20221416 Ver 1_U-5839 NRTR_Final_20221012

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Proposed Widening of US 276 (Russ Avenue) from SR 1202 (Phillips Road)
To US 23 Business (North Main Street)
Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
TIP U-5839
WBS Element No. 50230.1.1
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Highway Division 14
December 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS......................................................
1
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................
1
3.1 Soils...................................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 Water Resources................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES..............................................................................................
3
4.1 Terrestrial Communities.................................................................................................... 3
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed................................................................................................
3
4.1.2 Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest..........................................................................
4
4.1.3 Dry Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest.................................................................................
4
4.1.4 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest.................................................................................
4
4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts.................................................................................
4
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife............................................................................................................. 5
4.3 Aquatic Communities......................................................................................................... 5
4.4 Invasive Species................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES....................................................................................
5
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.................................................................................. 5
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits................................................................................................... 6
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern ................................ 6
5.4 Construction Moratoria..................................................................................................... 6
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules........................................................................................... 6
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters .................................................... 6
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation........................................................................................ 7
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts...................................................................
7
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts........................................................................
7
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species...................................................................... 7
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act.................................................................
13
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species.................................................................
13
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat.....................................................................................................
14
6.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................15
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features and Terrestrial Communities Map
Appendix B: Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Appendix C: Stream and Wetland Forms
Appendix D: Qualifications of Contributors
Appendix E: Bat Survey Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table1. Soils in the study area....................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Water resources in the study area................................................................... 2
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area ....................... 3
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area .................................. 4
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area ............. 5
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area ......................... 6
Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Haywood County ............................... 7

Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to upgrade US 276
(Russ Avenue) from US 23/74 to US 23 Business (Main Street) in Waynesville,
Haywood County (TIP U-5839) (Figure 1). The following Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed project.
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS
All work was conducted in accordance with the NCDOT Natural Environment Section
standard operating procedures and July 2012 NRTR template. Field work was conducted
on March 28, 2016. The principal personnel contributing to this document were:
Principal
Investigator: Brian Dustin
Education: B.S. Forest Management, 2003
M.C. GIST, 2012
Experience: Senior Scientist, CALYX, Inc., 2007-Present
Environmental Biologist, H.W. Lochner, 2003-2007
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, stream assessment, GPS, natural
community assessment, and T/E species assessment, document
preparation
Investigator: Mark Mickley
Education: B.S. Biology, 2003
Experience: Environmental Group Manager, CALYX, Inc., 2015-Present
Project Manager, CALYX, Inc., 2014-2015
Environmental Scientist, CALYX, Inc., 2004-2014
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineation, T/E species assessment,
document preparation
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The study area lies in the Blue Ridge physiographic region of North Carolina (Figure 2).
Topography in the project vicinity is comprised of moderate to steep slopes with a
moderately -wide, level floodplain along Richland Creek. Elevations in the study area
range from 2,614 feet to 2,792 feet above sea level. Land use in the project vicinity
consists of a mix of commercial development, residential neighborhoods, and very few
forested areas.
3.1 Soils
The Haywood County Soil Survey identifies twelve (12) soil types within the study area
(Table 1).
1 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
Table 1. Soils in the study area
Soil Series
Mapping Unit
Drainage Class
H dric Status
Braddock -Urban land complex, 2
BrC
Well Drained
Nonhydric
to 15 percent slopes
Dellwood cobbly sandy loam, 0
Moderately
to 3 percent slopes, occasionally
DeA
Well Drained
Hydric*
flooded
Dellwood-Urban land complex, 0
Moderately
to 3 precent slopes, occasionally
DhA
Well Drained
Nonhydric
flooded
Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 30
EdE
Well Drained
Nonhydric
to 50 percent slopes
Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to 30
EvD
Well Drained
Nonhydric
percent slopes
Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50
EvE
Well Drained
Nonhydric
percent slopes
Hayesville-Urban land complex,
HeC
Well Drained
Nonhydric
2 to 15 percent slopes
Saunook loam, 2 to 8 percent
ScB
Well Drained
Nonhydric
slopes
Saunook loam, 8 to 15 percent
SdC
Well Drained
Nonhydric
slopes
Udorthents, loamy
Ud
n/a
Nonhydric
Udorthents-Urban land complex,
0 to 3 percent slopes, rarely
UfA
n/a
Nonhydric
flooded
Urban land
Ur
n/a
Nonhydric
* - Soils which are primarily nonhydric, but which may contain hydric inclusions
3.2 Water Resources
Water resources in the study area are part of the French Broad River basin [U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 06010106]. Four streams were identified in
the study area (Table 2). The locations of each water resource are shown in Figure 3.
The physical characteristics of these streams are provided in Table 3.
Table 2. Water resources in the study area
Stream Name
Map ID
NCDWR Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Richland Creek
Richland Creek
5-16-(11.5)
B
UT to Richland Creek
SA
5-16-(11.5)
B
UT to Richland Creek
SB
5-16-(11.5)
B
UT to Richland Creek
Sc
5-16-(11.5)
B
2 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
Table 3. Physical characteristics of water resources in the study area
Bank
Bankful
Water
Channel
Map ID
Velocity
Clarity
Height (ft)
Width (ft)
Depth (in)
Substrate
Richland
Creek
3-4
45
6-36
Cobble
Fast
Clear
SA
6-7
8-10
2-6
Cobble
Fast
Clear
SB
2-3
4-5
2-4
Gravel
Moderate
Clear
SC
0.5-1
3
2
Gravel
Moderate
Clear
There are no ponds in the study area. Richland Creek, upstream of Russ Avenue, is
designated as Hatchery Supported Trout Waters by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC). There are no other anadromous fish waters, or Primary Nursery
Areas (PNA) present in the study area. There are no designated High Quality Waters
(HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or Water Supply Watersheds (WS-I or
WS-II) within 1.0 mile downstream of the study area. There are no streams in the study
area listed on the Final 2014 North Carolina 303(d) list due to sedimentation or turbidity.
There is one benthic monitoring site located in the study area on Richland Creek at US
276 (Russ Avenue). This site was last sampled in 2007 and received a bioclassification
rating of "Good -Fair". There are no fish community monitoring stations within 1.0 mile
downstream of the project study area.
4.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
4.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four terrestrial communities were identified in the study area: maintained/disturbed,
piedmont/mountain alluvial forest, dry mesic oak -hickory forest, and mesic mixed
hardwood forest. Figure 3 shows the location and extent of these terrestrial communities
in the study area. A brief description of each community type follows. Scientific names
of all species identified are included in Appendix B.
4.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
Maintained/disturbed areas are defined as places where the vegetation is periodically
mowed or otherwise maintained, such as roadside shoulders, residential lawns, and
landscaped portions of commercial properties. This community type covers the vast
majority of the study area. The vegetation in this community is comprised of sparse
canopy tree species such as white pine, weeping willow, Bradford pear, and red maple;
along with low growing grasses and herbs consisting of fescue, dandelion, clover, violet,
henbit, and bedstraw. Areas with less -frequent maintenance contain vines like muscadine
grape, Japanese honeysuckle, and poison ivy, and small shrubs like Chinese privet.
There is a wetland included in this community classified as headwater forest using the
NCWAM classification. Headwater forest within the Maintained/Disturbed community
is characterized by the presence of black willow and red maple saplings in the overstory.
The herbaceous layer is dominated by tearthumb and various sedges.
3 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
4.1.2 Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest
The piedmont/mountain levee forest community is comprised of the narrow buffer of
vegetation along Richland Creek through the study area. The dominant native species in
this community are primarily river birch, sycamore, sweetgum, and tulip poplar with a
small component of red maple, American holly, and American hornbeam. Understory
species include Chinese privet and giant cane. Vines are similar to those listed in the
maintained/disturbed community but also include dense patches of greenbrier.
4.1.3 Dry Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
The dry mesic oak -hickory forest typically occurs on mid -slopes, low ridges, or upland
flats on a variety of upland soils (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The forest is dominated
by white oak, northern red oak, pignut hickory, mockernut hickory, tulip poplar, red
maple, sweetgum, and loblolly pine in the canopy. The shrub and sapling layer is
dominated by sourwood, red maple, flowering dogwood, American holly, and deerberry.
The herbaceous layer is sparse with common species consisting of heartleaf and
rattlesnake plantain.
4.1.4 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The mesic mixed hardwood forest community exists along slopes and in ravines, in well -
drained, somewhat acidic soils (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Dominant species in this
community include American beech, red maple, tulip poplar, white pine, sweetgum and
northern red oak in the overstory. The understory consists of flowering dogwood,
American holly, and viburnum. Christmas fern, heartleaf, and cranefly orchid are found
in the ground layers.
4.1.5 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of grading and paving of portions of the study area. At this time, decisions
regarding the final location and design of the proposed widening have not been made.
Therefore, community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each type
within the study area (Table 4). Once a final alignment and preliminary design have been
determined, probable impacts to each community type will be calculated.
Table 4. Coverage of terrestrial communities in the study area
Community
Coverage (ac.)
Maintained/ Disturbed
105.9
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
0.4
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
1.0
Dry Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
1.1
Total
108.4
4 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed
habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species (those species actually observed
are indicated with *). Mammal species that commonly exploit forested habitats and
stream corridors found within the study area include species such as eastern cottontail,
woodchuck, raccoon*, Virginia opossum*, and white-tailed deer. Birds that commonly
use forest and forest edge habitats include the American crow*, blue jay, Carolina
chickadee, northern cardinal*, Carolina wren*, tufted titmouse*, brown thrasher, eastern
phoebe, and eastern towhee. Birds that may use the open habitat or water bodies in the
study area include turkey vulture*, field sparrow*, eastern bluebird, and Canada goose.
Reptile and amphibian species that may use terrestrial communities located in the study
area include the eastern box turtle, eastern fence lizard, five -lined skink, and northern
dusky salamander.
4.3 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities in the study area consist of perennial streams. These streams could
support smallmouth bass, redbreast sunfish, crayfish, central stoneroller, bluehead chub,
greenhead shiner, northern hogsucker, and rosyside dace.
4.4 Invasive Species
Four species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were found
to occur in the study area. The species identified were Bradford pear (Watch List),
Chinese privet (Threat), Japanese honeysuckle (Moderate Threat), and Japanese
knotweed (Threat). NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as appropriate.
5.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
5.1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U.S.
Four jurisdictional streams were identified in the study area (Table 5). The location of
each stream is shown on Figure 3. USACE and NCDWQ stream delineation forms are
included in Appendix C. The physical characteristics and water quality designations of
each stream are detailed in Section 3.2. The jurisdictional streams in the study area have
been designated as cold water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation.
Table 5. Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources in the study area
Map ID
Length
(ft.)
Classification
Compensatory
Miti ation Required
River Basin
Buffer
Richland Creek
607
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
SA
949
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
SB
10
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
SC
223
Perennial
Yes
Not Subject
Total
511
5 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
One jurisdictional wetland was identified within the study area (Figure 3). Wetland
classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 6. This wetlands is within the
French Broad River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 06010106). USACE wetland
delineation forms and NCDWQ wetland rating form for this site are included in
Appendix C. A descriptions of this terrestrial community at the wetland site is presented
in Section 4.1. Wetland site WA is included within the maintained/disturbed community.
Table 6. Jurisdictional characteristics of wetlands in the study area
NCWAM
Hydrologic
NCDWQ Wetland
Map ID
Area (ac.)
Classification 1
Classification
Rating
WA
Headwater Forest
Riparian
26
0.15
Total
0.15
5.2 Clean Water Act Permits
The proposed project has been designated as a EA for the purposes of National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. As a result, a Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 23 will likely be applicable. A NWP No. 33 may also apply for temporary
construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or temporary causeways
that are often used during bridge construction or rehabilitation. The USACE holds the final
discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction. If a Section
404 permit is required then a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the
NCDWR will be needed.
5.3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
The project is not in a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) county and therefore this
project will not require a CAMA permit.
5.4 Construction Moratoria
The NCWRC identifies Richland Creek, upstream of Russ Avenue, as Hatchery
Supported Trout Waters. Therefore, a construction moratorium is anticipated from
October 15th to April 15th
5.5 N.C. River Basin Buffer Rules
The project is located in the French Broad River Basin; therefore River Basin Buffer
Rules administered by NCDWR do not apply to this project.
5.6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
The surface waters within the project study area have not been designated by the USACE
as Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
6 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
5.7 Wetland and Stream Mitigation
5.7.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts
The NCDOT will attempt to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the
greatest extent practicable in choosing a preferred alternative and during project design.
At this time, no final decisions have been made with regard to the location or design of
the preferred alternative.
5.7.2 Compensatory Mitigation of Impacts
The NCDOT will investigate potential on -site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities once a final decision has been rendered on the location of the preferred
alternative. If on -site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS).
5.8 Endangered Species Act Protected Species
As of July 24, 2015 the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists nine federally
protected species for Haywood County (Table 7). A brief description of each species'
habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendered based on
survey results in the study area. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the
current best available information from referenced literature and/or USFWS.
Table 7. Federally protected species listed for Haywood County.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal
Status
Habitat
Present
Biological
Conclusion
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Applalachian elktoe
E
No
No Effect
Geum radiatum
Spreading avens
E
No
No Effect
Glyucomys sabrinus
coloratus
Carolina northern flying
squirrel
E
No
No Effect
Gymnoderma lineare
Rock gnome lichen
E
No
No Effect
Microhexura montivaga
Spruce -fir moss spider
E
No
No Effect
Myotis grisescens
Gray bat
E
Yes
Unresolved
Myotis septentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
T
Yes
Unresolved
Myotis sodalis
Indiana bat
E
Yes
Unresolved
Isotria medeoloides
Small whorled pogonia
T
No
No Effect
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
7 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
Appalachian elktoe
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: year round
Habitat Description: The Appalachian elktoe is known from the French Broad River
watershed in North Carolina. The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in
moderate- to fast -flowing water, in gravelly substrates often mixed with cobble
and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt -free, coarse, sandy
substrates. Apparently, stability of the substrate is critical to this species, as it is
seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel,
or cobble.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe is not present in the study area. Richland
Creek is likely too cold for to support Appalachian elktoe. Elktoe are known to
occur in the Pigeon River several miles upstream of the confluence of the Pigeon
River and Richland Creek. Richland Creek, in the project area, is separated from
the Pigeon River by a large impoundment, Lake Junaluska. On June 28, 2016, a
query of NCNHP records using the online North Carolina Natural Heritage Data
Explorer indicated no Appalachian elktoe occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study
area.
Spreading avens
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June -September
Habitat Description: Spreading avens occurs in areas exposed to full sun on high -
elevation cliffs, outcrops, and bases of steep talus slopes. This perennial herb also
occurs in thin, gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit outcrops. The species
prefers a northwest aspect, but can be found on west-southwest through north-
northeast aspects. Forests surrounding known occurrences are generally
dominated by either red spruce -Fraser fir, northern hardwoods with scattered
spruce, or high -elevation red oaks. Spreading avens typically occurs in shallow,
acidic soil (such as the Burton series) in cracks and crevices of igneous,
metamorphic, or metasedimentary rocks. Soils may be well drained but almost
continuously wet, with soils at some known occurrences subject to drying out in
summer due to exposure to sun and shallow depths. Known populations occur at
elevations ranging from 4,296 to 6,268 feet above mean sea level. Blue Ridge
goldenrod, Heller's blazing star, and Roan Mountain bluet are a few of its
common associate species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Elevations in
the project study area are 2,614 feet to 2,792 feet above mean sea level, which is
much lower than those where spreading avens is known to occur. In addition,
there are no natural communities present in the study area that match those
preferred by this species. On June 28, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the
8 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
online North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no spreading
avens occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Carolina northern flying squirrel
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: May -October; coldest days in coldest winter
months (nest box surveys)
Habitat Description: There are several isolated populations of the Carolina northern
flying squirrel in the mountains of North Carolina. This nocturnal squirrel prefers
the ecotone between coniferous (red spruce, Fraser fir, or hemlock) and mature
northern hardwood forests (beech, yellow birch, maple, hemlock, red oak, and
buckeye), typically at elevations above 4,500 feet mean sea level. In some
instances, the squirrels may be found on narrow, north -facing valleys above 4,000
feet mean sea level. Both forest types are used to search for food and the
hardwood forest is used for nesting sites. Mature forests with a thick evergreen
understory and numerous snags are most preferable. In winter, squirrels inhabit
tree cavities in older hardwoods, particularly yellow birch.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for Carolina northern flying squirrel in the form of mature forests
at elevations above 4,000 feet mean sea level is not present in the study area.
Elevations in the project study area are 2,614 feet to 2,792 feet above mean sea
level, which is much lower than those where Carolina northern flying squirrel is
known to occur. On June 28, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the online
North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no Carolina northern
flying squirrel occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Rock gnome lichen
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: year round
Habitat Description: Rock gnome lichen occurs in high elevation coniferous forests
(particularly those dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir) usually on rocky
outcrop or cliff habitats. This squamulose lichen only grows in areas with a great
deal of humidity, such as high elevations above 5,000 feet mean sea level where
there is often fog, or on boulders and large outcrops in deep river gorges at lower
elevations. Habitat is primarily limited to vertical rock faces where seepage water
from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The species requires a
moderate amount of sunlight, but cannot tolerate high -intensity solar radiation.
The lichen does well on moist, generally open sites with northern exposures, but
requires at least partial canopy coverage on southern or western aspects because
of its intolerance to high solar radiation.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Elevations in
the project study area are 2,614 feet to 2,792 feet above mean sea level, which is
much lower than those where rock gnome lichen is known to occur. In addition,
9 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
there are no natural communities present in the study area that match those
preferred by this species. On June 28, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the
online North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no rock gnome
lichen occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Spruce -fir moss spider
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: May -August
Habitat Description: This species is known only from spruce -fir forests in the
Appalachian mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. The spruce -fir moss
spider occurs in well -drained moss and liverwort mats growing on rocks or
boulders. These mats are found in well -shaded areas in mature, high elevation (>
5,000 feet mean sea level) Fraser fir and red spruce forests. The spruce -fir moss
spider is very sensitive to desiccation and requires environments of high and
constant humidity. The need for humidity relates to the moss mats, which cannot
become too parched or else the mats become dry and loose. Likewise, the moss
mats cannot be too wet because large drops of water can also pose a threat to the
spider. The spider constructs its tube -shaped webs in the interface between the
moss mat and the rock surface. Some webs have been found to extend into the
interior of the moss mat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for this species does not exist within the study area. Elevations in
the project study area are 2,614 feet to 2,792 feet above mean sea level, which is
much lower than those where spruce -fir moss spider is known to occur. In
addition, there are no natural communities present in the study area that match
those preferred by this species. On June 28, 2016, a query of NCNHP records
using the online North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no
spruce -fir moss spider occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Gray bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: May 15-August 15 (summer); January 15-
February 15 (winter)
Habitat Description: Gray bats are known mainly from the cave regions of the Southeast
and Midwest. They live in colonies in caves, utilizing different caves for summer
roosting and winter hibernating. Summer caves are usually within one half mileb
of a river or reservoir, which provides foraging habitat. During the summer,
females give birth and rear the young in maternity caves, while males and
yearlings roost in separate bachelor caves. Caves preferred for hibernation are
typically deep, vertical caves with a temperature between 42 and 52 degrees
Fahrenheit. Gray bats are highly selective in choosing suitable caves, and nine
known caves are thought to provide hibernation space for 95 percent of the
population. Migration from summer to winter caves begins in September and is
mainly complete by the beginning of November.
10 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
CALYX biologists inspected all bridges and large culverts within the project
study area for bats and/or evidence of bat use. The results of this survey are
included in Appendix E. Winter tree clearing and/or bridge demolition may be
performed, if necessary, to avoid possible disturbance of suitable roosting and
foraging areas. Bridge 430186 (which had several pieces of guano during an
inspection on March 28, 2016) will be checked a few times in spring/early
summer 2017 for the presence of bats. The biological conclusion for this species
will remain Unresolved until the bridge checks are complete and the USFWS is
subsequently consulted regarding the project's potential effect on federally
protected bats. Construction activities for this project will not take place until
Endangered Species Act compliance is satisfied for gray bat.
Northern long-eared bat
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: June 1 — August 15
Habitat Description: In North Carolina, Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western
North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this
species is not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean
mines are extremely rare in eastern North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or
where NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live
and dead trees (typically >3 inches dbh). Males and non -reproductive females
may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines. This bat has also been
found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings,
behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on
forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings, over water,
and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type
for foraging.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
CALYX biologists inspected all bridges and large culverts within the project
study area for bats and/or evidence of bat use. The results of this survey are
included in Appendix E. Winter tree clearing and/or bridge demolition may be
performed, if necessary, to avoid possible disturbance of suitable roosting and
foraging areas. Bridge 430186 (which had several pieces of guano during an
inspection on March 28, 2016) will be checked a few times in spring/early
summer 2017 for the presence of bats. The biological conclusion for this species
will remain Unresolved until the bridge checks are complete and the USFWS is
subsequently consulted regarding the project's potential effect on federally
protected bats. Construction activities for this project will not take place until
Endangered Species Act compliance is satisfied for northern long-eared bat.
11 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
Indiana bat
USFWS Recommended Survey Window: May 15-August 15 (summer); January 15-
February 15 (winter)
Habitat Description: The range of the Indian bat centers on cavernous limestone regions
in the eastern United States. The Indiana bat has different summer and winter
habitat requirements. Winter habitat is in caves and abandoned mines that usually
have standing water on the floor. The bats migrate to the winter habitat between
September and November; they stay there with occasional periods of activity until
they emerge in mid -March to early May. Hibernation only occurs in regions
where winter temperatures are stable and around 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Suitable
summer habitat includes roosting, foraging, and commuting areas. Summer
roosting habitat includes forests and woodlots containing potential roost trees,
which have exfoliating bark, cracks, or crevices in trees (alive or dying) or snags
that are > 3 inches diameter -at -breast height (dbh). Roosting habitat may contain
dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure.
(While any tree greater than 3" dbh has the potential to be Indiana bat summer
roosting habitat, solid stands of 3" dbh and smaller trees are not considered
suitable roosting habitat; suitable roosting habitat would generally consist of
forest patches with larger trees also present.) Bridges are occasionally used for
roosting by Indiana bats in the summer.
Foraging habitat consists of forested patches, wooded riparian corridors, and
natural vegetation adjacent to these areas. Commuting habitat includes wooded
tracts, tree -lines, wooded hedgerows, streams or other such pathways that are
within or connected to roosting or foraging areas. Streams that have been stripped
of their riparian vegetation do not appear to offer suitable foraging habitat. Rivers
as foraging areas and as migration routes are extremely important to this species.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
CALYX biologists inspected all bridges and large culverts within the project
study area for bats and/or evidence of bat use. The results of this survey are
included in Appendix E. Winter tree clearing and/or bridge demolition may be
performed, if necessary, to avoid possible disturbance of suitable roosting and
foraging areas. Bridge 430186 (which had several pieces of guano during an
inspection on March 28, 2016) will be checked a few times in spring/early
summer 2017 for the presence of bats. The biological conclusion for this species
will remain Unresolved until the bridge checks are complete and the USFWS is
subsequently consulted regarding the project's potential effect on federally
protected bats. Construction activities for this project will not take place until
Endangered Species Act compliance is satisfied for Indiana bat.
12 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
Small whorled pogonia
USFWS Optimal Survey Window: mid May -early July
Habitat Description: Small whorled pogonia occurs in young as well as maturing (second
to third successional growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous
forests. It does not appear to exhibit strong affinities for a particular aspect, soil
type, or underlying geologic substrate. In North Carolina, the perennial orchid is
typically found in open, dry deciduous woods and is often associated with white
pine and rhododendron. The species may also be found on dry, rocky, wooded
slopes; moist slopes; ravines lacking stream channels; or slope bases near braided
channels of vernal streams. The orchid, often limited by shade, requires small
light gaps or canopy breaks, and typically grows under canopies that are relatively
open or near features like logging roads or streams that create long -persisting
breaks in the forest canopy.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for small whorled pogonia does not exist within the study area.
The landscape within the study area has been highly disturbed. The patches of
mixed -deciduous forest are small in size, lack canopy openings and contain no
rhododendron or white pine, or are choked with exotic, invasive species. On June
28, 2016, a query of NCNHP records using the online North Carolina Natural
Heritage Data Explorer indicated no small whorled pogonia occurrences within
1.0 mile of the study area.
5.9 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within 1.0 mile of open water.
A desktop-GIS assessment of the project study area, as well as the area within a
1.13-mile radius (1.0 mile plus 660 feet) of the project limits, was performed on March 4,
2016 using 2013 color aerials. No water bodies large enough or sufficiently open to be
considered potential feeding sources were identified. Since there was no foraging habitat
within the review area, a survey of the project study area and the area within 660 feet of
the project limits was not conducted. Additionally, a review of the NCNHP database on
March 1, 2016 revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. Due to the lack of habitat, known occurrences, and minimal impact
anticipated for this project, it has been determined that this project will not affect this
species.
5.10 Endangered Species Act Candidate Species
As of July 24, 2015 the USFWS lists no Candidate species for Haywood County.
13 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
5.11 Essential Fish Habitat
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has not identified any streams within the
project study area as an Essential Fish Habitat.
14 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
6.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual,
memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources. 2011. Basinwide Water Quality Plan, French Broad River Basin.
Raleigh, North Carolina. https:Hdeq.nc.aov/about/divisions/water-
resources/plannin_/bg asin-planning/water-resource-plans/french-broad-2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR). Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
(2014 Final 303(d) list).
hqp://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_ library/get file?uuid=28b97405-55da-4b21-
aac3-f580ee810593&groupld=38364
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2012. Invasive Exotic Plants of North
Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Guide to Federally Listed Endangered
and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, NC. 134 pp.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2007. Carolina Northern Flying
Squirrel.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/O/Learning/documents/Profiles/NFsquirrel.pdf
(Accessed: June 20, 2016).
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. North Carolina Mussel Atlas:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/Wildlife_Species_Con/W SC_Mussel_2.htm.
(Accessed: October 20, 2010).
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Bog Turtle Fact Sheet. 2006.
http://www.ncwildlife. org/Portals/O/Conserving/documents/nongame_bogturtle_h
ires.pdf (Accessed: March 4, 2016).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
15 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997.
Soil Survey of Haywood County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006.
Hydrologic Units -North Carolina (metadata). Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of Hudsonia montana to be a Threatened Species, With
Critical Habitat. 45 FR 69360-69363.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides) Recovery Plan, First Revision. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 75
PP.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Spreading Avens Recovery Plan.
Atlanta, GA. 32 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for Rock Gnome Lichen
(Gymnoderma lineare) (Evans) Yoshimura and Sharp. Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. The Indiana Bat in Western North
Carolina: A Status Summary Update -April 2005. http://www.fws.gov/nc-
es/mammal/Aprilbat.pdf. (Accessed: October 19, 2010).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Optimal Survey Windows for North
Carolina's Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/plant_survey.html. (Accessed: December 14,
2010).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Information on Threatened and
Endangered Species: Small -whorled Pogonia.
http : //www. fws. gov/midwest/Endangered/plants/smallwhorledpogoniafs.html.
(Accessed: March 4, 2016).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Rangewide Indiana Bat Summer Survey
Guidance, Draft. February 3, 2012.
http : //www. fws. gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/inba/DraftINBASurveyGuida
nceFeb20l2.html.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long -Eared Bat Interim
Conference and Planning Guidance. USFWS Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
http://www. fws. gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2O l4.p
df_(Accessed: June 20, 2016).
16 December 2016

Natural Resources Technical Report TIP U-5839, Haywood County, N.C.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. Optimal Survey Windows for North
Carolina's Federally Threatened, Endangered, and At Risk Plants (Last Revised:
February 2015).
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pdfs/Optimal Survey_Windowsjor listed_plants.p
df
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Threatened and Endangered Species in
North Carolina: Haywood County. Updated July 24, 2015.
http://www.fws.aov/raleigh/species/cplylist/hqMood.html
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Appalachian elktoe Fact Sheet.
http://www.fws.gov/asheville/pdfs/AppalachianElktoe.pdf. (Accessed: October
20, 2010).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Bog Turtles in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/esibogturtle.htm. (Accessed: February 22, 2008).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Carolina northern flying squirrel.
http : //www. fws. gov/asheville/htmis/listed_species/Carolina_northem_flying_squi
rrel.html (Accessed: June 20, 2016).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Gray Bat in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/g_rgybat.html. (Accessed: October 19, 2010).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Indiana bat in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/indianabat.html. (Accessed: October 19,
2010).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Rock Gnome Lichen in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/rglichen.html. (Accessed: December 14, 2010).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Spreading Avens in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/spreadavens.html. (Accessed: December 14,
2010).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Spruce -fir Moss Spider in North Carolina.
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/spider/sprummoss.html. (Accessed: October 18,
2010).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Spruce -fir moss spider fact sheet.
hqp://www.fws. gov/asheville/pdfs/Spruce%20Fir°/`2OMoss%2OSpider.pdf.
(Accessed: October 18, 2010).
United States Geological Survey. 1941. Waynesville, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
17 December 2016

Draft Natural Resources Technical Report TIP R-5839, Haywood County, N. C.
United States Geological Survey. 1967. Clyde, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle
(7.5-minute series).
November 2016

Appendix A
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Study Area Map
Figure 3. Jurisdictional Features and Terrestrial Communities Map

L / U'
ke `3
4 2
3
vlaggie -
6
Ju
ialus 3''
Valle? Del
l4wood
Vicinity
SOLO
2
1. J Ca
fi
iHCCs
.I�Gap
tt7
• 3B
110
1�215
W d ro
Wa
4
�h g
a w od
Spring
4
au
oak
Balsam
lchla d 6
s m
��oldMtn.
4 Willets
65 0
unburst �
Figure 1
U-5839 Project Vicinity
Proposed Widening of US 276 (Russ Ave.)
From SR 1202 (Phillips Rd.)
to US 23 Business (N. Main St.)
Haywood County, North Carolina
[CALYX'
ENGINEERS + CONSULTANTS
:w �� u t -- �» mow. - f► •' �— �� ALI—
r Legend " - •' _ _ - : ,
U-5839 Study Area o-• ° • ��
• G;ok* - •
�»IJJ, •
..7_ TAPdin
• '� L
ro.W
r
V .y
RQSYjti(r J "
41
ice• :� •- G.{�
1y1► : ,` • • . Source:NCDOT and USGS
• � Figure Date: 1111512016
•Y, Cop~'yr'i`ght' C 0 700 1,400
Feet

s�
or v
t 0 W
ell
qO
f
4M
= �S�•`
lcre---
�r
ofe
do
adio
I - % f ►� S As I&I
16
• . ; . •
T t •
40. op
•
10
�l _..lb
0 r
01
• /// A 11 ♦ •
Legend
U-5839 Study Area
FIGURE
2
Natural Resources
Technical Report
Study Area
TIP Project U-5839
Haywood County, NC
Map Date: 06/16/2016
e1 inch = 750 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 750 1,500
Feet
Tdis Exhibit is for planning purposes only and information shown hereon does not
eet The Stand,M, of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina (21 NCAC
56.1600�. The Exhibit was compiled from available information obtained from the
ur es listed below. Streams and Wetlands'. All features located in the field were
-c ,d using a mapping grade Trimble G-XT or G,,XH GPS receiver with
supposed sub -meter accuracy.
Sources'.
Topographic Mapping'. ESRI USATopo Maps

le'
a"
.. k
7.
i�
M
�
•-
ct'
��
- - -
r
� �. fie•~'
.. . , '
1 �
Legend
U-5839 Study Area
Streams Unverified
® Wetlands Unverified
Sample Points Unverified
UPLAND
0 WETLAND
Natural Community Types
Dry Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
Maintained/Disturbed
Mixed Mesic Hardwood Forest
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
FIGURE
3a
Natural Resources
Technical Report
Jurisdictional Resources
and
Terrestrial Communities
TIP Project U-5839
Haywood County, NC
Map Date: 06/16/2016
® 1 inch = 250 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 250 500
Feet
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and information shown hereon does n
eet The Standards of Practice for Lane Surveying in Norm Carolina (21 -AC
56, 1600). The Exhibit was compiled from available information obtained from me
sn—as listed below. Streams and Wetlands: All feaWras located in the field were
corded using a mapping grade Trimble Ga.XT or Ga.XH GPS ra—s, it
supposed sub -meter accuracy.
Sources:
Aerial Photography, NC OnaMap 2015 ORhoimagary

c3
W�E
&I,
�r ✓��r� T ,-C 'd. Qom.
Legend
U-5839 Study Area
Streams Unverified
Wetlands Unverified
Sample Points Unverified
+ UPLAND
* WETLAND
Natural Community Types
Dry Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
Maintained/Disturbed
Mixed Mesic Hardwood Forest
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
FIGURE
3b
Natural Resources
Technical Report
Jurisdictional Resources
and
Terrestrial Communities
TIP Project U-5839
Haywood County, NC
Map Date: 06/16/2016
® 1 inch = 250 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 250 500
Feet
This Exhibit is for planning purposes only and nforma[on shown hereon does not
meet The Standards of P—c, for Land Surveying in North Carolina (21 NCAC
56.1600). The Exhibit was compiled M1om available mfo—im obtained from the
ur es listed below. Streams and Wetlands: All feaWras located in the field were
racorded using a mapping grade Trimble G..XT or G..XH GPS receiver with
supposed sub -meter accuracy.
Sources
Aerial Photography: NC On.Map 2015 Orihoimagery

Appendix B
Scientific Names of Species Identified in Report
Plants
Common Name
Scientific Name
American beech
Fagus grandifolia
American holly
Ilex opaca
American hornbeam
Carpinus caroliniana
Bedstraw
Galium aparine
Black willow
Salix nigra
Bradford pear
Pyrus calleryana
Christmas fern
Polystichum acrostichoides
Clover
Trifolium spp.
Chinese privet
Ligustrum sinense
Cranefly orchid
Tipularia discolor
Dandelion
Taraxacum officinale
Deerberry
Vaccinium stamineum
Fescue
Festuca sp.
Flowering dogwood
Cornus florida
Heartleaf
Hexastylis arifolia
Henbit
Lamium amplexicaule
Giant cane
Arundinaria gigantea
Greenbriar
Smilax rotundifolia
Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera japonica
Japanese knotweed
Fallopia japonica
Loblolly pine
Pinus tadea
Muscadine grape
Vitis rotundifolia
Mockemut hickory
Carya tomentoas
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
Pignut hickory
Carya glabra
Poison ivy
Toxicodendron radicans
Rattlesnake plantain
Goodyera pubescens
Red maple
Acer rubrum
River birch
Betula nigra
Sedges
Carex spp.
Sourwood
Oxydendrum arboreum
Sweetgum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Tearthumb
Polygonum sagittatum
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
Viburnum
Viburnum spp.
Violet
Viola sp.
Weeping willow
Salix babylonica
White pine
Pinus strobus
White oak
Quercus alba
Wisteria
Wisteria sinensis

Animals
Common Name
Scientific Name
American crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Blue jay
Cyanocitta cristata
Bluehead chub
Nocomis leptocephalus
Brown thrasher
Toxostoma rufum
Canada goose
Branta canadensis
Carolina wren
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Carolina chickadee
Poecile carolinensis
Central stoneroller
Campostoma anomalum
Crayfish
Cambarus sp.
Eastern bluebird
Sialia sialis
Eastern box turtle
Terrapene carolina
Eastern cottontail
Sylvilagus floridanus
Eastern fence lizard
Sceloporus undulatus
Eastern phoebe
Sayornis phoebe
Eastern towhee
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Field sparrow
Spizella pusilla
Five -lined skink
Eumeces anthracinus
Greenhead shiner
Notropis chlorocephalus
Northern cardinal
Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern dusky salamander
Desmognathus fuscus
Northern hogsucker
Hypentelium nigricans
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Redbreast sunfish
Lepomis auritus
Rosyside dace
Clinostomus funduloides
Smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieu
Tufted titmouse
Baeolophus bicolor
Turkey vulture
Cathartes aura
Virginia opossum
Didelphis virginiana
White-tailed deer
Odocoileus virginianus
Woodchuck
Marmota monax

Appendix C
Stream and Wetland Forms

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET I U-5839
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: INCDOT
2. Evaluator's name: IMarK MICKiey, CALYX, inc.
3. Date of evaluation: Mar 28, 2016
4. Time of evaluation: 1:50
Richland Creek
reach Broad
5. Name of stream:
6. River basin:
>5 sgmi
3rd
7. Approximate drainage area:
8. Stream order:
—600 ft
Haywood
9. Length of reach evaluated:
10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): Erefer in decimal degrees.
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.499203
Longitude (ex.—77.556611):-82.986394
IR CPS F Topo Sheet
F Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS r- Other GIS
Method location determined:
Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (Note nearby roads and landmarks
and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Flows south under Russ ave
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Light rain last 12 hours
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny 60 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 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 F— No If yes, estimate the water surface area: 5 ac
19. Does channel appear on USGSd map? R YES F NO 20. Does channel ap ear on USDA Soil Surve ? YES r- NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: r40
% Residential 1 10 % Commercial % Industrial 20 % Agricultural
30 % Forested F % Cleared / Logged %Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 9 Gentle (2 to 4%) r- Moderate (4 to 10%) r- Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends r- Frequent meander r- Very sinuous F 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): 64 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Mark Mickley Date: I Mar 28, 2016
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change —version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
d(no
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplainQn
0-4
0-4
0-2
2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
pEntrenchment
/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
1
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
2
(extensive deposition = 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
N/A*
0-4
0-5
4
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
d
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
3
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
5
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well -developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
Fes.
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
4
xCanopy
18
coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
N/A*
0-4
0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
2
C21
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
pPresence
22
of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
4
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (Also enter on first page)
64
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 1U-5839
Date: Mar 28, 2016
Project/Site: U5839/Richland Creek
Latitude: 35.499203
Evaluator:Mark Mickley, CALYX, Inc.
County: Burke
Longitude:-82.986394
Total Points:
Other: Hazelwood
Stream is at least intermittent if
iE
Stream Determination:
e.g. Quad Name:
> 19 or perennial if >30
Peren r1181
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =23_5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1 a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
poolsequence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No - 0
Yes - 3
3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =7.5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 1.5
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =14.5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
1
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
'perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes:
Bank Height (feet)
3-4
Bankfull Width (feet)
45
Water Depth inches
6-36
Channel Substrate
obble
Velocity:
Fast
Clarity:
rlear
Sketch:

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET -5839 SA
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: INCDOT
2. Evaluator's name:
Brian Dustin, CALYX, Inc.
3. Date of evaluation: Mar 28, 2016
4. Time of evaluation:
11:45 am
5. Name of stream:
UT to Richland Creek (SA)
6. River basin:
rench Broad
>400ac
2nd
7. Approximate drainage area:
8. Stream order:
200
Haywood
9. Length of reach evaluated:
10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): refer in decimal degrees.
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
35.501848
Longitude (ex.—77.556611):
-82.986108
r GPS r- Topo Sheet
r- Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS
r- Other (AS
Method location determined:
Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (Note nearby roads and landmarks and attach
N of US 23 and US 276
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Light rain in last 12 hours
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny 60 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 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? F— YES 9 NOIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGSd map? r- YES V NO 20. Does channel ap ear on USDA Soil Surve ? YES r- NO
f
21. Estimated watershed land use:10 % Residential 70 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
10 % Forested F--% Cleared / Logged 10 % Other Roads
22. Bankfull width: 8-10 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 6-8
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) r- Gentle (2 to 4%) rX— Moderate (4 to 10%) r- Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends r- Frequent meander r- Very sinuous r- 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): 1 42 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Brian Dustin Date: I Mar 28, 2016
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change —version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
d(no
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplainQn
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
pEntrenchment
/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
(extensive deposition = 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
N/A*
0-4
0-5
4
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
d
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
4
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well -developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
1
Fes.
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
x
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
N/A*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
C21
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
pPresence
22
of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
p
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (Also enter on first page)
42
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 1U-5839 - SA
Date: Mar 28, 2016
Project/Site: U-5839/SA
Latitude: 35.501848
Evaluator:Mark Mickley, CALYX, Inc.
County: Haywood
Longitude:-82.986108
Total Points:
Other: Hazelwood
Stream is at least intermittent if
ii
Stream Determination:
e.g. Quad Name:
>19 or perennial if >30
Perennial
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =17_5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1 a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
poolsequence
0
1
2
3
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No - 0
Yes - 3
3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =9 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 1.5
3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1 0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
'perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes:
Bank Height (feet)
6-7
Bankfull Width (feet)
8-10
Water Depth inches
2
Channel Substrate
obble
Velocity:
f ast
Clarity:
hear
Sketch:

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET I U5839 -- SB
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: Brian Dustin, CALYX, Inc.
3. Date of evaluation: Mar 28, 2016 4. Time of evaluation: 11:55 am
5. Name of stream: uT to Richland Creek (SB) 6. River basin: tench Broad
7. Approximate drainage area: 65 acres —8. Stream order: Fist
9. Length of reach evaluated: 20 10. County: Haywood
11. Site coordinates (if known)refer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.504559 Longitude (ex.—77.556611):-82.991897
Method location determined: IR GPS r— Topo Sheet r— Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS r— Other GIS Other:
13. Location of reach under evaluation (Note nearby roads and landmarks and attach
at culvert in " big red barn" parking lot.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Light rain in last 12 hours
16. Site conditions at time of visit: JSunny 60 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 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? F— YES 9 NOIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS d map? YES V NO 20. Does channel ap ear on USDA Soil Surve 9 r— YES � NO
ua
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 % Residential 70 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
10 % Forested F--% Cleared / Logged 10 % Other Roads
22. Bankfull width: 3-4 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) r— Gentle (2 to 4%) rX— Moderate (4 to 10%) r— Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends r— Frequent meander r— Very sinuous r— 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): 30 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Brian Dustin Date: I Mar 28, 2016
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change —version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
0
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
0
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
2
d(no
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplainQn
0-4
0-4
0-2
0
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
pEntrenchment
/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
0
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
0
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
1
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
(extensive deposition = 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
N/A*
0-4
0-5
1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
3
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
d
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
2
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
5
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well -developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
0
Fes.
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18
coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
xCanopy
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
N/A*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
1
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
C21
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
pPresence
22
of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
p
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (Also enter on first page)
30
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 1 U-5839 -s
Date: Mar 28, 2016
Project/Site: U5839/ SB
Latitude: 35.504559
Evaluator:Mark Mickley, CALYX, Inc.
County: Haywood
Longitude:-82.991897
Total Points:
Other: Hazelwood
Stream is at least intermittent if
i
Stream Determination:
e.g. Quad Name:
>19 or perennial if >30
Perennial
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =13 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1 a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
1
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
poolsequence
0
1
2
3
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
0
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
0
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No - 0
Yes - 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =9 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
0
14. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 1.5
3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1 0 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
2
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
'perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes:
Bank Height (feet)
2-3
Bankfull Width (feet)
4-5
Water Depth inches
2-4
Channel Substrate
3 ravel
Velocity:
Moderate
Clarity:
Dear
Sketch:

USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET I U-5839 - Sc
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley, CALYX, Inc.
3. Date of evaluation: Mar 28, 2016 4. Time of evaluation: 1:00
5. Name of stream: uT to Richland Creek (SC) 6. River basin: tench Broad
-30 ac 1st
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: -100 ft 10. County: Haywood
11. Site coordinates (if known): refer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 35.502865 Longitude (ex.-77.556611):-82.988523
Method location determined: r- CPS r- Topo Sheet r- Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS r- Other (AS Other: Field
13. Location of reach under evaluation (Note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
(Starts from culvert and wetland (WA) area.
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: light rain last 12 hours
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny 60 degrees
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: 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? F- YES 9 NOIf yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS d map? YES V NO 20. Does channel ap ear on USDA Soil Surve 9 I! YES � NO
ua
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential 60 % Commercial % Industrial % Agricultural
10 %Forested 10 —% Cleared /Logged F—%Other
3 0.5'
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) V Gentle (2 to 4%) r- Moderate (4 to 10%) r- Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends 17 Frequent meander r- Very sinuous r- 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): 41 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature: Mark Mickley Date: I Mar 28, 2016
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
#
CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE
Coastal
Piedmont
Mountain
1
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
3
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3
Riparian zone
(no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
0-6
0-4
0-5
1
4
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5
Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
4
d(no
discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6
Presence of adjacent floodplainQn
0-4
0-4
0-2
1
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
pEntrenchment
/ floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8
Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
2
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9
Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10
Sediment input
0-5
0-4
0-4
1
(extensive deposition = 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
N/A*
0-4
0-5
1
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12
Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13
Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
2
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
d
14
Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
2
15
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
2
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)
16
Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
3
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well -developed = max points)
17
Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
Fes.
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
2
xCanopy
18
coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
1
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19
Substrate embeddedness
N/A*
0-4
0-4
2
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20
Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
0
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21
Presence of amphibians
0-4
0-4
0-4
1
C
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
pPresence
22
of fish
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0-4
0-4
0-4
0
23
Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
2
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible
100
100
100
TOTAL SCORE (Also enter on first page)
41
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 1U5839-SC
Date: Mar 28, 2016
Project/Site: U-5839 / SC
Latitude: 35.502865
Evaluator:Brian Dustin, CALYX, Inc.
County: Haywood
Longitude:-82.988523
Total Points:
Other: Hazelwood
Stream is at least intermittent if
Eil
Stream Determination:
e.g. Quad Name:
>19 or perennial if >30
Perennial
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =13 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
1 a. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
2
3. In -Channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-
poolsequence
0
1
2
3
1
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
1
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
1
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
2
9. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No - 0
Yes - 3
0
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =11_5)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
3
14. Leaflitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 1.5
3
C. Biology (Subtotal =? )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
SCORE
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
2
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
3
20. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
0
1
2
3
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
0
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
1
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
0
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0
0
'perennial stream may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Bank Height (feet) 0.5-1
Bankfull Width (feet) 3
Water Depth inches 2
Channel Substrate 3 ravel
Velocity: Moderate
Clarity: fear
Sketch:

U-5839
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: U-5839 City,County: Haywood Sampling Date:3/28/2016
Applicant,Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point WA 03
Investigator(s): Brian Dustin, CALYX Section, Township, Range: Waynesville
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 4
Subregion (LRR or M_RA): MLRA 136 Lat 35502947 Long:-82.988654 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: UR Urban Land NWI classification: PSS
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling pointlocations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
NCWAM Basin Wetland
HGM Code SLOPE
Waters Type RPWWD Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all thatapply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2)
X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
X Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Nbss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Mjrks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Mack Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Motor Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Mcrotopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern fvbuntains and Piedmont— Version 20

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
U-5839
Sampling Point:WA 03
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
3.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 0 20% of total cover: 0
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft )
1 Acer rubrum FAC 30 X FAC
2.Salix nigra 20 X FACW
4.
5.
50 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft )
1 Acer rubrum FAC 25 X FAC
3.
4.
25 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 12_5 20% of total cover: 5
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft )
1. Ranunculus acris 30 X FAC
2.Polygonum sagittatum OBL 40 X OBL
3.Carex sp
7.
70 = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 35 20% of total cover: 14
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft )
1.Lonicera japonica FAC 25 X FAC
3.
4.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH)
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
- Hydrophytic
25 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 12.5 20% of total cover: 5 Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U-5839
SOIL Sampling Point: WA 03
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0-12+ 10 YR 4/1 100 Siloam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
X Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

U-5839 - WA UPLAND
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Eastern Mountains and PiedmontRegion
Project5ite: U5839 City/County: Waynesville/Haywood Sampling Date:3/28/2016
Applicant,Owner: NCDOT State: NC Sampling Point UPLAND
Investigator(s): Brian Dustin, CALYX Section, Township, Range: Waynesville
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 25
Subregion (LRR or M_RA): MLRA Lat 35502947 Long:-82.988654 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Upland
Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling pointlocations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
NCWAM
HGM Code
Waters Type UPLANDS Uplands
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all thatapply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Nbss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Mjrks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Mack Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Motor Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Mcrotopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (613)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern fvbuntains and Piedmont— Version 20

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
U-5839 - WA UPLAND
Sampling Point:UPLAND
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size:
30 ft )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liriodendron tulipifera
FACU
15
X
FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3
(A)
2.Pinus strobus
FACU
20
X
FACU
Pinus taeda
FAC
10
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
3•
Species Across All Strata:
5
(B)
4 Acer rubrum
FAC
10
FAC
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
60%
(A/B)
6.
55
= Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by
50% of total cover:
28 20% of total cover:
11
OBL species
x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size:
15 ft )
1 Prunus serotina
FACU
2
FACU
FACW species
x 2 =
2.I1ex opaca
FAC
2
FAC
FAC species
x 3 =
3.Liquidambar styraciflua
FAC
10
FAC
FACU species
x 4 =
4 Acer rubrum
FAC
40
X
FAC
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A)
(B)
5.
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
54 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
27 20% of total cover: 10.8
- 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15 ft )
x 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1.I1ex opaca
FAC
2 FAC
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
2.Rhododendron maximum 5 X FAC
3.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
4.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
5.
6•
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
7 = Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
3.5 20% of total cover: 1.4
5 ft
Tree -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
)
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1.Polystichum acrostichoides FAC
2 FAC
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
2.Festuca spp. 5
3•
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
4
5.
6
7.
$
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
9
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
11.
7 = Total Cover
50% of total cover:
3.5 20% of total cover: 1.4
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
30 ft )
1.Lonicera japonica
FAC
20 X FAC
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
20 = Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 10 20% of total cover: 4 Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

U-5839 - WA UPLAND
SOIL Sampling Point: UPLAND
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0_2 10 YR 3/2 100 Loam
2_1 2+ 10 YR 4/6 100 Loam
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION) U-5839
Project Name: U-5839 County: Haywood
Nearest Road: Russ Ave Date: 03/28/2016
Wetland Area (ac): 0.15 Wetland Width (ft): 50-70
Name of Evaluator(s): Brian Dustin, CALYX Inc.
WETLAND LOCATION: WA
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
X on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
SOILS:
Soil Series: Urban land
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat)
X predominantly mineral (non -sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
X forested/natural vegetation 10 %
X agricultural/ urbanized 80 %
X impervious surface 10 %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
I Acer rubrum
2 Salix nigra
3 Polygonum sagittatum
4 Lonicera japonica
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
X freshwater semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
brackish X seasonally flooded or inundated
steep topography intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
ditched or channelized no evidence of flooding or surface water
total wetland width >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest X Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE
I
X
4 =
4
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION
2
X
4 =
8
POLLUTANT REMOVAL
2
* X
5 =
10
WILDLIFE HABITAT
0
X
2 =
0
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT
I
X
4 =
4
RECREATION/EDUCATION
0
X
1 =
0
TOTAL WETLAND
SCORE =
26
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.

Appendix D
Qualifications of Contributors
Investigator: Sam Beavans
Education B.S. Agricultural and Environmental Technology, 2013
Experience: Environmental Scientist, CALYX, Inc., 2013 - Present
Responsibilities: Wetland and stream delineations, stream assessment, GPS,
natural community assessment, T/E species assessment, and
GIS mapping
Responsibilities Mapping
Investigator: Heather Wallace
Education: B.S. Ecology, 1997
Experience: Environmental Project Manager, CALYX, Inc., 2015-Present
Environmental Program Consultant, NCDOT, 2013-2015
Environmental Senior Specialist, NCDOT, 2007-2013
Environmental Scientist, H.W. Lochner, 2003-2007
Biologist, Earth Tech, 2000-2003
Responsibilities: Document preparation

Appendix E
Bat Survey Report

PROTECTED BAT SPECIES SURVEY REPORT
Proposed Widening of US 276 (Russ Avenue) from SR 1202 (Phillips Road)
To US 23 Business (North Main Street)
Waynesville, Haywood County, North Carolina
TIP U-5839
WBS 50230.1.1
Prepared for
ti�0� NORTH C,q O
m0�O
fi
P
Q
�,FNTOF TRAN5Q0
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Highway Division 14
Prepared by
CALYX"
ENGINEERS + CONSULTANTS
6570 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
December 2016

Table of Contents
1.0
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................1
2.0
SPECIES
INFORMATION..............................................................................................1
2.1
Northern Long-eared Bat................................................................................1
2.2
Indiana Bat....................................................................................................1
2.3
Gray Bat........................................................................................................2
3.0
METHODS..................................................................................................................2
3.1
Habitat Assessments......................................................................................2
3.2
Cave and Mine Survey....................................................................................2
3.3
Bridges, Culverts and Abandoned Structure Surveys.......................................2
4.0
FINDINGS
...................................................................................................................3
4.1
Forested Habitat............................................................................................3
4.2
Cave and Mine Survey....................................................................................3
4.3
Bridges, Culverts and Abandoned Structures..................................................3
4.4
Biological Conclusions.....................................................................................4
5.0
REFERENCES
..............................................................................................................6
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Figure 2: Project Study Area Map
Figure 3a, 3b: Structures, Bridges, and Culverts
Appendix A: Data Forms: Bridges, Culverts, and Abandoned Structures
Appendix B: Photos

Protected Bat Species Survey Report U-5839, Haywood County, NC
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to upgrade US 276 (Russ Avenue)
from US 23/74 to US 23 Business (Main Street) in Waynesville, Haywood County (TIP U-5839) (Figure 1).
The area surveyed for this report is identical to the study area proposed in the NCDOT Natural Resources
Technical Report (Figures 2-3b). The area surrounding U-5839 is mountainous, though the project corridor
itself sits within a valley and gently slopes down from the north to south. Topography in the project vicinity
is comprised of moderate to steep slopes with a moderately -wide, level floodplain along Richland Creek.
Elevations in the study area range from 2,614 feet to 2,792 feet above sea level. The study area is largely
urbanized, with a mixture of low to medium -density commercial and residential development.
2.0 SPECIES INFORMATION
2.1 Northern Long-eared Bat
The Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis; MYSE) occurs widely across much of Canada and the
southeastern United States, but is unevenly distributed and rarely found in large numbers. It is more
common in the northern part of its range than in the southern portion. In North Carolina, MYSE have
been mostly documented in the western portion of the state, with few records from the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain. As of November 17, 2016 (date accessed), MYSE is listed by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) as "Current" in Haywood County. MYSE is known to occur in Haywood County
year-round (USFWS 2016d).
Winter hibernacula for the MYSE in western North Carolina include caves and mines. Suitable summer
foraging and roosting habitat for the MYSE is generally characterized as large tracts of contiguously
forested areas with trees over 3 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Summer roost sites include
tree cavities or crevices, the loose bark of live or dead trees, and abandoned buildings. MYSE are also
known to use bridges for roosting in summer months (USFWS 2014).
The MYSE was officially listed by the USFWS as a Threatened species in April of 2015. The listing became
effective May 2, 2015. USFWS established a final rule under the authority of section 4(d) of the
Endangered Species Act that provides measures for the conservation of MYSE. The USFWS has tailored
the final 4(d) rule to prohibit the take of MYSE from certain activities within areas where they are in
decline. This incidental take protection applies only to known MYSE occupied maternity roost trees and
known MYSE hibernacula. Effective February 16, 2016, incidental take resulting from tree removal is
prohibited if it 1) occurs within a % mile radius of known MYSE hibernacula; or 2) cuts or destroys known
occupied maternity roost trees, or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the known maternity tree
during the pup season (June 1-July 31) (USFWS 2014).
2.2 Indiana Bat
The range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis, MYSO) centers on cavernous limestone regions in the eastern
United States. The MYSO has different summer and winter habitat requirements. Winter habitat is in
caves and abandoned mines that usually have standing water on the floor. The bats migrate to the winter
habitat between September and November; they stay there with occasional periods of activity until they
emerge in mid -March to early May. Suitable summer habitat includes roosting, foraging, and commuting
areas. Summer roosting habitat includes forests and woodlots containing potential roost trees, which
have exfoliating bark, cracks, or crevices in trees (alive or dying) or snags that are > 3 inches DBH. Roosting
habitat may contain dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. (While
any tree greater than 3" DBH has the potential to be Indiana bat summer roosting habitat, solid stands of

Protected Bat Species Survey Report U-5839, Haywood County, NC
3" DBH and smaller trees are not considered suitable roosting habitat; suitable roosting habitat would
generally consist of forest patches with larger trees also present.) Bridges are occasionally used for
roosting by MYSO in the summer. As of April 28, 1976 the USFWS listed MYSO as "Endangered" under
the Endangered Species Act. As of November 17, 2016 (date accessed), MYSO is listed by USFWS as
"Current" in Haywood County. MYSO is known to occur in Haywood County year-round (USFWS 2016a).
Foraging habitat for MYSO consists of forested patches, wooded riparian corridors, and natural vegetation
adjacent to these areas. Commuting habitat includes wooded tracts, tree lines, wooded hedgerows,
streams or other such pathways that are within or connected to roosting or foraging areas. Streams that
have been stripped of their riparian vegetation do not appear to offer suitable foraging habitat. Rivers as
foraging areas and as migration routes are extremely important to this species (USFWSc).
2.3 Gray Bat
Gray bats (Myotis grisescens; MYGR) are known mainly from the cave regions of the Southeast and
Midwest. They live in colonies in caves, utilizing different caves for summer roosting and winter
hibernating. Summer roosts (including bridges) are usually within one half mile of a river or reservoir.
MYGR prefer to forage over open water above large streams, rivers and reservoirs, and adjacent forested
riparian areas. Migration from summer to winter caves begins in September and is mainly complete by
the beginning of November (USFWS 2016b). As of March 11, 1967 the USFWS listed MYGR as
"Endangered" under the Endangered Species Act. As of November 17, 2016 (date accessed), MYGR is
listed by USFWS as "Current" in Haywood County. MYGR is known to occur in Haywood County only
during the summer months (USFWS 2016a).
3.0 METHODS
This section describes the methods used to perform habitat assessments and surveys. All surveys followed
the procedures and protocols set forth by the Standard Operating Procedures: Preliminary Bat Habitat
Assessments (Structures, Caves and Mines)
3.1 Habitat Assessments
Prior to performing field surveys, a desktop-GIS assessment using the latest orthoimagery was performed
(March 21, 2016) to determine availability of potentially suitable summer habitat for MYSE, MYSO, and
MYGR within the project footprint. This information was utilized to define the scope of surveys to be
performed for the project.
3.2 Cave and Mine Survey
Spatial data containing records for active and inactive mine locations were obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), Mineral Resources On -Line Spatial Data website
(http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/find-mrds.php). Project spatial data provided by NCDOT was overlaid in
ArcGIS to review mine locations within and nearby the project footprint. Mines within the project
footprint, or within % mile of the project footprint were first evaluated at a desktop screening level. No
mines were deemed suitable for bat use following a desktop evaluation. Therefore, no pedestrian surveys
were required.
3.3 Bridges, Culverts and Abandoned Structure Surveys
Bridges, large culverts (at least 5 feet high and 200 feet long) and abandoned structures such as buildings
(structures) were visually inspected once during daylight hours by trained, experienced technicians.
2

Protected Bat Species Survey Report U-5839, Haywood County, NC
Coordinates were obtained for all bridges, culverts, and structures that were surveyed. In addition, the
appropriate NCDOT Bat Habitat Assessment Form was also completed, and an equivalent electronic file
was completed using the data dictionary file provided by NCDOT, as specified in the Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP): NCDOT Preliminary Bat Habitat Assessments (Structures, Caves and Mines) for each
bridge, culvert, and structure that was surveyed. Photos were taken of any bridges, culverts, and
structures that exhibited evidence of bat use.
4.0 FINDINGS
This section describes the results of foraging habitat analysis, cave and mine surveys, and structure
surveys. Figures 2 through 3b depict the project footprint and other information discussed in this section.
4.1 Forested Habitat
Within the project footprint, the available foraging and roosting habitat is poor. The project is located in
a portion of the county that has mixed urban and residential land use. The forested areas are small and
highly fragmented, which is not typically preferred roosting or foraging habitat for MYSE, MYSO, or MYGR.
This habitat exists in only a few locations, generally associated with stream crossings. However, utility
easements are common in these riparian area, which create openings in the canopy, and allow for the
establishment of exotic and invasive plant species such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The remaining trees are
of sufficient size to support roosting, and larger/older individuals have cracks/crevices in their bark, knot
holes, and other areas for MYSE and MYSO roosting.
4.2 Cave and Mine Survey
Using USGS data a desktop assessment revealed no known caves or mines within % mile of the project
footprint. The project footprint was visually inspected for the presence of caves and mines on March 28,
2016, and none were identified.
4.3 Bridges, Culverts and Abandoned Structures
Desktop analysis identified four bridges within the project footprint, and field surveys found one
corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culvert meeting NCDOT survey criteria: at least five feet high and 200 feet
or more in length. Two abandoned structures encountered within the project footprint were also
surveyed once during daylight hours. Bridge, culvert, and abandoned structure surveys were performed
on March 28, 2016.
Four bridges were examined for evidence of bats using the bridges as roosts (urine, body stains, guano,
and presence of bats). Bridge number 430138 and 430141 on US 23 over US 276 (Russ Avenue), and
bridge number 430184 on Russ Avenue over Southern Railroad (Figure 3b) were inspected for bat use,
but no evidence of bat activity was found. No emergence counts or acoustic surveys were conducted at
these bridges. Bridge number 430186 on Russ Avenue over Richland Creek was inspected for bat use and
several pieces of guano were found along the north side of the concrete girders (Figure 3b). This guano
was relatively large in size, and did not appear to be associated with a Myotis species. It is much more
likely to be big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) guano. Photos of the bat evidence can be found in Appendix
B.
Two abandoned buildings were also inspected. No evidence of bat use was found in either structure
(Figure 3a).

Protected Bat Species Survey Report U-5839, Haywood County, NC
A comprehensive list of bridge and structure survey locations is provided in Table 1 and Table 2. Data
forms are provided in Appendix A.
Table 1. Bridge and Culvert Survey Results
Structure
Structure Type and
Date
Acoustic and Emergence
Location
Evidence
Number
Location Description
Surveyed
Survey Results
1
CMP —Under US 23
35.505400 ,
3/28/16
None
None Performed
82 993521
430138
Bridge NC 23 over NC
35.506968,
3/28/16
None
None Performed
276
82.992804
430141
Bridge NC 23 over NC
35.507112,
3/28/16
None
None Performed
276
82 992847
430184
Bridge NC 276 over
35.497553,
3/28/16
None
None Performed
Southern Railroad
82.985176
430186
Bridge NC 276 over
35.499103,
3/28/16
Yes
None Performed
Richland Creek
82.986351
Table 2. Abandoned Structure Survey Results
Acoustic and
Structure
Structure
Date
Location
Evidence
Emergence
Number
Type
Surveyed
Survey Results
1
Shed
35.502901,
3/28/16
None
None performed
-82.988926
2
Burned
35.502533, -
3/28/16
None
None performed
house
82.988238
4.4 Biological Conclusions
Suitable foraging habitat for MYSE in the form of large tracts of contiguously forested areas is not present
in the study area. Trees greater than 3 inches in DBH that have cavities, cracks, crevices, and loose bark
are sparsely present in the study area. Abandoned buildings are present, but no evidence of bat use of
these structures was found. Bridge 430186 had a few pieces of guano, although they were large in size
and not indicative of Myotis. Therefore, suitable summer roosting habitat is extremely poor. No caves or
abandoned mines are present within the study area, or within % mile of the study area. Therefore,
suitable winter roost sites are not present. On March 21, 2016 a query of NCNHP records using the online
NC Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no MYSE occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Suitable foraging habitat for MYSO in the form of large tracts of contiguously forested areas is not present
in the study area. Trees greater than 3 inches in DBH that have cavities, cracks, crevices, and loose bark
are sparsely present in the study area. Abandoned buildings are present, but no evidence of bat use of
these structures was found. Bridge 430186 had a few pieces of guano, although they were large in size
and not indicative of Myotis. Therefore, suitable summer roosting habitat is extremely poor. No caves or
abandoned mines are present within the study area, or within % mile of the study area. Therefore,
suitable winter roost sites are not present. On March 21, 2016 a query of NCNHP records using the online
NC Natural Heritage Data Explorer indicated no MYSO occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Suitable foraging habitat for MYGR in the form of wide, contiguous riparian forests is not present in the
study area. Bridge 430186 had a few pieces of guano, although they were large in size and not indicative
of Myotis. No caves or abandoned mines are present within the study area, or within % mile of the study
area. Therefore, suitable summer roosting habitat is extremely poor, and winter roosting habitat is
4

Protected Bat Species Survey Report
U-5839, Haywood County, NC
absent. No June 28, 2016 a query of NCNHP records using the online NC Natural Heritage Data Explorer
indicated no MYSO occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Winter tree clearing and/or bridge demolition may be performed, if necessary, to avoid possible
disturbance of suitable roosting and foraging areas. Bridge 430186 will be checked a few times in
spring/early summer 2017 for the presence of bats. The biological conclusion for these species will
remain Unresolved until the bridge checks are complete and the USFWS is subsequently consulted
regarding the project's potential effect on federally protected bats. Construction activities for this
project will not take place until Endangered Species Act compliance is satisfied for Indiana bat.

Protected Bat Species Survey Report
U-5839, Haywood County, NC
5.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2015. State Transportation
Improvement Program.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2016-2025%20STIP.pdf_
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. The Natural Heritage Database.
https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/ (accessed June 28, 2016).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat
Final 4(d) Rule. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/FRnlebFinal4dRulel4Ja
n20l6.pdf
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. Endangered and Threatened
Species and Species of Concern by County for North Carolina
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/nc_counties.html (Accessed March 21,
2016)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016b. Gray Bat.
https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/listed_species/gray_bat.html. (Accessed:
November 16, 2016).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016c. Indiana Bat
https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_indiana_bat.html. (Accessed: November 16, 2016).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016d. Northern Long-eared Bat Fact Sheet.
https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nlebFactSheet.html
(Accessed November 16, 2016)
RI

Figures

L / U'
ke `3
4 2
3
vlaggie -
6
Ju
ialus 3''
Valle? Del
l4wood
Vicinity
SOLO
2
1. J Ca
fi
iHCCs
.I�Gap
tt7
• 3B
110
1�215
W d ro
Wa
4
�h g
a w od
Spring
4
au
oak
Balsam
lchla d 6
s m
��oldMtn.
4 Willets
65 0
unburst �
Figure 1
U-5839 Project Vicinity
Proposed Widening of US 276 (Russ Ave.)
From SR 1202 (Phillips Rd.)
to US 23 Business (N. Main St.)
Haywood County, North Carolina
[CALYX'
ENGINEERS + CONSULTANTS
:w �� u t -- �» mow. - f► •' �— �� ALI—
r Legend " - •' _ _ - : ,
U-5839 Study Area o-• ° • ��
• G;ok* - •
�»IJJ, •
..7_ TAPdin
• '� L
ro.W
r
V .y
RQSYjti(r J "
41
ice• :� •- G.{�
1y1► : ,` • • . Source:NCDOT and USGS
• � Figure Date: 1111512016
•Y, Cop~'yr'i`ght' C 0 700 1,400
Feet

s�
t 0
ell
Ar
qO
� 4M
lcre74
---
�r
do
I - % f ►� S
ii As I&
• • ` �I(
• • ``
T t •
•
/ •
rOf
Y 26y 4 w
of
Ole
Legend
U-5839 Study Area
FIGURE
2
Protected Bat Species
Survey Report
Study Area
TIP Project U-5839
Haywood County, NC
Map Date: 06/16/2016
e1 inch = 750 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 750 1,500
Feet
Tdis Exhibit is for planning purposes only and information shown hereon does not
eet The Stand,M, of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina (21 NCAC
56.1600,. The Exhibit was compiled from available information obtained from the
ur es listed below. Streams and Wetlands'. All features located in the field were
ec ,d using a mapping grade Trimble Geo%T or G,,XH GPS receiver wiM
supposed sub -meter accuracy.
Sources'.
Topographic Mapping'. ESRI USATopo Maps

Fm
...... . . . . . . .
er
Au
...... ....
777�
KqF
Ma
%
m
IL
-in
or
M
335
IF
L

r t
PA
IL
•'
s ,L> - - v
10
qW
",
lot
W.
r:OLt f
Nt
V.
k, ire" '� � i � '�`'-.�• '@@��"a�' ` � �'r',
for
.. , ! 1.� � -�- � ;gat ��'�. � �, h t h - ,``!`? s _ : •�, .. t ° ..,,� P � �
.tl��y
- ��. "�y�' .,$ + ` `� p � `. .�.�,"i — '-� � •�Y a �I, r
t,_ •V�'F � {R' r I AF t - '}'��' � � ., � .. - _- ', \ _ i - ;- Fs L � � / '�� --_ Tis
440
aw
�� e � � - l t � _.-mot � ..� ,�'.. � • � �4� � �i� � � i
_ f
Legend
U-5839 Study Area
�} Abandoned Structures
Bridge
Culvert
FIGURE
3b
Protected Bat Species
Survey Report
Structures, Bridges, Culverts
TIP Project U-5839
Haywood County, NC
Map Date: 11/16/2016
® 1 inch = 250 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 250 500
Feet
This Exh b[ i, for planning purposes only and inf—ton shown hereon does not
meet The Standards of P—c, for Land Surveying in North Carolina (21 NCAC
561600) The Exhibit was comp led ft— avalable nfo—im obq ned from the
ur es sled below ream sts and wetlands All feaWres located n the t eld were
recoMed usng a m.ppng grade Trimble G..X or G..XH GPS recever wit
supposed sub meter accuracy
sources
Aerial Photography NC On.Map 2015 Orihoimagery

Appendix A: Data Forms: Bridges, Culverts, and Abandoned Structures

--40 Bat Habitat Assessment Form
Observers: Brian Dustin
Date/Time: March 28, 2016 / 1:30pm
County: Haywood
Waterbody: Richland Creek
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi
of project footprint (approx)
NCDOT Bridges
TIP or DOT project number U-5839
Road Name/SR Number: _ US 276 over Richland Creek
Bridge Number: 430186
Urban/commercial
Natural/rural
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? yes
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH?
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive during the day?
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of: In project footprint
Caves no
Abandoned mines no
If'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description, and location.
50 Suburban/residential— 30
10 Agricultural_ 10
no
1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
no
no
Major water source in project footprint: stream/creek
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non -stagnant, smooth or slack water? yes
Guard rails concrete
Deck type concrete
Beam type concrete
End/back wall type concrete
Creosote evidence
Shallow vertical top sealed crevices (% - 1%" wide, 4-12" deep) yes
Deep vertical unsealed crevices (% - 1%" wide, 12+" deep)
Max height of bridge deck above ground/water (ft): 8
Night roost habitat protected yes
Bridge alignment: E/W
Hours of sun exposure to bridge >3
Human disturbance under bridge low
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page)
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present?
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed) yes
Bat species present: Unknown species. Several pieces of guano found on beams
Additional Comments:
no
no
are
no
NCDOT Bat Bridge Habitat Assessment Form
Updated 3/18/15

--40 Bat Habitat Assessment Form
Observers: Brian Dustin
Date/Time: March 28, 2016 / 4:30pm
County: Haywood
Waterbody: Richland Creek
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi
of project footprint (approx)
NCDOT Bridges
TIP or DOT project number U-5839
Road Name/SR Number: _ US 276 (Russ Ave) over RR tracks
Bridge Number: 430184
Urban/commercial
Natural/rural
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? yes
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH?
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive during the day?
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of: In project footprint
Caves no
Abandoned mines no
If'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description, and location.
50 Suburban/residential— 30
10 Agricultural_ 10
no
1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
no
no
Major water source in project footprint: stream/creek
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non -stagnant, smooth or slack water? yes
Guard rails metal
Deck type concrete
Beam type steel
End/back wall type concrete
Creosote evidence no
Shallow vertical top sealed crevices (% - 1%" wide, 4-12" deep) yes
Deep vertical unsealed crevices (% - 1%" wide, 12+" deep) yes
Max height of bridge deck above ground/water (ft): 35
Night roost habitat protected yes
Bridge alignment: N/S
Hours of sun exposure to bridge >3
Human disturbance under bridge high
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page) no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present? no
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed) no
Bat species present:
Additional Comments:
NCDOT Bat Bridge Habitat Assessment Form
Updated 3/18/15

--40 Bat Habitat Assessment Form
Observers: Brian Dustin
Date/Time: March 28, 2016 / 11am
County: Haywood
Waterbody: Richland Creek
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi
of project footprint (approx)
NCDOT Bridges
TIP or DOT project number U-5839
Road Name/SR Number: _ US 23 over US 276 (Russ Ave)
Bridge Number: 430138
Urban/commercial
Natural/rural
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? yes
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH?
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive during the day?
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of: In project footprint
Caves no
Abandoned mines no
If'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description, and location.
25 Suburban/residential— 55
15 Agricultural_ 5
no
1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
no
no
Major water source in project footprint: stream/creek
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non -stagnant, smooth or slack water? yes
Guard rails metal
Deck type concrete
Beam type steel
End/back wall type concrete
Creosote evidence no
Shallow vertical top sealed crevices (% - 1%" wide, 4-12" deep) no
Deep vertical unsealed crevices (% - 1%" wide, 12+" deep) no
Max height of bridge deck above ground/water (ft): 20
Night roost habitat protected yes
Bridge alignment: E/W
Hours of sun exposure to bridge >3
Human disturbance under bridge high
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page) no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present? no
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed) no
Bat species present:
Additional Comments:
NCDOT Bat Bridge Habitat Assessment Form
Updated 3/18/15

--40 Bat Habitat Assessment Form
Observers: Brian Dustin
Date/Time: March 28, 2016 / 11:10am
County: Haywood
Waterbody: Richland Creek
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi
of project footprint (approx)
NCDOT Bridges
TIP or DOT project number U-5839
Road Name/SR Number: _ US 23 over US 276 (Russ Ave)
Bridge Number: 430141
Urban/commercial
Natural/rural
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? yes
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH?
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive during the day?
If yes to shag/snag, list species of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of: In project footprint
Caves no
Abandoned mines no
If'yes' to any of the above, provide photos, description, and location.
25 Suburban/residential— 55
15 Agricultural_ 5
no
1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
no
no
Major water source in project footprint: stream/creek
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non -stagnant, smooth or slack water? yes
Guard rails metal
Deck type concrete
Beam type steel
End/back wall type concrete
Creosote evidence no
Shallow vertical top sealed crevices (% - 1%" wide, 4-12" deep) no
Deep vertical unsealed crevices (% - 1%" wide, 12+" deep) no
Max height of bridge deck above ground/water (ft): 20
Night roost habitat protected yes
Bridge alignment: E/W
Hours of sun exposure to bridge >3
Human disturbance under bridge high
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form next page) no
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present? no
Evidence of bats using bridge? (photos needed) no
Bat species present:
Additional Comments:
NCDOT Bat Bridge Habitat Assessment Form
Updated 3/18/15

.� Bat Habitat Assessment Form
G.i
Observers: Brian Dustin
Date/Time: 28-Mar-16
County: Haywood
Waterbody: Richland Creek
Surrounding habitat w/in 1 mi
of project footprint (approx)
NCDOT Culverts
TIP or DOT project number: U5839
Road Name/SR Number: _ US 276/US 23 interchange
Urban/commercial
Natural/rui
15
Any trees >3" DBH within project footprint? yes
Any shaggy trees or snags >5" DBH?
If yes to shag/snag, how much sunlight do they receive during the day?
If yes to shag/snag, list spp of habitat trees >5" dbh
If snags >5"DBH are present in sunlit areas, provide photos and location.
If large hollow trees are present, provide photos and location.
Presence of: In project footprint
caves no
abandoned mines no
If'yes' to any of the above, provide description and location.
25 Suburban/residential 55
Major water source in project footprint: stream/creek
Suitable drinking habitat in the form of non stagnant, smooth or slack water areas?
yes
Guard rails none
Concrete box culvert no
Culvert >5' height inside yes
Culvert length: ^225 feet
Openings protected from high winds yes
Crevices present: no
Rough surfaces, imperfections, bird nests yes
Human disturbance in culvert
Emergence count performed? (If yes, complete form)
Evidence of bats using bird nests, if present?
Evidence of bats using culvert? (photos)
Bat species present:
Notes:
Agricultura 5
no
1-3 hours 4-6 hours 7+ hours
In vicinty (0.5 mi)
no
no
none
no
no
no
NCDOT Bat Culvert Habitat Assessment Form
Updated 3/18/15

AO
Habitat Assessment Form
Surveyors: Brian Dustin
Date/Time: March 28, 2016/12:40
County: Haywood
Property Owner & contact info, if known:
Structure number: 1
Canopy closure @ structure
%Surrounding habitat w/in I mi
Distance to nearest woodlot (approx):
Is there a water source w/in 1 mi.?
type:
Structure type:
Structure condition
Roof type:
Structure description
0-25%
NCDOT Abandoned Structures
TIP or DOT project number: U-5839
Road Name/SR Number: Howell Mill Rd.
Lat/Long: _ 35.502901/-82.988926
urban/commercial:_
natural/rural:
>1000 feet
yes
stream/creek
intact/well sealed
Regular human use/disturbance
Structure size(ft) length:
barn
other:
90 suburban/residential:_
agricultural: 10
asphalt shingle other:
Open barn with large open space with regular human use.
yes
30 width: 30 height: 25
Is there evidence of bat use on structure exterior (guano, staining) ? no
If yes, describe what and where:
If structure interior can be accessed safely:
Noticable airflow inside: yes
Interior air temp vs outside: same
Are there inaccessible areas of the structure that could house bats (e.g., attics, ceiling spaces):
If yes, describe:
Is there evidence of bat roosting in structure interior (guano, staining, moth wings)?
If yes, describe what and where:
Can bat genus/species be determined?
Bat species present:
Take photographs of bats or evidence of bats (guano, staining).
If there is evidence of bats but no bats are observed, please check the building for night roosting after
11 PM. If there are parts of the structure that cannot be accessed for inspection, conduct an emergence
count at sunset (see next page).

AO
Habitat Assessment Form
Surveyors: Brian Dustin
Date/Time: March 28, 2016/12:45
County: Haywood
Property Owner & contact info, if known:
Structure number: 1
Canopy closure @ structure
%Surrounding habitat w/in I mi
Distance to nearest woodlot (approx):
Is there a water source w/in 1 mi.?
type:
Structure type:
0-25%
NCDOT Abandoned Structures
TIP or DOT project number: U-5839
Road Name/SR Number: Howell Mill Rd.
Lat/Long: _ 35.502533/-82.988238
urban/commercial:_
natural/rural:
>1000 feet
yes
stream/creek
house
other:
90 suburban/residential:_
agricultural: 10
Structure condition: npty shell of a building
Roof type: asphalt shingle other:
Structure description: burned out shell of a building, probably should not be surveyed
Regular human use/disturbance: yes
Structure size(ft) length: 25 width: 25 height: 2 story
Is there evidence of bat use on structure exterior (guano, staining) ? no
If yes, describe what and where:
If structure interior can be accessed safely:
Noticable airflow inside: yes
Interior air temp vs outside: same
Are there inaccessible areas of the structure that could house bats (e.g., attics, ceiling spaces):
If yes, describe:
Is there evidence of bat roosting in structure interior (guano, staining, moth wings)?
If yes, describe what and where:
Can bat genus/species be determined?
Bat species present:
Take photographs of bats or evidence of bats (guano, staining).
If there is evidence of bats but no bats are observed, please check the building for night roosting after
11 PM. If there are parts of the structure that cannot be accessed for inspection, conduct an emergence
count at sunset (see next page).

Appendix B: Photos
E2