The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201589 Ver 1_B5845 NRTR_20220112 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT Replace Bridge 25 on SR 2033 (Oak Grove Road) over Buffalo Creek Cleveland County, North Carolina TIP B-5845 WBS Element No. 45798.1.1 THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit Natural Environment Section September 2016 Page intentionally blank Inserted for double sided printing Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. i September 2016 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 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest ................................................................................ 3 4.1.3 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ................................................................................ 4 4.1.4 Pine Plantation .......................................................................................................... 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 Wetlands and Stream Mitigation .................................................................................... 6 5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts .................................................................. 6 5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts ....................................................................... 7 5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species .................................................................... 7 5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................. 8 5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species ................................................................... 8 5.11 Essential Fish Habitat ....................................................................................................... 8 6.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Project Study Area Map Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features Map Figure 4. Terrestrial Communities Map Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report Appendix C Stream and Wetland Forms Appendix D Qualifications of Contributors Appendix E Northern Long-eared Bat Survey Memo Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. ii September 2016 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 .................................... 2 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 Cleveland County............................................ 7 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 1 September 2016 1.0 INTRODUCTION The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge 25 on SR 2033 (Oak Grove Road) over Buffalo Creek (TIP B-5845) in Cleveland County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the 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 May 4, 2016. Jurisdictional areas identified in the study area have not yet been verified by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The principal personnel contributing to this document were: Principal Investigator: Kevin Lapp Education: M.S. Biology, 1998 Experience: Biologist, AECOM, 2005 – Present Sandhills Area Land Trust, 2003-2005 Responsibilities: Stream delineations, stream assessment, natural communities assessment, T/E species assessment, document preparation Investigator: Paul Worthington Education: B.S. Environmental Biology, 2005 Experience: Biologist, AECOM, 2014–Present Responsibilities: Stream delineations, global positioning system (GPS) data collection, stream assessment, natural communities assessment, threatened and endangered (T/E) species assessment, document preparation Additional personnel who contributed to portions of the field work and/or documentation for this project were Charles Benton, Peyton Daly, Ron Johnson, and Paul Masten. Appendix D lists the qualifications of these contributors. 3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES The study area is geographically situated in the southern Piedmont physiographic province in Cleveland County, North Carolina (Figure 2). Elevations in the study area range from approximately 660 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 740 feet MSL. Land use in the project vicinity consists primarily of a water treatment facility and forested land. Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 2 September 2016 3.1 Soils The Cleveland County soil survey identifies three soil series within the study area (Table 1). Table 1. Soils in the study area Soil Series Mapping Unit Drainage Class Hydric Status Grover gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, rocky GrD Well drained Non-hydric Hulett gravelly sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes HhB Well drained Non-hydric Madison-Bethlehem complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony, moderately eroded McC2 Well drained Non-hydric 3.2 Water Resources Water resources in the study area are part of the Broad River Basin (United States [U.S.] Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 06010105). Five streams were identified in the study area (Table 2). The location of each water resource is shown on Figure 3. The physical characteristics of these resources are provided in Table 3. Table 2. Water resources in the study area Stream Name Map ID NCDWR Index Number Best Usage Classification Buffalo Creek Buffalo Creek 9-53-(5) C UT to Buffalo Creek SB 9-53-(5) C UT to Buffalo Creek SC 9-53-(5) C UT to Buffalo Creek SD 9-53-(5) C UT to Buffalo Creek SE 9-53-(5) C Note: UT = unnamed tributary Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bank Width (ft) Water Depth (in) Channel Substrate Velocity Clarity Buffalo Creek 10-15 30 60-120 Sand, Silt, Gravel, Cobble, Boulders Fast Clear SB 2 3 12 Sand, Silt, Gravel Moderate Moderately turbid SC 1 2 6 Sand, Gravel Slow Moderately turbid Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 3 September 2016 Map ID Bank Height (ft) Bank Width (ft) Water Depth (in) Channel Substrate Velocity Clarity SD 1 2 6 Sand, Gravel Slow Moderately turbid SE 0.5 1 2-3 Silt, Sand Slow Clear No ponds are located in the study area. There are no designated anadromous fish waters or primary nursery areas present in the study area. There are no designated high quality waters, outstanding resource waters, or water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. The North Carolina 2014 Final 303(d) List of Impaired Waters does not identify any waters within the study area or within 1.0 mile downstream as an impaired water. No fish or benthic monitoring data is available in or within one mile of the study area. 4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES 4.1 Terrestrial Communities Four terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: Maintained/Disturbed, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Piedmont Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and pine plantation. 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 This community incorporates multiple community types, including cleared/maintained transportation corridors on either side of Bridge 25 and maintained/disturbed areas around the nearby Moss Lake (also called Kings Mountain Reservoir). This includes the Oak Grove Road transportation corridor and minor industrial development from Moss Lake. Plant communities along transportation corridors often contain introduced and weedy species, along with mowed grasses. There were few canopy trees and shrubs throughout the maintained/disturbed community. The herbaceous layer was composed of maintained grasses and numerous introduced and weedy species such as dandelions, plantain, clovers, and bahiagrass. 4.1.2 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest community typically occurs on mid slopes, upland flats, and other dry-mesic upland areas. Dominant canopy tree species observed in this community included white oak and northern red oak. Mid-story species observed included flowering dogwood, mountain laurel, sourwood, and American beech. The shrub layer included mostly regeneration of the over-story hardwoods in the sapling stage. The vine layer contained muscadine and Japanese honeysuckle, while the herbaceous layer was dominated by Japanese stilt grass. Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 4 September 2016 4.1.3 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest This community occurs on lower slopes, steep north-facing slopes, ravines, and occasionally well-drained stream bottoms. Typically, this community is dominated by a mix of soft and hardwood tree species in upland areas. This community type made up a majority of the study area. Canopy trees observed in this region included Virginia pine, post oak, white oak, tuliptree, red maple, and eastern red cedar. Mid-story trees included red maple, eastern red cedar, sweetgum, bitternut hickory, and sourwood. The shrub layer included mostly regeneration of the over-story hardwoods in the sapling stage but also included strawberry bush. The herbaceous layer contained false Solomon’s seal, Christmas fern, poison ivy, Virginia creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, and Japanese stilt grass. One small headwater forest wetland was observed within this community type. Dominant vegetation observed in the wetland included red maple, sweetgum, and Virginia creeper. 4.1.4 Pine Plantation The pine plantation was located in the southeast corner of the project. This pine plantation is composed of large loblolly pines and sweetgum trees. Mid-story trees included flowering dogwood and pecan. The shrub layer included mostly regeneration of the over-story hardwoods in the sapling stage. The herbaceous layer was sparse due to shading from the pines but contained some ebony spleenwort, Japanese honeysuckle, and Japanese stilt grass. 4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a result of grading and paving of portions of the study area. At this time, decisions regarding the final location and design of the project have not been made. Therefore, community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the study area (Tabl e 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 1.5 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 1.9 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 2.5 Pine Plantation 0.6 Total 6.5 4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those species actually observed are indicated with *). Scientific names of all species identified are included in Appendix B. Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and stream corridors found within the study area include but are not limited to species such as white-tailed deer*, eastern chipmunk, gray squirrel*, raccoon, groundhog, Virginia opossum, and white-footed mouse. Bird species that commonly Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 5 September 2016 use forest and forest edge habitats include but are not limited to American robin*, belted kingfisher, pine warbler*, Carolina chickadee, northern cardinal*, eastern phoebe*, eastern towhee*, red-winged blackbird, red-bellied woodpecker, mourning dove, European starling, blue jay, eastern bluebird, red-tailed hawk, Cooper’s hawk, Carolina wren, barn swallow, American crow, chipping sparrow, and tufted titmouse. Reptile and amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities within the study area include but are not limited to the American toad, copperhead, eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, five-lined skink, marbled salamander, rat snake, spotted salamander, and wood frog. 4.3 Aquatic Communities Aquatic communities in the study area consist of three perennial streams (Buffalo Creek, SC, and SD), one perennial/intermittent stream (SB) and one intermittent stream (SE). Species expected to occur in Buffalo Creek include but are not limited to common snapping turtle*, highback chub, rosyside dace, fieryblack shiner, sandbar shiner, spottail shiner, greenfin shiner, warmouth, bluegill, flat bullhead, creek chub, and bluehead chub. Fish community is based on samples taken from Buffalo Creek at SR 1906 (in 2000), SR 1908 (in 1964, 2004, 2009 and 2011), and Merton Road (2011) as reported by the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. 4.4 Invasive Species Two species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina occur in the study area. The species identified were Japanese honeysuckle (moderate threat) and Japanese stilt grass (threat). NCDOT will manage invasive plant species associated with the project as appropriate. 5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES 5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S Five jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 5). The locations of these streams are shown on Figure 3. USACE and NCDWR stream delineation forms are included in Appendix C. All of the 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 Required1 River Basin Buffer Buffalo Creek 380 Perennial Yes Not subject SB 750 Perennial Yes Not subject SC 120 Perennial Yes Not subject SD 390 Perennial Yes Not subject SE 80 Intermittent Yes Not subject Total 1720 Note: 1 Assumes permanent impacts to jurisdictional features Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 6 September 2016 One jurisdictional wetland was identified within the study area. The location of this wetland is shown on Figure 3. Wetland classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 6. All wetlands in the study area are within the Broad River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050105). USACE wetland delineation forms and NCDWR wetland rating forms for the wetland are included in Appendix C. A description of the terrestrial communities at the wetland site is presented in section 4.1 and Table 6. Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area Map ID NCWAM Classification Hydrologic Classification NCDWR Wetland Rating Area (acres) WA Headwater Forest Riparian 47 0.03 Total 0.03 5.2 Clean Water Act Permits The proposed project has been designated as a CE for the purposes of National Environmental Policy Act documentation. As a result, a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 will likely be applicable. A NWP No. 33 may also apply for temporary construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or temporary causeways that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction. If a Section 404 permit is required then a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWR will be needed. 5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern There are no areas of environmental concern in the study area that fall under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act. 5.4 Construction Moratoria No trout moratoria will apply to any streams or waters in the study area. 5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules Riparian buffer rules administered by NCDWR do not apply to the project. 5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters No surface waters have been designated as Section 10 navigable waters within the study area. 5.7 Wetlands 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. Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 7 September 2016 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, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species As of April 2, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two species for Cleveland 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 as per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence. Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Cleveland County Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Habitat Present Biological Conclusion Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf T Yes Unresolved Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat T Yes May Affect T – Threatened Dwarf-flowered heartleaf USFWS optimal survey window: March to May Habitat Description: Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is endemic to the western Piedmont and foothills of North and South Carolina. This herbaceous evergreen is found in moist to rather dry forests along bluffs; boggy areas next to streams and creek heads; and adjacent hillsides, slopes, and ravines. Requiring acidic, sandy loam soils, the species is found in soil series such as Pacolet, Madison, and Musella, among others. Occurrences are generally found on a north facing slope. Undisturbed natural communities such as Piedmont/Coastal Plain Heath Bluff, Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest hold the most viable populations. However, less viable remnant populations are found in disturbed habitats, including logged, grazed, mown, and residential/commercial developed lands; areas converted to pasture, orchards, and tree plantations; roadside rights -of-way; and on upland slopes surrounding manmade ponds or lakes. Biological Conclusion: Unresolved Suitable habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf exists in the forested Madison-Bethlehem complex soils within the project vicinity. In addition, NCNHP records indicate that dwarf-flowered heartleaf is known to occur within one mile of the study area. Seven separate elements of occurrence are recorded. A pedestrian survey conducted by AECOM personnel on May 4, 2016 revealed three separate populations which contained roughly 300-400 individuals of dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the study area. The boundaries of the three populations were located using GPS equipment and are shown in Figure 3. These boundaries should be compared to construction plans to determine potential effects. Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 8 September 2016 Northern long-eared bat USFWS optimal survey window: May 15 to August 15 Habitat Description: Northern long-eared bat is found across much of the eastern and north central U.S. and all Canadian provinces. Winter hibernating occurs in colonies consisting of caves and abandoned mines with constant, cooler temperatures with high humidity and no air currents. Summer roosting occurs singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities and crevices of both live trees and snags, and to a lesser degree in human-made structures such as buildings, barns, behind window shutters, on utility poles, and in bat houses. This species is a medium-sized bat with females tending to be slightly larger than males. Average body length ranges from 3 to 4 inches with a wingspan ranging from 9 to 10 inches. This species is distinguished by its relatively long ears that extend beyond the nose when laid forward. Biological Conclusion: Unresolved A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records accessed on May 3, 2016 indicates no known northern long-eared bat populations within one mile of the study area. See attached memo from the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group indicating that this project has satisfied the 4(d) requirements for this species. 5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within 1.0 mile of open water. A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a 1.13 mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on April 15, 2016 using color aerials from the year 2014. No suitable foraging habitat for bald eagle exists in the study area. However, the nearby Moss Lake provides both foraging and nesting habitat, and the study area could potentially provide nesting habitat. A review of the NCNHP records, updated May 3, 2016, indicates no known bald eagle occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area. A nest survey will be conducted by NCDOT biologists and added at a later date. The effect of the project on bald eagles will remain unknown until that time. 5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species As of April 2, 2015, no species are listed as candidate species by the USFWS for Cleveland County. 5.11 Essential Fish Habitat No essential fish habitat has been designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service in the study area. Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 9 September 2016 6.0 REFERENCES Burt, William H. and Richard P. Grossenheider. 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North America, Third Edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series. Boston, MA. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 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. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Version 2.0. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina (map scale 1:1,500,000). U.S. EPA. Corvallis, OR. Ichthyology Collection at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences (NCSM). North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. http://naturalsciences.org/searchFishes.aspx (accessed on 6/8/2016) LeGrand, Harry E. Jr., J.A. Ratcliffe, and J.T. Finnegan. 2014. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Office of Land and Water Stewardship, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 162 pp Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 264 pp. Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. The Delmar Company, Charlotte, NC for N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC. 227 pp. NCDOT. 2012. Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Land Resources. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources) and the N.C. Geologic Survey. NCDWR. Final. 2014 Category 5 Water Quality Assessments – 303(d) List. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina. NCDWR. 2016. Interactive Surface Water Classification Map. http://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6e125ad7628f494694e2 59c80dd64265 Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. 10 September 2016 NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 1995. “Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth Version. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. NCDWQ. 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. NCDWQ. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their Origins, Version 4.11. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 412 pp. Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 408 pp. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp. Robinson, L.G. and J.T. Finnegan. 2014. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage Program, Office of Land and Water Stewardship, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 134 pp. Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 325 pp. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 592 pp. Sibley, David A. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Eastern North America. National Audubon Society. New York, NY. USFWS. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North Carolina’s Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. https://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/plant_survey.html (Accessed 03/17/16). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Cleveland County. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/Web SoilSurvey.aspx. Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp. Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. Appendix A Figures ") B-5845 UV2167 UV1430 UV2639 UV2362 UV2199 UV1284 UV2437 UV2439 UV2693 UV2387 UV1233 UV2415 UV2461UV2383 UV2412 UV2426 UV2683 UV2539 UV1241 UV2650 UV2416 UV2111 UV2359 UV2037 UV2385 UV2156 UV2145 UV2303 UV1242 UV2681 UV2614 UV2364 UV2669UV2638 UV2557 UV2607 UV1236 UV2664 UV2490 UV2125 UV2632 UV2646 UV2624 UV2565UV2134 UV2438 UV1846 UV2106 UV2035 UV2194 UV2684 UV2248 UV2140 UV2449 UV2384 UV2516 UV2103 UV2379 UV1847 UV2330 UV2170 UV2074 UV2338 UV2045 UV2667 UV2162 UV2403 UV2661 UV2105 UV2430 UV2413 UV1243 UV2114 UV2636 UV2339 UV2450 UV2680 UV2319 UV1307 UV2188 UV2326 UV2128 UV2380 UV2651 UV1845 UV1111 UV2328 UV2694 UV2335 UV2514 UV2427 UV1305 UV2617 UV2317 UV2089 UV2370 UV2046 UV2164 UV2190 UV2460 UV2160 UV2122 UV2155 UV2241 UV2691UV2685 UV2371 UV2568 UV2161 UV2078 UV2613 UV1942 UV2644 UV2637 UV2406 UV2409 UV2173 UV1232 UV2177 UV2550 UV2468 UV2532 UV2300 UV2381 UV2090 UV2168 UV2608UV2082UV2108 UV2247 UV2040 UV2498 UV2065 UV2600 UV2240 UV2645 UV2180 UV2327 UV2670 UV2049 UV1842 UV1127 UV2063 UV1279 UV1256 UV1930 UV2178 UV2126 UV1109 UV2204 UV2069 UV2066 UV2244 UV2171 UV2092 UV2610 UV2181 UV2365 UV2322 UV2242 UV2169 UV2150 UV2016 UV2192 UV2141 UV2048 UV2252 UV1112 UV2071 UV2207 UV2073 UV2080 UV1851 UV2042 UV2072 UV1958 UV1130 UV1308 UV2159 UV2602 UV2619 UV2325 UV2203 UV1281 UV2081 UV1104 UV1117 UV2489 UV2017 UV1343 UV2603 UV2376 UV1115 UV2250 UV2205 UV2206 UV2010 UV1927 UV2041 UV2627 UV2246 UV2067 UV1848 UV2068 UV1950 UV2243 UV1213 UV2202 UV2604 UV2013 UV1129 UV2038 UV2039 UV2044 UV1110 UV2208 UV2034 UV2249 UV2008 UV2070 UV2093 UV1107 UV2009 UV1229 UV1121 UV1128 UV2036 UV2015 UV1005 UV2011 UV1102 UV2200 UV1827UV1850 UV1106 UV1861 UV2201 UV2047 UV2245 UV1253 UV2014 UV1926 UV2050 UV1100UV1105 UV2012 UV2052 UV1103 UV2033 UV1001 ""226 ""150 ""180 ""18 £¤74 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATIONDIVISION OF HIGHWAYSPROJECT DEVELOPMENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT Div:TIP#12 B-5845 1Figure TIP Project B-5845 VICINITY MAPReplace Bridge No. 25 on SR 2033 over Buffalo Creek in Cleveland County 0 0.75 Miles p Date: AUGUST 2016 Oak Grove Rd (SR-2033) BroadHUC 03050105 Legend B-5 8 45 S tu d y A re aNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPO RTATI ONDIVISION O F HIG HWAYSPROJECT DEVELO PM ENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNI T t 0 20 0100Fe et PRO JEC T ST UDY AREA MAP Re p la c e B ri d g e N o . 2 5 o n SR 2 0 33over B u f fa lo Cre e k in Cl ev e la n d Co u n t y T IP P ro je ct B-5 8 45 Div :TIP # Da te: Fig u re12B-5 8 4 5 Au gu s t 2 0 1 6 2 Sour ce: USG S His to rica l Top ogr aph ic M ap Co llec tionWaco, NC 1973 Oak Grove Rd (SR-2033) NC O n eM ap, NC Ce nt er f or G eo gr aphic I nf or ma tion a nd Ana ly sis, NC 911 B oar d BroadHUC 03050105 Legend B-5 8 45 S tu d y A re a Pe re nn ia l S tre am In term itten t S tre a m Wetl an d C ul ve rt H ea rtle af C o mmu n iti es NO RTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPO RTATI ONDIVISION O F HIG HWAYSPROJECT DEVELO PM ENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNI T t 0 20 0100Fe et JU RISDICT IONAL FEAT URES MAPReplace B ri d g e N o . 2 5 o n SR 2 0 33over B u f fa lo Cre e k in Cl ev e la n d Co u n t y T IP P ro je ct B-5 8 45 Div :TIP # Da te: Fig u re12B-5 8 4 5 Au gu s t 2 0 1 6 3 WA UT (SB) UT (SE) UT (SC) UT (SD) Buff alo Cree k Oak Grove Rd (SR-2033) NC O n eM ap, NC Ce nt er f or G eo gr aphic I nf or ma tion a nd Ana ly sis, NC 911 B oar d BroadHUC 03050105 Legend B-5 8 45 S tu d y A re a Ma in ta in e d /D is turb e d D ry-M es i c Oa k -H i ck ory F ore s t Me si c M i xe d H ard w o o d F o res t Op en Wa te r P in e P la n tati o n NO RTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPO RTATI ONDIVISION O F HIG HWAYSPROJECT DEVELO PM ENT ANDENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNI T t 0 20 0100Fe et TERRESTRIA L CO MMUNITIES MAP Re p la c e B ri d g e N o . 2 5 o n SR 2 0 33over B u f fa lo Cre e k in Cl ev e la n d Co u n t y T IP P ro je ct B-5 8 45 Div :TIP # Da te: Fig u re12B-5 8 4 5 Au gu s t 2 0 1 6 4 Page intentionally blank Inserted for double sided printing Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. Appendix B Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report Plants Common Name Scientific Name American beech Fagus grandifolia Bahiagrass Paspalum notatum Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides Clover Trifolium sp. Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana Ebony spleenwort Asplenium platyneuron False Solomon’s seal Maianthemum racemosum Flowering dogwood Cornus florida Grasses Gramineae sp. Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Japanese stilt grass Microstegium vimineum Loblolly pine Pinus taeda Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia Northern red oak Quercus rubra Pecan Carya illinoinensis Plantain Plantago sp. Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans Post oak Quercus stellata Red maple Acer rubrum Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum Strawberry bush Euonymus americanus Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipfera Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia pine Pinus virginiana White oak Quercus alba Animals Common Name Scientific Name American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos American robin Turdus migratorius American toad Anaxyrus americanus Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. Common Name Scientific Name Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina carolina Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus Eastern fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe Eastern towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus European starling Sturnus vulgaris Fieryblack shiner Cyprinella pyrrhomelas Five-lined skink Plestiodon fasciatus Flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Greenfin shiner Cyprinella chloristia Groundhog Marmota monax Highback chub Hybopsis hypsinotus Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Pine warbler Setophaga pinus Raccoon Procyon lotor Rat snake Pantherophis alleghaniensis Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides Sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana Warmouth Lepomis gulosus White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Wood frog Lithobates sylvaticus Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. Appendix C Stream and Wetland Forms Page intentionally blank Inserted for double sided printing Evaluator: e.g. Quad Name: Waco UT to Buffalo Creek/SE NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: 5/4/2016 Project/Site: B-5845 Latitude: 35.27454018 Kevin Lapp/AECOM County: Cleveland Longitude: 81.45764839 Stream Determination (circle one) Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial Other A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 7 )Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. Inchannel structure: ex. rifflepool, steppool, ripplepool sequence 0 1 2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5. Active/relict 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 control 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 = 7 ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 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. Soilbased evidence of high water table?No = 0 Yes = 3 C. Biology (Subtotal = 5.75 ) 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 streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: 1 amphipod observed Sketch: Total Points: Stream is at least intermittent if ≥ 19 or perennial if ≥ 30*19.75 Page intentionally blank Inserted for double sided printing 1.Applicant's name: 3.Date of Evaluation: 5.Name of stream: 7.Approximate drainage area: 9.Length of reach evaluated: 11.Site coordinates (if known): Latitude (ex. 34.872312): NCDOT 5/4/2016 UT to Buffalo Creek/SE 3.8 ac 78 ft prefer in decimal degrees. 35.27454018 2.Evaluator's name: 4.Time Of evaluation: 6.River basin: 8.Stream Order: 10.County: 12.Subdivision name (if any): Longitude (ex. 77.556611): Kevin Lapp/AECOM 2:34:57 PM Broad 03050105 1st Cleveland 81.45764839 Method location determined (circle): 13.Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): 14.Proposed channel work (if any): 15.Recent weather conditions: 16.Site conditions at time of visit: 17.Identify any special waterway classifications known: 19.Does channel appear on USGS quad map?20.Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 21.Estimated watershed land use:0%0%0%0% 60%40%0% 22.Bankfull width:23.Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 24.Channel slope down center of stream: Total Score (from reverse): 18.Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area: USACE AID#DWQ #Site # (indicate on attached map) STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other Bridge 25 on SR 2033 over Buffalo Creek Bridge Replacement 0.4 inches within previous 48 hours Sunny, 62 degrees average temp (F), Wind 5 mph W Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat Trout Waters Outstandng Resource Waters Nutrient Senstive Waters Water Supply Watershed (IIV) YES NO YES NO Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural Forested Cleared/Logged Other () 1 ft 0.5 ft Flat (0 to 2%)Gentle (2 to 4%)Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%) 25.Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality. 37 Comments: Evaluator's Signature Date:5/4/2016 This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change – version 06/03. To Comment, please call 9198768441 x 26. 1 STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET #CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POINT RANGE SCORE Coastal Piedmont Mountain 1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream (no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)0 − 5 0 − 4 0 − 5 1 2 Evidence of past human alteration (extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)0 − 6 0 − 5 0 − 5 3 3 Riparian zone (no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)0 − 6 0 − 4 0 − 5 0 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges (extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)0 − 5 0 − 4 0 − 4 4 5 Groundwater discharge (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)0 − 3 0 − 4 0 − 4 4 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)0 − 4 0 − 4 0 − 2 1 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access (deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)0 − 5 0 − 4 0 − 2 2 8 Presence of adjacent wetlands (no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)0 − 6 0 − 4 0 − 2 0 9 Channel sinuosity (extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)0 − 5 0 − 4 0 − 3 4 10 Sediment input (extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)0 − 5 0 − 4 0 − 4 4 11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate (fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)NA*0 − 4 0 − 5 0 12 Evidence of channel incision or widening (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)0 − 5 0 − 4 0 − 5 2 13 Presence of major bank failures (severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)0 − 5 0 − 5 0 − 5 2 14 Root depth and density on banks (no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)0 − 3 0 − 4 0 − 5 0 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production (substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)0 − 5 0 − 4 0 − 5 4 16 Presence of rifflepool/ripplepool complexes (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; welldeveloped = max points)0 − 3 0 − 5 0 − 6 1 17 Habitat complexity (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)0 − 6 0 − 6 0 − 6 1 18 Canopy coverage over streambed (no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)0 − 5 0 − 5 0 − 5 0 19 Substrate embeddedness (deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)NA*0 − 4 0 − 4 2 20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 − 4 0 − 5 0 − 5 1 21 Presence of amphibians (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 − 4 0 − 4 0 − 4 0 22 Presence of fish (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)0 − 4 0 − 4 0 − 4 0 23 Evidence of wildlife use (no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)0 − 6 0 − 5 0 − 5 1 Total Points Possible 100 100 100 TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)37 * These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams. 2PHYSICALSTABILITYHABITATBIOLOGY Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Yes No Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) WaterStained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Moss Trim Lines (B16) DrySeason Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FACNeutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present?Yes No Water Table Present?Yes No Saturation Present?Yes No Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Sampling Point: B5845 WA Up WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM − Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: B-5845 City/County: Cleveland Sampling Date: 5/4/2016 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: B5845 WA Up Investigator(s): Kevin Lapp/AECOM Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainageway Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.27448149 Long: 81.45763664 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: MadisonBethlehem complex NWI classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Remarks: Upland HYDROLOGY Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Hydrology not met US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Version 2.0 VEGETATION (Five Strata) − Use scientific names of plants. Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )% Cover Species?Status 1.Acer rubrum, Red Maple 10 FAC 2.Liquidambar styraciflua, SweetGum 10 FAC 3.Juniperus virginiana, Eastern RedCedar 10 FACU 4. 5. 6. 30 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 15 20% of total cover: 6 Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) 1.Juniperus virginiana, Eastern RedCedar 5 FACU 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 5 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 1 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0 Species Across All Strata:4 (B) That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50.00 %(A/B) Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 =0 FACW species 0 x 2 =0 FAC species 20 x 3 =60 FACU species 15 x 4 =60 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 Column Totals:35 (A)120 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =3.4286 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Percent of Dominant Species Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is > 50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptions1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions 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 – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. Herb – All herbaceous (nonwoody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. Woody vine All woody vines, regardless of height. Sampling Point: B5845 WA UpVEGETATION (Five Strata) − Use scientific names of plants. Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Version 2.0 Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 5 7.5YR 3/3 100 Clay Loam 14 7.5YR 4/6 100 Clay Loam Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) IronManganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prarie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147,148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136,147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Sampling Point: B5845 WA UpSOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Remarks: Nonhydric soil US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Version 2.0 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Potential Jurisdictional Features No Photos Available Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Yes No Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) WaterStained Leaves (B9) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Moss Trim Lines (B16) DrySeason Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FACNeutral Test (D5) Surface Water Present?Yes No Water Table Present?Yes No Saturation Present?Yes No Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM − Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Project/Site: B-5845 City/County: Cleveland Sampling Date: 5/4/2016 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point: B5845 WA Wet Investigator(s): Kevin Lapp/AECOM Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Drainageway Local Relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P Lat: 35.27448409 Long: 81.45763321 Datum: WGS84 Soil Map Unit Name: MadisonBethlehem complex NWI classification: PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Remarks: HYDROLOGY Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Hydrology met US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Version 2.0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet )% Cover Species?Status 1.Acer rubrum, Red Maple 40 FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 40 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20 20% of total cover: 8 Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) 1.Liquidambar styraciflua, SweetGum 20 FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 20 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) 1.Cornus amomum, Silky Dogwood 10 FACW 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) 1.Microstegium vimineum, Japanese Stilt Grass 40 FAC 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 40 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 20 20% of total cover: 8 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) 1.Parthenocissus quinquefolia, VirginiaCreeper 30 FACU 2.Toxicodendron radicans, Eastern Poison Ivy 15 FAC 3. 4. 5. 45 = Total Cover 50% of total cover: 23 20% of total cover: 9 Species Across All Strata:6 (B) That are OBL, FACW, or FAC:83.33 %(A/B) Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 =0 FACW species 10 x 2 =20 FAC species 115 x 3 =345 FACU species 30 x 4 =120 UPL species 0 x 5 =0 Column Totals:155 (A)485 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A =3.129 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Percent of Dominant Species Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is > 50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptions1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions 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 – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. Shrub – Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. Herb – All herbaceous (nonwoody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. Woody vine All woody vines, regardless of height. Sampling Point: B5845 WA WetVEGETATION (Five Strata) − Use scientific names of plants. Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hydrophytic vegetation US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Version 2.0 Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 4 7.5YR 5/3 75 7.5YR 4/6 25 C PL Clay 14 7.5YR 4/2 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 C PL Clay Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) IronManganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127,147) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) Coast Prarie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147,148) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136,147) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Sampling Point: B5845 WA WetSOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Remarks: Hydric soils US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Version 2.0 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Potential Jurisdictional Features No Photos Available 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 B-5845 Cleveland 5-4-16K. Lapp/P. Worthington Oak Grove Road x x x x 50 45 5 Red maple Sweetgum Virginia creeper x 2 4 2 1 2 2 8 16 10 4 8 1 47 0.03 20 - WA xx Madison-Bethlehem complex Page intentionally blank Inserted for double sided printing Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. Appendix D Qualifications of Contributors Contributor: Charles Benton, PWS Education: B.S. Environmental Science, 1996 Experience: Senior Environmental Scientist, AECOM, 2002–Present Environmental Scientist, Frederick P. Clark Associates, 2000-2002 Environmental Scientist, EcolSciences 1998-2000 Environmental Scientist, Booz Allen Hamilton, 1996-1998 Responsibilities: Document Review Contributor: Peyton Daly Education: B.S. Environmental Technology and Management, 2016 Experience: Environmental Scientist, AECOM, 2016 – Present Responsibilities: Document preparation, GIS analysis Contributor: Ron Johnson Education: M.S. Biological Sciences 1982│B.S. Biological Sciences, 1978 Experience: Senior Biologist, AECOM, 1987–Present Responsibilities: Document review Contributor: Paul Masten, LSS, PWS, LEED-A Education: B.A. Environmental Sciences, 1998 Experience: Project Biologist, AECOM, 2016–Present S&ME 2005-2016 Spangler Environmental, 2002-2005 Applied Environmental, Inc. 1999-2002 Responsibilities: Document review Page intentionally blank Inserted for double sided printing Natural Resources Technical Report TIP B-5845, Cleveland County, N.C. Appendix E Northern Long-eared Bat Survey Memo Page intentionally blank Inserted for double sided printing State of North Carolina | Department of Transportation | PDEA-Natural Environment Section 1020 Birch Ridge Drive, 27610 | 1598 Mail Service Center | Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598 919-707-6000 T 919-212-5785 F June 15, 2016 TO: Michael Turchy, Environmental Program Consultant Environmental Coordination & Permitting Group Western, NES - PDEA CC: Angela Sanderson, Project Development Engineer Project Development Group - Western Region, PDEA FROM: Cheryl Gregory, Environmental Program Consultant Biological Surveys Group, NES - PDEA SUBJECT: Streamline Section 7 Consultation for the Northern Long-Eared Bat associated with the replacement of Bridge No. 25 over Buffalo Creek on SR 2033 in Cleveland County, TIP No. B-5845. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT, Division 12) proposes to replace Bridge No. 25 over Buffalo Creek on SR 2033 in Cleveland County, TIP No. B-5845. The existing bridge is a five span structure with a concrete superstructure, I-beams, and concrete abutments and bents. The guardrail is also constructed of concrete. The overall length of the structure is 225 feet. The project to replace Bridge No. 25 has been reviewed for effects on the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). As of May 4, 2015, NLEB is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. As of April 20, 2016 NLEB is listed by USFWS (http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html) as “probable/potential” in Cleveland County. USFWS also established a final rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act that provides measures for the conservation of NLEB. The USFWS has tailored the final 4(d) rule to prohibit the take of NLEB from certain activities within areas where they are in decline. This incidental take protection applies only to known NLEB occupied maternity roost trees and known NLEB hibernacula. Effective February 16, 2016, incidental take resulting from tree removal is prohibited if it 1) occurs within a ¼ mile radius of known NLEB hibernacula; or 2) cuts or destroys known occupied maternity roost trees, or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the known maternity tree during the pup season (June 1-July 31). According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Biotics Database, most recently updated January 2016, the nearest NLEB hibernacula record is 43 miles west (EO ID 32166) and no known NLEB roost trees occur within 150 feet of the project area. EO 32166 represents Breakdown Cave site with multiple observations from 2001 to 2010. 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. For the proposed action, NCDOT has committed to the conservation measures listed below: 1) No alterations of a known hibernaculum’s entrance or interior environment if it impairs an essential behavioral pattern, including sheltering northern long-eared bats (January 1 through December 31); 2) No tree removal within a 0.25 mile radius of a known hibernacula (January 1 through December 31); and 3) No cutting or destroying a known, occupied maternity roost tree, or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the known, occupied maternity tree during the period from June 1 through and including July 31. 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. If you need any additional information, please contact Cheryl Gregory at 919-707-6142.