20220623 Ver 1_USFWS 2022b_Biological Assessment 2022-04-28_20220502

Upper Forney Creek
Biological Assessment
Prepared using IPaC
Generated by sarah rauch ([e-mail])
April 28, 2022
The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to assess the effects of the
proposed project and determine whether the project may affect any Federally
threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species. This BA is prepared in
accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)).
In this document, any data provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is based on data as of April 28,
2022.

Prepared using IPaC version 6.73.1-rc2

Upper Forney Creek Biological Assessment
Table Of Contents
1 Description of the action
6
1.1 Project name
6
1.2 Executive summary
6
1.3 Project description
7
1.3.1 Location
7
1.3.2 Description of project habitat
8
1.3.3 Project proponent information
8
1.3.4 Project purpose
8
1.3.5 Project type and deconstruction
9
1.3.6 Anticipated environmental stressors
12
1.4 Action area
13
1.5 Conservation measures
14
1.6 Prior consultation history
14
1.7 Other agency partners and interested parties
14
1.8 Other reports and helpful information
14
2 Species effects analysis
15
2.1 Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf
15
Relevant documentation
15
Justification for exclusion
15
2.2 Michaux's Sumac
15
Relevant documentation
15
Justification for exclusion
15
2.3 Monarch Butterfly
16
Relevant documentation
16
Justification for exclusion
16
2.4 Northern Long-eared Bat
16
2.4.1 Status of the species
16
2.4.2 Environmental baseline
18
2.4.3 Effects of the action
19
2.4.4 Cumulative effects
20
2.4.5 Discussion and conclusion
20
Relevant documentation
20
2.5 Schweinitz's Sunflower
20
Relevant documentation
20
Justification for exclusion
20
3 Critical habitat effects analysis
21
3

4 Summary Discussion, Conclusion, and Effect Determinations
4.1 Effect determination summary
4.2 Summary discussion
4.3 Conclusion
22
22
22
22

I Description Of The Action
1.1 Project Name
Upper Forney Creek
1.2 Executive Summary
Forney Creek is an EPA 303d listed stream and sits in a watershed experiencing
excessive vertical and lateral erosion. The purpose of the Proposed Action includes: 1)
permit and design a stream restoration project in order to physically and biologically
restore and enhance Forney Creek -- with the primary goal of maximizing environmental
benefit and ecological uplift, 2) reduce sediment loading to 303d listed waters, 3)
establish vegetated riparian buffers along the stream corridors which will be protected in
perpetuity through the existing conservation easement. No impacts to federally listed
species or critical habitats would occur under implemtation of the Proposed Action.
Effect determination summary
0

1.3 Project Description
1.3.1 Location
Webbs

LOCATION
Lincoln County, North Carolina
1.3.2 Description of project habitat
The proposed action area is comprised of a mix of coniferous and deciduous forest. At
the time of this application, the general land use in the vicinity of the proposed action
area includes undeveloped woodland to the south, east, and west; and commercial and
some small residential areas to the north. A railroad runs parallel to the eastern
boundary of the proposed action area.
1.3.3 Project proponent information
Provide information regarding who is proposing to conduct the project, and their contact
information. Please provide details on whether there is a Federal nexus.
Requesting Agency
CEC
sarah rauch
STREET ADDRESS
3000 Little Hills Expressway
Suite 102
St. Charles
STATE ZIP
MO 63301
PHONE NUMBER E-MAIL ADDRESS
6363462858 [e-mail]
1.3.4 Project purpose
The purpose of the proposed action is to realign and restore portions of upper Forney
Creek (currently listed as a 303d stream) and connect it to the Forney Creek
Conservation Area (managed bythe Catawba Land Conservancy). While the restoration
efforts will include temporary impacts to the stream and stream banks (i.e. construction
and grading), permanent impacts will be beneficial as the terrestrial and aquatic habitats
will be improved and enhanced within the area upon restoration.

1.3.5 Project type and deconstruction
This project is a floodplain/riparian habitat creation/restoration project.
1.3.5.1 Project map
NO
E

LEGEND
❑ Project footprint
r Layer 1: Restored habitat (structure)
L .
10

1.3.5.2 restored habitat
Structure completion date
Unspecified
Removal/decommission date (if applicable)
Not applicable
Stressors
This activity is not expected to have any impact on the environment.
Description
Under the proposed action, upper Forney Creek would be restored through
restoration and stream realignment of the mainstem channel. The goal of the
proposed design plan is to address the cause of the stream's degradation. Under the
proposed action, approximately 8,400 linear feet of degraded stream channels would
be reconstructed to improve bedform diversity, lateral stability, and floodplain
connectivity. Additionally, hydrologic modifications (floodplain drainage ditches,
berms, levees, and other fill areas) would be removed to promote wetland formation.
The proposed action aims to improve overland and subsurface water exchange and
sediment transport continuity, increase channel sinuosity to reduce flow velocities,
promote the formation of natural pools and riffles, and improve lateral and vertical
stability of the proposed project area. Riparian/slope wetlands would be established
by plugging drainage ditches, reconnecting stream channels to wetland areas,
planting native wetland plant species, and permanently protecting restored streams
and riparian wetland areas. Restoration practices include construction of new, off-
line channel segments, installation of woody debris in the form of wood toe, and
installation of natural grade control structures such as stone and log riffles, and
boulder toe to reconnect streams to their floodplain and promote bedform diversity.
Priority 1 restoration techniques would be applied to approximately 4,969 linear feet
of stream, while Priority 2 restoration techniques would be applied to approximately
3,437 linear feet of stream. Priority 1 restoration within Forney Creek will include
replacing the incised channel with a new, stable stream at an elevation that
promotes ecological uplift and reduced flow velocity. To ensure there would be no
net loss of habitat, the proposed stream restoration would restore the approximate
6,995 linear feet of existing stream to be impacted, as well as create an additional
1,411 linear feet of Priority 1 stream within the project area. Priority 2 restoration will
create a new floodplain and stream banks with the stream alignment remaining at
the present location.
Equipment to be used includes general construction equipment such as excavators,
backhoes, bulldozers, graders, and dump and haul trucks.
11

1.3.6 Anticipated environmental stressors
Describe the anticipated effects of your proposed project on the aspects of the land, air
and water that will occur due to the activities above. These should be based on the
activity deconstructions done in the previous section and will be used to inform the
action area.
1.3.6.1 Animal Features
Individuals from the Animalia kingdom, such as raptors, mollusks, and fish. This feature also includes
byproducts and remains of animals (e.g., carrion, feathers, scat, etc.), and animal -related structures (e.g.,
dens, nests, hibernacula, etc.).
1.3.6.2 Plant Features
Individuals from the Plantae kingdom, such as trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, ferns, and mosses. This feature
also includes products of plants (e.g., nectar, flowers, seeds, etc.).
1.3.6.3 Aquatic Features
Bodies of water on the landscape, such as streams, rivers, ponds, wetlands, etc., and their physical
characteristics (e.g., depth, current, etc.). This feature includes the groundwater and its characteristics. Water
quality attributes (e.g., turbidity, pH, temperature, DO, nutrients, etc.) should be placed in the Environmental
Quality Features.
1.3.6.4 Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous should only be used if the created feature does not fit into one of the other categories or if the
creator is not sure in which category it should be placed.
12

1.4 Action Area
°J" webbs
13

1.5 Conservation Measures
Describe any proposed measures being implemented as part of the project that are
designed to reduce the impacts to the environment and their resulting effects to listed
species. To avoid extra verbiage, don't list measures that have no relevance to the
species being analyzed.
No conservation measures have been selected for this project.
1.6 Prior Consultation History
No prior consultation history.
1.7 Other Agency Partners And Interested Parties
Catawba Land Conservancy (https://catawbalands.oraa (https://catawbalands.gn/j
1.8 Other Reports And Helpful Information
Please see attached reports.
Relevant documentation
• 5. 2019-007 Old Stumpy Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
• Wined Saint James Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
14

2 Species Effects Analysis
This section describes, species by species, the effects of the proposed action on listed,
proposed, and candidate species, and the habitat on which they depend. In this
document, effects are broken down as direct interactions (something happening directly
to the species) or indirect interactions (something happening to the environment on
which a species depends that could then result in effects to the species).
These interactions encompass effects that occur both during project construction and
those which could be ongoing after the project is finished. All effects, however, should
be considered, including effects from direct and indirect interactions and cumulative
effects.
2.1 Dwarf -Flowered Heartleaf
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Relevant documentation
• Wined Saint James Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
• 5. 2019-007 Old Stumpy Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
Please see attached survey reports.
Justification for exclusion
No federally listed species were observed within the proposed project area during
surveys (pleasee see attached survey reports).
2.2 Michaux's Sumac
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Relevant documentation
• Signed Saint James Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
• 5. 2019-007 Old Stumpy Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
Justification for exclusion
No federally listed species were observed within the proposed project area during
surveys (please see attached survey reports).
15

2.3 Monarch Butterfly
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Relevant documentation
• Wined Saint James Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
• 5. 2019-007 Old Stumpy Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
Justification for exclusion
No federally listed species were observed within the proposed project area during
surveys (please see attached survey reports).
2.4 Northern Long -Eared Bat
2.4.1 Status of the species
This section should provide information on the species' background, its biology and life
history that is relevant to the proposed project within the action area that will inform the
effects analysis.
2.4.1.1 Legal status
The Northern Long-eared Bat is federally listed as 'Threatened' and additional
information regarding its legal status can be found on the ECOS species profile.
2.4.1.2 Recovery plans
Available recovery plans for the Northern Long-eared Bat can be found on the ECOS
species profile.
16

2.4.1.3 Life history information
The northern long-eared bat is a medium-sized bat about 3 to 3.7 inches in length but with a
wingspan of 9 to 10 inches. As its name suggests, this bat is distinguished by its long ears,
particularly as compared to other bats in its genus, Myotis, which are actually bats noted for their
small ears (Myotis means mouse -eared). The northern long-eared bat is found across much of the
eastern and north central United States and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic coast west
to the southern Northwest Territories and eastern British Columbia. The species range includes
37 states. White -nose syndrome, a fungal disease known to affect bats, is currently the
predominant threat to this bat, especially throughout the Northeast where the species has
declined by up to 99 percent from pre -white -nose syndrome levels at many hibernation sites.
Although the disease has not yet spread throughout the northern long-eared bats entire range
(white -nose syndrome is currently found in at least 25 of 37 states where the northern long-eared
bat occurs), it continues to spread. Experts expect that where it spreads, it will have the same
impact as seen in the Northeast.
Identified resource needs
Hibernacula
Humidity: high, noise: low, with minimal distrubance, temperature: 0-9 degrees celsius, time of
year: august through april, type: caves, mines, sewers and spillways
I nsects
Type: lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), coleoptera (beetles), trichoptera (caddisflies), diptera
(flies), spiders and lepidopterous larvae
Open water
Type: streams, rivers, ponds, wetlands, lakes and road ruts
Travel corridors
Location: between forest patches, type: riparian corridors, wooded paths, hedgerows and fence
rows
Trees
Size: > or equal to 3 inch dbh, spatial arrangement: within 1000 feet of forest, structure: cracks,
crevices, cavities, exfoliating bark, time of year: april through august, type: dead, nearly dead,
living tree with dead parts and living with appropriate structure
17

2.4.1.4 Conservation needs
Habitat for the NLEB potentially exists in the Project Area. Specifically potential summer
roost sites with some on -site trees offering "flaking bark", and in cavities or in crevices of
both live trees and snags. Construction will avaoid clearing of any such habitat.
The USFWS has established a final rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the ESA
that provides measures for the conservation of NLEB. The final rule prohibits 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 1/4 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 and
the USFWS Asheville Field office website (http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/
project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html), no known NLEB hibernacula or roost trees occur
within Lincoln County. This project is located entirely outside of the gray highlighted
counties that the USFWS Asheville Field Office has determined to be representative of
an area that may require consultation.
2.4.2 Environmental baseline
The environmental baseline describes the species' health within the action area only
at the time of the consultation, and does not include the effects of the action under
review. Unlike the species information provided above, the environmental baseline is at
the scale of the Action area.
2.4.2.1 Species presence and use
Potential suitable habitat is present within the forested areas located in the vicinity of the
proposed action area.
Reievant documentation
• Signed Saint James Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
• 5. 2019-007 Old StumDv Preserve Baseline Documentation R
2.4.2.2 Species conservation needs within the action area
Conservation needs include the preservation of summer roost habitats.
100

2.4.2.3 Habitat condition (general)
As previously stated, habitat for the NLEB potentially exists in the Project Area.
Specifically potential summer roost sites with some on -site trees offering "flaking bark",
and in cavities or in crevices of both live trees and snags . The USFWS has established
a final rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the ESA that provides measures for the
conservation of NLEB. The final rule prohibits 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'A 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 and
the USFWS Asheville Field office website (http://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/
project _review/NLEB_in_WNC.html), no known NLEB hibernacula or roost trees occur
within Lincoln County. This project is located entirely outside of the gray highlighted
counties that the USFWS Asheville Field Office has determined to be representative of
an area that may require consultation.
2.4.2.4 Influences
Not applicable.
2.4.2.5 Additional baseline information
None.
2.4.3 Effects of the action
This section considers and discusses all effects on the listed species that are caused by
the proposed action and are reasonably certain to occur, including the effects of other
activities that would not occur but for the proposed action.
2.4.3.1 Indirect interactions
Provide a brief overview of what the applicable science has discovered regarding the
species and its response to the stressors that each project activity may cause. This
should include an explanation of the pathways and mechanisms that have potential to
translate environmental change (impact) into response and effects to individuals.
2.4.3.2 Direct interactions
No direct interactions leading to effects on species are expected to occur from the proposed
project.
19

2.4.4 Cumulative effects
Restoration of the area would result in beneficial cumulative impacts as a result of
improvements to the terrestrial and aquatic habitats.
2.4.5 Discussion and conclusion
Determination: NE
Relevant documentation
• Signed Saint James Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
• 5. 2019-007 Old Stumpy Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
2.5 Schweinitz's Sunflower
This species has been excluded from analysis in this environmental review
document.
Relevant documentation
• Signed Saint James Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
• 5. 2019-007 Old Stumpy Preserve Baseline Documentation Report
Justification for exclusion
No federally listed species were observed within the proposed project area during
surveys (please see attached survey reports). Note that the sunflower was observed
approximately 0.5 miles south of the area, however potential suitable habitat is not
present within theproposed project area.
20

3 Critical Habitat Effects Analysis
No critical habitats intersect with the project action area.
21

4 Summary Discussion, Conclusion, And Effect
Determinations
4.1 Effect Determination Summary
SPECIES
SCIENTIFIC
LISTING
PRESENT IN
EFFECT
(COMMON
NAME
STATUS
ACTION AREA
DETERMINATION
NAME)
Dwarf -flowered
Hexastylis naniflora
Threatened
No
NE
Heartleaf
Michaux s Sumac
Rhus michauxii
Endangered
No
NE
Monarch Butterfly
Danaus plexippus
Candidate
Excluded from
Excluded from analysis
analysis
Northern Lon -eared
Myotis septentrionalis
Threatened
Yes
NE
Bat
Schweinitz's
Helianthus
Endangered
No
NE
Sunflower
I
schweinitzii
4.2 Summary Discussion
No impacts to federally listed species or critical habitats would occur under
implementation of the Proposed Action.
4.3 Conclusion
No impacts to federally listed species or critical habitats would occur under
implementation of the Proposed Action.
22