20061692 Ver 1_Monitoring Reports_20020228

1
1
1
f
J
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
FED ~ `j' 2r?!)?
Natural Resources Technical Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519
Over Richland Creek
Haywood County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.2942601
TIP Proj ect No. B-4144
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
~oR~~, a~
o ~.
{2\
v
~~,
OF"TR
February 2002

1
1
Natural Systems Report

~, TIP No. B-4144
SR 1519
Haywood County, North
Carolina
,~

Prepared for.
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Prepared by.
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
P.O. Box 31388
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1388
2301 Rexwoods Drive -Suite 102
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-3366
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Our Ref.:
NC601032.0000
~; Date:
February 2002
This document is intended only for the use of
the indnridual or entity for which it was
prepared and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential, and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
document is rnictly prohibited.
u

t
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
1
1
t
1
1
l
1
1
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Project Description 1-1
1.2 Purpose 1-1
1.3 Methodology 1-2
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator 1-3
2. Physical Resources 2-7
2.1 Geology 2-1
2.2 Soils 2-1
2.3 Water Resources 2-2
2.4 Physical Resources Impacts 2-5
3. Biotic Resources 3-1
3.1 Plant Communities 3-1
3.1.1 Montane Alluvial Forest 3-1
3.1.2 Montane Oak -Hickory Forest 3-2
3.1.3 Agricultural /Disturbed Lands 3-2
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife 3-3
3.3 Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife 3-5
3.4 Biotic Resource Impacts 3-6
4. Waters of the United States 4-1
4.1 Surface Waters 4-1
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands 4-1
4.3 Impacts to Waters of the United States 4-2
4.4 Permit Requirements 4-2
4.5 Mitigation 4-3
5. Rare and Protected Species 5-1
5.1 Animals 5-2
Table of Contents

t
1
1
Y
f
1
1
t
1
i
1
1
1
5.2 Plants
6. References
Figures
1 Vicinity Map
2 Natural Communities and Surface Waters
Tables
1 Soils Summary of the Richland Creek Bridge Replacement Study Area,
SR 1519, Haywood County, North Carolina
2 NPDES Dischargers Within the Richland Creek Watershed, Haywood
County, North Carolina
3 Federa{ly Protected Species Known from Haywood County, North
Carolina
4 Federal Species of Concern Known from Haywood County, North
Carolina
5-7
6-1
Table of Contents

r
7. Introduction
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc. (ARCADIS G&M) has been retained by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to prepare a Natural Systems
Technical Report for the replacement of Bridge No. 211 on SR 1519 over Richland
Creek in Haywood County, North Carolina. The following Natural Systems Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of the Categorical Exclusion for the proposed
project.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project, TIP No. B-4144, will replace Bridge No. 211 over Richland
Creek in Haywood County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The bridge is currently in poor
condition with numerous cracks and heavy deterioration. Rehabilitation of the existing
structure does not appear to be a feasible option due to its age and condition. This
replacement will result in a safer structure, consistent with federal and state bridge
standards.
No alternatives for the proposed project have been defined; therefore, atriangular-
shaped area, approximately 1,160 feet (354 meters) long and 760 feet (232 meters)
1 wide, encompassing approximately 10.77 acres (4.36 hectares) was studied.
Approximately 1,1501ineaz feet (350.6 meters} of Richland Creek are contained within
the project study area. The project vicinity is defined as a larger area, approximately
one-half mile (0.6 km) on all sides of the study area. The project region is the area
generally represented on a standard 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey
(USGS) topographic quadrangle map.
Since no alternatives have been identified, impacts to Waters of the United States
cannot be determined. However, bridge demolition activities will strictly follow
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-
BDR). As per the BMPs-BDR, all methods of demolition shall be considered and
implemented where practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water.
,~ 1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the natural
systems within the study area. Recommendations are made for measures which will
minimize resource impacts, as well as preliminary determinations of permit needs and
mitigation options. These descriptions and estimates aze based only on the defined
1
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Introduction
t-~

Natural Systems
Report. B-4144
Haywood County
Introduction

study area since no preliminary concepts have been formulated. If the study area or
criteria change, additional field investigations will be necessary.
1.3 Methodology
Qualified biologists from ARCADIS G&M conducted field investigations within the
project study area during July 2001. Pedestrian surveys were undertaken to determine
natural resource conditions and to document natural communities, wildlife, and the
presence of protected species or their habitats.
i
d fr
om a
ve
Published information regarding the project area and region was der
number of resources including: USGS 7.5-Minute Topographical Quadrangle Map
(Clyde, North Carolina), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project area
(1"=100'), and Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil maps. Water
resources information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and
state protected species within the project area and vicinity was gathered from the
USFWS list of protected species (March, 2001) and the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (July, 2001).
,~ Dominant plant species were identified in each strata for all natural communities
encountered. Plant community descriptions are based on those classified in Schafale
and Weakley (1990), where applicable. For the context of this report, community
classifications have been modified in some instances to better reflect field
observations. Names and descriptions of plant species generally follow Radford et al.
(1968), unless more current information is available. Animal names and descriptions
follow Martof et al. (1980), Stokes (1996), Rohde et al. (1994), and Webster et al.
(1985). Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided
for each plant and animal species listed. Subsequent references to the same organism
include the common name only.
During surveys, wildlife identification involved a variety of observation techniques:
active searching and capture, visual observations (both with and without the use of
binoculars), and observing the characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scats, tracks, and
burrows). Organisms captured during these searches were identified and released
without injury. Quantitative water sampling was not undertaken to support existing
1_ data.
1-2
1

,~ Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Introduction
t
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using the three-parameter
approach as prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary technical literature describing the
parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological indicators was
also utilized. Wetland functions were evaluated according to the Division of Water
Quality's Rating System, 4~'version (1995).
~ 1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Martha M. Register, Staff Scientist
Education: MS, Botany, North Carolina State University
BS, Food Science, The Pennsylvania State University
Experience: ARCADIS G&M, November 1997 to present
Environmental Biologist, Robert J. Goldstein & Associates,
July 1995 to November 1997
Expertise: NEPA investigations, Section 7 investigations, wetland delineation.

Investigator: Harold M. Brady, Staff Scientist
Education: BS, Natural Resources Ecosystems Assessment, North Carolina State
University
Undergraduate Studies in Biology, University of North Carolina. at
Asheville
Experience: ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc., January 2000 to present
Expertise: NEPA investigations, Section 7 investigations, wetland determination
and delineation, and stream determination and delineation.
r
r
1
~
,,

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Physical Resources

2. Physical Resources
Haywood County is situated in the southwestern portion of the Mountain
physiographic province in North Carolina. The geography of the county consists
predominantly of very steep uplands, with gentler slopes in the major river valleys.
Narrow, nearly level floodplains are along most of the streams in the region; however,
steep gorges are not uncommon. The project area is located at the base of Hyder
Mountain and Fincher Mountain, approximately 1 % miles northeast of the Lake
Junaluska Dam. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 2,500 feet
(762 meters) above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 2,530 feet (771 meters) above MSL as
depicted on the Clyde, North Carolina, USGS topographic quadrangle map.
2.1 Geology
The Mountain physiographic province of North Cazolina is composed of parent
material dating back 500 million to one billion years. This parent material is associated
with the Blue Ridge Belt. This complex mixture of igneous, sedimentary, and
metamorphic rock has been squeezed, fractured, faulted, and twisted into folds. The
Blue Ridge Belt is well known for its deposits of feldspar, mica, and quartz-basic
materials used in the ceramic, paint, and electronic mdustries. The project vicuuty is
J located within the Oconee Supergroup. The study area is depicted as a formation of
biotite gneiss which is migmatic and interlayered and gradational with biotite-garnet
gneiss and amphibolite. Quartz and aluminosilicates are locally abundant throughout
this formation. This mapping unit is depicted as a relatively wide irregular band
stretching from Sandymush, North Carolina, south into northern Georgia (NCGS,
1991).
~~ 2.2 Soils
The process of soil development depends on both biotic and abiotic influences. These
influences include past geologic activities, nature of parent materials, environmental
and human influences, plant and animal activity, time, climate, and topographic
position. Coarsely mapped soil areas are referred to as soil associations. These soil
associations are defined as landscapes that exhibit distinctive proportional patterns of
soils consisting of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil. The soils within
an association generally vary in slope, depth, stoniness, drainage, and other
characteristics.
One soil association is present in the project area, the Dillsboro-Dellwood-Braddock
association. Based on information obtained from USDA (1996), the Dillsboro-
2-1
1

C]
i
f

R

1
1

1
1
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Physical Resources
Dellwood-Braddock association is comprised of nearly level to moderately steep,
moderately well drained to well drained soils that are sandy, loamy, and clayey. These
soils can be shallow or very deep and likely contain sand, gravel, and cobbles. This
association is found in the mountains on floodplains and high stream terraces formed
from alluvium washed from higher elevations. The minor soils within this association
include Cullowhee, Nikwasi, Rosman, Stotler, and Saunook (Allison, 1997).
Hayesville, Fannin, and Rosman soils aze found within the study area. However,
Fannin and Hayesville soils are not identified as minor soils in the Braddock-Nikwasi-
Dellwood-Cullowhee association. Information concerning specific soils depicted
within the study area is included in Table 1.
Table 1
Soils Summary of the Richland Creek Bridge Replacement Study Area
SR 1519, Haywood County, North Carolina
Map Unit Soil Series Slope Drainage General Characteristics -
FnE2 Fannin loam 30-50% Well drained Very deep soils located on side slopes of
low mountains, with moderate
permeability and rapid surface runoff.
HaD2 Hayesville clay loam 15-30% Well drained Very deep soils located on moderately
steep ridges and side slopes, with
moderate permeability and rapid surface
runoff.
RoA* Rosman fine sandy loam 0-2% Well drained to Very deep soils that are nearly level and
moderatelywell drained found on floodplains, with moderate
permeability and slow surface runoff.
* Occurs an Hydric Soils list, USDA-SCS, 1996
Source: NRCS, 2001.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that aze saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and
regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (Cowazdin et al., 1979). Rosman fine sandy
loam with a 0 to 2 percent slope located along floodplains within the study area aze
listed as having hydric inclusions of Nikwasi soils especially along drainage ways
(NRCS, 1996).
2.3 Water Resources
Streams, creeks, and tributaries within the project region aze part of the French Broad
River Basin. The basin is located entirely within the Southern Appalachian Mountains
region of western North Carolina and encompasses approximately 2,842 square miles
(7,361 square kilometers). The French Broad Basin is composed of three separate
2-2
1

1
J
drainages all flowing northwestwazd into Tennessee: French Broad River, North Toe
~~ River, and Pigeon River. These waters converge at Douglas Reservoir and outfall into
the Tennessee River. Waters associated with this basin eventually empty into the Gulf
of Mexico, via the Mississippi River. Approximately half of the land within the basin
is federally owned consisting predominantly of undeveloped forestland. A majority of
the remaining privately owned lands are forested lands as well.
Richland Creek accounts for all of the surface waters in the project azea {Figure 2). It
is situated in NCDWQ Subbasin 04-03-OS and the USGS sub-basin 06010106. The
section of Richland Creek from the Lake Junaluska Dam to the Pigeon River, which
includes the project area, has been identified by the NCDWQ Stream Index # 5-16-
(16).
NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses.
Richland Creek is classified as "C" waters. Class C denotes waters suitable for all
general uses including aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, primary
recreation, and agriculture. All of the Richland Creek tributaries upstream of the
project azea to the Lake Junaluska Dam aze classified as C waters. Several of the
~' tributaries of Richland Creek upstream of the Lake Junaluska Dam are classified as
trout supporting ("Tr") waters. "Tr" denotes trout waters which are suitable for natural
trout propagation and the maintenance of stocked trout. This additional classification
affects wastewater discharge, although there are no watershed development restrictions
except the stream buffer-zone requirements of the North Carolina Division of Land
Resources (NCDLR). Additional information concerning trout waters is included in
Section 2.4.
Several tributaries of Richland Creek upstream of the Lake Junaluska Dam are
classified as water supply (WS-I) waters. WS-I waters represent water supplies in
natural and undeveloped watersheds, in which no point source dischazges are allowed.
No other Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW}, HQW, or Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) occur within the Richland Creek watershed in the project region.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine
water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and
chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters collected is
determined by the waterbodies' classification and corresponding water quality
standards. The AMS determines the "use support" status of waterbodies, meaning how
well a waterbody supports its designated uses. The waters in the project area are
currently rated as Partially Supporting.
~~
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Physical Resources
2-3
1

1
A benthic macroinvertebrate sampling study was conducted in 1997 within the
subbasin. The sampling study consisted of 16 sites, which rated from "fau" to
"excellent" in water quality. Four of the 16 sites are within the Richland Creek
watershed, three on Richland Creek and one on an upstream tributary. One of the
sampling sites is located within the project area. This site received a "fau"
classification due to urbanization upstream of the study area from Lake Junaluska and
Waynesville. The other two Richland Creek sampling sites were more than five miles
(8.0 km) upstream of the study area and received "good/fair" ratings.
While the upper portions of Richland Creek show impacts from agriculture and urban
development, only the section below the Lake Junaluska Dam is currently rated
Partially Supporting. Agriculture and urban development is affecting this section of
the creek, resulting in biological impairment and habitat degradation. Erosion and the
resulting sedimentation are problematic for the entire length of the creek and is heavily
impacting water quality in Lake Junaluska. However, according to NCDWQ, Richland
Creek has shown signs of improving water quality in recent years.
1 Lake Junaluska was most recently monitored by DWQ in June through September
1997 and was found to be oligotrophic in June and July and mesotrophic in August and
September. According to investigations conducted by NCDWQ between 1981 to
1992, Lake Junaluska fluctuated between eutrophic and mesotrophic conditions.
Sedimentation and eutrophication have been problematic for Lake Junaluska and an
algae bloom was noted during July 1997, which resulted in a fish kill. Sedimentation
has increased primarily due to residential and commercial growth in the watershed. As
a result of these sedimentation inputs, significant fiends have been spent on periodically
dredging the lake. The DWQ assessed an enforcement action against the Lake
Junaluska Assembly in November 1998 after the lake was mistakenly drained lower
than was intended. A plume of sediment from the lake bottom flowed down the entire
length of lower Richland Creek, which includes the study area, to the Pigeon River,
burying fish and habitat. These actions will likely have along-term impact on the
water quality of lower Richland Creek and the Pigeon River.
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Physical Resources
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are regulated through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are
required by law to register for a permit. According to NCDWQ (1997), there are
twenty permitted NPDES dischargers in the subbasin, with three of those being major
dischargers (>0.5 MGD). Only one major discharger is located within the Richland
Creek watershed, the Waynesville Wastewater Treatment Plant, located approximately
0.5 mile (0.8 km) south and upstream of the study area. There are six minor
dischargers within the Richland Creek watershed, which are located approximately 2'/z
2-4
1

Cl
1
to 10 miles (4.0 to 16.1 km) upstream of the project area. Information concerning
these dischargers is included in Table 2.
1
L'
~'

Table 2
NPDES Dischargers Within the Richland Creek Watershed
Haywood County, North Carolina
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Physical Resources
NPDES Permit ~ Facility Permit Type Water Body
N00066842 Ammons Foods/McElroy Restaurant Minor -Non-Municipal Factory Branch
N00082953 Terry Lynn Motel Minor - Mon-Municipal Factory Branch
N00030422 Green Valley Mobile Home Park Minor- Non-Municipal Hyatt Creek
N00025321 Waynesville, Town of - WWTP Major -Municipal Pigeon River
N00032361 Autumn Care of Waynesville Minor -Non-Municipal Richland Creek
N00062863 Ithilien lodge Minor Unnamed Trib. of Richmond Creek
N00074063 Country Club Real Estate - WNC Minor Unnamed Trib. of Richmond Creek
2.4 Physical Resources Impacts
Cut and fill activities associated with bridge approaches and/or relocated road will
impact soils due to removal, relocation, and compaction.
The primary sources ofwater-quality degradation in rural areas are agricultural
operations and construction. Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the project area during construction. Aquatic organisms are very sensitive
to discharges and inputs resulting from construction. Appropriate measures must be
taken to avoid spillage and control runoff. Potential impacts associated with
construction of the proposed project include: increased sedimentation, scouring of the
streambed, soil compaction, and loss of shading due to vegetation removal. Increased
sedimentation from lateral flows is also expected. Measures to minimize these
potential impacts include the formulation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan,
provisions for waste materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and
appropriate road maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly
,~ enforced during the construction stages of the project.
Since Haywood County is one of 25 counties designated as containing mountain trout
waters, NCDOT must strictly adhere to North Carolina's, "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. Due to the potential for water quality impacts during construction, the
y
2-5
1

i
1
1
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) suggests in-stream
construction moratorium to limit the effects on fishery resources. Scott Loftis
(NCWRC, 9/25/01), indicated that Richland Creek currently contains trout. Depending
on the species of trout present the following in-stream construction moratoriums would
apply: October 15 to March 31 for brown and brook trout, January 1 to April 15 for
rainbow trout, and October 15 to April 15 if all three trout species are present.
NCDOT will coordinate with NCWRC regarding the presence or absence of trout
species and the application of the appropriate construction moratorium.
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Physical Resources
2-6
1

1
I
r
1
1
1

A
J
1
1
3. Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife that occur within
the project area. The project area is composed of different vegetative communities
based on topography, soils, hydrology, and disturbance. These systems are interrelated
and in many aspects interdependent. Potential impacts affecting these communities are
also discussed. Scientific nomenclature and common name (when applicable} are
provided for each plant and animal species listed. Subsequent references to the same
organism include only the common name.
3.1 Plant Communities
Community boundaries are frequently ill defined; contiguous communities generally
merge without transition zones. Distribution and composition of these communities
reflect variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses.
Within the study area, all natural community patterns have been modified by previous
disturbances. The following community profile description reflects the NCNHP
classification scheme. Three plant communities are located in the project study area:
montane alluvial forest, montane oak -hickory forest, and agriculturaUdisturbediands.
These communities are described in greater detail below and presented in Figure 2.
3.1.1 Montane Alluvial Forest
Montane alluvial forests are found within stream and river floodplains at moderate to
high elevations. Vegetation within this community is dependent upon occasional
flooding. The flooding events provide added sediment and nutrient input, and cause
natural openings in the canopy and subcanopy thus creating anuneven-aged stand.
However, beavers and catastrophic flooding can cause the forest to never mature and
remain in early succession. In a mature montane alluvial forest, including the
community within the study area, canopy trees typically range between 10 and 20
inches (25.4 and 50.8 cm) diameter at breast height (DBH). This community is found
within the study area as a strip approximately 100 to 150 feet (30 to 46 meters) wide
along Richland Creek.
Vegetation within this community can vary quite a bit between the northern or
southern aspects. However, due to the disturbed nature of this community within the
study area there is little noticeable difference between the northern and southern
aspects. The canopy is dominated by a diverse mix of eastern hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis}, black walnut (Juglans nigra), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), black
cherry (Prunes serotina), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Ater rubrum),
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Biotic Resources
3-1
r

t

i
r

N
1
~~
1
1
river birch {Betula nigra), yellow birch (Betula lutea), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). The sub-canopy and understory species include mulberry (Mores rubra),
hazelnut (Corylus americana), sweet shrub (Calycanthus jloridus var. laevigatus),
musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), tag alder (Alm{s serrulata), flowering dogwood
(Corpus jlorida}, silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), black locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia), American ash (Fraxinus americana), American holly (Ilex opaca}, willow
(Salix nigra}, spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana).
Groundcover and herbaceous species that are present include doghobble (Leucothoe
fontanesiana), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia),
blackberry {Rebus spp.), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium), Soloman's seal
(Polygonatum biflorum), thorn bush (Rosa rugosa), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
3.1.2 Montane Oak -Hickory Forest
The montane oak -hickory forest developed along dry-mesic slopes and partly
sheltered ridgetops at moderate to fairly high elevations, typically in the southern
mountains. A mature montane oak -hickory forest is naturally uneven-aged, with
reproduction occurring in canopy gaps. Fires, strong winds, and ice storms cause the
majority of the natural tree felling, which result in these canopy gaps. It is believed
that the American chestnut (Castanea dentata) once dominated these communities
prior to the chestnut blight. The loss of the American chestnut has resulted in a mixed
upland species composition in this community. A mix of oaks, hickories, and other
upland hardwood species dominates the canopy, with the trees ranging in size from 8
to 12 inches (20.3 to 30.5 cm) DBH. This community is found as a small section on
the far eastern side of the project area.
Within the study area, red maple, black cherry, white oak (Quercus alba), and pignut
hickory (Carya glabra) dominate the canopy. The understory consists predominately
of smooth sumac (Rhos glabra), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), black locust, and
hop hornbeam. Vines dominate the groundcover stratum within this community and
include muscadine, honeysuckle, and leather-flower (Clematis spp.).
3.1.3 Agricultural /Disturbed Lands
Agricultural lands represent areas used for the cultivation of row crops, and disturbed
lands are areas which are maintained to contain very little to no woody vegetation.
These communities are generally even-aged, human dominated, and have little, if any,
species diversity. Agricultural lands are harvested on a particular rotation and provide
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Biotic Resources
3-2
t

limited habitat diversity for wildlife. This community is the most prevalent community
~ within the study area and is found throughout the project area.
The agricultural lands community within the study area can be divided into two types
ofsub-communities, active and fallow. There is one active agricultural field within the
study area, located in the northern and central portions of the study area. Corn was
being raised in the active agricultural field during the site visit. Two fallow fields
consisting of a wide variety of herbaceous and groundcover vegetation are located in
the southern and western sections of the study area, along SR 1591. Vegetation within
the fallow field includes various grasses (Poaceae), nightshade (Sodanurn spp.), poison
~" ivy, clover (Trifolium spp.), and goldenrod (Solidago spp.).

1
1
1
~~
1
r
Several species were only observed along the edges of the fields either along the
montane alluvial forest community or along the asphalt-paved road. Observed
between the fields and the montane alluvial forest community was bamboo
(Phyllostachys aurea), privet (Ligustrum sinense), phlox {Phlox spp.), shingle oak
(Quercus imbricata), Catawba tree (Catalpa speciosa), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin),
sassafras (Sassafras albidum}, pignut hickory, beauty-berry (Callicarpa americana},
and meadow rue (Thalictrum spp.). Vegetation between the somewhat steep roadsides
and the fields include knotweed (Polygonum spp.), leather-flower, Virginia creeper,
common milkweed (Asclepius syriaca), blackberry, daisy fleabane (Erigeron spp.), red
maple, shingle oak, black cherry, and Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota}.
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
The rich cove community in conjunction with open urban and disturbed lands offers
high plant diversity with a readily available water source, thus providing good wildlife
habitat. These forests provide a variety of habitat for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and
mammals. Species observed during the site visit are indicated by an asterisk (*).
The project study area likely exhibits a diverse amphibian population. Species such as
the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) and various salamanders including the
seal (Desmognathus monticola), mountain dusky (D. ochrophaeus), blackbelly (D.
quadramaculatus}, two-lined (Eurycea bislineata), Jordan's (Plethodon jordani), and
red (Pseudotriton ruber) likely exist within the project study area. Newts and
salamanders forage on aquatic and terrestrial insects, crustaceans, worms, and other
organisms along the forest floor and in Richland Creek. The eastern newt spends its
juvenile life in wooded areas adjacent to streams. Once it reaches adulthood the newt
inhabits primarily streams. Salamanders can be found in a variety of habitats, though
most are associated with small streams and seepages. Species such as the mountain
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Biotic Resources
3-3
t

1
dusky, Jordan's, and the ravine salamander are found primarily in terrestrial habitats
under rocks, leaves, and woody debris. In addition, other amphibians such as spring
peepers (Hyla crucifer) and pickerel frogs (Rana palustris) are likely present. Spring
peepers mainly inhabit woodlands while pickerel frogs are found along shaded streams
and wet azeas.
Reptile species including snakes, lizards, and turtles are found throughout most
ecosystems, especially in forested areas near water. Snakes forage on slugs,
earthworms, insects, eggs, small mammals, fish, and amphibians depending upon the
species. Several snake species that are likely to be present within the study area
include the brown snake (Storeria dekayi), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus),
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta). Lizards
found within the southeastern United States feed primarily on insects and inhabit a
wide variety of habitats. Lizazd species that aze likely to be observed within the study
area include the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), and Broadhead skink (E. laticeps). The most ancient of all living reptiles are
turtles, which are generally omnivorous and found in or neaz water. Turtle species that
are likely to be found within the study area include the snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina) and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
Bird species inhabiting or migrating through the study area were observed or may
include hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus}, downy woodpecker (P. pubescens),
eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), blue~ay
(Cyanocitta cristata), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica}, Carolina chickadee* (Poecile
carolinensis), tufted titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta
carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), yellow warbler (Dendroica
petechia), northern cazdinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), and belted kingfisher* (Ceryle
alcyon). Game species such as woodcock (Scolopax minor), ruffed grouse (Bonasa
umbellus) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) may also be present. Predatory birds
such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and eastern screech owl (Otus asio) are
also likely to be found in the project vicinity.
,~ A diverse mammal population is expected in and surrounding the project study area.
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana}, smoky shrew (Sorex fumeus), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striates), woodchuck
(Marmota monax}, gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), coyote (Canis latrans),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison}, eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale
putorius), American beaver* (Castor canadensis), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) were observed or are likely inhabitants of the project region. In addition,

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Biotic Resources
3-4

n
1
bats such as the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), silver-haired (Lasionycteris
noctivagans), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), and red (Lasiurus borealis)
maybe present in the project study area.
3.3 Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife
The quality and diversity of aquatic habitat in Richland Creek is expected to be
moderate due to a natural mix of runs, riffles, and pools. The prof ect region has
experienced minimal disturbance to water resources as a result of timber harvesting
operations, land clearing, construction, and trout farming. Richland Creek, within the
project study area, is a relatively moderate-flowing, somewhat deep stream with the
streambed composed primarily of silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles. Aquatic diversity is
expected to be moderate through this section of the creek.
Biologists from NCDOT will be conducting formal surveys for freshwater mussels and
fish in the project area in the future.
Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieu), Hiawassee shiner (Notropis scabriceps), logperch (Percina
caprodes), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose dace (R. cataractae),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni),
northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans}, brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and mottled sculpin (Cottus
bairdi) are species of fish that may exist near the bridge. These fish feed on a variety
of living organisms and organic matter, including algae, insects, worms, crustaceans,
snails, and detritus.
i
G

r
During field investigations, rocks were over-turned throughout riffle and run sections
within the river immediately around the bridge area. Few and small benthic
macroinvertebrates including caddisfly (Order: Tricoptera), cranefly* (Family.
Tipulidae), mayfly (Order: Ephemeroptera), and stonefly* (Order: Plecoptera) larvae
were observed or are likely to be present clinging to the undersides of these rocks.
Macroinvertebrates in root mats and organic material along the edge of the bank
including dragonfly and damselfly (Order: Odonata) larvae also likely exist. These
macroinvertebrates are a link in the aquatic food chain. They act primarily as an
indicator of water quality and are a source of food for larger organisms. It should be
noted that, Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) shells were observed on the banks of
Richland Creek.
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Biotic Resources
3-5

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Biotic Resources
Other aquatic species likely include several ofthe previously mentioned amphibian,
reptilian, and mammal species. Salamanders, frogs, turtles, muskrat, and mink are a
few of the species that inhabit both terrestrial and aquatic communities.
3.4 Biotic Resource Impacts
Since no preliminary concepts for demolition of the existing bridge and construction of
anew bridge over Richland Creek have been formulated, project impacts cannot be
calculated at this time. The study area is approximately 10.77 acres (4.36 hectares).
Within the study area montane alluvial forest communities occupy approximately 2.52
acres (1.02 hectares), montane oak -hickory forest communities occupy
approximately 0.54 acres (0.22 hectazes), and agriculturaUdisturbed land communities
occupy approximately 6.32 acres (2.56 hectazes}. Included in the remaining 1.39 acres
(0.56 hectazes) within the study area are the two-lane SR 1519 and the non-vegetated
stream channel of Richland Creek.
tuations in o ulation of animal s ecies which utilize these
Temporary fluc p p p
communities are anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-moving,
burrowing, and/or subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction
activities, while mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent commumties.
Competitive forces in the adapted communities will result in a redefinition of
population equilibria.
Aquatic organisms aze acutely sensitive to changes in their environment and
environmental impacts from construction activities may result in long term or
irreversible effects. Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include
increased channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters
the substrate and impacts adjacent streamside vegetation. Such disturbances within the
substrate lead to increased siltation, which can clog the gills and/or feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. Siltation may also
cover benthic macroinvertebrates with excessive amounts of sediment that inhibit their
ability to obtain oxygen. These organisms are slow to recover and usually do not, once
the stream has been severely impacted.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during
construction enhances erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these
areas helps to reduce the impacts by supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and
sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash, and other materials into the
aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, bars may form at and
downstream of the site. Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside
3-6
t

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Biotic Resources
vegetation may increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus
reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen concentrations. Information
concerning moratoriums on in-stream construction within trout waters is included in
Section 2.4.
t

1
r
1
~~

3-7
i

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Waters of the United
States
4. Waters of the United States
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of dischazges into "Waters of
the United States." The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is
the principal administrative agency of the Clean Water Act; however, the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has the responsibility for implementation,
permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USAGE regulatory
program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies, including lakes, rivers, and streams, are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under the Section 404 program. Wetlands are also identified as "Waters
of the United States." Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Any action that
proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction ofthe-USAGE under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1 Surface Waters
The NCDWQ defines a perennial surface water as a clearly defined channel that
contains water for the maj ority of the year. These channels usually have some or all of
the following characteristics: distinctive streambed and bank, aquatic life, and
groundwater flow or discharge. Richland Creek is the only perennial surface water
identified in the project area, and no intermittent streams were found within the study
area. At the time of the site visit, Richland Creek was 0.5 to 2 feet (0.2 to 0.6 meters)
deep, approximately 25 feet (7.6 meters) wide, and the bank heights were 3 feet (0.9
meters) on the southwestern side and 10 feet {3.0 meters) on the northeastern side. The
streambed was comprised of parent material ranging in size from silt to cobbles, and
the stream maintained a moderate flow. The water was cleaz to slightly cloudy. The
banks showed signs of slight erosion throughout the study azea, with severe erosion at a
few locations.
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands
No jurisdictional wetland areas were observed within the study azea.
1
r
,.

l
Natura
Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Waters of the United
States

4.3 Impacts to Waters of the United States
Since no alternatives have been selected, impacts to Waters of the United States cannot
be determined. However, project construction will likely impact Richland Creek
through bridge abutments and channel stabilization. There are no jurisdictional
wetlands in the project azea, thus there aze no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
associated with this bridge replacement.
Bridge demolition activities associated with this project will strictly follow the
NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal." As per
the BMPs-BDR, all methods for demolition shall be considered and implemented
where practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water. Information regazding the
existing bridge structure and the potential amount of fill from demolition activities is
not available at this time and will be supplied by NCDOT in the CE document for the
project.
4.4 P rmit Re uirements
e q
Impacts to "Waters of the United States" come under the jurisdiction of the USACE.
The Nationwide Permit #23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions) should cover the
impacts to jurisdictional streams in the project area. Nationwide Permit #33
(Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering} may be needed for temporary
construction access if that is not addressed in NEPA document. A final pernritting
strategy cannot be developed until a design alternative is selected.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is also requrred for any actrvrty
which may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States" or for which an
issuance of a federal permit or license is issued. Certifications are administered
through the NCDWQ.
Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE. The NCDOT will
coordinate with the USACE after the completion of final design to obtain the necessary
permits.
Haywood County is listed by the NCWRC as a county with Mountain Trout Waters
(MTWs}. No discharge activities will be authorized by Nationwide Permits within
MTW counties without coordination with the NCWRC and written concurrence from
the Wilmington District Engineer. Information concerning in-stream construction
moratoriums in trout waters is included in Section 2.4.
4-2
1

l
Natura
Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Waters of the United
States

4.5 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ}, a
mitigation policy which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of "Waters of the United States," specifically
wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoidance of impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these
three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered in sequential order.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOE) between the USEPA and the USACE, in determining "appropriate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those unpacts and practicable m terms of cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. No jurisdictional
wetlands will be impacted; however, some unavoidable impacts to surface waters will
result from project construction.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will
be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of median widths, right-of--way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder
widths. The following other methods aze suggested to minimize adverse impacts to
Waters of the United States:
1. Strictly enforce Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation
during project construction.
2. Minimize clearing and grubbing activity.
3. Decrease or eliminate discharges into the Richland Creek.
4. Reestablish vegetation on exposed azeas with judicious pesticide and herbicide
' management.
5. Minimize "in-stream" activity.
6. Use responsible litter control practices.
4-3
1

1

r~
~J

1
t
1

C

i
1

Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that " no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United
States, specifically wetlands. Such action should be undertaken in azeas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site.
Nationwide Permits usually do not require mitigation according to the MOE between
the USEPA and the USACE. Prior to the use of any nationwide permit within any of
the 25 designated counties of North Carolina that contain trout waters, notification
must be given to the Wilmington District Engineer along with a written statement of
compliance with all of the conditions of the applicable nationwide permit. This
notification will include comments and recommendations from NCWRC. A plan to
provide compensatory mitigation for all unavoidable adverse impacts to the mountain
trout waters must be included in the information sent to the NCWRC. However, final
mitigation requirements are determined by USACE.
Natural Systems
Report, B-4744
Haywood County
Waters of the United
States
4-4
i~

L~

1

1
1

1
1
`~`~
lJ
i

1
1
5. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are in the process of decline due to
either natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the
provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a amended) requires
that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be
subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection
under separate laws. As of March 22, 2001, the USFWS identified six endangered (E)
species, two threatened (T), and one threatened species due to similarity of appearance
(T[S/A]) as potentially occurring in Haywood County. Table 3 lists these federally
protected species and their status. Descriptions of these species and their habitats are
discussed below.
Table 3
Federally Protected Species Known from Haywood County,
North Carolina
Scientific Name Common Name Federal'
Status State
Status
Vertebrates
C/emmys muh/enbergii Bog turtle T(5/A) T
Felisconcolorcouguar Eastern cougar E E
G/aucomyssabrinuscoloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E E
Ha/iaeetus/eucocepha/us Bald Eagle T E
Myotisgrisescens Gray bat E E
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E E
Miaohexura montiuaga Spruce-fir moss spider E SR
Vascular Plants
/soma medeo/aides Small-whorled pogonia T E
Nonvascular Plants
Gymnodenna /ineare Rock gnome lichen E T
Notes: FSC -Federal Species of Concern
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
SC - Special Concem
C - Candidate
P - Proposed
SR - Significantly Rare
EX - Extirpated
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species
5-1
I~

l
Natura
Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species

5.1 Animals
Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus)
Federal Status: ENDANGERED
State Status: ENDANGERED
l
l
h
i
h
i
h
hi
h
mamma
n
e
g
The northern flying squirrel is a small nocturna
t
at
ab
ts t
elevation ecotone between coniferous and northern hardwood forest. This high
elevation habitat usually occurs above 5,500 feet (1,676 meters) above MSL. These
squirrels are 25 to 35 centimeters (10 to 12 inches) long and weigh 3 to 5 ounces (85 to
142 grams). Adults aze gray with alight brown to reddish cast on their backs and light
gray to white or buff undersides. The broad tails and folds of skin between the wrist
and ankles form wing-like surfaces that enable these animals to glide downward from
tree to tree or tree to ground. These mammals eat a wide variety of foods such as
lichens, mushroom, seeds, nuts, insects, and fruits. These squirrels nest in tree cavities
such as woodpecker holes and usually produce one litter in the early spring.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel consisting of mixed
deciduous/coniferous forests located above 5,500 feet (1,676 meters) above MSL does
not exist withm the project area. Review of NCNHP maps indicated no known
populations of this species within one mile of the project area. No impacts to this
species from project construction are anticipated.
Gray bat (Myotis grisescens)
Federal Status: ENDANGERED
.~ State Status: ENDANGERED
The gray bat is the largest of its genus in the eastern United States. It weighs between
0.25 and 0.56 ounces (7 and 16 grams) and has a forearm that reaches from 1.6 to 1.8
inches (40 to 46 millimeters) in length. This bat can be distinguished from other
eastern bats by its uni-colored dorsal fur and by its wing membrane that connects to the
foot at the ankle. Other eastern species of bats have bi- or tri-colored dorsal fur and
have a wing membrane that connects to the base of their first toe. The gray bat's fur is
dark gray for a short time after it molts in July or August and then turns to a russet
color in between molts. It is known to feed on aquatic insects, especially mayflies.
5-2
1

l
Natura
Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species

This bat inhabits only caves or cave-like habitats. They are very selective about which
caves they will utilize. The caves are usually located within 0.62 miles (1.0 kilometer)
of a river or reservoir and have a specific temperature in both the summer and the
winter.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the gray bat consisting of caves or cave-like structures does not
exist within the project study area. Review of NCNHI' maps indicated no known
populations of this species within one mile of the project area. No impacts to this
species from project construction are anticipated.
Eastern cougar (Fells concolor couguar)
Federal Status: ENDANGERED
State Status: ENDANGERED
The eastern cougar is described as a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat. Its body and legs
are a uniform fulvous or tawny hue, and its belly is pale reddish or reddish white. The
inside of this cat's ears are light-colored, with a blackish color behind the ears.
Cougars feed primarily on deer, but their diet may also include small mammals, wild
turkeys, and occasionally domestic livestock, when available. Cougars begin breeding
when two or three years old and breed thereafter once every two to three years. A
typical litter size is three, with the newborn kittens weighing 8 to 16 ounces (227 to
454 grams).
The primary habitat appears to be large wilderness areas with an adequate food supply.
Cougars avoid human-developed areas and have been considered by some as extirpated
for this reason. Male cougars typically occupy a range of 25 or more square miles (65
km2), and females from 5 to 20 square miles (13 to 52 km2). Sightings have been
reported in three North Carolina areas including the Nantahala National Forest, the
northern portion of the Uwharrie National Forest, and North Carolina's southeastern
counties. The remaining population of this species is extremely small, with exact
numbers unknown (USFWS, 2001).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the eastern cougar consisting of a large expanse of relatively
undeveloped land does not exist within the project study area. NCNHP has no records
5-3

~~
1
of any known populations of the eastern cougar within aone-mile radius of the project
area. No impacts to this species from project construction are anticipated.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus}
Federal: THREATENED -proposed delisted
State: ENDANGERED
The mature bald eagle (usually 4+ years in age) can be identified by its large white
head and short white tail. The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in
color. Bald eagles can easily be distinguished from other birds by their flat wing soar.
They are primarily associated with large bodies of water where food is plentiful. Eagle
nests are found inclose proximity to water (usually within 0.5 mile (0.8 km)) with a
clear flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, with an open view of
the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause nest abandonment. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December and January. Fish are the major food
source, although forage items include coots, herons, wounded ducks, and carrion.
As of July 6, 1999, this species is currently under consideration by the USFWS for a
proposed de-listing of their threatened status. However, this raptor will still be
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, and populations will continue to be monitored for at least another five
years under provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the bald eagle consisting of large bodies of water does not exist
within the project area. In addition, there is a large amount of human disturbance
within and around the project area. Review of NCNHP maps indicated no known
populations of this species within one mile of the project area. No impacts to this
species from project construction are anticipated.

1
f
1
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii~
Federal Status: THREATENED (SMEAR APPEARANCE)
State Status: THREATENED
Bog turtles are small (3 to 4.5-inch [7.6 to 11.4-cm]) reptiles with a weakly keeled
carapace (upper shell) that ranges in color from light brown to ebony. This species is
easily distinguished from other turtles by a large, conspicuous, bright orange to yellow
blotch on each side of its head. Bog turtles are semi-aquatic and inhabit muddy, bog-
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species
S-4
r~
~'

1

like habitats. They can be found during the spring mating season from June to July and
at other times from April to October when the humidity is high and temperatures are in
the 70s. Bog turtle habitat consist of bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and other wet
environments, specifically those which exhibit soft muddy bottoms.
In the November 1987, the northern population of the bog turtle (from New York south
to Maryland) was listed as federally threatened, and the southern population (from
Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as federally threatened due to similarity of
appearance. The southern populations are not protected under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act; however, the T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate or international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population.
In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the USFWS considers the southern
population of the bog turtle as a FSC due to habitat loss (Russo, 2000).
This site contains no wetlands; therefore, suitable habitat for the bog turtle is not
present. No bog turtles were observed in the project vicinity. The NCNHP has no
records of any known populations of the bog turtle within aone-mile (1.6 km) radius of
the project area. This species will not be impacted as a result of project construction.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
Federal Status: ENDANGERED
State Status: ENDANGERED
The Appalachian elktoe is akidney-shaped freshwater mussel endemic to the upper
Tennessee River system in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. The adult
shell reaches to 3.5 inches (9 cm) in length and is usually dark brown with prominent
to obscure greenish rays. This mussel inhabits relatively shallow medium-sized creeks
and rivers with moderate to fast flowing water. It is generally found in gravelly
substrates mixed with cobbles and boulders or occasionally in silt-free, coarse sandy
substrates. Reproduction is similar to that of other freshwater mussels, and the banded
sculpin (Cottus carolinea} has been identified as a host species for developing
glochidia. Historically, this mussel was found in the French Broad River system,
including French Broad main stem and the Little River in Transylvania County.
Surveys conducted in the French Broad River system from 1986 through the spring of
1992 failed to locate any specimens of the Appalachian elktoe. The USFWS proposed
the designation of critical habitat areas for this mussel in February 2001. In Haywood
County this area includes the main stem of the West Fork Pigeon River from the
confluence with the Little East Fork Pigeon River downstream into the main stem
Pigeon River, downstream to the NC Highway 215 bridge crossing.
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species
5-5
t

1
1
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoe consisting of shallow medium-sized creeks
with fast flowing water and gravel substrates is available in the project area. However,
Richland Creek has been adversely impacted by sedimentation loading, which would
make this stream unsuitable for this mussel. Review of NCNHP maps indicated no
known populations of this species within one mile of the project azea. It is currently
unknown if this mussel inhabits the study azea. Qualified biologists from NCDOT will
conduct mussel surveys in the project area at least one year prior to the scheduled
construction let date.
Spruce-fir moss spider (Microhexura montivaga)
i Federal Status: ENDANGERED
State Status: SIGNIFICANTLY RARE
The S nice-fir moss s ider is one of the smallest spiders (0.10 to 0.15 inch (0.25 to
P P
0.38 cm)) of the suborder known as tarantulas. This spider ranges from light brown to
yellow-brown to a dazker reddish brown in color and has no markings on its abdomen.
Its most distinguishing characteristics are chelicerae that prof ect beyond the anterior
edge of the cazapace, a pair of extremely long posterior spinnerets, and a second pair of
book lungs.
The Spruce-fir moss spider is only found in Fraser fir and red spruce forest
communities at or above 5,400 feet (1,626 meters) MSL in the Southern Appalachian
Mountains of North Cazolina and Tennessee. It is known to inhabit damp but well
drained moss mats growing on well-shaded rock outcrops and boulders. No prey has
been observed in its web but it probably feeds on springtails found in the moss mats.
The USFS designated critical habitat for this species in July 2001. The habitat occurs
in portions of Avery, Caldwell, Mitchell, Swain, and Watauga Counties, North
Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for the spruce-fir moss spider consisting of Fraser fir or red spruce
forest communities located above 5,400 feet (1,323 meters) above MSL does not exist
within the project area. Review of NCNHP maps indicated no known populations of
this species within one mile of the project area. No critical habitat has been designated
in Haywood County. No impacts to this species from project construction are
anticipated.
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species
5-6
1

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species

5.2 Plants
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare)
Federal Status: ENDANGERED
State Status: THREATENED
Rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen of the reindeer moss family. This species is
the only member of its genus occurring in North America. It occurs in small (usually
less than one square yazd), dense colonies of narrow, strappy, leaf-like pads. These
strap-like lobes aze usually blue-gray on the upper surface and generally shiny white on
the lower surfaces. The fruiting bodies are borne at the tips of the strap-like lobes and
are black, in contrast to the red to brown fruiting bodies of other reindeer moss lichens.
These lichens fruit from July through September. The rock gnome lichen is endemic to
the southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. They primarily
inhabit vertical rock faces in areas of high humidity such as river gorges or areas
frequently bathed in fog. Most populations occur above an elevation of 5,000 feet
(1515 meters).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area lacks suitable habitat for the rock gnome lichen consisting of high
humidity environments such as deep river gorges or other seepy wet rock faces. The
highest elevation in the study area is approximately 3,050 feet (930 meters) above
MSL, well below the elevations (> 5,000 feet (1,515 meters) above MSL) preferred by
this species. Review of NCNHP maps indicated no known populations of this species
within one mile of the project azea. This species will not be affected by project
construction.
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
Federal Status: THREATENED
State Status: ENDANGERED
The small whorled pogonia is a slender perennial herb approximately 4 to 10 inches
(10.2 to 25.4 cm} tall, with a single, green, hollow stem. At the apex of the stem is a
whorl of five or six pale, dusty green leaves with parallel veins. Flowering occurs in
May and June. The flowers aze yellowish-green in color with long, thin sepals, and
rounded petals. The lip of the flower is greenish white, veined with green, and three-
lobed.
5-7
i~

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species

Populations of this plant are known to have extended periods of dormancy and bloom
sporadically. This small, ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the spring
growing season. The small whorled pogonia is typically found as colonies in young or
maturing deciduous forests that have open and dry areas along streams. It also grows
in rich, mesic woods with acidic soils, typical of white pine and rhododendron stands
(Russo, 2000).
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
' Suitable habitat for the small whorled pogonia consists of open, dry, deciduous woods
with acid soils, which is available in the project area. A plant-by-plant small whorled
pogonia survey will need to be conducted during the flowering season to confirm its
presence or absence in the project study area. The NCNHP has no records of any
known populations of the small whorled pogonia within aone-mile radius of the
project area.
Federal Species of Concern
~, There aze twenty-nine federal species of concern listed by the USFWS for Haywood
County. These species are not protected under the provisions of Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. Federal species of concern area defined as species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing as
threatened or endangered (formerly C2 candidate species). The status of these species
may be upgraded at any time, thus they are included here for consideration. The
NCNHP lists of July 2001 included these species and identified an additional fifteen
species receiving protection under state laws. Protections afforded to species listed
under state law are not applicable to this project. Table 4 lists the federal species of
concern, their state status, and the existence of suitable habitat within the project area.
A review of NCNHP maps depicting known populations of these federal species of
concern found a population of mountain catchfly (Silene ovata} approximately three-
fourths of a mile southeast of the project study azea.

r~
1
S-8
1

1
1
Table 4
Federal Species of Concern Known from Haywood County, North Carolina

1
1
1
1
fJ

1
1
1

1
1

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species

Common Name
5dentific Name Federal State • '
Habitat Reqwrements Habitat
Status Status Available
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian Aego/iusacadicus FSC SC Transition habitat between spruce- No
saw-whet owl fir and hardwood forests.
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC SC Hemlock and spruce-fir forests. No
Hellbender Cryptobranchus a//eganiensis FSC SC Clear, fast-flowing streams and No
rivers with rocky bottoms.
Cerulean warbler Dendroica ceru/ea FSC SR Mature deciduous trees, espedally Yes
near swampy areas and streams.
Southern Appalachian red Lox/a curvirostra FSC SR Coniferous, mixed coniferous- Yes
crossbill deciduous, pine savannas, and
pine-oak habitats.
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus FSC SC Rocky habitats within high Yes
taro/inensis mountain forests or open fields.
Eastern woodrat' Neotoma f/oridana FSC SC Talus slopes rocky outcrops, bluffs, No
haematoreia cliffs, crevices, or caves.
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC - Rocky cliffs and talus slopes. No
Southern Appalachian Poeci/e atricapi//a practica FSC SC Nests in holes of dead trees, near Yes
black-capped chickadee open areas..
Southern water shrew Sorexpa/ustrispunctu/atus FSC SC In bogs or montane alluvial forests Yes
near stream banks.
Southern Appalachian Sphyrapicus var/us FSC SR Near openings in mature fire- Yes
yellow-bellied sapsucker appa/achiensis scarred deciduous forests.
New England cottontail Sy/vi/agus transitiona/is' FSC SR Thick cover of mountain laurel, No
rhodo., or blueberries in coniferous
forests.
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanesbewickii a/tus FSC E Thickets, brush, and open Yes
woodlands in rural or suburban
areas.
Invertebrates
Tawny crescent butterfly Phyciodesbatesiimaconensis FSC SR Elevations above 4,000 feet above No
MSL.
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC - Boreal forests and balds above No
4,500 feet
Piratebush Buck/eya distichophy/!a FSC E In hemlock stands on cliffs or No
bluffs.
Mountain bittercress Cardamine c%matitis FSC C In and along rocky streams. Yes
5-9
fl

1

t
1

L

1
~J
u

1
1

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
Rare and Protected
Species
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status State
Status Habitat Requirements Habitat .'
Available
Tall larkspur De/phmium exa/tafum FSC E-SC Rich woods in NC mountains. Yes
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC C Low woodlands. Yes
Smoky Mountain
mannagrass Glycena nubigena FSC T Seepage areas. Yes
Butternut Jug/ans cinerea FSC - Well-drained soils of bottomlands
and floodplains Yes
Eraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraserr FSC E Alluvial meadows. No
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC T Spruce-fir forests. No
Carolina saxifrage Saxifiaga taro/iniana FSC C Rocky woods. No
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC C Rich woods in NC mountains. Yes
Alabama least trillium Tri//ium pusi//um var. 1 FSC E Alluvial woods, pocosin borders,
and savannahs. Yes
Non-vascular Plants
Liverwort P/agiochi/a sharpii FSC C On bark of Fraser firs in spruce-fir
forests. No
Livennrort P/agiochila sullivantii var.
su/ivantii FSC C On moist rocks, spray-zones of
waterfalls ,and in spruce-fir
forests. No
Liverwort Spenolobopsispearsonii FSC E On bark of Fraser firs in spruce-fir
forests. No
5-10

1
5. References
Allison, John B., 1997. Soil Survey of Haywood County Area, North Cazolina.
Natural Resource Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture.
Cowazdin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife
Service, United States Department of the Interior.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp. + appendices.
Horton, J. Wright and V. A. Zullo, 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas. University of
Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. 406 pp.
Maztof, B. S., Palmer, W. M., Bailey, J. R., and J. R. Harrison III, 1980. Amphibians
t and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
National Audubon Society, 1979. Field Guide to North American Reptiles and
Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. 743 pp.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1996. Hydric soils list for Haywood County,
North Cazolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Department of Environmental Management
(NCDEM), 1997. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Management
' Plan. Water Quality Section.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1991. Geologic Map of North Carolina.
Reprinted 1996.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, 2001. Element Occurrence List for
Haywood County, North Carolina. North Carolina Division of Parks and
Recreation, Raleigh, North Carolina.
' Parmalee, Paul W., Arthur E. Bogan, 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee.
The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, TN. 328 pp.
Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
References
6-1

1

' Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and C. R. Bell, 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Cazolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. P. Parnell, 1994. Freshwater Fishes
of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North
Cazolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
' Russo, Mary, 2000. Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests of North Carolina.
International Paper Company.
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities
of North Carolina, A Third Approximation. North Cazolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Pazks and Recreation, Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Stokes, Donald and Lillian, 1996. Stokes Field Guide to Birds, Eastern Region. Little,
Brown, and Company, New York, NY. 31 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001. Haywood County Endangered Species,
Threatened Species and Federal Species of Concern. United States
Department of Interior.
Weakley, A. S., 1998. Flora of the Cazolinas and Virginia, Working Draft of
' November 1, 1998. The Nature Conservancy, Southern Conservation Science
Department, Chapel Hill, NC.
Webster, W. D., Parnell, J. F., and W. C. Biggs, 1985. Mammals of the Cazolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
NC. 255 pp.
r

1
i

Natural Systems
Report, B-4144
Haywood County
References
6-2
1

i ~'
r ~.
!,_ JK a
_~_~~ .~
~ F'iditlyTop ~ - _
'~.~.~
- ~, U tk
,,
' ~ ~ .~
_ ~ oA~ -
f Med~a_
~~ e~ ~ a
-''-- 1.
_ +~
- = b ~~ ~,
,~~ ,.
.~ d j' n ... --
A
.~- ~ ~ - r rrEall Cove
1..` d' - H.vder Mtn ~~ _
q/'`
- Fircher Chaoe~ - ~~+ ,4 ~_ ' jai
'-r -- ~ a` fh ~ n yl - _
/ i~ I '
_ ~ _ r t ~,
~,, ,~ - ~ ~~= ~ ~~ ~ , - ~ ~.: SITE
r ' , \ _~; ~, LOCATION Ga
4` _ f (~ ~ r
ri•~'~ • ~° 4'" Cr o
./ ~ ~ ~ r ~
/ `r1' ~' '~ ~~ • w~
1 ~•~ ~e ~ -~ ti .,~ 7 ~ l rR
~~ __ I ~ ~~ ~ ^ -- _ ~ O
_ _ J v ~ ''
~ !~
^+
~ '~w~ ~ ,r `':
+ ~~ o
t I ~ i ~1;.
~" l~~ke Palooy i -'~ ~1 f ~
~ ' ~-
/~,~
-=~~ " tip`.
~~~ ~, .
P F~~~ ~ _ ~~ ~~'
< ~`
1 i;+, ~C s~ 3 A ~~iY
o. - - ~, ~ ,, 4,_F
~~~ ~
n - ,
r/ ii
o ; ~'. -
~. d~- n f
++ io ~ •~
..-jsb ~,~ ,p
' r • cl MAdlsf~,~~t.-. + ark ~ f - ~ . l.'
/~~' ~ u 111 ~~i/ ~ L•., ~' ,~~~#~. ~ !~ /~~f ~ ~ f/ • '
v o ~~
r~ ~: ~ i
~ ~ • d{~nd Church., `1 ~~ _. - J r H
o• ' ~• ai ~ •y~ll ~ Tr~liE,~. .G
~ .
.~
• _
~o~ '1~ . unalusk r l ,~ ~ . ~ ; -, ~ ~ ;~- ~„ ~ ~ ~ ;-...
N r~7 r~f•'~,' -~ + oi~,`~~. r r ~ ~ i.i-•i `^ }~~i` '~~,n,rLouise "'+~ip
2584 r: ~ • ~ .~. c .. ~' i S' . f a ~ +1'~t. _ _ ....
r f~. 7uscolauH+Yh - >..: ~ ', i ~ e. - • i ~ ' ` ~-~ ~
h-Gas i •• --^. , : r~ -._ ~ ~ ./~ t .___ \\\ - ~ i- . ~' .,~ .' j' _ .e ,.- ' i ~ ,I .
1546 ~~ `; ! 1 u n~u . ~ ; ~ C - ~ r ~ -
2000 0 2000 Feet
N
0.5 0 0.5 Miles
SCALE: 1:24,000
USGS 7.5 Minute To ra hic Ma :CLYDE, NC Contour Interva1:40 Feet
Prepared For: VICINITY MAP g
~~~~~~ a G&M Fi ure No.
of North Carolina Inc. ~~
s T.I.P. No. 4144: REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE #211
2301 Rexwoods Drive '~_' ON SR 1519 OVER RICHLAND CREEK
Post Office Box 31388, Raleigh, NC 27622-1388
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] ' '~ HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I

to ~ i i~~ ~~~:Aa`.:'~~~ ait'n~d ~ W ~ ~ r ~~v~~X ~.t~~~~`g~~ s~/ ~~~ .~ti' `
`° ~ fD °~'~ "" ~~~ >V {~.~tyt ~~Mi ~ ~, n+.i r ~- ~~!~ ° ~ ••~s~ ~ '~ 4 y ~ d i~ k. , ;!° ~I S C
y n X r^"~"" ~ c}il~ ~ ~r ~..~` ~ L ~ ,~~ a V~ ~r W. ~vt !yr e'~+e! ,,~'rF ..~~'l ~' ~ : r. ,.
a. !
O r ~ ~ ~~~c~ a 3~ ,,`4"44i , yr Li` ~ .,~,~ , ;~ j,~r~~ . c ~r y~ ~ i y .r _ ~ • ~ ~"_~
T~ oWO ~ '` 4 y ~ ,,~f ~c~~ ''t i y ~i?~ ~ ~ w Tr r ;! ~ ~.tr.~. ti-!t~'; ~ ~'~y~"~~'~}~s,A'3~~ ~;~ t .k°i.~~
X OD ID `_,7a~y~~' i 4 A~ ?,{:.r r'' ~'L -r ~k ~. ,s ~o-'~ ~~x~a.:.7y~~4,}f~~r ~ - -';~ 3 ~+ i ~t~ '~~ ~ !~~
~ ~ .' Wtk 3 ~ 6 $ r4~YYy~T'"~. ~,~b.~' S,' ~ .~~ ~~~ ~ .~ ~I,RF ~`Y +{w icy. s~r~'~' _ .' ~, ~Jg ~ lr
co mn Y~°~;~y~} ~~7-~ ~ 4~j~7;~ ~ ~`, ~ rte/ ~:,~r~.~ .~.,~y~ *~ i ~ « «~~Yr~`~ ~ ~ ~ .~i
~ Z ~^ ~',.b~'Y + ~ ~~ .~ %+iL ,N; ' ~~ /~ ~ t/ ~ 9° ~ tti~. C''r~"` ~'~~~"'! a/ ~'~ A ~t ~s~/~ d
N ~ '~i,~n? ~' ~ r ~ ~ ~..~•~l r to ~r~}+„~4 F ~ ~ ~,.
v O a > j ~ +i`'t" i ` Syr 1/A d~ ~~ ~. [ '~ r ~~ ; ,~~ :.Y; ~~
~ ~; ~~', ~?` 1 ~. } tr• vR ~ .a~~ !/y~ ~ . t!`~' t r ti~'t~S - I }Y~r ~~`
ODD (~ ~Z -~~ ~ ~ Sa' r ~ ~ /,! `* 1 .~ t r` j,. ~ / _, /'
V J{'L~ t
,~s ;Jd ,~:
~~
aNio OT _ ~µ/ ~~^f'Yy~~~J
' ~ z
•J.i ;-•.t~ .. ~
.}~ 49
.. - ~ ~ ~~)
c ~• ~~.
` ~'~' a,,!`' ,gip M~ '~
`>.~ ,.
xf
i
~ ~ u /
. -I L' ~h . i c"~ 1
~ . ~. r ~ - s
..
' tit tl~ ~ ~~' r da
~* ~ ~ `
r ~ N !p / ~~ ~!yA '
t. ' ~IJ s _ ~ ..~+AsI.fA.'. .. 'IW /; ;. ~ ~'~YT.'f r~t lE~~`i1..- .i.
` ~.
tip' ;
Z ~y~ ~.
~ ~ ~ ti_' -
~ C ~. '~''' '^"
D Z O ~ o
cn ~ ® ~. ' .
O ~ ~ fir' ~' .: ~ .~' ~;; ~',~;,.:
~ ~~" ~f '/ c .
on ¢ is
Z ITl J~ ~' E: ' ~.~ ;'' : ty Y'.
0 1 ,1 yy ~ ':.~ . , b iK v .
~ubi r
r ~ ; :,~~`
rn ~ q ~'. ~:
~1~~i~~.~~iSt.~[~~41
~a ~ Y~i i
~n fw~.!.
Y/ O ~•
'~~
~
'

'1 1

~
i, Y
F !
t

.i `,i.f
' i 't
~ ,., 4'%
_
~, ~
+
f `i
~? ~, •

.
-
.7
r.;
.

'k. t
~
.~s, ,. •
~.,~
;: .

i~ 1

'
'
.. :,~

Wr
• 1 I
-. .~
~_ ''
si