20071518 Ver 1_Monitoring Reports_20070907

-, ~ ~
Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River.
Polk County, North Carolina
Federal Project No. BRX-1517 (1)
State Project No. 8.2980501
TIl' No. B-3019
Prepared for:
Bridge No. 19
~~~~ ~yoRrr~ ~~,,
0
~p

d
~ ~:`o
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
January 2006

lr / i
Bridge No. 19
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River.
Polk County, North Carolina
Federal Project No. BRX-1517 (1)
State Project No. 8.2980501
TIP No. B-3019
Natural Resources Technical Report
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Prepared by:
~~
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
3733 National Drive
Suite 207
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Phone: [phone]
January 30, 2006

1, 1 r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... l
1.2 Project Purpose .................................................................................................1
1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................2
1.4 Qualifications ...............................................................................................3
1.5 Definitions ....................................................................................................3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................3
2.1 Soils ..................................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Hydric Soils .............................................................................4
2.1.2 Non-Hydric Soils .....................................................................4
2.2 Water Resources ...............................................................................................5
2.2.1 Best Usage Classification .................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .........................................5
2.2.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................5
2.2.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ....................6
2.2.3.2 Water Quality Monitoring Data ...........................................6
2.2.3.3 Point and Non-Point Source Dischargers ............................6
2.3 Summary of Anticipate Impacts ......................................................................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 8
3.1 Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................................8
3.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................10
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts .............................................................................10
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts .................................................................................11
.......................................
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ......................... .................11
4.1 Waters of the United States ..........................................................................12
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ..............................12
4.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................12
4.3 Permit Issues ...................................................................................................12
4.3.1 Bridge Demolition .............................................................................13
4.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ........................................13
4.4 Protected Species ............................................................................................14
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species ...............................................................14
4.4.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .......................16
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................17
6.0 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................18
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 1 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

f~ t r
TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
FIGURES
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
APPENDICES
NPDES DISCHARGERS TO PROJECT SUB-BASIN
NATURAL COMMUNITIES
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT STUDY AREA (SOILS)
TERRESTRIAL COl~~VItT1vITIES
APPENDIX A STREAM ASSESSMENT FORM
APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River
n
Natural Resources Technical Report
January 2006

~E
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
BRIDGE NO. 19
SR 1517 (MORGAN CHAPEL ROAD) OVER THE NORTH PACOLET RIVER
POLK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT TIP NO. B-3019
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is planning to replace Bridge No.
19 on State Route 1517 (SR 1517) over the North Pacolet River in Polk County (County), North
Carolina. In support of this planned activity, HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (I-iDR) has
prepared the following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) for the Study Area.
1.1 Project Description
The purpose of the proposed Project is to replace Bridge No. 19 on SR 1517 (Morgan
Chapel Road) over the North Pacolet River (Figure 1: Project Location). The Study Area
is approximately 4.6 acres (Figure 2: Project Study Area). The project begins
approximately 250 feet southwest of the existing bridge and extends approximately 450
feet northeast of the bridge with the study corridor width of ranging from 170 feet along
existing SR 1517 to 200 feet along existing SR 1516. The current bridge structure
consists of a wooden deck over a steel frame, spanning approximately 60 feet of stream.
The current bridge is 12 feet wide and 93 feet long. Land use within the Study Area is
approximately 43 percent forested, 19 percent pasture, 22 percent gravel surface, and 16
percent surface water. The land use in the Project Vicinity is dominated by large horse
farms and low density residential development.
1.2 Project Purpose
This NRTR was prepared to assist NCDOT in the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the above-referenced Project. The bridge structure is proposed for replacement
due to its structural sufficiency rating of 37.8. The purpose of this NRTR is to inventory
and describe the natural systems that occur within the proposed Study Area. Assessments
of the nature and severity of potential impacts to these natural resources are provided,
where practical, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize resource
impacts.
This NRTR identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may require changes
in project design. Such environmental concerns should be addressed during the
preliminary planning stages of the proposed Project in order to maintain environmental
quality in the most efficient manner. The analyses contained in this document are
relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary Study Area. If the Study Area is
altered, additional field investigations may be necessary.
Some environmental effects, including specific impact calculations, could not be
determined due to the early stage of the planning process for this Project. These effects
are identified in their appropriate sections along with recommendations for future action.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River
Natural Resources Technical Report
January 2006

i . ~ ~
1.3 Methodology
Natural systems information for the Study Area (Figure 2) was obtained from several
sources. Prior to an on-site evaluation of the Study Area, the Landrum, NC/SC 1:24,000
topographic quadrangle map from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and the
Polk County Soil Survey from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), were
used to determine existing landscape and soil composition. Aerial photography was
studied to identify land use, hydrology, and environmental features. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database was used to search for the presence of
known populations of federally threatened and endangered species in the County and
within a 1-mile radius of the Study Area (Project Vicinity). In addition, the NCNHP
database was searched for Federal Species of Concern (FSC), state listed species, and
rare habitats. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) current list of
protected species for the County was used to verify the NCNHP data and check for
additional listed species. USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps were
reviewed to determine potential wetland locations. North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) records were reviewed to determine stream index number,
classification, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
within the Project Vicinity. The Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan was used to
further characterize environmental resource conditions within the Project Vicinity. The
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) database was searched to
identify proposed critical habitats for aquatic species.
HDR personnel conducted field investigations on October 25, 2005. Vegetative
communities and their associated wildlife (or potential wildlife habitat) were identified
and described. These communities were mapped based on aerial photography and site
visits. Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley
(1990), where applicable, and plant nomenclature follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Wildlife identification involved various techniques including qualitative habitat
assessment based on vegetative communities, active searching, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, burrows, etc.}. Cursory surveys of
aquatic organisms were conducted to help characterize habitat and water quality.
Organisms captured during these searches were identified and released. Animal
nomenclature follows Brigham, et al. (1982), Martof, et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991),
Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985).
Determination of jurisdictional wetlands within the Study Area was based on criteria
established in the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Jurisdictional streams were mapped using
Global Position System (GPS) technology in compliance with NCDOT standards. This
technology also enabled accurate field location of the boundaries of the Study Area.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River
2
Natural Resources Technical Report
January 2006

_.
1.4 Qualifications
The following personnel performed and/or supervised the natural systems investigation
and preparation of this NRTR. Each individual is listed with qualifications and areas of
involvement with the Project.
Personnel Responsibility
Mr. Chris Matthews, Env. Sciences Section Manager Principal-in-Charge
MS, Biological Sciences; BA, Biological Sciences Report QA/QC
17 years of experience
Mr. Philip May, Senior Environmental Scientist Field/Report QA/QC
BS, Biological Sciences
13 years of experience
Mr. John Jamison, Environmental Scientist Field QA/QC
BS, Natural Resources Report Preparation
7 years of experience Project Management
Ms. Vickie Miller, Environmental Scientist Preliminary Research
MS, Natural Resources; BS, Environmental Science Field Inventory
5 years of experience Report Preparation
Ms. Natalie Martin, Environmental Scientist Preliminary Research
BA, Environmental Science Field Inventory
5 years of experience
Further qualifications of each above-listed individual are available in the NCDOT
pre-qualification package, which is submitted annually.
1.5 Definitions
For the purposes of this report, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural systems investigations. "Study Area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed
limits supplied by NCDOT (Figure 2). "Project Area" is defined as the area within
which the actual bridge reconstruction will eventually take place. "Project Vicinity" is
defined as a 1-mile buffer of the Study Area.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the Study Area are discussed in the following sections with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly
influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction
limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the Study Area present important
management limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and increased potential for
water quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, which could limit downstream
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River
Natural Resources Technical Report
January 2006

~,
uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the
composition and distribution of r`lora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the
characteristics of these resources.
The County lies in the Piedmont physiographic region of North Carolina. The landscape is
characterized by gently-rolling hills and long, low ridges that form a transition area between the
Blue Ridge Mountains and the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Elevations in the Study Area range from
860 to 900 feet above mean sea level (msl) based on NCDOT LIDAR contours.
2.1 Soils
The Polk County soil survey shows three soil series within the
Study Area (Figure 2): Buncombe loamy sand (BuB), Rion sandy loam (RnE), and
Riverview loam (RvA). The Buncombe series with 0-5 percent slopes and occasionally
flooded are found adjacent to the river, the Rion sandy loamy with 25-45 percent slopes
are on the north side of the existing River Road, and Riverview loam is in the floodplain
of the river south of the bridge.
2.1.1 Hydric Soils
A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or
ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions
in the upper part. There are no hydric soils within the Study Area (USDA 2005a).
Riverview loam has the potential to contain hydric inclusions of Wehadkee loam
if undrained.
The Riverview soil series (Fine-loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluventic
Dystrudepts) consists of very deep soils. Riverview soils are on high parts of
flood plains of rivers and streams draining the Coastal Plain and Southern
Piedmont. These soils formed in loamy alluvium on flood plains. Slopes range
from 0 to 5 percent. The soils are well drained and have moderate permeability
(USDA 2005b).
2.1.2 Non-Hydric Soils
The Buncombe soil series (Mixed, thermic Typic Udipsamments) consists of very
deep, sandy soils on nearly level to gently sloping flood plains in the Piedmont
and Coastal Plain. They formed in sandy alluvium washed from soils formed in
residuum from schist, gneiss, granite, phyllite, and other metamorphic and
igneous rocks of the Piedmont. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. The soils are
excessively drained and have rapid to very rapid permeability (USDA 2005b).
The Rion soil series (Fine-loamy, mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Hapludults)
consists of very deep soils on gently sloping to very steep Piedmont uplands.
These soils formed in material mostly weathered from acid crystalline. Slopes
commonly are 15 to 25 percent but within the Study Area the range is 25 to 45
percent. The soils are well drained and have moderate permeability (USDA
2005b).
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 4 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be affected
by the proposed Project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics,
best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their
relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize potential impacts.
2.2.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the Study Area are located in the Broad River Basin
(LTSGS Hydrologic Unit 03050105, NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-08-06). One water
resource, North Pacolet River, is present in the Study Area (Figure 3). The North
Pacolet River flows southeast into the Broad River in South Carolina and has a
drainage area of approximately 39.5 square miles at the project site.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDWQ that
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unclassified
tributaries carry the same best usage classification as the classified stream to
which they are tributary. The classification for North Pacolet River (NCDWQ
Index No. 9-55-1-(10), 03/01/63) is Class C from its crossing at NC 108 in Lynn
to the North Carolina-South Carolina state line (NCDENR 2005a). Class C
waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic
life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses suitable for Class C.
Secondary recreation includes those activities performed in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner. No High Quality Waters (HQW) are present
within the Project Vicinity. HQW include Outstanding Resource Waters and
waters protected for public drinking water supply (NCDENR 2005a).
The County is not under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (NCDCM); therefore, no Areas of Environmental Concern, as
defined by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), are present within the
Study Area. In addition, the Study Area is within the Broad River basin, which
currently does not have riparian buffer protection rules.
2.2.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The North Pacolet River at SR 1517 has a channel width of approximately 60 feet
and a water depth of approximately 2 feet. The river substrate is composed of
sand and small gravel. This perennial stream received a USACE stream quality
assessment score of 61 (see Appendix A).
2.2.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of water resources within and downstream of
the Study Area. Water quality assessments are made based on published resource
information and existing general watershed characteristics. Both point and non-
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 S Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

point sources of pollution are evaluated, such as potential sediment loads and
toxin concentrations of these waters. These data provide insight into the potential
for water resources within the Study Area to meet human needs and provide
habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.2.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Basinwide Monitoring Program (Program), managed by NCDWQ, is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program that
addresses long-term trends in water quality. The Program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected Benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms, which are sensitive to water quality
conditions, as part of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network.
Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups
[Ephemoptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)], and a taxa richness value
(EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the
sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection.
The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The
biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of
chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of physical
pollutants, such as sediment. There is a Benthic monitoring station where
SR 1179 crosses the North Pacolet River approximately 5 miles west of
the project site. This site was sampled in 2000 and had a bioclassification
of "Good." (NCDENR 2003).
2.2.3.2 Water Quality Monitoring Data
The Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan categorizes the North
Pacolet River as "supporting" its stream classification. This support rating
is based on results from the Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish monitoring
data. However, habitat degradation (sedimentation and lack of
pools/riffles) has been noted within North Pacolet River (NCDENR 2003).
The North Pacolet River is not listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list of 2002 or the draft 2004 list (NCDENR 2002, 2004).
2.2.3.3 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers
There are eight NPDES dischargers within the sub-basin, all of which
discharge directly into the North Pacolet River or its tributaries upstream
of the Study Area (Table 1) (NCDENR 2005b). Table 1 lists the
dischargers within the basin and their approximate distance upstream of
the Study Area.
Land use within the sub-basin which can contribute to non-point source
pollution, is approximately 79 percent forested and 19 agricultural uses
(NCDENR 2003). Timber activity within the Project Vicinity has the
potential to introduce additional sediment load to the streams. Also,
population growth within the Polk County is anticipated to increase 37
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 6 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

percent from 2000 to 2020. The introduction of impervious surfaces and
Land clearing could create additional water quality impacts.
Table 1
NPDES Dischargers to Project Sub-basin
DES Perm;l
'~„r~~t ;gta. Y'
;` ~ f:Number.'~: w., r ~~~ "Ov~rner, ~>s ~~ ~. R~,,,~
~'' ,f P ~~.+ i• -tse_~~~R~
~ 4z; r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ "y ~ ~.~~r
~?.,r .3r ~APPI OD><stancetTJpstream:
-~vc. k~•Y?~ik :~~ak"+~c.~z :'~ ~r~k 'k;5~
3~~ ~o#' Study Area. ~m>< ~"`
C0004391 * Grover Industries -Tryon Plant 3
00021601 * ryon Town -WWTP 3
00028975 Saluda City -WWTP 12.5
00034932 olk Co -Tryon Middle School 5
00048305 Carolina Yarn Processors Inc 4
00058581 he Brow Assoc., Inc. -White Oak
ountain Condominiums 4
00071005 ynnbrook Estates WWTP 4
00086525 ryon Town - WTP 5.5
* Indicates a Major NPDES Permit
"Only one facility, the Saluda WWTP, experienced significant problems
meeting permitted limits during this review cycle. In 1998, the City of
Saluda's WWTP conducted a routine cleaning, and for a couple of months
following the cleaning, the facility experienced problems with its aeration
basin. However, the facility quickly resolved the problems and is
operating in full compliance. Two facilities, Grover Industries and the
Tryon WWTP, in this subbasin are required to monitor their effluent's
toxicity. In the two year review period, .only the Tryon WWTP failed its
toxicity testing (in December 2000)" (NCDENR 2003).
2.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the Study Area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction. As detailed in Section 2.2, there is one perennial stream within
the Study Area. Activities likely to result in impacts may include clearing and grubbing
on stream banks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and
pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to
surface water resources are likely to result from the aforementioned construction
activities:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the construction zone and
increased erosion in the project construction area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 7 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

• Potential increase of toxic compound releases, such as fuel and oil, from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
ground water drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the Project Vicinity,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Construction and Maintenance
Activities should be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the Project. In
addition, the BMPs for Bridge Demolition will be implemented during construction.
Limiting in-stream activities and indigenous revegetation along stream banks
immediately following completion of the grading can further reduce impacts. Use of
turbidity curtains for this Project was reviewed. Given the size of the stream and general
design considerations for turbidity curtains, the specified flotation components, in many
instances, are larger than the depth of the stream and would most likely result in
additional expense with minimal added benefit. The use of turbidity curtains should be
reevaluated after project design and if work will be performed during high water/ wet
season.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the Study Area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout
the Study Area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. In addition to site-specific evidence of fauna, representative animal species that
are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also described.
Scientific nomenclature and common names, when applicable, are provided for each animal and
plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to the common name
only, unless no common name is designated.
3.1 Terrestrial Resources
Three terrestrial communities were identified, two that closely correspond to the natural
community classifications described by Schafale and Weakley (1990): the Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest and the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Hardwood Forest; in addition
to the Disturbed Community (Figure 3). These communities best describe the vegetative
community and landscape position; however, portions of these areas show disturbance
associated with the adjacent roadways and bridge.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
This terrestrial community is best described as a mesic mixed hardwood forest and is
located within the higher elevations of the Study Area. This community approximates
the Piedmont Subtype of a mesic mixed hardwood forest, as described in Schafale and
Weakley (1990). The canopy is dominated by northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white
oak (Quercus alba), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina)
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 g Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). The subcanopy is dominated by red maple (Ater
rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and basswood (Tilia arnericana). Shrubs
present are witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana) and pawpaw (Asimina parviflora). Herb
and vine layers include violet (Viola spp.), grape (Vitis spp.), partridge berry (Mitchella
repens), wild ginger (Hexastylis arifolia), and Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides).
Mammalian species that were identified in the field are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), beaver
(Castor canadensis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). In addition, the
forested areas provide potential habitat for southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris),
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), woodchuck
(Maromota monax), old-field mouse (Peromyscus polionitus), cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), pine vole (Microtus pinetorum), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), and red fox (Vulpes fulva).
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
This natural community is found as a narrow buffer along the North Pacolet River.
Vegetation present in the canopy of this natural community includes river birch (Betula
nigra), tulip poplar, sweet gum, honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), black walnut
(Juglans nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), boxelder (Ater negundo) and
American ash (Fraxinus americana). Vines and shrubs in the understory include
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple, pawpaw, doghobble (Leucothoe
fontanesiana), privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), and grape species. In addition to these species, herbaceous
vegetation includes jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium
virmineum), netted chain-fern (YVoodwardia areolata), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana).
Fauna found within this community are likely similar to those found in the Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest due to the similar vegetation and proximity of the communities.
Disturbed Community
Portions of the Study Area are described as disturbed. These areas are along the
roadways and within the pastured areas. Species located in these areas are subject to
regular maintenance such as mowing and grazing.
3.2 Aquatic Resources
There is one aquatic resource within the Study Area, the North Pacolet River. This
stream is shown on Figure 3, and a USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet is
included in Appendix A. Physical aspects of the aquatic communities are described in
Section 2.2.2.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 9 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 117 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

North Pacolet River
Macroinvertebrates found in this community include mayflies (Ephemoptej-a), stoneflies
(Plecoptera), net making caddisflies (Hydropsychidae), rock case caddisflies
(Neophylax), and crayfish (Crustacea).
Fish were present within the stream, but were not sampled or identified. The following
species were found approximately 2 miles downstream of the project site: Santee chub
(Cyprinella zanema), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Piedmont shiner (Notropis
sp. cf. chlorocephalus), sandbar shiner (Notropis scepticus), redbreast sunfish, (Lepomis
auritus), and striped jumprock (Scartomyzon rupiscartes) (NCDENR 1995).
Other aquatic fauna observed throughout the Study Area include various frogs, toads, and
Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea).
A review of the NCWRC database shows no Significant Aquatic Endangered Habitat in
North Pacolet River (1`TCWRC 1998). In addition, there is no anadromous fish habitat
within the Study Area (NCDENR 1998). No construction moratoria are known to apply
to the North Pacolet River; we have requested confirmation on this from NCWRC but
have not yet received a response. We will forward any applicable response to NCDOT
upon receipt.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed Project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Any construction related activities in or near these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section describes
potential impacts to the natural communities within the Study Area in terms of the
communities and organisms affected. Estimates of areas are limited by the boundaries of
the Study Area. These do not represent impact estimates, since the Study Area is larger
than the final Project limits. Rather, these estimates are for planning use only and
accurate only for the current Study Area. Any shift in design of the bridge or approaches
outside of the Study Area will alter the estimates. The natural community boundaries,
shown in Figure 3, should be used during the evaluation of alternatives and design of the
bridge in order to minimize impacts.
3.3.1 TerrestrialImpacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities could result from project construction due to
the clearing, excavation, filling, and paving of portions of the Project and, thus,
the loss of community area. The communities likely to be impacted by the
Project are presented in Table 2 below. At this planning stage of the Project, it is
not feasible to distinguish between temporary and permanent impacts.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 10 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

Table 2
Natural Communities
_
~. a_" ;- :' 'Conimuui ;;T~' e "": _
..-~c'res w-it~uiStud 'Area:: ,
esic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.85
ountain/Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest 1.13
isturbed 2.62
otal 4.6
In general, the Project would likely cause the following impacts to terrestrial
communities:
• Direct loss of terrestrial habitats through land clearing, excavation, or fill.
• Increased wildlife habitat fragmentation.
• Riparian zone and stream buffer reductions/habitat corridor loss.
• Loss of food sources.
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic communities are likely to result from the physical
disturbance of aquatic habitats and watersheds associated with bridge
replacement. Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on
community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of
habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following
impacts:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures or filter feeding organisms and gills of fish
and other organisms.
• Burial of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations, which
deplete dissolved oxygen supplies.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
• "Increased water temperatures due to removal of riparian canopy.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to the
BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and for Bridge Demolition and Removal
and additional measures described in Section 2.3. There are no construction
moratoria for the Study Area.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides information pertinent to two significant regulatory issues: Waters of the
United States and rare and protected species. These issues retain particular significance because
of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with
the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prier to Project construction.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 11 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters that have
commercial, recreational, or ecological value to the public. Wetlands are identified based
on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded
conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria used to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. No wetland areas were identified
within the Project Study Area. One jurisdictional stream, North Pacolet River, is
located within the Study Area, and is described in Sections 2.2 and 3.2.
4.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to Waters of the United States will likely include the North Pacolet River. The
quantity of jurisdictional waters is calculated based on the linear feet of streams and
acreage of wetlands that are located within the Study Area. The North Pacolet River is a
perennial stream that crosses SR 117 and encompasses approximately 500 linear feet
within the Study Area. These calculations do not represent the potential impacts of
bridge replacement; rather, they provide guidance for choosing the least environmentally
damaging replacement alternative. At this time, it is not possible to distinguish between
temporary and permanent impacts. Actual impacts will be significantly less due to the
size of the Study Area compared to the final Project Area.
4.3 Permit Issues
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated for the proposed
Project. Due to potential stream impacts, construction activities will require permits and
certifications from several regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of
public water resources. No wetland impacts would occur within the Study Area.
A Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the
United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by
another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
(1) the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 12 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment;
and,
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
Since no wetlands are present within the Study Area, USACE verification is not required.
This Project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from NCDWQ prior to
issuance of the NWP. Section 441 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to Waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 Certification from
NCDWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit. No additional stream
buffer requirements apply to the Study Area.
An NWP 33 may also be required if temporary construction measures are required. This
permit authorizes temporary access, dewatering, and construction activities for projects
already authorized by USACE or not requiring authorization. This permit does not
require notification to NCDWQ as long as all conditions of their certification are met.
4.3.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 19 is located on SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River. It is
constructed of wood and steel (see Appendix B). All efforts should be made to
demolish the bridge without dropping any materials into Waters of the United
States; however, there is some potential for materials to enter surface waters
during construction. This will be minimized through the implementation of
BMPs as described in Section 2.3. The NCDOT project engineer will provide
bridge material and fill data at a later time.
4.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
USACE, through the CEQ, has adopted a wetland mitigation policy that embraces
the concept 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 the following: avoiding, minimizing,
rectifying, reducing (over time), and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
These three aspects, avoidance, minimization, and compensation, must be
considered sequentially. No wetland impacts are associated with the Study Area;
therefore, mitigation for wetland impacts is not required for this project.
Current NWP regulations require compensatory mitigation for those projects that
require notification to USACE. In addition, NCDWQ requires mitigation for
impacts greater than 1.0 acres of wetlands and/or more than 150 linear feet of
streams. For projects in or near streams or other open waters, a common
component of any compensatory mitigation plan is to establish and maintain a
vegetated buffer next to open waters within the Project vicinity. Generally, the
buffer is 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream. However, the District
B-30] 9 -Bridge No. 19 13 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

Engineer or regulatory agent will determine whether or not the vegetated buffer is
required and, if necessary, the appropriate buffer width.
Stream mitigation may not be required for this project if the North Pacolet River
is spanned entirely by the new bridge. Stream mitigation potential on-site is
limited by the size of the stream, and presence of the existing bridge, which
restricts the use of natural channel design.
4.4 Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora are, or have been, in the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to co-exist with human development. Federal law
[under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as 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 limited additional protection under
separate state laws.
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened
(T) are protected under the provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA, as
amended. The NCNHP, as well as USFWS, list two federally protected species
for the County, dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis nan~ora) and white irisette
(Sisyrinchium dichotomum). The USFWS lists an additional species, small
whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) as Threatened but NCNHP does not list
this species for Polk County (Table 3).
Table 3
Threatened and Endan ered S ecies
~ ~ ~ ` ` ,y< Federal Status / ~ r ~; Bro~o~rcal i
`
i b *k .a t> d I :., t Y
w.'
~
- ! r"rrk' .c.. ;;r
,
. ~x
'
'~ ~riN n z '; ,~ ~ s e.. ~, r o. rq,~
;:...
t u ~*.,",~ K ~ S,
i' ~ 5"
~
~
'~
~
~
, ..
~-Corsi
n;lName ~
; a
~...Sci ~:
5ta
e_~fa ~ .~, .
:
,.. ~ onclu on ~,.~;
~.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis nani ora T / T No Effect
Sisyrinchium
White irisette dichotomum E / E No Effect
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T / E No Effect
USFWS Database Last Updated: February 5, ZUU3. NCNHP Database Last Update August ZUUS. Accessed lU/U7/U5.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) Threatened
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is listed as threatened at the federal and state levels.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and
nearby slopes, in boggy areas adjacent to creekheads and streams, and along the
slopes of hillsides and ravines. The species jug-shaped flowers are typically less
than 10 millimeters long, and their sepal tubes are narrow, rarely more than 6 or 7
millimeters wide even in flower. Flower color usually ranges from beige to dark
brown, sometimes it is greenish or purplish. The plant's dark green leaves are
heart-shaped, evergreen, and leathery. Plant stalks are long and thin, originating
from an underground root (USFWS 1990). A search of the Study Area resulted in
no individuals of dwarf-flowered heartleaf found. Additionally, the only area of
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 14 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

potential habitat for the species occurred on the southern facing slopes within the
project area. Searches on the slopes of the site resulted in finding and identifying
Hexastylis arifolia. A biological conclusion of "no effect" was reached due to the
absence of this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum)
Endangered
The white irisette is listed as endangered at the federal and state levels. This
perennial herb grows in adichotomously-branching pattern, reaching heights of
approximately 11 to 20 centimeters. The basal leaves, usually pale to bluish
green, are from one-third to one-half the height of the plant. The tiny white
flowers appear from late May through July in clusters of four to six at the ends of
winged stems. The fruit is a round, pale to medium brown capsule containing
three to six round or elliptical black seeds. This species occurs on rich, basic soils
probably weathered from amphibolite. It grows in clearings and the edges of
upland woods where the canopy is thin and often where down-slope runoff has
removed much of the deep litter layer ordinarily present on these sites. The irisette
is dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain the open quality of its
habitat (USFWS 1992). Although areas of disturbance and open habitat are
available onsite from the road and grazing, there are no clearings, edges of upland
woods, or upland woods with the litter layer removed from downslope runoff
present in the Study Area. Due to the absence of suitable habitat for the species, a
biological conclusion of "no effect" was reached for the species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)
Threatened
The small whorled pagonia is listed as threatened at the federal level and
endangered at the state level. Small whorled pagonia is a perennial herb that
grows up to 25 centimeters in height. There is a whorl of 5 or 6 leaves near the
top of the stem and beneath the flower(s) that gives the plant its common name.
The leaves are grayish-green and are usually 4 to 8 centimeters long. Greenish-
yellow flowers are either solitary or occasionally paired and arise from the center
of the leaf whorl from mid-May and as late as mid-June. This species is generally
known from open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil. It occurs in habitat where
there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density, flowering appears
to be inhibited (LTSFWS 1996). Due to the lack of suitable habitat including open,
dry, deciduous woods, a biological conclusion of "no effect" was reached for the
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrences of federally protected species within the Project Vicinity (NCDENR
2005d).
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 1 S Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

4.4.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are thirteen species listed as a FSC by the USFWS and NCNHP for the
County (USFWS 2005; NCDENR 2005c). Species classified as FSC are not
afforded Federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
threatened or endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to
change and should be included for consideration. FSC are defined as species that
are under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing. In addition, organisms that are listed as E, T, or Special Concern
(SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded limited
state protection under the North Carolina State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists the FSC, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the Study Area for each
species. A review of the NCNHP database- of rare species and unique habitats
shows no occurrence of FSC within the Project Vicinity (NCDENR 2005d). This
species list is provided for information purposes, as the protection status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
.Table 4
Federal S ecies of Concern
.1~ `- y, .,. T
k ~ '. cry' :~
.Conmon~N ~ e
`-~~ . L i L ~~l- "~ x. `x j 4 ~
,~ r .'fi '~ 4 ~~X s ~~ ~ r
cienttfic_l~a '~~~~ y ' j~
C~~t~
:~fatus~"~~ ~~ ~ t IJ y ,~
y ~S. th-1, -r Y.. ;~4 ~ ,,;~~ i
t~e fial. atliii2~t
.
Appalachian checkered-
skipper (Wyandot skipper)
Pyrgus wyandot
SR
No
Worthy shield lichen + Cano armelia amabilis SR-T Yes
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombi ormis SR-L No
Large-flowered Barbara's
buttons
Marshallia grandi ora
SR-T
No
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata SR-T Yes
Bigleaf scur ea Orbexilum macro hyllum E Yes

Divided-leaf ragwort + Packera millefolium
(formerly Senecio
mille olium)

T

No
Green salamander + Aneides aeneus E No
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea SR Yes
Eastern woodrat -Southern
A alachian population Neotoma floridana
haematoreia
SC
Yes
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana W2 Yes
Butternut Ju lans cinerea WSa No
Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii SR-L No
* State Status Explanations are as follows: E -Endangered, T- Threatened, SC -Special Concern, SR -
Significantly Rare, -T - Throughout, -1-Limited, Watch Category W2 =species rare to uncommon, Watch
Category Sa =rare because of severe decline).
Species documented on the NCNHP Polk County list but absent on the USFWS list.
Species documented on the USFWS Polk County list but absent on the NCNHP list.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 16 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Study Area for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 19 on SR 1517 over the North
Pacolet River is approximately 4.6 acres. The following conclusions summarize the findings of
this investigation:
• There is one jurisdictional aquatic resource in the Study Area, North Pacolet River.
• There are two natural communities within the Study Area, totaling 1.98 acres.
• There are disturbed communities (pasture, roads, and roadsides) within the Study Area,
totaling 2.62 acres.
• The primary land use within the Study Area is forest.
• There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the Study area.
• There are no known occurrences of federally protected species within the Study Area.
• The project will require issuance of a 401 Certification from NCDWQ.
• The project will require issuance of a Section 404 permit.
• A Nationwide Permit 23 is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United
States resulting from the proposed project.
• A Nationwide Permit 33 may also be required if temporary construction measures are
required.
Based on the natural systems investigation, the environmental impacts from the proposed bridge
replacement can be minimized through implementation of the following recommendations:
• Preserving vegetated buffers along the North Pacolet River outside the Project footprint is
recommended to protect water quality and aquatic habitat.
• The new structure should be designed to span the entire stream if possible, and limit or
avoid fill within the floodplain.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 17 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

6.0 REFERENCES
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka. 1982. Aquatic Insects and Oligochaetes of North
and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, IL.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical
Report Y-87-1). Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J.R. Hamson, III, and J. Dermid. 1980. Amphibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources. 2005a. Basinwide
Information System (BINS) North Carolina Waterbody Reports. Available URL:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html. Accessed November 3, 2005.
2005b. List of Active NPDES Permits. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
Available URL: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documentsBIMS_100505.x1s. Last
updated: October 20, 2005. Accessed November 3, 2005.
2005c. Natural Heritage Element Occurrences Database. Division of Parks and
Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Available URL:
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata.html. Accessed November 3, 2005.
2005d. Natural Heritage Element Occurrences Database. Division of Parks and
Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Last Update August 2005.
2004. Draft North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
2003. Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
NC.
2002. Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2002
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.
. 1998. Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas: Natura, 19981201. Division of Marine
Fisheries, Morehead City, NC.
1995. Fish Community Database. Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. Available
URL: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/IBIRawData/Broad%20River%20Basin.xls.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1998. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats, 19981211. Raleigh, NC.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 1 s Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel HiII, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina -Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh,
NC.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1998. Soil Survey of Polk County, North Carolina.
Natural Resource Conservation Service. Washington, DC.
2005a. Hydric Soils, Polk County, North Carolina. Natural Resource Conservation
Service. Soil Data Mart. Accessed November 3, 2005.
. 20056. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Division. Available URL: (http://ortho.ftw.nres.usda.gov/cgi-
bin/osd/osdname.cgi). Accessed November 3, 2005.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina. Asheville, NC. http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html. Last Updated: February
5, 2003. Accessed October 7, 2005.
1996. Small Whorled Pogonia Species Account. Endangered and Threatened Species of
the Southeastern United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4 -- As of 1/96. Available
URL: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/q/saglq.html). Accessed November 20, 2005.
1992. White Irisette Species Account. Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeastern United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4 -- As of 11/92. Available
URL: (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/q/sag70.htm1). Accessed November 20, 2005.
1990. Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Species Account. Endangered and Threatened Species
of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4 -- As of 8/90.
Available URL: (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/q/sag5g.html). Accessed November
20, 2005.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
B-3019 -Bridge No. 19 19 Natural Resources Technical Report
SR 1517 over the North Pacolet River January 2006

Project Study Area
.~xA ~~ FIGURE 2
~ RoNMENT ONE COMPANY I Many Solurionrv Bridge No. 19 Replacement ~ PP No. B-3019 ~ Natural Resources Technical Report

4
APPENDIX A
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

'USAGE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,~„ STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET _ , r !: -
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCD~T" ~ ~-~-~~~ 2. Evaluator's name: ~ 1C;~W11~(~ ~ V~ M ~1~~/
3. Date of evaluatio`n:~ ~ O ~~~ I~ ~~ 4. Time of evaluation: Jz ~ 00
5. Name of stream: ~ . i'GLC.OIE~ R1~~ V 6. River basin: urU~.C~
7. Approximate drainage area: -3~ itil ~ . 8. Stream order: -1~ -f-
9. Length of reach evaluated: ~ l)0 ~-~ . 10. County: PO
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): f~ (~
o ~ ~ • /1 v r ~~
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): JS / 2 ~~ • ~- Longitude (ex. -77.SS6611): !~ os ~ 0 S ~• ~
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS then G Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Spy-~-~
Colurn~~s,NC r~~ I~-f~chon ~ ~-i~er 2c~ and M~rac~ (;ha.-~c~~. ~~~ ~-~-I~
14. Proposed channel work (if any): N ~~
15. Recent weather conditions: ~~r` c~,vrut
16. Site conditions at time of visit: cSU r1f1 U ~ Coo
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known:N~~ Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? I'ES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ~ % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial 2s % Agricultural
~~ % Forested
22. Banifsll width: ~ J ~
24. Channel slope down center of stream: t/~lat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight /Occasional bends
_% Cleared /Logged _% Other
23. Baal: height (from bed to top of bank): ~ ~ ~
Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
-Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
Evaluator's Signature I/~ / ~ ~ ~A (,C~`~' Date ~~/2S,O
This channel evaluation form rs intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USAGE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

I,
APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHS

r.
View from bridge looking downstream
View of River Road surface
View from bridge looking southeast
View from bridge looking southwest
From River Road looking south at bridge
From River Road looking southwest at bridge