality Certification Program (15A NCAC 2H .0506(b)(4) require
that DWR determine that a project “does not result in cumulative impacts based on past or
reasonably anticipated future impacts that cause or will cause a violation of downstream impacts,
that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards”.

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve capacity and facilitate safe and efficient multi‐
modal operations by widening the roadway. No additional development is anticipated as a result
of this project.

The project is not expected to have a notable indirect effect to land use or development patterns in
the area. In addition, because few indirect impacts are anticipated, the cumulative effect of th is
project, when considered in context with other past, present and future actions and the resulting
impact on notable human and natural features, should also be minimal.

The project will address increases in impervious surfaces and associated stormwater runoff in the
individual project design through the use of stormwater management control devices (SCMs).

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Amy Euliss at
[e-mail] or [phone].

Sincerely,

Amy Euliss
Division 9 PDEA Engineer

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

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

APPENDIX A
PERMIT PLANS

(Version 2.07; Released October 2016)
50163.1.1 TIP No.:U-5738 County(ies):Rowan Page 1 of 2
TIP Number: Date:
Phone: Phone:
Email: Email:
County(ies):
CAMA County?
Yes
Design/Future: Year:
2040 Existing: Year:
Aquatic T&E Species?No Comments:
Yes N/A
No
None
No
turbidity
None
Buffer Rules in Effect:Town Creek
Supplemental Classification:
Urban
Town Creek 12-115-3
11.7
1.258 Miles
Project Description
City/Town:
15.8
Typical Cross Section Description:
Surrounding Land Use:
Wetlands within Project Limits?
General Project Narrative:
(Description of Minimization of Water
Quality Impacts)
No
[e-mail]
Address:
Proposed Project
Yadkin-Pee DeeRiver Basin(s):
Highway Division 9
Sept 2021
RowanSalisbury
Matt W Jones, PE
Winston Salem, NC 27127
KCI Associates of NC
[e-mail]
WBS Element:
Roadway WideningWBS Element:
Greg Brickham, PENCDOT Contact:
[phone]
4505 Falls of Neuse Rd, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Contractor / Designer:
[phone]
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
Project Type:
375 Silas Creek Parkway
Address:
General Project Information
U-573850163.1.1
Impairments:
Other Stream Classification:
Primary Classification:
Project Built-Upon Area (ac.)
The proposed project will widen a portion of Julian Road (SR 2528) from 1 to 2 lanes (median divided) in both directions, adding curb & gutter and sidewalk throughout. The widening
begins at the intersection of Julian Road and Klumac Road (SR 2541) and will end at the intersection with Jake Alexander Blvd. (SR 1007). The project will cross over 2 waterbodies,
Julian Branch and Town Creek. Town Creek is listed on the 303(D) impaired waters list. An existing 7’x8’ double box culvert at STA 41+19 over Julian Branch will be extended due to
road widening and proposed fill slopes. The existing 3-span bridge at STA 69+96.5 over Town Creek will be replaced with a wider, 2-span structure to minimize stream impacts. There
are no proposed bents in the water and no deck drains over water.
There are wetlands within the proposed project limits. Fill activities will result in 0.03 AC. of permanent fill in wetlands. Erosion control activities and roadway fill will result in a total of 0.02
AC. of mechanized clearing in wetlands. Wetland impacts have been minimized by steepening fill slopes and elongating erosion control basins where appropriate. There will be 187 LF of
permanent impacts and 354 LF of temporary impacts to a parallel jurisdictional stream (to Town Creek) starting at STA 65+54 RT. The proposed culvert extension along Julian Branch
will result in 147 LF of permanent channel impacts and 75 LF of temporary channel impacts. Bank stabilization and the bridge replacement and along the Town Creek main stem will
result in 90 LF of permanent and 177 LF of temporary channel impacts. The water line across the Town Creek main stem starting at STA 71+32 RT is proposed to be designed using
horizontal directional drilling, therefore there will be no stream impacts at this location due to utility construction. The total project impacts will result in 0.03 AC. permanent fill in wetlands,
0.02 AC.mechanized clearing in wetlands, 0.09 AC. of permanent surface water impacts, 0.14 AC. of temporary surface water impacts, 424 LF of permanent channel impacts and 606
LF of temporary channel impacts. Riparian buffer rules do not apply for the Yadkin Pee-Dee River basin.
Stormwater controls: Roadway runoff will be conveyed by curb & gutter and discharged into vegetated or riprap lined ditches prior to entering Julian Branch or Town Creek. The portion
of the project from -L- STA 13+05 to STA 52+04 drains to Julian Branch and the portion from -L- STA 52+04 to 79+23 drains to Town Creek. Town Creek is on the 2020 303(d) list for
turbidity, therefore Environmentally Sensitive Areas have been added to be within 50 ft from the top of bank for all jurisdictional streams and all erosion control basins have been
designed to the 25-yr storm event to accommodate this designation.
ac.
biological impairment
24000
(4) - 12' travel lanes with 23' median, 5' bike lanes & sidewalk at culvert.
(4) - 12' travel lanes with 5.5' median, 5' bike lanes & sidewalk at bridge.
Waterbody Information
2020
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
(2) - 12' travel lanes with 5' paved shoulders at culvert.
(2) - 11' travel lanes with 3' paved shoulders at bridge.
26800
NRTR Stream ID:
Annual Avg Daily Traffic (veh/hr/day):
Existing Site
Project Length (lin. miles or feet):
ac.
Surface Water Body (1):
Class CNCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?N/A
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(Version 2.07; Released October 2016)
WBS Element:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Stormwater Program
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR NCDOT PROJECTS
50163.1.1 TIP No.:U-5738 County(ies):Rowan Page 2 of 2
Aquatic T&E Species?No Comments:
No N/A
N/A
Aquatic T&E Species?No Comments:
No N/A
N/A
Aquatic T&E Species?Comments:
Aquatic T&E Species?Comments:
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
NRTR Stream ID:
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer?
None
Surface Water Body (3):
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
biological impairment
Project Includes Bridge Spanning Water Body? Deck Drains Discharge Over Buffer? Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?N/A
Dissipator Pads Provided in Buffer?N/A
Impairments:biological impairment turbidity
Other Stream Classification: None
Supplemental Classification:
Class C
None
Primary Classification:
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
Surface Water Body (5): NCDWR Stream Index No.:
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
Primary Classification:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body Primary Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
NRTR Stream ID:
Impairments:
Buffer Rules in Effect:
SA
Supplemental Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Other Stream Classification:
Impairments:turbidity
NRTR Stream ID:
Class CPrimary Classification:
Supplemental Classification:
NCDWR Stream Index No.:12-115-3
12-115-3
None
(If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
NCDWR Stream Index No.:
Additional Waterbody Information
Buffer Rules in Effect:No
SB Buffer Rules in Effect:No
WBS Element:
Surface Water Body (2):
UT2 to Town Creek (Julian Branch)
UT1 to Town Creek (parallel to Julian Rd starting at STA 65+54 RT)
NCDWR Surface Water Classification for Water Body
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative) (If yes, describe in the General Project Narrative; if no, justify in the
General Project Narrative)
Deck Drains Discharge Over Water Body?
(If yes, provide justification in the General Project Narrative)
NRTR Stream ID:
Surface Water Body (4):
Impairments:
Hand Existing Existing
Permanent Temp. Excavation Mechanized Clearing Permanent Temp. Channel Channel Natural
Site Station Structure Fill In Fill In in Clearing in SW SW Impacts Impacts Stream
No. (From/To) Size / Type Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands in Wetlands Wetlands impacts impacts Permanent Temp. Design
(ac)(ac)(ac)(ac)(ac)(ac)(ac)(ft)(ft)(ft)
1A 40+24 LT TO 41+32 RT
Structure - 2 @ 7'x8' RCBC
Extension 0.02 80
1B 40+24 LT TO 41+32 RT Bank Stabilization 0.02 0.02 67 75
2A 65+54 RT TO 65+64 RT Bank Stabilization < 0.01 10
2B
65+64 RT TO 66+73 RT
67+09 RT TO 69+15 RT Dewatering Operation 0.01 0.04 318
2C 66+73 RT TO 67+09 RT Utility Relocation < 0.01 36
2D
67+67 RT TO 68+13 RT
69+15 RT TO 70+91 RT Roadway Fill/Impacts < 0.01 0.02 177
3 68+95 LT TO 69+87 LT Roadway Fill 0.02
4 69+66 LT TO 69+92 LT E&SC Measures < 0.01
5A 70+27 LT TO 71+70 RT Bank Stabilization 0.03 0.04 90 78
5B 70+52 LT TO 71+12 RT Bridge Replacement 0.03 99

TOTALS*:0.03 0.02 0.09 0.14 424 606 0
*Rounded totals are sum of actual impacts
NOTES:
Revised 2016 09 09 SHEET 19 OF 19

WETLAND AND SURFACE WATER IMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
ROWAN COUNTY
PROJECT: U-5738
WBS-50163.1.1
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Sept 2021

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

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

APPENDIX B
FINAL NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Widening of Julian Road (SR 2528) from US 601 (Jake Alexander Blvd.) to
I-85 Southbound Off-ramp (Klumak Dr.) and Addition of Sidewalk
on west side of Julian Road from I-85 Southbound On-ramp
to SR 2667 (Summit Park Drive)
Rowan County, North Carolina

TIP U-5738
WBS Element No. 50163.1.1

DIVISION 9
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

April 2017

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 Early-Successional Mixed Piedmont Forest .................................................................. 4
4.1.4 Piedmont Bottomland Forest .......................................................................................... 4
4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts ..................................................................................... 4
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................. 4
4.3 Aquatic Communities ......................................................................................................... 5
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 ........................................................................................ 7
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts................................................................... 7
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 ................................................................... 8
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ................................................................... 9
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat ....................................................................................................... 9
6.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 10

Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map
Figure 4. Natural 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 ......................... 6
Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Rowan County .................................... 7
Table 8. Candidate species listed for Rowan County ................................................... 9

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
1 April 2017
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen Julian
Road (SR 2528) from US 601 (Jake Alexander Blvd.) to the I-85 southbound off-ramp
(Klumak Dr.) and add sidewalk on the west side of Julian Road from I-85 southbound on-
ramp to Summit Park Drive (SR 2667) (TIP U-5738) in Rowan County (Figure 1). The
following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the
preparation of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Assessment
(EA) 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 August 29, 2016. Jurisdictional areas were verified on March 8, 2017 by James
Lastinger of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The principal personnel
contributing to this document were:

Principal
Investigator: Kim Hamlin
Education: M.S. Natural Resources, 2011
Experience: Project Scientist, SEPI Engineering, 2012-2016
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, natural communities assessment,
T&E species assessment, GIS, and document preparation

Investigator: Eric Black
Education: B.S. Biology, 1991
Experience: Environmental Scientist, SEPI Engineering, 2016-Present
Environmental Scientist, HSMM, 2002-2005
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, 1999-2002
Environmental Technician, NCDWQ, 1997-1999
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, natural communities assessment,
T&E species assessment

Additional personnel who contributed to portions of the field work and/or documentation
for this project were Elisabeth Webster and Susan Westberry. Appendix D lists the
qualifications of these contributors.

3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

The study area lies in the piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina (Figure 2).
Topography in the project vicinity is comprised of gently rolling hills with narrow, level
floodplains along streams. Elevations in the study area range from 700 to 775 ft. above
sea level. Land use in the project vicinity consists primarily of commercial development
along roadways, forestland along stream corridors, and some vacant land.

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
2 April 2017

3.1 Soils

The Rowan County Soil Survey identifies seven mapping units within the study area
(Table 1).

Table 1. Soils in the study area
Soil Series Mapping
Unit Drainage Class Hydric
Status
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2-
8% slopes, eroded CeB2 Well drained Nonhydric
Chewacla loam, 0-2%
slopes, frequently flooded ChA Somewhat poorly drained Hydric
Enon fine sandy loam, 2-
8% slopes EnB Well drained Nonhydric
Enon fine sandy loam, 8-
15% slopes EnC Well drained Nonhydric
Mecklenburg loam, 2-8%
slopes MbB Well drained Nonhydric
Mecklenburg loam, 8-15%
slopes MbC Well drained Nonhydric
Udorthents, loamy Ud Well drained Nonhydric
* - 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 Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin [U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03040103]. 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 NCDWR Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Town Creek Town Creek 12-115-3 C
UT1 to Town Creek SA 12-115-3 C
UT2 to Town Creek SB 12-115-3 C

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
3 April 2017

Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area
Map ID
Bank
Height
(ft)
Bankful
Width (ft)
Water
Depth (in)
Channel
Substrate Velocity Clarity
Town Creek
3 18 6
Silt, Sand,
Cobble,
Gravel
Slow Clear
SA
1 3 0.25-6
Silt, Sand,
Cobble,
Gravel
Slow Clear
SB
2 9 0.5-6
Silt, Sand,
Cobble,
Gravel,
Bedrock
Slow Clear

There are no designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
(HQW), or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within 1.0 mile downstream of the
study area. There are no designated anadromous fish waters or Primary Nursery Areas
(PNA) present in the study area. Town Creek appears on the North Carolina 2014 Final
303(d) list of impaired waters for turbidity (Collection year 2012). No benthic sampling
has been conducted within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area.

4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES

4.1 Terrestrial Communities

Four terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: maintained/disturbed,
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), early-successional mixed piedmont
forest, and Piedmont Bottomland 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 areas are scattered throughout the study area in places where the
vegetation is periodically mowed, such as roadside shoulders, powerline corridors,
residential lawns, and landscaped areas outside of businesses. The vegetation in this
community is comprised of low growing grasses, vines, and herbs including crabgrass,
Japanese honeysuckle, Japanese stilt grass, poison ivy, grape, trumpet vine, Carolina
horsenettle, ragweed, red clover, Virginia creeper, hibiscus, common rush, partridge pea,
Chinese privet, and lespedeza.

4.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont subtype) community occurs along Town
Creek and near stream SB on the west side of Julian Road. Red maple, sweetgum, green
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
4 April 2017
ash, and slippery elm dominate the overstory canopy, while flowering dogwood,
baccharis, eastern redbud, Chinese privet, pignut hickory, white ash, winged elm, willow
oak, and pawpaw occur in the mid- and understory. The herb layer consists of Spanish
bayonet, Joe Pye weed, multiflora rose, and common jewelweed. Wetlands WA, WB,
and WD occur within this community type.

4.1.3 Early-Successional Mixed Piedmont Forest
The early-successional mixed piedmont forest community exists in two small patches in
the middle of the study area. Dominant species in this community include loblolly pine,
Virginia pine, and sweetgum in the overstory, and sweetgum, wax myrtle, and eastern red
cedar in the midstory. The herb layer consists of trumpet vine, lespedeza, and raspberry.

4.1.4 Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Two small areas of Piedmont Bottomland Forest are present within the southern portion
of the study area on the east side of Julian Road. Green ash, red maple, sweetgum, and
American hornbeam dominate the overstory, while green ash, sweetgum, silky dogwood,
arrowwood viburnum, and American elm make up the midstory. Within the herb layer is
poison ivy, grape, and Virginia creeper. Both stream SB and Wetland WC are present
within this community type.

4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction
because 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 are presented in the context of total coverage of each
type within the study area (Table 4). Once a final alignment and preliminary design have
been determined, probable impacts to each community type will be calculated.

Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community Coverage (ac.)
Maintained/ Disturbed 13.1
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) 4.3
Early-Successional Mixed Piedmont Forest 0.5
Piedmont Bottomland Forest 1.4
Total 19.3

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 observed are
indicated with *). Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and stream
corridors found within the study area include species such as raccoon*, Virginia
opossum, Eastern grey squirrel*, white-tailed deer*, groundhog*, and beaver*. Birds that
commonly use forest and forest edge habitats include the American crow*, blue jay*,
Carolina chickadee*, tufted titmouse*, northern cardinal*, and mourning dove*. Birds
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
5 April 2017
that may use the open habitat or water bodies within the study area include red-
shouldered hawk*, Carolina wren*, eastern bluebird, and turkey vulture*. Reptile and
amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study area include
the corn snake, eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, and five-lined skink*.

4.3 Aquatic Communities

Aquatic communities in the study area consist of perennial piedmont streams. Perennial
streams in the study area could support bluehead chub, redlip shiner, rosyside dace, flat
bullhead, brown bullhead, redbreast sunfish, and northern dusky salamander.

4.4 Invasive Species

Five species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found
to occur in the study area. The species identified were Chinese privet (Threat), multiflora
rose (Threat), lespedeza (Threat), Japanese honeysuckle (Moderate Threat), and Japanese
stilt grass (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 location of
these streams is shown on Figure 3. USACE and NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) stream delineation forms are included in Appendix C for those streams where
there was jurisdictional ambiguity or degradation. 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
Mitigation Required
River Basin
Buffer
Town Creek 311 Perennial Yes Not Subject
SA 549 Perennial* Yes Not Subject
SB 115 Perennial Yes Not Subject
Total 975
* Stream SA has been determined perennial due to the presence of salamanders, crayfish, and various fish
species observed in all reaches of the stream channel within the project study area.

Four jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area (Figure 3). Wetland
classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 6. All wetlands in the study
area are within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03040103).
USACE wetland delineation forms and NCDWR wetland rating forms for each site are
included in Appendix C. Descriptions of the terrestrial communities at each wetland site
are presented in Section 4.1. Wetland sites WA, WB, and WD are included within the
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
6 April 2017
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont subtype) community, and wetland site WC is
described under the Piedmont Bottomland Forest community.

Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area
Map ID NCWAM
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
NCDWR Wetland
Rating Area (ac.)
WA Floodplain Pool Riparian 28 0.01
WB Headwater Forest Riparian 37 0.03
WC Headwater Forest Riparian 16 0.09
WD Headwater Forest Riparian 24 0.02
Total 0.15

5.2 Clean Water Act Permits

The proposed project has been designated as an Environmental Assessment (EA) for
the purposes of the North Carolina (State) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
documentation. As a result, a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 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 road and
bridge construction. 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 NCDWR will be needed.

5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern

Rowan County is not designated as a coastal county; therefore, Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) regulations do not apply.

5.4 Construction Moratoria

Construction moratoria are not anticipated for this project. There are no designated
anadromous fish spawning areas within Rowan County.

5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules

There are no buffer rules in effect within Rowan County for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
basin.

5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters

Town Creek has not been designated by the USACE as a Navigable Water under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
7 April 2017
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.
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 Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS).

5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species

As of April 2,2015, the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists two federally
protected species for Rowan County (Table 7). A brief description of each species’
habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on
survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the
current best available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS.

Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Rowan County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz’s sunflower E Y Unresolved
Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T --- *
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
* May Effect – NLEB is exempt due to consistency with the 4(d) rule

Schweinitz's sunflower
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: late August-October

Habitat Description: Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of North and
South Carolina. The few sites where this rhizomatous perennial herb occurs in
relatively natural vegetation are found in Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is
also found along roadside rights-of-way, maintained power lines and other utility
rights-of-way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings and edges of upland
oak-pine-hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and other sunny or
semi-sunny habitats where disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow
downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or partially open areas for sunlight.
It is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other vegetation.
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
8 April 2017
Schweinitz’s sunflower occurs in a variety of soil series, including Badin, Cecil,
Cid, Enon, Gaston, Georgeville, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Misenheimer, Secrest,
Tatum, Uwharrie, and Zion, among others. It is generally found growing on
shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor, clayey hardpans; or
shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks.

Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz’s sunflower is present in the study area along
roadside shoulders, disturbed areas, and utility easements. Surveys were initially
conducted by SEPI biologists throughout areas of suitable habitat on September
15, 2016. No individuals of Schweinitz’s sunflower were observed. The project
study area was expanded in January 2017. Consequently, an additional survey for
Schweinitz’s sunflowers is scheduled in the expanded project study area in
summer 2017. A review of NCNHP records was performed for the project by
NHP staff on August 23, 2016. No known occurrences are present within 1.0
mile of the study area.

Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: June 1 – August 15
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western
North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this
species is not known to be a long-distance migrant and caves and subterranean
mines are extremely rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or
where NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live
and dead trees (typically ≥3 inches dbh). Males and non-reproductive females
may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat also been found,
rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings,
behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on
forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings, over water,
and along tree-lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type
for foraging.

Biological Conclusion: May Effect
NCDOT has determined that the proposed action does not require separate
consultation on the grounds that the proposed action is consistent with the final
Section 4(d) rule, codified at 50 C.F.R. § 17.40(o) and effective February 16,
2016. NCDOT may presume its determination is informed by best available
information and consider Section 7 responsibilities fulfilled for NLEB.”

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.
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
9 April 2017

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 October
17, 2016 using 2015 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 NCNHP records
was performed for the project by NHP staff on August 23, 2016. No known occurrences
are present within 1.0 mile of the 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.

5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species

As of April 2, 2015, the USFWS lists one Candidate species for Rowan County (Table 8).
A review of NCNHP records was performed for the project by NHP staff on August 23,
2016. No known occurrences are present within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Table 8. Candidate species listed for Rowan County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Present
Symphyotrichum georgianum Georgia aster No

5.11 Essential Fish Habitat

Rowan County is considered and inland county; therefore, no Essential Fish Habitat is
present in or within 1.0 mile of the study area.

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
10 April 2017

6.0 REFERENCES

Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals: North
America North of Mexico. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 255 pp.

Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians (Eastern
and Central North America). 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 450 pp.

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. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual,
memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.

Environmental Laboratory. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version
2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program.
ERDC/EL TR-12-9. April 2012.

Harrar, E.S. and J.G. Harrar. 1962. Guide to Southern Trees. New York: Dover
Publications. 2nd ed. 709 pp.

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.

National Geographic. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 3rd ed.
Washington, D.C. National Geographic Society.

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth
version.

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2008. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Plan. Raleigh, North Carolina.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Water%20Quality/Planning/BPU/BPU/Yadkin/Yadkin%20Plans/2010%20
Plan/Yadkin%202008%20Plan%20with%20IR%20and%20Bio%20Appendice.pd
f

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2014. 2014 NC 303(d) List – Category 5 Final. December 19, 2014.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=140d4802-dc9e-4e4a-
8db2-1ec3a336ceca&groupId=38364
Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
11 April 2017

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program.
2016. Element Occurrence Shapefile. Biotics Database. Division of Land and
Water Stewardship. Raleigh, North Carolina. June 2016.

N.C. Department of Transportation. 2011. TE Plant Habitat Descriptions. June 29, 2011.
NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis. Natural
Environment Section.

N.C. Department of Transportation. 2012. Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina.
Cherri Smith. NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis.
Natural Environment Section.

N.C. Department of Transportation. 2012. TE Animal Habitat Descriptions. June 26,
2012. NCDOT, Project Development and Environmental Analysis. Natural
Environment Section.

N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1, October 2010. N.C. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb’s Wildflower Guide. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company. 490 pp.

Peterson, R.T., editor. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North
America. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 384 pp.

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.

Rohde, 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.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004.
Soil Survey of Rowan County, North Carolina.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998.
Hydrologic Units-North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina.

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5738, Rowan County, N.C.
12 April 2017
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Rowan County, North
Carolina. Updated April 5, 2015.

United States Geological Survey. 2016. Salisbury, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). Reston: 1 sheet.

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.

Appendix A
Figures

¯0 1,000500Feet
U-5738Julian Road (SR 2528) widening fromU.S. 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) to I-85
Rowan County, North CarolinaApril 2017
Figure 1Project VicinityProject Vicinity
^
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements andtherefore is not for design, construction, or recording or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled fromavailable information obtained from the sources listed below.
Sources:NCDOT, NC OneMap, ESRI
April 2017 I0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
1 inch = 1,000 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
Figure 2: Project Study Area Map
U-5738Julian Road (SR 2528) widening fromU.S. 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) to I-85
Legend
U-5738 Project Study Area
Salisbury, NC Quadrangle
§¨¦85
Julian Rd
Wetland C
SB
SA Town Creek
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland D Julian Rd
W Ritchie R
d
S Jake Alexander BlvdKlu
m
a
c

R
d
Truck A
v
e
Corporate Cir
Ja
c
o
b

B
o
s
t

R
d
Asbury Rd Sunset DrSt
a
t
e

R
o
a
d

1
5
2
9
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements andtherefore is not for design, construction, or recording or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled fromavailable information obtained from the sources listed below.
Sources:NCDOT, NC OneMap, ESRI
April 2017 I1 inch = 500 feetGRAPHIC SCALE
Figure 3 - Jurisdictional Features
U-5738Julian Road (SR 2528) widening fromU.S. 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) to I-85
Legend
U-5738 Project Study Area
Delineated Wetlands
Delineated Streams
Roads
500 0 500250Feet
§¨¦85
Julian Rd
Wetland C
SB
SA Town Creek
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland D Julian Rd
S
M
a
i
n

S
t
W Ritchie R
d
S Jake Alexander BlvdKlu
m
a
c

R
d
Truck A
v
e
Corporate Cir
Ja
c
o
b

B
o
s
t

R
d
Asbury Rd Sunset DrSt
a
t
e

R
o
a
d

1
5
2
9
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC 47-30 Requirements andtherefore is not for design, construction, or recording or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled fromavailable information obtained from the sources listed below.
Sources:NCDOT, NC OneMap, ESRI
April 2017 I1 inch = 500 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE Figure 4 - Natural Communities Map
U-5738Julian Road (SR 2528) widening fromU.S. 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) to I-85
Legend
U-5738 Project Study Area
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
Early-Successional Mixed Piedmont Forest
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Maintained/Disturbed
Delineated Wetlands
Delineated Streams
Roads
500 0 500250Feet
Appendix B

Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report

Plants
Common Name Scientific Name
American elm Ulmus americana
American hornbeam Carpinus caroliniana
Arrowwood viburnum Viburnum dentatum
Baccharis Baccharis halimifolia
Carolina horsenettle Solanum carolinense
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
Common jewelweed Impatiens capensis
Common rush Juncus effusus
Crabgrass Digitaria sp.
Eastern redbud Cercis canadensis
Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida
Grape Vitis sp.
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Hibiscus Hibiscus sp.
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Japanese stilt grass Microstegium vimineum
Joe Pye weed Eutrochium purpureum
Lespedeza Lespedeza sp.
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora
Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasciculate
Pawpaw Asimina triloba
Pignut hickory Carya glabra
Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Ragweed Ambrosia sp.
Raspberry Rubus sp.
Red clover Trifolium pretense
Red maple Acer rubrum
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra
Spanish bayonet Yucca sp.
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
Trumpet vine Campsis radicans
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Virginia pine Pinus virginiana
Wax myrtle Morella cerifera
White ash Fraxinus americana
Willow oak Quercus phellos
Winged elm Ulmus alata

Animals
Common Name Scientific Name
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Beaver Castor canadensis
Bluehead chub Nocomis leptoce
Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus
Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis
Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus
Corn snake Elaphe guttata
Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis
Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina
Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus
Eastern grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Five-lined skink Eumeces anthracinus
Flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus
Groundhog Marmota monax
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
Redlip shiner Notropis chiliticus
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus
Rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides
Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura
Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Appendix C
Stream and Wetland Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site: Latitude:
Evaluator: County: Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination: Other:
e.g. Quad Name: Stream is at least intermittent if
•19 or perennial if •30

A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool, ripple-
pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = )

Absent Weak Moderate Strong SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
*perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes:

Bank Height (feet)
Bankfull Width (feet)
Water Depth (inches)
Channel Substrate
Velocity:
Clarity:
Sketch:

Aug 29, 2016
27.5
Intermittent
Salisbury
6.5
9
12
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0.5
0
0
3
0
1.5
1
2
0.5
3
2
3
0
0
1.5
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
Silt, Sand, Gravel
Slow
Slightly Turbid
1
3
4
SA collects runoff from surrounding roadway and drop inlets along
the curb and in maintained grass areas below at least two
commercial parking lots.
U-5738 Julian Rd Widening
35.644923
-80.493966
SA
RowanK. Hamlin, E. Black
3
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name U-5738 - Julian Rd Widening (SA Low Reach)Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
LOW
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
K. Hamlin/SEPI Engineering
2016-08-29
YES
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name U-5738 - Julian Rd Widening (SA upper reach)Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
K. Hamlin/SEPI Engineering
2016-08-29
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
WA UP
29-Aug-16
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
U-5738 Julian Road Widening
NCDOT
K. Hamlin, E. Black
Floodplain
MLRA 240 LRR P
Rowan
NC

-80.49468235.645299
ChA - Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded None
NAD83

Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
2100.0%FAC
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
66.7%
30
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
70 210
2 8
0
20 100
0.0%
92 318
0.0%
3.457
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
40
20
2
0
0.0%
64.5%FAC
32.3%UPL
3.2%FACU
62
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than
3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m)
in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
WA UPSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Liquidambar styraciflua
Asimina triloba
(Plot size:30'
(Plot size:30'
Elaeagnus umbellata
Acer saccharum
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WA UPSoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
0-12+7.5YR 5/4 100 Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
WA WET
29-Aug-16
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
U-5738 Julian Road Widening
NCDOT
K. Hamlin, E. Black
Floodplain
MLRA 240 LRR P
Rowan
NC
-80.49465235.645307
ChA - Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded PFO1
NAD83
concave
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
Project Name __________________________________ Nearest Road ________________________
County ____________________ Wetland area _______acres Wetland width ________feet
Name of evaluator ________________________________________ Date ___________________
Wetland location
___ on pond or lake
___ on perennial stream
___ on intermittent stream
___ within interstream divide
___ other: ___________________________
Adjacent land use
(within ½ mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
___ forested/natural vegetation ____%
___ agriculture, urban/suburban ____%
___ impervious surface ____%
Soil series: __________________________
___ predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
___ predominantly mineral - non-sandy
___ predominantly sandy
Dominant vegetation
(1) _________________________________
(2) _________________________________
(3) _________________________________
Hydraulic factors
___ steep topography
___ ditched or channelized
___ total wetland width • 100 feet
Flooding and wetness
___ semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
___ seasonally flooded or inundated
___ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
___ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
___ Bottomland hardwood forest
___ Headwater forest
___ Swamp forest
___ Wet flat
___ Pocosin
___ Bog forest
___ Pine savanna
___ Freshwater marsh
___ Bog/fen
___ Ephemeral wetland
___ Carolina bay
___ Other: _____________________________
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
R Water storage _________x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization _________x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal ________** x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat _________x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value _________x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education _________x 1.00 =
Wetland
rating
**Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint source disturbance within ½ mile upstream, upslope, or radius
Wetland A
U-5738
Rowan 0.01
Julian Rd.
9
E. Black 10/19/2016
✔✔80
✔10
✔10
Chewacla loam 0-2 % slopes
✔
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Carex sp.
✔
1 4
1 4
1 5
1 2
12
28
3
1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
10.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
10 20
0.0%
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
10 20
0.0%
2.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%NI
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
10
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
10
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than
3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m)
in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
WA WETSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
(Plot size:30' circular
(Plot size:30' circular
(Plot size:30' circular
(Plot size:5' circular
Carex sp.
(Plot size:15' circular
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WA WETSoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
3-12+
3-12+
0-3
10YR
10YR
10YR
4/3
6/2
4/3
5
80
100
7.5YR 5/8 15 C PL
Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
WB UP
29-Aug-16
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
U-5738 Julian Road Widening
NCDOT
K. Hamlin, E. Black
Hillside
MLRA 240 LRR P
Rowan
NC

-80.49394935.644834
ChA - Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes, frequently floode None
NAD83

convex
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
20
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
4100.0%FAC
0.0%
40.0%
0.0%
100.0%
25
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
30 60
0.0%
65 195
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
95 255
0.0%
2.684
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
66.7%FAC
33.3%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
60
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
10
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
10
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than
3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m)
in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
WB UPSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sambucus nigra
(Plot size:30'
(Plot size:30'
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5'
Microstegium vimineum
Impatiens capensis
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WB UPSoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
0-12 10YR 4/6 100 Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
WB WET
29-Aug-16
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
U-5738 Julian Road Widening
NCDOT
K. Hamlin, E. Black
MLRA 240 LRR P
Rowan
NC

-80.49468235.644782
ChA - Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded PEM1
NAD83

Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
3
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
40
10
0
0
0
0
Yes No
20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10 10
0.0%
100 200
0.0%
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
110 210
0.0%
1.909
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
54.5%FACW
36.4%FACW
9.1%OBL
0.0%
0.0%
110
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than
3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m)
in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
WB WETSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:5' circular
Mikania scandens
Impatiens capensis
Sagittaria latifolia
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WB WETSoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
0-12+7.5YR 3/1 95 7.5YR 7/6 5 D M Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
Project Name __________________________________ Nearest Road ________________________
County ____________________ Wetland area _______acres Wetland width ________feet
Name of evaluator ________________________________________ Date ___________________
Wetland location
___ on pond or lake
___ on perennial stream
___ on intermittent stream
___ within interstream divide
___ other: ___________________________
Adjacent land use
(within ½ mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
___ forested/natural vegetation ____%
___ agriculture, urban/suburban ____%
___ impervious surface ____%
Soil series: __________________________
___ predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
___ predominantly mineral - non-sandy
___ predominantly sandy
Dominant vegetation
(1) _________________________________
(2) _________________________________
(3) _________________________________
Hydraulic factors
___ steep topography
___ ditched or channelized
___ total wetland width • 100 feet
Flooding and wetness
___ semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
___ seasonally flooded or inundated
___ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
___ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
___ Bottomland hardwood forest
___ Headwater forest
___ Swamp forest
___ Wet flat
___ Pocosin
___ Bog forest
___ Pine savanna
___ Freshwater marsh
___ Bog/fen
___ Ephemeral wetland
___ Carolina bay
___ Other: _____________________________
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
R Water storage _________x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization _________x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal ________** x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat _________x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value _________x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education _________x 1.00 =
Wetland
rating
**Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint source disturbance within ½ mile upstream, upslope, or radius
Wetland B
U-5738
Rowan 0.03
Julian Rd.
15
E. Black 10/19/2016
✔✔50
✔20
✔30
Chewacla loam 0-2 % slopes
✔
Impatiens campensis
Sagittaria sp.
Mikania scandens
✔
1 4
3 12
2 10
1 2
8
37
2
1 1
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
WC-UP
29-Aug-16
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
U-5738 Julian Road Widening
NCDOT
K. Hamlin, E. Black
Hillside
MLRA 240 LRR P
Rowan
NC

-80.49114935.63694
EnC- Enon fine sandy loan, 8 to 15 percent slopes None
NAD83

concave
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
20
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
325.0%FAC
75.0%FACW
40.0%
0.0%
75.0%
80
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
60 120
0.0%
25 75
5 20
0
0 0
0.0%
90 215
0.0%
2.389
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
10
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%FAC
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than
3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m)
in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
WC-UPSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5 50.0%FACU
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Acer rubrum
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
(Plot size:30'
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:15'
Smilax rotundifolia
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WC-UPSoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
0-12
10YR
10YR
5/8
4/3
5
70 10YR 3/1 25 Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
WC-WET
29-Aug-16
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
U-5738 Julian Road Widening
NCDOT
K. Hamlin, E. Black
Hillside
MLRA 240 LRR P
Rowan
NC

-80.49141935.637065
EnC- Enon fine sandy loan, 8 to 15 percent slopes PFO1
NAD83

concave
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
3100.0%FACW
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
100.0%
85
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
125 250
0.0%
40 120
0 0
0
0 0
0.0%
165 370
0.0%
2.242
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%FAC
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
40
0.0%
0.0%
0
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
40
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACW
0.0%
0.0%
40
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than
3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m)
in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
WC-WETSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Cornus amomum
(Plot size:30'
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
Toxicodendron radicans
(Plot size:
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WC-WETSoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
5-12
0-5
10YR
10YR
3/1
4/3
85
90 7.5YR
7.5YR
5/8
5/8 15
10
Clay Loam
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET Fourth Version
Project Name __________________________________ Nearest Road ________________________
County ____________________ Wetland area _______acres Wetland width ________feet
Name of evaluator ________________________________________ Date ___________________
Wetland location
___ on pond or lake
___ on perennial stream
___ on intermittent stream
___ within interstream divide
___ other: ___________________________
Adjacent land use
(within ½ mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
___ forested/natural vegetation ____%
___ agriculture, urban/suburban ____%
___ impervious surface ____%
Soil series: __________________________
___ predominantly organic - humus, muck, or
peat
___ predominantly mineral - non-sandy
___ predominantly sandy
Dominant vegetation
(1) _________________________________
(2) _________________________________
(3) _________________________________
Hydraulic factors
___ steep topography
___ ditched or channelized
___ total wetland width • 100 feet
Flooding and wetness
___ semipermanently to permanently flooded or
inundated
___ seasonally flooded or inundated
___ intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
___ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
___ Bottomland hardwood forest
___ Headwater forest
___ Swamp forest
___ Wet flat
___ Pocosin
___ Bog forest
___ Pine savanna
___ Freshwater marsh
___ Bog/fen
___ Ephemeral wetland
___ Carolina bay
___ Other: _____________________________
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
R Water storage _________x 4.00 =
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization _________x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal ________** x 5.00 =
I Wildlife habitat _________x 2.00 =
N Aquatic life value _________x 4.00 =
G Recreation/Education _________x 1.00 =
Wetland
rating
**Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint source disturbance within ½ mile upstream, upslope, or radius
Wetland C
U-5738
Rowan 0.05
Julian Rd.
32
E. Black 10/19/2016
✔30
✔30
✔40
✔Upper headwater drainage
Enon fine sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
✔
Cornus amomum
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Toxicodendron radicans
✔
1 4
0 0
1 5
1 2
4
16
1
1 1
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
WD-UP
08-Mar-17
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
U-5738 Julian Road Widening
NCDOT
E. Black
Undulating
MLRA 240 LRR P
Rowan
NC

-80.49427435.645194
ChA - Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 3 % slopes, frequently flooded None
NAD83

concave
Sample point not in wetland.
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Hydrology does not meet wetland criteria.
Vegetation does not meet wetland criteria.
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
183.3%FAC
16.7%FAC
30.0%
0.0%
33.3%
12
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
12 36
65 260
0
0 0
0.0%
77 296
0.0%
3.844
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
60
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
60
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%FACU
0
5
0
0
0
0.0%
100.0%FACU
0.0%
0.0%
5
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than
3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m)
in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
WD-UPSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Rosa multiflora
(Plot size:30' linear
(Plot size:30' linear
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:15' linear
Lonicera japonica
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WD-UPSoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
9-12
0-9
10R
7.5YR
4/8
3/4
100
100 Loam
Clay Loam
Soil does not meet wetland criteria.
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
WD-WET
08-Mar-17
0.0%
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Lat.:
Hydric Soil Present?
Sampling Point:
Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
State:
°Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):
T
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation
Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Datum:
naturally problematic?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Remarks:
R
Are Vegetation
Long.:
significantly disturbed?
Local relief (concave, convex, none):Slope:
Investigator(s):
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
City/County:
, Soil
/
Soil Map Unit Name:
, or Hydrology
, Soil , or Hydrology
NWI classification:
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):
Project/Site:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Section, Township, Range: S
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Applicant/Owner:
Sampling Date:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
U-5738 Julian Road Widening
NCDOT
E. Black
Undulating
MLRA 240 LRR P
Rowan
NC

-80.49429135.645217
ChA - Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, 0 to 3 % slopes, frequently flooded PFO1
NAD83

concave
Sample point in wetland.
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0 US Army Corps of Engineers
0.0
2
0
0
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Hydrology
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Dry Season Water Table (C2)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):Wetland Hydrology Present?
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-neutral Test (D5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Hydrology meets wetland criteria.
Vegetation meets wetland criteria
30
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yes No
275.0%FAC
25.0%FAC
30.0%
0.0%
66.7%
40
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
0 0
0.0%
40 120
15 60
0
0 0
0.0%
55 180
0.0%
3.273
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
15
0 0.0%
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Woody Vine Stratum
(B)
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index is ≤3.0
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Prevalence Index = B/A =
(A/B)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
Herb Stratum
= Total Cover
Number of Dominant Species
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
Column Totals:
x 1 =
x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
(A)
(A)
Percent of dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
(B)
Tree Stratum
Shrub Stratum
*Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS.
Dominance Test is > 50%
0
0
0
0
15
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%FACU
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0
0.0%
= Total Cover
Sapling-Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
Definition of Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20
ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in
diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than
3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding woody
vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
species, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m)
in height.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of
height.
WD-WETSampling Point:
)
)
)
)
)
Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0 0.0%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0 0.0%
VEGETATION (Five/Four Strata)- Use scientific names of plants.
0 0.0%
Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless
of height.
Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants, excluding
vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and all other plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Four Vegetation Strata:
Five Vegetation Strata:
Acer rubrum
Ulmus americana
(Plot size:30' linear
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:
(Plot size:15' linear
Lonicera japonica
Dominant
Species?
Rel.Strat.
Cover
Absolute
% Cover
Indicator
Status
1
1
1
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WD-WETSoilSampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches) Color (moist) Color (moist)
Matrix Redox Features
%Loc²Texture RemarksType%
Yes No
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Hydric Soil Present?
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0
Dark Surface (S7)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
Redox Depressions (F8)
1
1
3
3
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
6-14
0-6
10YR
10YR
5/2
4/2
95
90 10YR
7.5YR
4/6
5/8 5
10 C
C M
M Clay Loam
Clay Loam
Soil meets wetland criteria.
Other (Explain in Remarks)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)

Appendix D
Qualifications of Contributors

Investigator: Elisabeth Webster
Education: B.S. Environmental Technology and Management, 2015
Experience: Environmental Planner, SEPI, 2015-Present
Responsibilities: Document preparation, GIS

Investigator: Susan Westberry, AICP, PWS, CPESC
Education: M.S. Botany, 2003
Experience: Senior Environmental Planner, SEPI Engineering & Construction,
2015-Present
Environmental Scientist, URS, 2005-2015
Environmental Scientist, Stantec, 2003-2005
Responsibilities: QA/QC

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

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PACKAGE

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

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

APPENDIX '
CULTURAL RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION

Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
1 of 3
16-06-0048

NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FORM
This form only pertains to ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES for this project. It is not
valid for Historic Architecture and Landscapes. You must consult separately with the
Historic Architecture and Landscapes Group.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project No: U-5738 County: Rowan
WBS No: 50163.1.1 Document: State EA/FONSI
F.A. No: N/A Funding: State Federal
Federal Permit Required? Yes No Permit Type: 401, 401 Cert., CLOMR

Project Description: The NCDOT is proposing to widen SR 2528 (Julian Road) from its intersection
with US 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) to I-85 in Rowan County. Currently, SR 2528 (Julian Road) is
a 2-lane, undivided road with no sidewalks or bike lanes. As proposed, SR 2528 (Julian Road) will
become a 4-lane road, divided by a 23-foot median, with curbs and gutters, a bike lane, and sidewalks on
both sides. One bridge and one culvert will also be expanded or replaced as part of this project. Project
length measures about 1.30 miles (6,864 feet). The width of the Study Area centered on SR 2528 (Julian
Road) and US 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) will measure about 380 feet. Overall, the Study Area will
encompass about 46 acres, inclusive of the existing roadways.

SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES REVIEW

Brief description of review activities, results of review, and conclusions:

This project was received on Friday, June 24, 2016. A map review and site file search was conducted at
the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) on Thursday, June 30, 2016. No archaeological survey has been
conducted along SR 2528 (Julian Road); however, an archaeological survey was conducted along Town
Creek, which is crossed by the proposed project corridor. Nevertheless, no archaeological sites have been
recorded within one-half (1/2) mile of the proposed project. Digital copies of HPO’s maps (Salisbury
Quadrangle) as well as the HPOWEB GIS Service (http://gis.ncdcr.gov/hpoweb/) were last reviewed on
Tuesday, July 12, 2016. There are no known historic architectural resources located within or adjacent to
the APE for which intact archaeological deposits would be anticipated within the footprint of the
proposed project. In addition, topographic maps, historic maps (NCMaps website), USDA soil survey
maps, and aerial photographs were utilized and inspected to gauge environmental factors that may have
contributed to historic or prehistoric settlement within the project limits, and to assess the level of
modern, slope, agricultural, hydrological, and other erosive-type disturbances within and surrounding the
archaeological APE.

Brief Explanation of why the available information provides a reliable basis for reasonably predicting
that there are no unidentified historic properties in the APE:

This is State-funded project for which a Federal permit will be required. Temporary and/or permanent
easements will be required as well as additional ROW. At this time, we are in compliance with NC GS
121-12a, since there are no eligible (i.e. National Register-listed) archaeological resources located within
the project’s Study Area that would require our attention. Based on the overall size of the Study Area,
activities will take place beyond the NCDOT’s existing ROW along SR 2528 (Julian Road). From an
environmental perspective, the Study Area falls within a commercial/industrial/residential section of the
Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
2 of 3
16-06-0048
City of Salisbury, consists of the slightly undulating terrain typical of North Carolina’s Piedmont
physiographic region, and is composed of seven (7) soil types. Although the Study Area consists of well
drained soils in an upland setting, overall soil conditions along the corridor have been greatly modified by
development, have succumbed to erosion, and consist of somewhat poorly drained conditions along the
two stream crossings. Much of the area along the project corridor that may, at first, appear to hold
potential for intact archaeological resources to be present has already been disturbed by land
clearing/stripping for development or from borrow areas that have all, over time, grown back to a wooded
state. In addition, the intersection of SR 2528 (Julian Road) with SR 2540 (Ritchie Road) has been
reconfigured from its original design (i.e. post-1962), the construction for which has greatly impacted the
two western quadrants. Preservation of archaeological resources would not be anticipated within any of
these environmental settings. In addition, the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) has reviewed several
projects within the vicinity of the proposed project for environmental compliance, including borrow pits
(ER 13-1973, ER 99-8061), cell towers (CT 10-0908), sewer lines (ER 06-1932), and road improvements
(ER 16-0955). For the most part, no archaeological surveys were recommended by OSA citing a low
probability for intact archaeological resources; however, an archaeological survey was requested for the
sewer line along Town Creek despite the poorly drained soil conditions. No archaeological sites were
recorded as a result of that survey (Reid 2006 [Biblio# 5489]). Based on the nature of the proposed
project, current soil conditions, and previous review and survey results, there is a low probability for
prehistoric and/or historic archaeological materials to be present within the Study Area. Therefore, it is
believed that the current Study Area, as depicted, is unlikely to contain intact and significant
archaeological resources. No archaeological survey is required for this project. If design plans change or
are made available prior to construction, then additional consultation regarding archaeology will be
required. At this time, no further archaeological work is recommended. If archaeological materials are
uncovered during project activities, then such resources will be dealt with according to the procedures set
forth for “unanticipated discoveries,” to include notification of NCDOT’s Archaeology Group.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
See attached: Map(s) Previous Survey Info Photos Correspondence
Photocopy of County Survey Notes Other:

FINDING BY NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST
NO ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED

July 12, 2016
NCDOT ARCHAEOLOGIST Date

Project Tracking No.:
“No ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY REQUIRED” form for Minor Transportation Projects as Qualified in the 2007/2015 Programmatic Agreement.
3 of 3
16-06-0048
Figure 1: Salisbury, NC (USGS 1962).
SR 2528 (Julian Road)
MbB
ChA
CeB2
CeB2
MbC
Ud
ChA
Ud
MbB
EnB
EnC
EnB
SeB
PxC
EnC
EnB
Ud
EnC
EnB
CfB
CeC2
ApB
Uf
EnC
MeB2
EnB
Uf
Ud
J
U
L
I
A
N
I-85JAKE
A
L
E
X
A
N
D
E
R
RITCHIEKLUMACCORPORATE
TRUCKSUZANNE'SBOUNDARYJULI
A
N
JULIANJ
U
L
I
A
N I-85Town CreekSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid,IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
U-5738 (PA 16-06-0048)Widening of SR 2528 (Julian Road) from US 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) to I-85 inRowan County, NC
Survey Area
GF Cemetery
NCHPOpoints
Contour_002
Streets
Rowan_Parcels
NCHPO_NR_SL_DOE_Boundaries
Local_District_Boundaries
HYARUT
Named_streams
Soils_All
¹
0 280 560 840 1,120140Feet

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

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

APPENDIX E
FINAL MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION
CHECKLIST

1
MINIMUM CRITERIA DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
TIP Project No. U-5738 W.B.S. Project No. 50163.1.1 Project Location: SR 2528 (Julian Road) between U.S. 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) and SR
2667 (Summit Park Drive) in the City of Salisbury and Unincorporated Rowan County.
Project Description: The project will widen SR 2528 (Julian Road, an existing local
arterial/minor thoroughfare) between SR 2578 (Klumac Road) / I-85 and U.S. 601 (Jake
Alexander Boulevard) from a two-lane ditch section (with approximate ROW width of 60-feet)
to a four-lane, divided facility (on 110-ft ROW) with a 23-foot raised median, curb and gutter, 5-
foot striped bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. Existing design speed of 50
mph will be retained with the proposed improvement of the facility to a major collector. A full
movement traffic signal is proposed at Julian Rd / Corporate Circle (South) / W. Ritchie Rd. and
a directional median crossover is proposed at Corporate Circle (North) that allows northbound
U‐turns and southbound lefts onto Corporate Circle. A proposed triangular raised island will also
create a yield condition for eastbound Jake Alexander Blvd. to southbound Julian Road right
turns, improving safety for traffic exiting Old Julian Road. Also, new, extended or restriped turn
lanes at all intersections are proposed to expand storage.

In addition, the project includes addition of a sidewalk on the west side of Julian Road between
Klumac Road/I-85 and SR 2667 (Summit Park Drive). The portion of the project corridor
proposed to be widened (with median, sidewalks and bike lanes) extends from U.S. 601 (Jake
Alexander Boulevard) to SR 2578 (Klumac Rd & I-85) and is approximately 4,700 feet in
length. The portion of the project corridor proposed for sidewalk improvements only, extends
from SR 2578 (Klumac Rd & I-85) to SR 2667 (Summit Park Drive), and is approximately 2,000
feet in length.
Purpose and Need: The Cabarrus Rowan Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) (draft
June 8, 2016), and the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) (August 2015), identifies
Julian Road as needing improvement. The plans recommend that the existing roadway be
upgraded to a four-lane boulevard. The CTP also identifies Julian Road as needing
improvements for bicycles. The project is shown in the adopted 2018-2027 STIP with ROW
being acquired in FY 2018.

Motorists on this portion of Julian Road currently experience congestion and poor travel times
during peak hours along with crashes that occur twice as often as the statewide average. By the
year 2040, most of the intersections in the corridor will have failing traffic operations. Although
sidewalks are present on both sides of Corporate Circle, there are no existing sidewalks or
bicycle lanes on Julian Road, which results in pedestrians walking in ditches or unpaved
shoulders and bicyclists riding in travel lanes. The project proposes to improve capacity and
facilitate safe and efficient multi‐modal operations by widening the roadway, controlling left turn
movements with a median and directional crossovers, and installing striped bike lanes and
sidewalks. The purpose of this project is to improve traffic capacity and multi‐modal
connectivity as well as vehicular and pedestrian safety.

The results from Capacity Analysis Technical Memorandum prepared for the project (SEPI, May
2017) indicate that the existing facility is operating near capacity, with a volume to capacity ratio
of 0.87. This means that the existing traffic demand of approximately 13,635 vehicles per day
(vpd) is close to exceeding the available capacity of 15,713 vpd that the roadway can
accommodate. The crash analysis prepared as part of the Capacity Analysis also determined that
2
non-fatal injury crashes in the corridor falls well above the statewide and critical rates resulting
in the total crash rate to be more than twice the statewide and critical rates. As a result, motorists
experience congestion, poor travel times, and increased exposure to vehicle crashes during peak
hour periods.

A sidewalk is present on both sides of Corporate Circle, which dead ends into Julian Rd at both
ends, but there are no existing sidewalks or bicycle lanes on Julian Rd. The entire corridor has
been identified as a Salisbury Bicycle Route by the City (according to the Salisbury 2009
Comprehensive Bicycle Plan). The project proposes delineated bicycle lanes along the widening
segment and sidewalks along the entire project length.

To improve traffic operations, the project will widen the segment from Jake Alexander to
Klumac to 4-lanes and will add turn lanes and lengthen turn lane storage. This will increase
capacity and reduce queuing and delays to handle traffic growth to 2040. To improve vehicular
safety, the project will widen travel lanes from 11-feet currently to 12-feet, manage access with
either a signal or median to control lefts and reduce conflict points. And to improve multi-modal
safety & connectivity, the project includes a striped bike lane and sidewalks. Anticipated Permit or Consultation Requirements: The project is estimated to impact
approximately 0.03 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 138 linear feet of jurisdictional streams
including Town Creek and an unnamed tributaries to Town Creek (Class C) which are located
within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (NRTR/Signed PJD, SEPI, April 2017 ). The project
crosses Town Creek at an existing bridge and an unnamed tributary to Town Creek at an existing
culvert as shown on the attached environmental resources map.

A Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 (33 CFR 330.6) from the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) will be required for impacts to “Waters of the United States” resulting from
this project. In addition, a NCDWR Section 401 Water Quality General Certification 4088 will
be required for impacts to “Waters of the State”. Both permits will require written authorization
from the referenced agencies. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be
required to authorize project construction.

Impaired Waters: Town Creek and its unnamed tributaries (Stream Index no.12-115-3) are on
the Final 2014 303 d list for ‘Fish Community Fair’ and ‘Benthos Fair’. The project will not
negatively impact these criteria, so there are no special project commitments required due to the
listings.

Endangered Species Habitat: The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists Schweinitz’s sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) as endangered and the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) as threatened
for Rowan County. There is habitat for both in the project study area. The project was surveyed
for Schweinitz’s sunflower on September 15, 2016 and September 6, 2017. None were found.
Therefore, it was determined that the project would have ‘No Effect’ on Schweinitz’s sunflower.
There is also habitat for the NLEB in the form of trees greater than 3” DBH and an existing
bridge that are present in the project study area. It was determined that the project “May Affect”
the NLEB. During 404 permitting, tree clearing acreage and presence or absence of bats on the
bridge structure will be reported to the USACE for compliance with Section 107 of the
Endangered Species Act. No separate consultation with the USFWS is required (NRTR April
2017 and supplemental survey memo dated September 7, 2017).

3
Air Quality: The following information satisfies the conformity requirements as outlined by the
Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1990 and all subsequent amendments:
 The proposed project is located in Rowan County, which is an attainment area for all
transportation-related pollutants; the project therefore does not require a project-level air
quality conformity determination.
 The project is accurately listed as “Widen from 2 to 4 lanes, median-divided, sidewalks,
bike lanes and bus turnouts”, within the Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (CRMPO) 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), which met
regional conformity determination. It was adopted in April 2014 and last amended
August 2015. NCDOT adoption was ____ and FHWA approval was _____.
 The associated Conformity Analysis and Determination Report for the Metrolina Area
2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plans and for the FY 2012-2018 Transportation
Improvement Programs was adopted in and last amended _____. NCDOT adoption
was ____ and FHWA approval was _____.
Geoenvironmental Concerns: In the Geoenvironmental Phase I Report dated April 6, 2017,
three (3) sites of concern were identified within the proposed study area. Low monetary and
scheduling impacts are expected as a result of these sites. These included the J. Newton Cohen
property located at 301S. Jake Alexander Blvd, the ‘Salisbury Center’ located at 710 Julian
Road, and Litaker’s Garage located at 1010 Julian Road. A Phase II report will be completed at
Right of Way.
Special Project Information:

Environmental Commitments: Greensheet Commitments are located at the end of the
checklist.

Estimated Costs (from 2018‐2027 STIP, based on 2016 prices):
Estimated Costs
Utilities $814,000
Right of Way $98,000
Construction $10,602,000
TOTAL $11,514,000 Estimated Traffic:
Current (No Build) 18,400 AADT
Current (Build) 22,700 AADT
2010 No Build 20,700 AADt
2040 Build 26,800 AADT
TTST 2%
Dual 6%

4
Accidents: Total crash rate for project corridor is more than double the statewide and critical
rates:

Type Crashes Crashes per 100
Million Vehicles Statewide Rate* Critical Rate**
Fatal 0 0.00 2.59 9.15
Non-Fatal Injury 57 192.58 70.65 97.75
Night 25 84.47 112.23 145.95
Wet 26 87.85 40.62 61.58
Total 186 628.43 248.47 297.82
* 2012-2014 statewide crash rate for 2-lane undivided Rural Secondary Routes (SR) in North Carolina
** Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)

Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations: The City of Salisbury, Comprehensive Bicycle Plan
(2009) has identified Julian Road as a future four-lane divided section roadway with designated
bicycle lanes. Dedicated/striped bike lanes are proposed on both sides of the segment of the
roadway to be widened.
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge over Town Creek (#790201) is not structurally deficient
but considered functionally obsolete (73.44 sufficiency rating), composed of concrete slab on
steel piles. It will be utilized for onsite detour during construction (staged construction) and will
be replaced by a longer and wider steel I-Beam structure to accommodate the new typical
section. It should be possible to remove the existing bridge with no resulting debris in the water
based on standard demolition practices.
Culvert Extension: The existing reinforced concrete box culvert will be retained and extended
in place, as discussed under “Structure Types” below. Detours: No detours are planned for maintaining Julian Road traffic – we intend to maintain
traffic through staged construction and lane closures as needed. Further investigation will be
required at Corporate Circle South and West Richie Road to determine whether the grade change
there will be handled with wedging or an on-site detour, but either way an offsite detour will not
be required. Alternatives Discussion: No Build – The no build alternative would result in increasingly congested and unsafe conditions
along the roadway, including increasing crash rates and potentially fatalities.
Widening Alternatives – An initial engineering feasibility analysis evaluated three widening
alternatives: Widen West, Widen East and Symmetrical Widening. It was determined that
widening East created the greatest number of impacts to 1) the business along Julian Road by
requiring excessive takes in existing parking lots and 2) the wetlands delineated along Julian
road. Widening symmetrically reduced the number of impacts to parking lots and wetlands, but
to a lesser extent that Widening West. Widening West provided the smallest impact to parking
5
lots and wetlands along Julian Road, thus it was identified as the Preferred Alternative and is the
subject of this MCDC.
Choice of Median Breaks:
Corporate Circle (South) / W. Ritchie Rd. was identified as best location for additional signal.
Other intersections did not warrant new signals. With new signal proposed at Corporate Circle
(South), Corporate Circle (North) was treated with a median to prevent left turns out, but will
allow right turns out and left and right turns in. Corporate Circle (North) also includes a u-turn
bulb to allow Northbound Julian Rd. traffic to u-turn to Southbound Julian Rd. By 2040,
allowing left turns out of Old Julian Rd. would not only be unsafe, but would negatively impact
operations of the traffic signal at US 601 (Jake Alexander Blvd.).

Structure Types:

Bridge: The current structure is a bridge built in 1982, it is 12 ft high and has a drainage area of
8.01 square miles. Based on the proposed typical section, drainage area and design discharges, a
35-ft by 80-ft steel I-Beam replacement bridge at 12 ft height was determined to be adequate
from a hydraulics standpoint.

Culvert: The current culvert was built in 1998 and has a drainage area of 1.55 square miles.
Based on the proposed typical section, drainage area and design discharges, the existing culvert
will be retained and extended. The culvert is currently in good condition – extension does not
adversely impact any structures within the floodplain.

The existing culvert invert is flush with the streambed. A bench has developed up and
downstream on the left side. No sills will be placed in the culvert extension, as that would
decrease the culvert capacity and would in turn adversely impact upstream structures. A
floodplain bench will be provided up and downstream in order to transition back to existing
channel dimension, but the culvert invert will be constructed flush with the existing streambed,
which is consistent with the existing condition.

Agency Comments:

A request for comments from State agencies was submitted through the State Clearinghouse.
The Division of Water Resources and Division of Waste Management submitted general
project comments. No comments were received from the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission
or other DEQ agencies.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a standardized letter requested information that will be
presented in the Nationwide Permit application for the project. In addition, they recommended
no temporary on-site detours through the wetlands. Response: the project will use the existing
bridge as an on-site detour.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had no comments given the urban nature of the project area.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided the following comments:

6
1) There are several RCRA facilities along Julian Road, including Tractor Supply, Aldrich’s
Auto Supply and Used Cars, and Town Creek and its tributaries intersects Julian Road.
Response: These areas have been noted (see Environmental Resources Map).

2) Wetlands and FEMA flood zones will require coordination with NC Division of Water
Resources, the US Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA. Response: Noted.

3) There are high concentrations of low income, linguistically isolated, and less than high
school education persons on the southwest side of Julian Road. On the northeast side of
Julian Road (bounded by S. Main St., and Faith Road), there is a 90 – 95th percentile
concentration of persons over the age of 64. Public outreach should be mindful of
education levels and the ability to understand complex information at public meetings
and workshops. Response: Public involvement information was produced with this in
mind. In addition, Spanish language versions of all public information items were
produced and available at the 2nd public meeting (11-14-17), as well as a Spanish
Translator on site.

4) Also, with regard to EJ issues, concerns are not merely limited to demographics and how
best to design project outreach to ensure that these demographics are able to participate
fully. EJ issues also concern how the roadway project impacts these demographic groups
environmentally. These concerns include PM 2.5, Ozone, National-Scale Air Toxics
Assessment [NATA] Respiratory Hazard Index, NATA Diesel PM, Traffic Proximity,
etc. [see https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/overview-environmental-indicators-ejscreen]. The
northeast side of Julian Road has high percentiles of NATA Diesel PM (70 – 80th
percentile) and NATA Cancer Risk (80 – 90th percentile) environmental indicators
within the project study area. Older adults and children, especially lower income and
minority children, are vulnerable to asthma and cardio-pulmonary conditions exacerbated
by near road air pollution. Response: The proposed improvements will reduce
congestion, which contributes to additional air quality issues.

5) Roadway design improvements should be mindful of diverse populations using the street.
The US EPA advocates a Complete Streets approach [where possible] in order to provide
transportation choices. We strongly encourage the inclusion of a Health Impact
Assessment (HIA) in the Environmental Assessment. HIAs are a means of assessing the
health impacts of policies, plans, and projects in various economic sectors using
quantitative, qualitative, and participatory methods. See:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/health_in_transportation/faq/ Response: The
inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks complies with the complete streets approach and
will help the facility serve diverse populations.

The City of Salisbury noted that the roadway is planned under their Bike Plan to have a
dedicated bike lane. Response: The project has been amended from initial concepts (which
considered a widened outside lane in lieu of a dedicated bike lane) to now a dedicated/striped
lane on both sided.

7
Public Involvement:
Public involvement included two public meetings – Sept 8, 2016 and Nov 14, 2017, which was
attended by 21 and 46 citizens, respectively. The majority of comments pertained to perceived
business access on the eastern side of the roadway and perceived safety issues associated with
providing a bike lane and sidewalks.

PART A: MINIMUM CRITERIA
YES NO

1. Is the proposed project listed as a type and class of activity which would qualify
as a Non-Major Action under the Minimum Criteria rules?

If “yes”, under which category? Category # 8
(Note: If either Category #8 or #15 is used, complete Part D of this checklist.)

If “no”, then the project does not qualify as a Non-Major Action. A state environmental impact statement
(EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) will be required.

PART B: MINIMUM CRITERIA EXCEPTIONS
YES NO

2. Would the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse air quality impacts?

3. Will the proposed activity have secondary impacts or cumulative impacts that
may result in a significant adverse impact to human health or the environment?

4. Is the proposed activity of such an unusual nature or does the proposed activity
has such widespread implications, that an uncommon concern for its
environmental effects has been expressed to the NCDOT?

5. Does the proposed activity have a significant adverse effect on wetlands;
surface waters such as rivers, streams, and estuaries; parklands; prime or unique
agricultural lands; or areas of recognized scenic, recreational, archaeological, or
historical value?

6. Will the proposed activity endanger the existence of a species on the
Department of Interior’s threatened and endangered species list?

7. Would the proposed activity cause significant changes in land use
concentrations that would be expected to create adverse water quality or
groundwater impacts?

8. Is the proposed activity expected to have a significant adverse effect on long-
term recreational benefits of shellfish, finfish, wildlife, or their natural habitats?

9. Is the proposed project likely to precipitate significant, foreseeable alterations in
land use, planned growth, or development patterns?

8
10. Does the proposed action divide or disrupt an established community?

11. Does the proposed action bypass an existing community?

12. Is the proposed action likely to have a significant detrimental impact on
ambient noise levels for adjoining areas?

13. Is the proposed action likely to have a significant impact on travel patterns or
traffic volumes?

14. Does the proposed action require the relocation of significant numbers of
people?

Note: If any of Questions 2 through 14 in part B are answered “YES”, the proposed project does not
qualify as a Non-Major Action. A state EIS or EA will be required.

PART C: COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
YES NO
Ecological Impacts

15. Is a federally protected threatened or endangered species, or its habitat, likely to
be impacted by the proposed action?

16. Does the action require the placement of fill in waters of the United States?

17. Does the project require the placement of a significant amount of fill in high
quality or relatively rare wetland ecosystems, such as mountain bogs or pine
savannahs?

18. Does the project require stream relocation or channel changes?

19. Is the proposed action located in an Area of Environmental Concern, as defined
in the Coastal Area Management Act?

Cultural Resources

20. Will the project have an “effect” on a property or site listed on the National
Register of Historic Places?

21. Will the proposed action require acquisition of additional right of way from
publicly owned parkland or recreational areas?

PART D: (To be completed when either category #8 or #15 of the rules is used.)

22. Project length: 1.26 miles

23. Right of Way width: 60-ft to 110-ft

9
24. Total Acres of Disturbed Ground Surface: ~11.1 acres

25. Total Acres of Wetland Impacts: ~0.03 acres

26. Total Linear Feet of Stream Impacts: ~138 feet

Reviewed by:

Date Amy Euliss
Division 9 Environmental Officer

Date J. Brett Abernathy, P.E.
Division 9 Project Development Engineer

Date Robbie Kirk, P.E.
SEPI Engineering and Construction Project Manager

12/7/2017
12/7/2017
12/7/2017
10
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:

Rowan County
Julian Road Widening
W.B.S. No. 50163.1.1
T.I.P. No. U-5738

Hydraulic Unit – FEMA Coordination
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT’S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).

Division 9 Construction-FEMA
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

Division 9 Project Development Unit
This project has 3 Geoenvironmental sites of concern. Phase II and Phase III reports will be
completed during Right of Way and Construction.

`_`_§¨¦85
Begin Project
§¨¦85
§¨¦85
I
-
8
5
Julian Rd
W
R
i
t
c
h
i
e

R
d
Tr
u
c
k

A
v
e Klumac RdCorporate
C
ir Suzanne's RdI
-
8
5
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown herein does notmeet NC 47-30 Requirements and therefore is not for design,construction, or recording or transfer of title. The Exhibit was compiledfrom available information obtained from the sources listed below.
Sources:NCDOT, NC OneMap, ESRINovember 2017
GRAPHIC SCALE
Environmental Resources
IJulian Road (SR 2528) Widening and Sidewalk ExtensionU.S. 601 (Jake Alexander Boulevard) to I-850250500125
Feet
U-5738
Legend
Existing Right of Way Boundary
U-5738 Survey Area
U-5738 Project Study Area
Proposed Right of Way Boundary
Proposed Sidewalk
Limit of Disturbance
Streams
Wetlands
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
`_UST - Underground Storage Tank
k Bus Stop
Salisbury City Limits
1 inch = 343 feet
Julian RdSummi
t
Pa
rk
D
r
k`_`_`_§¨¦85
§¨¦85
t End Project MAIN
TTA
G
ECOTTON
ROWAN MI
L
L
W D Ave
Ca
I
-
8
5 S M
a
i
n
S
t
Julian RdKlumac RdW Ritc
h
i
e

R
d
S Jake Alexander BlvdSunset Dr
Truck
AveJacob Bos
t
RdCorporate
C
ir
S Ra
i
lroad
S
t
1st St2nd StBalfour
D
r
W D AveSuzanne's RdHender
s
o
n

G
r
o
v
e

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
5658
0
2
b
565802c
Old S Main StJulian Rd
I-
8
5
Julian Rd
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and shown herein does not meet NC47-30 Requirements and therefore is not for design, construction, or recording ortransfer of title. The Exhibit was compiled from available information obtainedfrom the sources listed below.
Sources:NCDOT, NC OneMap, ESRINovember 2017
GRAPHIC SCALE
Environmental Resources
IJulian Road (SR 2528) Widening and Sidewalk Extension0475950237.5 Feet
1 inch = 552 feet U-5738Corporate Circle (North)Old Julian Rd Legend
Exist Right of Way Boundary
Proposed Right of Way Boundary
Proposed Sidewalk
U-5738 Survey Area
U-5738 Project Study Area
Limit of Disturbance
Streams
Wetlands
500 Year Flood Zone
100 Year Flood Zone
`_UST - Underground Storage Tank
k Bus Stop
Salisbury City Limits

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

Mailing Address:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

Telephone: [phone]
Customer Service: 1-877-368-4968
Website: www.ncdot.gov
Location:
HIGHWAY DIVISION 9
375 SILAS CREEK PARKWAY
WINSTON SALEM, NC 27127

APPENDIX F
FEMA DOCUMENTATION