20080719 Ver 1_Techinical Report_20020320

1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 42 ON SR 1163
OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4195
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2872301
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4195
~~i`-
.. ~ ~ *e
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
FEBRUARY 2002
JI ~" '1
,f
NCDOT
02/26/2002

t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8-4195
REPLACE BRIDGE NUMBER 42 ON SR 1163
OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NUMBER B-4195
STATE CONTRACT NUMBER A303718
STATE WORK ORDER NUMBER 8.2872301
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4195
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................10
Natural Resources Technical Report
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................:...................................1
1.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ............................................................................................3
2.1 Regional Characteristics ...................................................................................................4
2.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Water Resources ...............................................................................................................5
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification .......................................................................................7
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters ..................................7
2.3.3 Water Quality ..........................................................................................................8
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring ..................................................................................8
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges .....................................................8
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts .............................................................9
3.1 Biotic Communities .........................................................................................................10
3.1 .1 Altered Rights-of-Way .................................................................... ......................10
3.1 .2 Pastureland .................................................................................... .......................11
3.1 .3 Successional Sapling and Scrub/Shrub Communities ................... ......................11
3.1 .4 Montane Oak/Hickory Forests ..............................................................................13
3.1 .5 Terrestrial Fauna ..................................................................................................13
3.1 .6 Aquatic Community ...............................................................................................14
3.1.6.1 Ftora .........................................................................................................14
3.1.6.2 Fauna ...........................................•---........................................................14
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ...........................................15
NCDOT
Page i
02/26/2002

8-4195
Natural Resources Technical Report
3.2.1 Terrestrial lmpacts ................................................................................................15
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts ....................................................................................................15
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...........................................................................................................16
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................................16
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected .....................................16
4.1.2 Permits .................................................................................................................17
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition ....................................................................................18
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ......................................................................18
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...........................................................................................19
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................................................................................19
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................20
5.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Water Resources and Physiography of the Region ......................................................................6
Figure 3. Biotic Communities of the B-4195 Project Area ..........................................................................12
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. -Federally Protected Species of McDowell County ......................................
Table 2. -Federal Species of Concern for McDowell County ......................................
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in McDowell County, North Carolina ........................................
Appendix B: Qualifications of Principal Investigators ..............................................
Appendix C: Wetland Data Forms ...........................................................................
Appendix D: DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets .....................................................
.......................20
.......................21
........................... A-1
........................... B-1
........................... C-1
........................... D-1
NCDOT Page i i 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this report is to inventory and
describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed right-of-way boundaries and which have a
probability of being impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable
impacts to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will
minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concerns that may affect the selection of a
preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should
be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this document
are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary boundaries and design. If design parameters
and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge Number 42 on SR 1163 in McDowell County, North
Carolina. The proposed project crosses the Second Broad River approximately 1.4 miles (3.0 kilometers)
east/northeast of the community of Sugar Hill (Figure 1).
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the field investigations. Published resource information
pertaining to the project area was collected and reviewed. Resources utilized in this preliminary
investigation of the project area include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Sugar Hill 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (1994).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map for Sugar Hill
7.5-minute quadrangle (1995).
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project area
(1:1,200 scale).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil
Conservation Service) provisional soil survey of McDowell County, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Discharges and RCRA Map accessed via EPA's
EnviroMapper Program (September 2001).
Water research information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR, 1998; 2001). Information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the project area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service list of protected and candidate species (3 March 2001) and from the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (NCNHP, January 2001).
a
NCDOT Page 1 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
l~ ~ ~''`-- '.~
i
Providence '~~
,,,
' `.,. \
~,
,t N ``,
yl~ ti
`~~ , ~ ~~,
~ `"~
~~C~ ` ,~ s
°~ -~ ~,~
o ~ ~.,
~l
,i\
.t
\4 {
Jj~, ,
` ~' ~ i
. ~t ~19 t+
113 5 ~~~. 10 01 '7 16.x3
6'~
'; ~ ~ ~ ~
Su~ar~ ~ ; r ,~,~ ~ ~ ,
i ~ ~ ~,, ,~ 113 5
1.___ ~ / `
Hill ~`~ l,C 1 3 ~~e:~,`~ 1145 ~~
,',10 01 '' " ~ /'
~,G~ ~ f;
e~ 11 ~6 \
TT /
~' 1324 _ -- - ~'! ;'
;;
'~~1 41 ~~~. 1145 ~1~.
~. ~..
.2 ~}
t ",
~ .' 3,000' 6,000' `~
~..._ 9
SCALE: 1" APPROX = 3,000' `~~
` 8~ i
-.; 1`
~~
",
_~ ~,~
~~
~..
`~ ~ ~.,
L
1
Glenwood
~~~-----,.. j t i
r
` ~ 1
~ 221 ':J
2~G -.
/]/ '~
;, .
~~
,..~ ,.~
~~..
~ . ~~
~ ,
t `
~ ~ '~
I '
' ;
,,,
i~
a~
~,~~ ~~
..
1, ;•.
~` `~. ~ ..
s
~~.: ~..
-4195
~~ ;
``, ~j
._ ~~
~,.
~---'' i ;
4~oFN«~TH SITE VICINITY MAP
h ~ SR 1163 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
OVER SECOND BROAD RIVER (TIP B-4195)
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Excerpted from NCDOT County Highway Map, 2000)
FIGURE 1
NCDOT Page 2 02/26/2002

r
TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NCNHP files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state-listed orfederal-listed species. USFWS
Recovery Plans for federal-listed species were reviewed, where applicable.
Environmental scientists on the staff of HSMM, Inc. conducted a field investigation of natural
resources within the project area on 20 July 2001. Qualifications of environmental scientists who
conducted the field investigation are provided in Appendix B. Water resources were identified and
categorized, and their physical characteristics were documented while in the field. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were also identified and documented. The Classification of Natural Communities
of North Carolina, Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) was used to classify plant
communities, where possible. Plant taxonomy was based primarily upon the Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas (Radford, et al., 1968). Animal taxonomy was based primarily upon Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia (Martof, et al., 1980), Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware (Rohde, et al., 1994), Birds of the Carolinas (Potter, et al., 1980), and Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland (Webster, et al., 1985).
Approximate boundaries of major vegetation communities were mapped while in the field utilizing
aerial photography of the project area. Wildlife identification involved active searching of known or
suspected species, incidental visual observations, incidental auditory indicators (such as Birdsong and
other sounds), and secondary indicators of species presence or site utilization (such as scat, tracks, and
burrows). Predictions regarding wildlife community composition were supplemented utilizing a general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetation communities and aquatic habitat.
Wetlands subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 were identified and delineated according to methods
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) and the
Corps' 6 March 1992 guidance document titled Clarification and Interpretation of the 9987 Manual. Values of
wetlands delineated were assessed utilizing the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in Norfh
Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1995). Wetland types were classified based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland
boundaries were surveyed and recorded in the field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) survey
methods.
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purpose of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations:
Project area -denotes the area bound by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of
the project alignment.
Project vicinity -denotes an area extending 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) on all sides of the project
area.
Project region -denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS
quadrangle map (i.e., 60.8 square miles or 157.5 square kilometers).
NCDOT Page 3 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography can significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water quality
degradation, Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the
flow and the quality of the water resources, potentially limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil
characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Most of McDowell County lies within the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian) Mountains
Physiographic Province of western North Carolina, with the exception of the southeastern portion of the
county, which lies within the Southern Piedmont Physiographic Province (USDA, 1995). The county
encompasses 437 square miles (1,132 square kilometers) and is primarily rural. The county ranges in
elevation from approximately 980 feet (299 meters) mean sea level (msl) along Cane Creek on the
Rutherford County line to 5,665 feet (1,727 meters) msl on Pinnacle Mountain where Buncombe and
Yancey Counties abut McDowell County. Elevations within the project area range from approximately
1,340 to 1,360 feet (408 to 415 meters) msl, with the stream bed near the bridge lying at approximately
1,340 feet (408 meters) msl.
The Second Broad River is located within the Broad River drainage basin. The headwaters of the
Broad River and its tributaries are located within the mountain physiographic region of North Carolina.
From its headwaters, the Broad River flows southeasterly towards the foothills before entering the
Piedmont southeast of Lake Lure. The basin encompasses all of Cleveland, Polk, and Rutherford
Counties, as well as portions of Henderson, Buncombe, McDowell, Lincoln, and Gaston Counties. There
are 29 municipalities located in the resource basin with several areas of the basin being classified for
water supply use. Over 60 percent of the land in the Broad River basin is covered in forests and
approximately 20 percent is covered in agricultural lands (NCDENR, 1998).
2.2 Soils
The portion of McDowell County within the project area (NRCS map panel 9 of 10) has been
mapped by NRCS under the most recently published soil survey of McDowell County (USDA, 1995). A
brief description of mapped and observed soil units is as follows:
Fl~van ~ ntS- difl ~v _nts .om~ along the stream bed (unmapped but observed).
Braddock clay loam, 15 to 25 percent sloes, eroded hp ase (BrD21. This unit consists of very
deep, well-drained, moderately steep Braddock and similar soils on mountain foot slopes, colluvial
fans, and high stream terraces. The surface layer is typically reddish brown clay loam
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '

NCDOT Page 4 02/26/2002

1
1
1

t
t
1
TIP 8-4195
2.3
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
approximately 7.0 inches (18 centimeters) thick. Permeability is moderate and surface runoff is
rapid in bare or unprotected areas. The seasonal high water table is below the 6.0 feet (1.8
meters) depth. In the project area, Braddock clay loam occurs on slopes north of the existing
bridge. Braddock clay loam is not listed as a hydric soil of McDowell County (USDA, 1995, 1996).
Dillard loam 1 to 4 percent slop. rarely flooded hp ase (DdB21. This unit consists mainly of very
deep, moderately well-drained, nearly level and gently sloping Dillard and similar soils on low
stream terraces along many of the larger streams. The surface layer is typically grayish brown
loam approximately 9.0 inches (23 centimeters) thick. Permeability is moderately slow and
surface runoff is medium in bare or unprotected areas. The seasonal high water table is 2.0 to
3.0 feet (0.6 to 0.9 meter) below the surface. In the project area, Dillard loam occurs along the
low terraces bordering on the Second Broad River primarily upstream of the existing bridge. This
soil unit is not listed as a hydric soil of McDowell County; however, it is listed as a soil unit that
typically contains inclusions of hydric soils (USDA, 1995, 1996).
lotla sandy loam to percent slone5., occasionally flooded h~(IoAI. This unit consists
mainly of very deep, somewhat poorly drained, nearly level lotla and similar soils on floodplains
adjacent to streams throughout the county. The surface layer is dark yellowish brown sandy loam
approximately 12 inches (30 centimeters) thick. Permeability is moderately rapid to rapid and
surface runoff is slow. The seasonal high water table is 1.5 to 3.5 feet (0.5 to 1.1 meters) below
the surface. In the project area, lotla sandy loam occurs along the lower banks and bed of the
Second Broad River. This soil unit is not listed as a hydric soil of McDowell County; however, it is
listed as a soil unit that typically contains inclusions of hydric soils (USDA, 1995, 1996).
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards, and water quality aspects of water resources, along with their relationship to major regional
drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
The Second Broad River comprises the single water resource within the project area (Figure 2).
The portion of the Second Broad River flowing through the project area is located within the Broad River
drainage basin. The Broad River watershed encompasses 1,506 square miles (3,900 square kilometers).
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050105 (the Upper Broad drainage basin). Under the
North Carolina DWQ system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project
area is designated as Subbasin 03-08-02 (the Second Broad River and tributaries and the Middle Broad
River drainage basin).
NCDOT Page 5 02/26/2002

T/P 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
~~~ 1~~~)\~\` L~•\~-•L~~; -:.~~ ~11-~. jam) •~l~ }~ •.` •. p:' " `'~ J-~•L : ~.:...~, ;,\.
tr` , i ~../' ~, 1 •/ 11 \ I ^^- ~r "~i~ l+ J ~-'-~~ j" ~\~ ~~ 11 ~%! ~'~ ^'_ ` v! ~•'r l Ir~ ..~ ~I
/ '
(~1 r~ . \ s--, S ~ '--~~ ; / ;,a J~.~r ~Z~// tires -_..1 . ~,~,. ~-.:.~ ~ ~}...•_,
-~k 0 2.000' 4000' (" ~~ ^-I . I /'~~ ~ ~ ' `-
-~) " ~ ,
~~ _~ ~ •''~~. ` SCALE: 1" = 2,000' ,l ~~~ ~`/ ~, ~s ,, M1•~/
~' ,~ ~~ ~ ,
~- ~ I h •~~ 1. ~% -i 'r.~\` `• `~ r'.J 1~ / 1 ~ i
_ ~ ~' v
"` `~ !'• ~ • d , ~ ~~ / l ~, ~r-.:ma=y .~\ ~`~~~~ ( c~ , '- b
~ J- •.~.-/ r• ~ ~ ~-, ; ~. -.fir ;, a .. ~ :: t ~ ~ ' ~~ ~•
i}i_~: _ ~~\\./ ~~'~ r'1 `-. ll 1 ylJ~v~ ~. i.~ .-.ir.:, i + I\ ~~~ ,/) 7~~'-' ~ .1 . R ~_ ..1 Cl1/~ _..
4~oFN~*~~,,~ WATER RESOURCES AND PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE REGION
h SR 1163 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
OVER UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO CATAWBA RIVER (TIP B-4195) FIGURE 2
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(Excerpted from USGS Sugar Hill 7.5-minute Quadrangle, 1994)
NCDOT Page 6 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams and rivers have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (DWO). The assigned best usage classification reflects water quality conditions and
potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the named streams to
which they flow.
The single water resource located in the project area, the Second Broad River, is designated as
DWQ Stream Index Number 9-41-(0.5). The Second Broad River in the project vicinity has been assigned
a primary water resource classification of "WS-V." Class "WS-V" refers to waters that are protected as
water supplies upstream and draining to Class "WS-IV" waters. Class "WS-IV" waters are used for
drinking water and culinary purposes. There are no restrictions on watershed development or wastewater
discharges, and watershed protection by local governments is not required in "WS-V" waters.
No surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) of the project area. This finding is
based on the review of the most recently updated state-maintained databases as made available through the
date of preparation of this report.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters
As previously discussed, the Second Broad River comprises the single water resource within the
project area. The proposed project crosses the unnamed perennial. tributary on SR 1163 approximately
1.4 miles (2.3 kilometers) east/northeast of the community of Sugar Hill.
The Second Broad River ranges from approximately 10 to 15 feet (3.0 to 4.6 meters) in width
within the project area. The average stream depth observed at the time of field investigation was 0.7 foot
(0.2 meter). Field investigation occurred the day following a significant rain event and, as a result, surface
waters were turbid in the morning hours to slightly turbid by the afternoon. Due to the preceding rainfall,
water levels appeared to be 0.5 foot (0.2 meter) above the ordinarily high water level and the stream
velocity was estimated at 3.0 feet per second (1.0 meter per second) at the time of field investigation.
The substrate of the Second Broad River in the project area is comprised of sediments ranging in
size from fine sand to gravel. Rock ledges occur along the stream banks and comprise a major
component of the stream bed. The stream within the project area is relatively straight and appears to
exhibit a relatively simple trapezoidal cross-section. No sand bars or channel meanders were observed.
A cattle wading pool is present at the western boundary of the site. Little evidence of erosion was
observed near the bridge at the time of investigation; however, the stream banks near the cattle wading
pool are somewhat degraded.
The stream banks are lower and moderately steep upstream of the bridge and higher and very
steep downstream of the bridge. The stream banks upstream of the bridge are comprised of
unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of alluvial and colluvial origin and are vegetated with a few trees
NCDOT Page 7 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
and shrubs that appear to be generally healthy. The banks downstream of the bridge are largely
comprised of bedrock supporting diverse trees, shrubs, and grasses that appear generally healthy. As a
result, the stream banks downstream of the bridge are not heavily eroded. The riparian vegetation zone is
less than 20 feet (6.0 meters) wide in the northwest quadrant of the project area and greater than 20 feet
(6.0 meters) wide in all other quadrants. Small breaks are present where the stream flows through the
right-of-way. Vertical bridge abutments laterally confine the stream below the existing bridge. Localized
bank erosion was observed near the bridge abutments at the time of field investigation. A small volume of
angular stone riprap has been placed in the vicinity of the bridge abutment in the southeast quadrant of
the project area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of water resources within the project area. Potential sediment
loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point and nonpoint sources are evaluated.
Water quality assessments are made based on published resource information and existing general
watershed characteristics. This data provides insight into the value of the water resources within the
project area with respect to their ability to meet human needs and to provide suitable habitat for aquatic
organisms.
2.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms that are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa of intolerant groups
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera or "EPT') present and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection is also
calculated for the sample. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic
index and EP_T taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment.
No previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist on the Second
Broad River within the project vicinity or within the Second Broad River watershed upstream of the project
area.
2.3.3.2 Point and Nonpoint Source Discharges
A point source discharge is defined as "any discharge that enters surface waters through a pipe,
ditch, or any other well-defined point" (NCDEHNR, 1993). The term commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Discharges from stormwater collection systems at industrial
sites and in large urban areas are also considered point source discharges. Point source discharges
within North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any point source discharger is required to apply for a permit.
NCDOT Page 8 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
' No registered point discharges are located within a 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) radius of the project
area.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater or
snowmelt (NCDEHNR, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint
source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of nonpoint
source pollution in North Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1993). Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal waste can be transported to receiving streams and waterways via runoff -potentially
elevating concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be the source of
bacterial contamination and can elevate the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on
poorly drained soils can contribute to the influence of stormwater pollutants into surface waters
(NCDEHNR, 1993).
Under the NC Unified Watershed Assessment UWA) program, the Upper Broad River Hydrologic
(
Unit (03050105), is classified by DWQ as a UWA Category "II" watershed for nonpoint source pollution.
Under this classification, the watershed is identified as a watershed "meeting goals, .including those needing
action to sustain water quality". Although the vast majority of waters within this hydrologic unit are supporting
their uses, approximately 27 percent of the streams within the unit are considered threatened.
Sedimentation is the primary water quality concern within the hydrologic unit. Waters of interest include
the Green River and Lake Lure, neither of which is located within the project vicinity (NCDENR, 2000).
W r lit Im acts
2.4 Summary of Anticipated ate Qua y p
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of clearing and grubbing along stream
banks, removal of riparian canopy, instream construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of
revegetation operations, and installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources
are likely to result from the aforementioned construction activities:
Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing associated with
increased erosion potential in the project area during and immediately following construction.
Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal. _
Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions of surface
water and groundwater during construction.
Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from temporarily exposed
land surfaces.
A short-term increase in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as petroleum
products) from construction equipment and other vehicles.
Changes in and possible destabilization of water temperature regimes due to removal of
vegetation within or overhanging the watercourse.
Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff.
NCDOT Page 9 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Sun`ace Waters will be strictly enforced during
the construction phase of the project (NCDOT, 1997). Impacts will be minimized to the fullest degree
practicable by limiting instream activities and by revegetating stream banks immediately following the
completion of grading. Because the project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) trout county, the NCWRC may require a moratorium for instream construction from November
to March.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the biotic communities observed within the project area, as well as the
basic relationships between flora and fauna within these communities. Biotic resources assessed as part
of this investigation include discernable terrestrial and aquatic communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities within the project area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and
past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant communities
and are classified according to the Classification of Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) where applicable. Representative animal species likely to
inhabit or utilize biotic communities of the project area (based on published range distributions) are also
discussed. Fauna observed during the field investigation are listed.
3.1 Biotic Communities
Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain portions of the
project area, making boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Four discernable terrestrial communities
are located within the project area (Figure 3). Three of these communities have been altered to the extent
that they cannot be classified as a natural community under the Classification of Natural Communities of
North Carolina. These altered communities consist of: (1) altered right-of-way communities, (2)
pastureland, and (3) successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities. One community within the
project area retains enough of its natural characteristics to be classified under the Classification of Natural
Communities of North Carolina. This natural community consists of Montane Oak/Hickory Forest. In
addition to the aforementioned terrestrial components, the aquatic community associated with the Second
Broad River was assessed within the project area.
3.1.1 Altered Right-of-Way Communities
These communities are located along the right-of-way bordering on SR 1163 (Communities No. 1
of Figure 3). Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early succession through
mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation management practices. Well-drained Braddock clay loams
and Dillard loams underlie these communities. It is estimated that 0.08 acre (0.03 hectare) of this
community exists within the project area.
No mature woody plant species were observed at the time of site investigation within altered
NCDOT Page 10 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
t rights-of-way communities of the project area; however sweetgum seedlings (Liquidambar styraciflua)
were observed. Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include red
clover (Trifolium pratense), vetch (Vicia sp.), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisi-~, sensitive brier
(Schrankia microphylla), bush clover (Lespedeza sp.), common plantain (Plantago major), common
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed
at the time of site investigation include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans).
j 3.1.2 Pastureland
This community consists of an active pasture located in the northwest quadrant of the project area
(Community No. 2 of Figure 3). A several dozen head of cattle were grazing in the pasture at the time of
field investigation. Well-drained Braddock clay loams and Dillard loams underlie this community. It is
estimated that 0.09 acre (0.04 hectare) of this community exists within the project area.
Species observed in the active pasture at the time of field investigation include blackberry (Rubus
sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), red clover (Trifolium pratense), tall fescue (Festuca sp.), vetch
(Vicia sp.), sensitive brier (Schrankia microphylla), buttercups (Ranunculus abortivus), Curtis' goldenrod
(Solidago curtisi~~, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), common milkweed
(Asclepias syriaca), wild onion (Allium stellatum), man-root (lpomoea pandurata), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), unidentified grasses (Poaceae), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
3.1.3 Successional Sapling and Scrub/Shrub Communities Interspersed With Open Fields
r These communities occur between the pasture and Second Broad River in the northwest
quadrant of the project area and just outside the state right-of-way in the southeast quadrant
(Communities No. 3 of Figure 3). The community in the northwest quadrant appears to be a heavily
grazed remnant of aonce-larger bottomland forest community. Well-drained Braddock clay loams and
Dillard loams underlie these communities.. It is estimated that 0.05 acre (0.02 hectare) of this community
exists within the project area.
The successional sapling and scrub/shrub communities, as mapped, support few mature trees.
Dominant sapling species observed at the time of site investigation include red maple (Acer rubrum),
hickory (Carya sp.), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Dominant shrub species observed at the time
of site investigation include privet (Ligustrum sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and blackberry (Rubus
allegheniensis). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include Queen
Anne's lace (Daucus carota), common plantain (Plantago major), vetch (Vicia sp.), sensitive brier
(Schrankia microphylla), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisi-),
bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), frost aster (Aster pilosus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), dayflower
(Commelina communis), and unidentified grasses (Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the
time of site investigation .include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
NCDOT Page 11 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.1.4 Montane Oak/Hickory Forest
' These communities (Communities No. 4 of Figure 3) occur on moderately steep slopes just
outside the SR 1163 right-of-way in the northeast, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the project area.
These communities are underlain by well-drained Braddock clay loams and Dillard loams. It is estimated
that 0.17 acre (0.07 hectare) of this community exists within the project area.
Dominant tree species observed within the Montane Oak/Hickory. Forest at the time of site
investigation include black walnut (Juglans nigra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), bitternut hickory
(Carya cordiformis), hickories (Carya spp.), black oak (Quercus velutina), scrub pine (Pious virginiana),
white pine (Pious strobus), post oak (Quercus stellata), red maple (Acer rubrum), white oak (Quercus
albs), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). Dominant sapling
and shrub species observed at the time of site investigation include flowering dogwood (Corms florida),
pale rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), and witch-hazel (Hamamelis virginiana). Dominant
herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation include bracken (Pteridium aquilinum),
violets (Viola sp.), and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens). Dominant vine species observed at the time of
site investigation include poison iry (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
3.1.5 Terrestrial Fauna
All of the communities within the project vicinity have been altered or affected by man's activities
to varying degrees. Due to forest tract fragmentation common to the project region, species that require
' large contiguous tracts of forests are not likely to utilize the site on a normal basis. Certain opportunistic
wildlife species, such as woodchuck (Marmots monax) and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus), can be expected to utilize edge habitat present within the project area. Due to the relatively
small size of the project area and the fact that many wildlife species are capable of moving between
and/or utilizing adjoining communities, no distinct terrestrial wildlife habitat can be assigned to any one
terrestrial plant community within the project area.
The only mammal observed in the project vicinity at the time of field investigation was bobcat
(Fells rufus). Tracks and scat of raccoon (Procyon lotor) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
were observed along the stream terraces upstream of the bridge. Other mammals common to the project
region which can be expected to periodically utilize habitat of the project area include: eastern Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews and moles (Insectivora), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
beaver (Castor canadensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttall~), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), woodland vole (Microtus
pinetorum), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house
mouse (Mus musculus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), woodland jumping mouse
' (Napaeozapus insignis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern spotted
skunk (Spilogale putorius), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and black bear (Ursus americanus).
The communities within the project area provide suitable habitat and forage areas for a variety of
NCDOT Page 13 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
birds typical to the region. Birds observed at the time of field investigation include barn swallow (Hirundo
rustics) and cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Calls of the common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were
also noted within the project area at the time of field investigation. A wide variety of resident and migratory
songbirds can be expected to periodically utilize forested tracts immediately to the south of the project
area. The open landscaped areas within the project vicinity provide probable hunting grounds for birds of
prey, such as hawks and owls.
No reptiles or amphibians were observed in the project area at the time of field investigation. A
variety of reptile and amphibian species may, however, use the communities located in the project area.
These animals include the rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and
American toad (Bufo americanus). Fish species are discussed in following sections.
3.1.6 Aquatic Community
The aquatic community of the project area consists of the Second Broad River below the ordinary
high water line. As previously discussed, the Second Broad River ranges in width from approximately 10
to 15 feet (3.0 to 4.6 meters) within the project area. The dominant aquatic habitat within this section of
the Second Broad River consists of cobble/boulder and bedrock substrate. The river within the project
area is characterized by a moderately well-defined riffle and run sequence with intervening cascades over
bedrock ledges. The riffles present are as wide as the river and extend at least twice the width of the
river. Gravel and cobble substrate was less than 20 percent embedded on the day of investigation. Pools
are absent, except at the western boundary of the project area where a pool has been formed by cattle
incursions into the river. The riparian vegetation zone is less than 20 feet (6.0 meters) wide in the
northwest quadrant of the project area and greater than 20 feet (6.0 meters) wide in all other quadrants.
Wide breaks are present where the river flows through the right-of-way. The river is moderately well-
shaded upstream of the bridge and is not well-shaded downstream of the bridge.
3.1.6.1 Flora
No aquatic vegetation was observed below the ordinary high water line of the Second Broad River
at the time of field investigation. Hydrophytic vegetation (predominantly tag alder, Joe-pye weed, creeping
grass, bugleweed, and water hemlock) occurs as very thin bands (less than 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) wide) along
portions of the stream bank.
3.1.6.2 Fauna
Aquatic vertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation consist of
several unidentified species of minnow (Cyprinidae) and a small number of unidentified juvenile finfish.
Aquatic invertebrates observed within the project area at the time of field investigation include the
following: crayfish (Cambaridae), snail (Pleuroceridae), mayfly larvae (Heptageniidae), net-spinning
caddisfly larvae (Hydropsychidae), stonefly larvae (Perlidae), amphipods (Gammarus sp.), and water
striders (Gerridae). Pleuroceridae, Heptageniidae, and Hydropsychidae were abundant throughout the
project area at the time of field investigation.
NCDOT Page 14 02/26/2002
1

T/P B-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
' 3.2.1 Terrestriallmpacts
Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers and composition. Plant
communities found along the proposed project area often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
wildlife. The proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these species, thereby
diminishing fauna numbers. Additionally, the reduction of habitat within the project area concentrates
wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, therefore causing some species to become more susceptible to
disease, predation, and starvation.
Ecological impacts can also occur outside of the project area because of habitat reduction.
Typically, those areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. The increased traffic noise and reduction/change of habitat, while attracting other
wildlife, may displace existing wildlife further from the roadway. The animals displaced by construction
activities may repopulate other areas suitable for the species. However, the increased animal density can
result in an increase in competition for the remaining resources.
Construction of the project will result in certain unavoidable impacts to biotic resources within the
project area. Temporary and permanent impacts were assessed from the perspective of impact areas
(the acreage or square footage of affected biotic communities) and from the perspective of resource
' functions and values, where possible. Impacts to the previously identified communities will not exceed
those acreages stated in their respective sections. Practicable means to avoid or minimize impacts were
~ evaluated and recommended, where applicable. Temporary impacts will be subject to restoration.
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
The replacement of the bridge over the Second Broad River at SR 1163 (TIP Number B-4195) will
result in certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic community of the creek. Probable impacts will be
associated with the physical disturbance of the benthic habitat and water column disturbances resulting
from changes in water quantity and quality. Significant disturbance of stream segments can have an
adverse effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of
aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic
communities:
r Inhibition of plant growth.
Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation that can lead to increased
nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can, in turn, lead to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of
dissolved oxygen levels.
Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in turn, lead to clogging of feeding
structures of filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment loading.
Loss offish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian canopy.
NCDOT Page 15 02/26/2002

TIP B-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream of the project
area will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable
guidelines pertaining to best management practices.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
The following sections provide an inventory of resource areas and species and an assessment of
possible impacts for (1) waters of the United States and (2) rare and protected species. Waters of the
United States and rare and protected species are of particular significance when assessing impacts
because of federal and state mandates that regulate their protection. The following sections address
those measures that will be required in order to comply with regulatory permit conditions prior to project
construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Certain surface waters considered significant to interstate commerce and wetlands adjacent to
these waters fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States" (as defined in codified federal
regulation 33 CFR 328.3). The discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States is
regulated by the Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Regulated surface waters typically consist of standing or flowing waters that have
commercial and/or recreational value to the general public. As a category of waters of the United States,
wetlands are defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions".
To determine whether wetlands exist within the project area, vegetation, soils, and hydrology are
assessed using criteria set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical
Report Y-87-1). As specified in the Manual, wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology -all three of which must be present for an area to meet
the federal definition of a wetland.
4.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected
Temporarily flooded, broad-leaved deciduous, scrub-shrub, palustrine wetlands (PSS1A of USFWS
classification) have been mapped along the portion of the Second Broad River within the project area under
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program. Although not contiguous or widespread within the project
area, wetlands were observed as small communities of hydrophytic vegetation along portions of the
stream bank at the time of field investigation. This hydrophytic vegetation (predominantly tag alder, Joe-
pye-weed, creeping grass, bugleweed, and water hemlock) is generally associated with a thin muddy
veneer over underlying boulders and bedrock and unconsolidated fluvaquents along the base of the
stream banks. It is estimated that 0.01 acre (0.004 hectare) of wetlands exists within the project area.
NCDOT Page 16 02/26/2002
1

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Despite the fact that the stream terrace wetland is located adjacent to a perennial waterway, its
' limited extent and proximity to cleared and landscaped areas limit certain of its values. Utilizing NCDENR's
Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, the stream terrace wetland within the project
area has been estimated to have the following ratings for values assessed: 4 of 20 for water storage, 8 of 20
' for bank/shoreline stabilization, 10 of 25 for pollutant removal, 6 of 10 for wildlife habitat, 16 of 20 for aquatic
life value, and 2 of 5 for recreation/education for a total rating of 46.
' The NWI map for the Sugar Hill 7.5-minute quadrangle classifies the Second Broad River
approximately 2,000 feet (610 meters) downstream of the project area as a permanently flooded, lower
perennial riverine habitat with an unconsolidated bottom (R2UBH of USFWS classification). Given the
perennial nature of the Second Broad River within the project area, it is assumed that this section of the
Second Broad River has also been classified as R2UBH. Ninety feet (27 meters) of waters of the United
States exist within the project area.
4.1.2 Permits
Based on wetland field indicators observed at the time of field investigation, waters of the United
States, including wetlands, subject to regulation under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the North
Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification program have been delineated and mapped within the proposed
project area. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated to occur as a result of project
construction. As a result, proposed construction activities will require permits and certifications from the
various state and federal regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.
Based on past experience with similar actions, if non-tidal wetland impacts at each bridge crossing
are less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) and none of the activities jeopardize the continued existence of a
threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, the action would be
considered a Class II Action as defined, under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.115(b). As a Class II Action,
' bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement would qualify as a Categorical Exclusion as defined
under FHWA regulation 23 CFR 771.117.
' As a categorically excluded Class II Action and a public linear transportation project in non-tidal
waters, bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement impacting less than 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of
waters of the United States at a stream crossing could be authorized under the provisions of a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Nationwide 23 Permit for Categorical Exclusions or a Nationwide 14 Permit for Linear
Transportation Projects, respectively. The proposed project is located in a designated "Trout' county;
therefore, authorization of the project by the COE under the provisions of a nationwide or individual permit is
conditional on concurrence of the NCW RC.
If the proposed work cumulatively impacts more that 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) of non-tidal waters of the
United States, an Individual Permit may be required at the discretion of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
unless authorization is granted under the provisions of Department of the Army General Permit Number
198200031 (for NCDOT bridge crossings). If the proposed work involves greater than 1.0 acre (0.4 hectare)
' NCDOT Page 17 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHN/CAL REPORT
of wetland impacts, the Corps could not make a discretionary determination regarding Nationwide Permit
applicability nor could the General Permit option be exercised and, therefore, an Individual Permit would be
mandatory.
In addition to the aforementioned permit requirements, a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will
be required for the project prior to issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit. Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification
allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
disturbance. The issuance of a 401 Certification from DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404
permit.
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge number 42 is located on SR 1163 over the Second Broad River in McDowell County. The
possibility exists that demolition materials (such as asphalt, concrete rubble, portions of the deck timbers,
etc.) could be inadvertently dropped into waters of the United States during bridge demolition. Should this
occur, such materials would be removed from waters of the United States as soon as possible, where
conditions allow.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The 14 December 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and the Department of
the Army on Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines sets forth the policy and procedures to be
used in the determination of the type and level of mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
Clean Water Act. The purpose of the MOA is to implement the objective of the Clean Water Act to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including wetlands. As
part of the MOA, a project assessment procedure is set forth requiring a sequential assessment of (1)
impact avoidance, (2) impact minimization, and (3) compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Adherence to sequencing during project planning and design stages is intended to assist in attaining a
goal of no net overall loss of wetland functions and values.
The impact avoidance stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all appropriate
and practicable alternatives for avoiding impacts to waters of the United States. Cost, existing technology,
significant adverse environmental consequences to other resources, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes are considered in identifying "appropriate and practicable" avoidance alternatives.
The impact minimization stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of all
measures that would minimize unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States to the fullest degree
practicable. The final determination regarding the availability of practicable minimization measures lies
with the reviewing regulatory agencies and, if it is determined that additional minimization measures are
available, such measures will be required through project modifications and/or permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
NCDOT Page 18 02126/2002
1

T1P B-4195
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation measures are not considered until such time that it has been
demonstrated that no practicable avoidance alternatives exist, and that all practicable measures for
minimizing unavoidable impacts have been incorporated into project design. Compensatory mitigation
includes such measures as restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation. Where possible,
mitigation should be in-kind and within the same watershed as near to the impacted area as conditions
allow. Compensatory mitigation is conventionally required for projects authorized under Individual Permits
or certain Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare) of all
wetlands and/or 150 feet (46 meters) of streams within or adjacent to tidal waters.' Under the nationwide
' permit program, the District Engineer must be notified if proposed discharge to wetlands will exceed 0.1
acre (0.04 hectare). Discharges to wetlands exceeding 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare), for which authorization
under a Nationwide Permit 14 is being sought, require submittal of a compensatory mitigation plan as part
of the Notification.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires that any action likely to adversely
' affect a species listed as a federally protected threatened or endangered species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and. Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species (such as state-listed threatened or
endangered species) may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T), proposed
endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 22 March 2001, the USFWS lists
three federally protected species for McDowell County (Table 1). Brief descriptions of the characteristics
and habitat requirements for these species are provided in Appendix A. A review of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats indicates no occurrences
of federally protected species in the project area. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat
for any of the species listed in Table 1 were observed within the project area at the time of site
' investigation.

NCDOT Page 19 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
i anie ~. reaerany rrotectea Species for mcuowen county
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us Bald Eagle Threatened
C/emmys muhlenbergii Bog Turtle Threatened (S/A)
"Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
"Threatened (S/A)" denotes a species that is treated as threatened due to its similarity of appearance to
another endangered or threatened species that is listed for protection. Threatened (S/A) species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
A federal species of concern (FSC) is defined as a species that is under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (USFWS)
lists 13 federal species of concern in McDowell County (Table 2). Federal species of concern are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of the provisions
included in Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. The status of
these species is subject to change so their status should be periodically monitored prior to project
construction if individuals or suitable habitat is present within the project area. In addition to the federal
program, organisms that are listed as endangered (E), threatened (T), or special concern (SC) by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program on its list of Rare Plants and Animal Species are afforded state
protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 2 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state
protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area. This species list is provided for
information purposes, as the protection status of these species may change in the future.
The NCNHP database of rare and unique habitats (as updated through January 2001) was
reviewed. The database shows no occurrences of federal species of concern (FSC) within 0.6 mile (1.0
kilometer) of the project area. Determinations regarding the presence of suitable FSC habitat, as
indicated in Table 2, were based on site conditions observed at the time of field investigation and search
of published literature.
NCDOT Page 2 0 02/26/2002

T1P 8-4195

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for Mc~owe~i county
Scientific Name Common Name NC Habitat
Status Present
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian Woodrat SC No
Neotoma magister Allegheny Woodrat SC No
Contopus borealis Olive-sided Flycatcher SC No
Dendroica ceru/ea Cerulean Warbler SR No
Caecidotea carolinensis Bennett's Mill Cave Water Slater SR No
Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary Butterfly SR Yes
Carex roanenis Roan Sedge C Yes
Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur E No
Hymenocallis coronaria"' Rocky Shoal Spider Lity --- Yes
Juglans cinerea*' Butternut --- No
Lilium grayi Gray's Lily T No
Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap C No
Note:
E An "Endangered "species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's
Flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
T A "Threatened" species is any native or once native species that is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is
designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
~~ C A "Candidate" is any species that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
~', state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
SC A "Special Concern" species is on which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues
(animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold
of Special Concern plants that are listed as Threatened or Endangered.
SR A "Significantly Rare" species is not listed as "E", "T', or "SC", but which exists in the state in small
numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
"" Listed by USFWS as a FSC, but not listed as a FSC on the NCNHP database.
NCDOT Page 21 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195
5.0 REFERENCES
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
264pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Basinwide
Planning Program. July 1998. Broad River: Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Accessed September 2001.
h~tp://h2o.enr.state_nc.us/basinwide/broad_wn_management_ la~htm.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2000.
Watershed Restoration Action Strategy. (as revised through 2 February 2000) Raleigh, North
Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2001. Basinwide Information
Management System. North Carolina Waterbodies Reports: Broad River. Accessed 10
September 2001.
http://h2o. nr.stat ..n . ~s/bims/r .ports/basinsandwaterbodies/hydro/Broad.pdf.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management 1993. Classifications of Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth
Version.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2001. Element Occurrence Search Report: McDowell County,
North Carolina. http://www.ncsparks.net/nhn/s ar .h.html. Updated July 2001.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Amdt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
NCDOT Page 22 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1
1

1

1

1

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.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Memo to USACE
district from Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., 6 March 1992, signed
by MG Arthur E. Williams, Directorate of Civil Works.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of McDowell
County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and the National Technical
Committee for Hydric Soils. 1996. NRCS National Hydric Soils List.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Sugar Hill 7.5-minute Quadrangle,
North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina Ecological Services. 2001.
Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina: McDowell County. Updated 22 March
2001. h~tp://nc-es.fws,gov/es/count~r.html
U.S. Geological Survey. 1994. Sugar Hill, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle (7.5-minute series).
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
NCDOT Page 2 3
02/26/2002

1
1
1

1

1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIP 8-4195
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX A
Biological Conclusions for Federally Protected Species
Found in McDowell County, North Carolina
NCDOT
02/26/2002

1

t

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocepha/us) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: Endangered, 1967; Threatened, 1995
Characteristics:
The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head and tail with a dark brown
body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not fully develop the white head and tail until the fifth or
sixth year. Fish are the primary food source, but bald eagles will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles
(both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average about 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) from head to
tail, weigh approximately 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) and have a wingspan that can reach 7.0 feet (2.1
meters). Generally, female bald eagles are somewhat larger than the males.
Distribution:
' Bald eagles breed primarily in the eastern third of Texas (mostly east of I-35) and winter wherever open water
occurs.
Habitat:
' Habitat includes quiet coastal areas, rivers or lakeshores with large, tall trees. Man-made reservoirs have also
provided habitat.
Bald Eagles in North Carolina:
In 1982, there were no bald eagle nests in North Carolina. In 1998, there were 17 nests, and in 2000, there were 34
nests. Several new nests have been located so far during the 2001 nesting season. The bald eagle's recovery has
led to a proposal for de-listing the bald eagle from the Endangered/Threatened Species List.
Threats to Species:
The decline of the Bald Eagle coincided with the introduction of the pesticide DDT in 1947. Birds of prey at the top of the
food chain, such as eagles, ingested relatively high levels of the pesticide, which was concentrated in the fatty tissues of
their prey. Eagles contaminated with DDT failed to lay eggs or produced thin eggshells that broke during incubation. In
1972, DDT was banned in the United States, and a slow recovery for the Bald Eagle began. Loss of nesting habitat due
to development along the coast and near inland rivers and waterways also has resulted in decreasing numbers of bald
eagles.
r Distinguishing Characteristics:
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) adults have white heads and tails, a dark brownish black body, with yellow
bill, eyes, and feet. Immature species are variable in plumage but generally have a dark brown, blotchy head, tail
' and bodies; brownish bill, yellow feet, and pale yellow-gray eyes. They are normally found near water, but during
migration may occur in any part of the state. Their size is approximately 3.0 feet (0.9 meter) long with a 7.0 feet (2.1
meters) wingspan.
' Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 20 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
1
1

NCDOT Page A-1 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muh/enbergi~~ Threatened (S/A)
Animal Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT '
Characteristics:
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi~) is a small freshwater turtle that has a carapace length of 4.5 inches (11.4
centimeters) or less. The surface of the carapace is rough with growth annuli, (worn smooth on adults) and a dark
brown, black or mahogany color. The plastron is hingeless and black with irregular shaped yellow to cream blotches
along the midline. Fleshy parts are brown to pink-brown and may have some red mottles on limbs. A large
conspicuous orange, yellow or reddish blotch lies behind both eyes, but is degenerated in old adults. A low medial
keel is present in juveniles. They are found in freshwater wetlands characterized by open fields, meadows, marshes,
slow moving streams, ditches, or boggy areas. In July and August they aestivate in the soft mud.
Distribution:
The northem population of the bog turtle, which ranges from New York and Massachusetts south to Maryland, is
designated as threatened. The southern population of the bog turtle, ranging from southern Virginia to northern Georgia,
is also protected with a threatened designation because its physical appearance is similar to the northem population.
The southern bog turtle population is separated from the northem population by approximately 250.0 miles (402.3
kilometers).
Currently, bog turtles (Clemmys muh/enbergi~) are known to remain at fewer than 200 sites in their northern range.
Based on site habitat quality, only 35 of the 176 sites assessed may be capable of supporting healthy bog turtle
populations into the future unless measures are taken to protect, maintain, and restore bog turtle habitat.
The northem population of the bog turtle has declined by 50 percent, mostly within the past 20 years.
Habitat:
It is found in freshwater wetlands characterized by open fields, meadows, marshes with slow moving streams,
ditches, and boggy areas. In July and August the turtle aestivates in soft mud. During winter they hibernate below
the frost zone in holes, muskrat borrows, clumps of sedges, or the mud of waterways.
Threats to Species:
Illegal collection, primarily for the national and international pet trade, as well as loss and modification of the bog
turtle's wetland habitat, have. resulted in a reduction of the species' range and a decline in the size of the remaining
populations.
Bog turtles are highly prized in the pet trade, bringing high prices from collectors and dealers, according to Hamilton.
With the new threatened designation, the Endangered Species Act prohibits collection and other activities such as
habitat destruction or degradation, and interstate sale, export, or import of bog turtles. Since 1975, the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora has monitored international trade in bog
turtles, requiring permits for legal trade. However, significant illegal trade in bog turtles exists. All seven states in its
northern range and all five states in its southern range provide varying degrees of protection for the bog turtle.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Bog turtles are easily distinguished from other turtles by the large, conspicuous bright orange, yellow, or red blotch
found on each side of the head. Adult bog turtle shells are 3.0 to 4.5 inches (7.6 to 11.4 centimeters) in length and range
in color from light brown to ebony.
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 20 July 2001. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat were observed within the
project area.
Biological Conclusion:
NO SURVEY REQUIRED

1

1
1
1
1
NCDOT Page A-2 02/26/2002
1

TIP 8-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT.
Mountain Golden Heather (Hudsonia montana) Threatened
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Date Listed: October 20, 1980
Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked fruit capsules. It usually
grows in clumps of 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and about 6 inches (15 centimeters) high, and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of 1.0 to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meter) across. The plants have the general aspect
of a big moss or a low juniper, but their branching is more open; their leaves are about 0.25 inch (0.60 centimeter)
long; and the plant is often somewhat yellow-green in color, especially in shade. The leaves from previous years
appear scale-like and persist on the older branches. The flowers appear in early or mid-June, and are yellow, nearly
1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) across, with five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5
inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks, and are roundish with three projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist after
opening, and may be seen at any time of the year.
Distribution:
This plant is found only in Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, at elevations of 2,800 to 4,000 feet (853 to
1,219 meters). Originally discovered on Table Rock Mountain in 1816, mountain golden heather has since been
found at several other sites in Linville Gorge and on Woods Mountain. All sites are on public land within the Pisgah
National Forest. Mountain golden heather is known from several localities within its range with the total number of
plants possibly numbering 2,000 to 2,500. Monitoring is needed to determine if the plant's abundance may be cyclic.
Habitat:
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and Leiophyllum
dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant persists for some time in the partial shade of pines,
but it appears less healthy than in open areas.
Critical Habitat:
Critical habitat includes the area in Burke County bounded by the following: on the west by the 2,200-foot (671-
meter) contour; on the east by the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary north from the intersection of the 2,200-foot
(671-meter) contour and the Short Off Mountain Trail to where it intersects the 3,400 foot (1,036 meter) contour at
the "Chimneys"; then follow the 3,400-foot (1,036-meter) contour north until it re-intersects with the Wilderness
' Boundary; then follow the Wilderness Boundary again northward until it intersects the 3,200-foot (975-meter) contour
extending west from its intersection with the Wilderness Boundary until it begins to tum south. At this point, the
boundary extends due east until it intersects the 2,200-foot (671-meter) contour. (The Woods Mountain sites were
unknown at the time Critical Habitat was designated.)
Threats to Species:
Threats to the species include fire suppression and recreational activities such as hiking that result in a loss of plants
due to trampling and soil compaction. Competition with other shrubs has also reduced size and vigor of populations.
The small size and number of populations increases the plant's vulnerability to extinction through both natural and
man-made factors.
References:
Morse, L. E. 1979. Report on the Conservation Status of Hudsonia montana, A Candidate Endangered Species.
Prepared by the Cooperative Parks Study Unit of the New York Botanical Garden. 37 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Mountain Golden Heather Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
' Atlanta, Georgia. 26 pp.
Distinguishing Characteristics:
Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana) is a member of the rockrose family (Cistaceae) that is characterized
as a small needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers nearly 1.0 inch (2.5 .centimeters) across and long-staked fruit
capsules. It is usually growing in clumps 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) across and 6.0 inches (15 centimeters)
high. The flowers are made up of five blunt tipped petals, and flowering occurs from mid-June to July. Non-flowering
plants resemble large moss or small juniper with leaves about 0.25 inch (0.60 centimeter) long and somewhat
yellow-green in color. Fruit capsules are on 0.5 inch (1.3 centimeters) stalks that are roundish with three projecting
points at the tips. They are found in exposed quartzite ledges at elevations from 2,200 to 3,400 feet (671 to 1,036
meters), between bare rock and sand myrtle-dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant can
persist for some time in the partial shade of pines to open areas.
NCDOT Page A-3 02/26/2002

TIP 8-4195
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Investigation:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed in
September of 2001. No populations of the species have been recorded in the project vicinity. The project area was
investigated on 20 July 2001. Mountain Golden Heather is reported to occur at elevations ranging from 2,800 to
4,000 feet (853 to 1,219 meters) (msl). The maximum elevation of 1,360 feet (415 meters) (msl) within the project
area is considered too low to serve as suitable habitat. No individual organisms, populations, or suitable habitat
were observed within the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
NCDOT Page A-4 02/26/2002
t
t

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TIP 8-4195
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX B
NCDOT
Qualifications of Principal Investigators
02/26/2002

1
t

1
1

TIP B-4195 NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
t
i i
L
Mit
h
ll
M
or:
Invest
ga .
art
n
c
e
Education: B.U.S. (double major in Geology and Biology), University of New Mexico
' M.A. in Marine Science, College of William and Mary
Certification: Professional Geologist
Virginia License Number 001351 (1997)
Experience: Project Manager/Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc. 1988 to present.
Project Manager/Environmental Scientist, The BSC Group, 1986 to 1988.
Geologist/Environmental Analyst, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, Wetlands and Waterways Division, 1984 to 1986.
Geologist, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, 1981 to 1983.
Expertise: Wetland delineations, wetland function and value assessments, wetland mitigation and
stream restoration, biotic community inventories and mapping, threatened and
endangered species investigations, environmental regulatory permit processing.

Investigator:
Education: Anne L. Timm
B.A. Biology, Luther College
Master of Environmental Science, Indiana University
Certification: Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols Certification through NCDWQ
Experience: Environmental Scientist, HSMM, Inc., 2000 to present
Intern, Fallwood Nature Center, 2000.
' Data Management Assistant, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Bureau of Watershed Management, 1997 to 1998.
Science and Biology Teacher, U.S. Peace Corps, 1994 to 1996.
Aquatic Biology Research Assistant, PEW Research Fellowship,
Luther College, 1993.
Expertise: Aquatic and wetland habitat assessments, biotic community inventories and mapping,
rapid bioassessment, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and identification, wetland
delineation, wetland function and value assessments, wetland habitat restoration, GPS
surveys.
1
t
1
1

' NCDOT Page 8-1 02/26/2002

t

t

1

1

t
1
i
1
1
TIP 8-4195
APPENDIX C
Wetland Data Forms
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NCDOT
02/26/2002

1

1

t

1

1
1
t

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WE?LAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pr0)eCt/Slte: 8-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
AppllCant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
II1V@StlgatOr: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NE1u
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species $tiHtlll ri Ind1GaLQI Dominant Plant Species ~$at11lri Indicator
1. Juaians niora S/S UPL 9.
2. Hamamelis viroiniana S/S FACU 1 p.
3, Arthraxon hisoidus Herb FACU 11.
4. Impatiens caoensis Herb FACW 12.
5, Parthenocissus ouinauefolia Vine FAC 13.
6. Aster so. Herb 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 40%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: '12 (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAGNeutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (IoA) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Deccri tp ion..
Depth Matrix Color
fin -h .51- Horizon (M mi sPll Moist)
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(M me II Mort) Ahundance/Contrast- Str~cturee~ etc_
A 10YR 5/6 GRAVEL SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

t
1

w

t
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
PrOJeCt/Site: B-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
AppllCant/Owner: NCDOT CO./City: McDowell County
InV@StlgatOr: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: NE1w
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species $iLatum Indicator Dominant Plant Snecies Stiatilm Indicator
1. Alnus senvlata S/S FACW 9.
2. Sium suave Herb OBL 10.
3, Microsteoium vimineum Herb FAC+ 11.
4. Boehmeria cvlindrica Herb FACW 12.
5.Juncus effusus Herb FACW 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (IoA) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profi__le Decc_rjption:
Depth Matrix Color
finrhe~~ Horizon fM mci ?II Moict.l
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
IMunsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast- Structures, etc_
A THIN VENEER SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
XX Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within lotla map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

t

1

1
1
1
1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
PfOJ2Ct/Site: 8-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
AppllCant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
InveStigatOr: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:_
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Nw3u
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Sp - .i c StLatum Indicator Dominant Plant Speciec_ Str___at~ Indicator
1. Rosa multit7ora S/S UPL 9. So/iaado so. Herb
2. Grass so. Herb 10.
3, Microsteaium vimineum Herb FAC+ 11.
4. Acer rubrum S/S OBL 12.
5. Impatiens caoensis Herb FACW 13.
6. Carva so. Herb 14.
7. Soliaado caesia var. curtisii Herb FACU 15.
8. Solanum dulcamara Herb FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG): 67%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Rit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
_ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (IoA)
Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile DPCr_r' tin ion•
Depth Matrix Color
(inched Horizon (Munsell Moistl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(M me .II Moictl Abundance/Contrast_ Structures, etc.
A 10YR 514 SAND LOAM
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: 8-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
AppllCant/OW ner: NCDOT CO./Clty: McDowell County
InVeStlgator: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Nw3w
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species StIatllm lndicei0t Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1ndicaior
1. Alnus sen'ulata S/S FACW 9. Aster so. Herb
2. Rosa multiflora S/S UPL 10.
3, Microsteoium vimineum Herb FAC+ 11.
4. Lonicera iaoonica Herb FAC- 12.
5. Solidaoo so. Herb 13.
g. Lvcoous virainicus Herb OBL 14.
7. Cicuta maculata Herb OBL 15.
g. Commelina communis Herb FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 71
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators: _
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Field Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (IoA) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile Descri t
Depth Matrix Color
(inchp,~_ Horizon (Munsell MoistlMoistl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
fMunsell Moictl Abundance/Gontrast_ Structure._~ps
A THIN VENEER SAND
BEDROCK
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within lotla map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

1

1

1

t

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
PfOJ@Ct/Site: 8-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
AppllCant/OW ner: NCDOT CO./City: McDowell County
InVestigatOr: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, lnc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: sE1u
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S
.i
e $tl3tLm Indicator Dominant Plant Snecies Sllatum Indicator
p
-
1. Juolans niora Tree UPL 9. Soliaado so. Herb
2. Cornus florida S/~S_ FACU 10.
3, Ostrva viroiniana S/S FACU- 11.
4. Vicia cracca Herb NL 12.
S,Trifoliumoratense Herb FACU- 13.
g.Lesoedeza so Herb 14.
7. Toxicodendron radicans Herb FAC 15.
g. Solioado caesia var. curtisii Herb FACU 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 17%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks

_ Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (IoA) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Profile Descri tp_on~
Depth Matrix Color
(inche~_ Horizon IManc .II Moictl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Mansell Moie_tl Ab mdan - -/ ontract_ Structures,~tc_
A 10YR 5/6 SANDY CLAY SILT
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

1

t
r
1

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Protect/Site: 8-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
AppllCant/OW ner: NCDOT Co./Clty: McDowell County
IDV2StlgatOr: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: sE1w
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Snecies StLatll m lIIdicato[ Dominant Plant Species Strom Indicator
1. Comus amomum S/S FACW+ 9. Vicia cracca Herb NL
2. Vitis vuloina Vine FAC+ 10Alnus sen-ulata S/S FACW
3, Microsteoium vimineum Herb FAC+ 11.Rosa multiflora S/S UPL
4. lmoatiens caoensis Herb FACW 12. Euoatorium fistulosum Herb FAC+
5, Salix exioua S/S OBL 13. Salix niora S/S OBL
6. Dioscorea villosa Herb FACW 14. Commelina communis Herb FAC
7. Juncus effusus Herb FACW 15.
g. Solidaao so. ~,~b 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 92%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
~ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (IoA) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile DPCrr' tin ion.
Depth Matrix Color
(in h .~_ Horizon (M mcP~__II Ihoist) (
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
M mei _~EII_Moictl Ab mdan ..lContract_ Str ~ .ter .~ptc_
A GRAY BROWN CLAY SILT
BEDROCK'
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within lotla map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

t

t
t
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
PfOjeCt/Slte: 8-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
AppllCant/Owner: NCDOT CO./City: McDowell County
InVeStlgatOf: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: swlu
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Rant Species $1:Latum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1ndiGaLQL
1. Liriodendron tulioifera Tree FACU 9. Lonicera iaoonica Vine FAC-
2. CarolnUS caroliniana S/S FAC 10.Smilax rotundifolia Vine FAC
3, Acer rubrum S/S OBL 11. Comus florida S/S FACU
4.Ouerous velutina S/S UPL 12.
5. Hamamelis viroiniana S/S FACU 13.
6. Lioustrum vulaare S/S UPL 14.
7. Pteridium aouilinum Herb FACU 15.
g. Parthenocissus auinauefolia Vine FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 36%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Feld Observations:
_ Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Rt: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
-Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILrS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (IoA) Drainage Class: noor~Y drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? Yes
Prof i_ IP DPCrri tp ion.
Depth Matrix Color
li~zS) Horizon (M me .II Moistl (
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
h4 mci PII Moistl Ah mdan - / ontract_ Gtr ~ .t ~rPC~ P-tc_
A 10YR 5/4 SILTY SAND
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? NO
Hydric Soils Present? NO
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 3/92

t

i

1
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
PrOJeCt/Slte: 8-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Date: July 20, 2001
AppllCant/Owner: NCDOT Co./City: McDowell County
Ir1V2StIgatOr: Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: swlw
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Cn i .c Stsat.~ Indicator Dominant Plant Species $tlHt.tlm Indicator
1. Acer rubrum S/S OBL 9. Trifolium oratense Herb FACU-
2. Caroinus caroliniana S/S FAC 10.Sium suave Herb OBL
3. Euoatorium fistulosum Herb FAC+ 11.Kalmia latifolia Herb FACU
4. Microsteaium vimineum Herb FAC+ 12. Impatiens caoensis Herb FACW
5. Parthenocissus ouinouefolia Herb FAC 13. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC-
g. Arthraxon hispidus Herb FACU+ 14.
7. Po/vaonum punctatum Herb FACW 15.
8. Juncus effusus Herb FACW 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 69%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
X Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Inundated
XX Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
No Recorded Data Available Water Marks

XX Drift Lines
Feld Observations: XX Sediment Deposits
Depth of Surface Water: (in•) Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth to Standing Water in Pit: (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
surface
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
Water-Stained Leaf Litter
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to waterway shown in NCDOT black and white aerial photo.

DATA FORM (continued)
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Somewhat
(Series and Phase): lotla sandy loam (IoA) Drainage Class: Fo~rlY drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirmed Mapped Type? No
Profile D_eSrri tp ion.
Depth Matrix Color
(inche~_ Horizon (Mansell Moistl
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(M mc~_~ell_Moictl Ab mdan ../ .ontrast_ St ry__iirtt~rPC, etc_
A THIN VENEER MUD
BEDROCK
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Units mapped by NRCS are non-hydric.
Soils observed likely represent hydric soil inclusion, which USDA reports to occur within lotla map units, or fluvaquents.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? YES
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hydric Soils Present? YES
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

1
1
t
t
1

1
t

TIP 8-4195
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX D
DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets
NCDOT
ov2s~2oo2

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET: Fourth Version
Project Name NCDOT B-4195 Bridge Replacement NRTR Nearest Road SR1163
County McDowell Wetland Area < 2 acres Wetland Width 3 feet
Name of evaluator Martin Mitchell (HSMM, Inc.) Date 7/20/01

Wetland Location
on pond or lake
x on perennial stream
_ on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other
Adjacent land use
(within %i mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
x forested/natural vegetation 55
x agriculture, urban/suburban 40
x impervious surface 5
Dominant vegetation

1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
Soil Series Iotla sandy loam
predominantly organic -humus, muck, or
peat
x predominantly mineral -non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
x steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
_ total wetland width > 100 feet
(1) Alnus serrulata
(2) Eupatorium fistulosum
(3) Microstegium vimineum
Flooding and wetness
_ semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
x intermittently flooded or temporary
w surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
Bottomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
x Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest _
_ Bog/fen
Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
_ Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
* the rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
weight Wetland
R Water storage 1 x 4.00 = ~ Rating
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 2 x 4.00 =
T Pollutant removal 2 x 5.00 = 10
I Wildlife habitat 3 x 2.00 = ~J `t6
N Aquatic life value 4 x 4.00 = 16
G Recreation/Education 2 x 1.00 =
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within %2 mile
upstream, upslope, or radius.
______________________________________________________________________________________________

,z_rt. .
~ _.~a ~
MAR ' ?(;;;?
~~ __
~' hT~ ~, ~~' e
°;t~ ~ ~~~ ~,LIT~ ' C,~
Natural Resources Technical Report

0
~~
~~~
~F,

r Z
~~~
~~Q.
Qo
~NoRrN ~~
OF ~ qR,

REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE N0.71 ON SR 1167
OVER STONY FORK CREEK
WILKES COUNTY
TIP PROJECT NO. B-4322
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2761301
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ -1167(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
8-4322
PREPARED FOR:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BY:
Stantec Consulting
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
March 13, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1-1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.2
...........................................................................................................
PURPOSE .... 1-1
1.3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ........................................... 1-2
1.5 DEFINITIONS ......................................................................................................... 1-3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS ............................................................................... 2-1
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Water Resource Characteristics ................................................................ 2-2
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .................................................. 2-3
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ............................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community •••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3-1
3.1.2 Rich Cove Forest Community ....••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ............................... 3-2
3.1.3 Oak-Hickory Forest Community ....•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3-2
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ............... 3-3
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................. 3-3
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ................................................................................. 3-4
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS ............................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: JURISDICIONAL ISSUES ........................ 4-1
4.2 PERMITS ................................................................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition ...................................................................................... .4-2
4.2.2 Mitigation ................................................................................................... .4-2
4.3 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES .................................................................... .4-3
4.3.1 Federally Protected Species ..................................................................... . 4-4
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern ..................................................................... . 4-5
4.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................................................. . 4-6
5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................5-1

TABLES
Table 4.3.1 -Federally Protected Species for Wilkes County .................................................... 4-4
Table 4.3.2 -Federal Species of Concern for Wilkes County .................................................... 4-6
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1.1.1 -Project Vicinity Map ..............................................................................................1-4
Exhibit 1.1.2 -Project Study Area ............................................................................................... 1-5
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -Photographic Record

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) document.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 71 over Stony Fork Creek on SR 1167
in Wilkes County, North Carolina (Exhibit 1.1.1).
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory and describe the various natural resources likely
to be impacted by the proposed action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts
to these natural resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will
minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular concern that may affect the selection of a preferred
alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such environmental concerns should be
addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order to maintain
environmental quality in the most efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this
document are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary project boundaries. It may
become necessary to conduct additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria
change.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) provided aerial photography detailing
the proposed project study area (Exhibit 1.1.2). Prior to the field investigation published resource
information pertaining to the project study area was gathered and reviewed. The information
sources used to prepare this report include:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Maple Springs);
• Soil Survey of Wilkes County, North Carolina (1997);
1-1

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map; ~
• USFWS list of protected species (March 22, 2001);
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats (January 2001);
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photography of the project study
area (1:100); and
• North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) water resource data.
A general field survey was conducted within the project study area on August 29, 2001. Water
resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Terrestrial community
classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy
follows Radford, et al. (1968). Vegetative communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography
of the project site (Exhibit 1.1.2). Wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques
including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs
of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows). Cursory surveys for aquatic organisms, including
tactile searches for benthic macroinvertebrates, were performed as well.
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods
outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987).
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator: Michael P. Eagan
Education: Bachelor of Science Biology, University of South Florida
Prescribed Fire Boss: Florida Division of Forestry No. 19982847
Experience: Environmental Scientist, Stantec, Raleigh, NC, October 2000 to present.
Land Management Specialist, Southwest Florida Water Management
District, Brooksville, FL, 1999 to 2000.
Ecologist, Biological Research Associates, Inc., Tampa, FL, 1991 to 1999.
Expertise: Threatened and Endangered species surveys, natural community
assessment, mapping and management, wetland mitigation design and
monitoring.
1-2

1.5 DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigation:
• Project study area -denotes the potential construction area;
• Project vicinity -includes an area extending 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) on all sides of the project
study area;
Project region -equals an area represented by a United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5
minute quadrangle map with the project study area occupying the central position.
1-3

t
~o v ~- CA
`.~ V !~ O . _ ~ ,. `-.~
1
,\ ) ~(,
.a
/ ~ /'~` ~
~~ ~ ~ ` ~i-
. _ ` ~~~"~
_ D, ~,t
G~/)'~ _ /
y ~f-
~~~~ ~ _ ~ v
+:~~. ~ i
~ ~ ~
r~3 ~~ ~ ~ r
~, ~ l "
/ /U ~ J ~ - c°
:,
~~
i ,~
~F
?~ North Carolina
Department of Transportation
SR 1167
Replace Bridge No 71
over Stony Fork Creek
B-4322
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Project Location
Not to Scale Exhibit 1.1.1

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The project lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province. The topography of the
project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with moderate to steeply sloping banks along the
major streams. Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 1,960 to 2,600 feet (597
to 792 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation in the project study area varies from
approximately 1,960 to 2,040 feet (597 to 622 meters) above msl.
According to the general soil map for Wilkes County (USDA, 1997), the project study area is found
within the Chestnut-Ashe-Edneyville soil association. The soils in this association are described as
strongly sloping to very steep, well-drained soils that have a loamy subsoil and are found on
mountain uplands at elevations of 2,000 to 4,100 feet (610 to 1,250 meters). Soil series found
within the project study area are described below.
Tate-Cullowhee complex, zero to 25 percent slopes, is mapped along the stream. This map unit
consists of a very deep, well-drained Tate soil and a very deep, somewhat poorly drained Cullowhee
soil. This map unit is found in valleys and coves along the headwaters of streams flowing out of the
mountains. Permeability is moderate and surface• runoff is rapid in bare and unprotected areas in
the Tate soil. Permeability is moderately rapid and surface runoff is slow in bare and unprotected
areas in the Cullowhee soil. The soil is frequently flooded for brief periods. This mapping unit is
listed as having hydric inclusions of poorly drained soils in toe slopes and along drainageways.
Chestnut-Ashe complex, 25 to 90 percent slopes, very stony, is mapped in the area south of the
bridge. This map unit consists of a moderately deep, well-drained Chestnut soil and a moderately
deep, somewhat excessively well-drained Ashe soil. This map unit is found on steep ridgetops and
side slopes in the mountains. Permeability is moderately rapid and surface runoff is rapid to very
rapid in bare and unprotected areas. This mapping unit is not listed on the hydric soils list.
2.2 WATER RESOURCES
The proposed project falls within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
03-07-01. Waters within the project study area include Stony Fork Creek and two unnamed
2-1

tributaries to Stony Fork Creek.
2.2.1 Water Resource Characteristics
Stony Fork Creek flows west through the proposed project study area with a width of approximately
37 feet (11.3 meters). The flow was moderate on the day of the field investigation. The substrate
consisted of bedrock, boulders, cobbles, sand and silt. The stream is comprised of step/pool
sequences. The water was turbid on the day of the site visit due to disturbance upstream of the
project study area. The depth of the water ranged from a few inches in the riffles to over three feet
(0.9 meters) in some of the pools.
An unnamed tributary flows into Stony Fork Creek on the northeast side of Bridge No. 71. The
tributary is approximately four feet (1.2 meters) wide and at the time of the site visit was several
inches deep. The substrate consists of cobbles, gravel, and sand.
A second unnamed tributary flows into Stony Fork Creek northwest of the bridge. This intermittent
tributary is approximately two feet (0.6 meters) wide; the channel was dry in some sections on the
day of the site visit. The substrate consists of gravel and sand.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) [formerly the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)) which reflects water
quality conditions and potential resource usage. Within the project study area, the classification for
Stony Fork Creek (Index No. 12-26-(1 ), 4/15/63) is "C Tr". Class "C° waters are suitable for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture.
The "Tr" denotes trout waters which is a supplemental classification to protect freshwaters for
natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watershed, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project study area.
Point sources, such as wastewater discharges, located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. No NPDES
permitted facilities are located in or directly upstream from the project study area.
2-2

Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater.flow or no defined
point of discharge. Stormwater runoff from SR 1167 may reach Stony Fork Creek and cause water
quality degradation through the addition of oil or gas residuals, particulate rubber, or other sources
of contamination.
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program monitors
ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of
intolerant groups [Ephemoptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPT S)
is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data
for all species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in final site classification.
The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are
a poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. Stream and river reaches
are assigned a final bioclassification of Excellent, Good, Good/Fair, Fair, or Poor.
According to the information obtained from the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan (NCDENR, 1998), the DWQ does not have a sampling station on Stony Fork
Creek at the project study area; the closest station is located approximately 1,600 feet (488 meters)
upstream of the project site at SR 1500. The station was last sampled in July 1996 and received
a rating of Good.
2.2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area are likely to result from activities associated
with project construction, such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal,
instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement construction.
The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned
construction activities:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion in the
project study area;
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal;
2-3

• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction;
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal;
• Changes in dissolved oxygen (DO) levels;
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas;
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff;
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles; and
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project study area9 NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly enforced
during the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by limiting instream
activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading.
2-4

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on a system
used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). If a community is modified or otherwise
disturbed such that it does not fit into an NCNHP classification, it is given a name that best
describes current characteristics. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable)
are used for the plant and. animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species
include the common name only.
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are maintained/disturbed,
rich cove forest, and oak-hickory forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these
terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the
entire range of habitats found within the project study area but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community includes the road shoulders within the project study area.
Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. The dominant
species within the project study area include fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white
clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Southern harebell (Campanula divaricata), thistle (Cirsium sp.), aster
(Aster sp.), wild onion (Allium cernuum), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and plantain (Plantago sp.).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving
on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) to both living
and dead faunal components. ARuby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) was observed
during the site visit. Other species such as white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), Eastern
mole (Sca/opus aquaficus), House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis),
American Robin (Turdus migratorius) American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American Goldfinch
3-1

(Carduelis tristis), Northem Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
are often attracted to these disturbed habitats.
3.1.2 Rich Cove Forest Community
This community is found adjacent to Stony Fork Creek and its tributaries. The canopy layer includes
Eastem hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), yellow birch (Betula lutea), and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). The understory
consists of dogwood (Corpus florida), rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.), mountain pepperbush
(Clethra acuminata), and holly (Ilex opaca). The herbaceous layer includes violet (Viola sp.), trillium
(Trillium sp.), goldenrod, upland boneset (Eupatorium sessilifolium), dayflower (Commelina sp.),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and grapevine (V-tis
sp.).
Species which may reside or forage in these areas include Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor),
Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), Northem Cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), American toad (Bufo americanus), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling
caroling), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
3.1.3 Oak-Hickory Forest Community
This community is found along the hillside southwest of the bridge. The canopy layer includes white
oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), and black locust. The understory consists of
dogwood and sassafras (Sassafras a/bidum). The herbaceous layer contains miterwort (Mitella
diphylla), violet, common greenbrier, poison ivy, and honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.).
Species which may reside or forage in these areas include Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Downy
Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), Eastern Screech-owl (Otus asio), White-breasted Nuthatch
(Sitta carolinensis), Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and
Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
3-2

3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
The aquatic community in the project study area includes the Stony Fork Creek and two unnamed
tributaries. Vegetation along the stream banks includes the tree species mentioned above as well
as alder (Alnus serrulata), pale jewelweed (Impatiens pallida), spotted jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), and Joe-Pye weed (Eupatorium sp.). Mountain dusky
salamanders (Desmognathus ochrophaeus) were observed in Stony Fork Creek and the tributaries.
Stoneflies (Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), water pennies
(Coleoptera), and crayfish (Decapoda), were found under stones and woody debris in Stony Fork
Creek.
According to Mr. Kevin Hining, District 7 Assistant Fisheries Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission (NCWRC), wild brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) may be found in the Stony
Fork Creek.
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as terrestrial
impacts and aquatic impacts. Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations exhibiting
slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of
erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
The rich cove forest, oak-hickory forest, and maintained/disturbed communities serve as nesting,
foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. Removal of plants and other construction related activities
would result in the displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities
are likely to occur to ten-estrial animals from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Often,
project construction does not require the use of the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may
be considerably less.
3-3

3.3.2 Aquatic Communities
Impacts to the aquatic community of Stony Fork Creek will result from the replacement of Bridge No.
71. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic habitat. Activities such as
the removal of trees, as well as the construction of the bridge and approach work will likely result
in an increase in sediment loads and water temperatures and a decrease in dissolved oxygen.
Construction activities can also increase the possibility of toxins, such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber, entering the waterways. The combination of these factors can potentially cause
the displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of invertebrates which inhabit these
areas.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMPs.
3-4

4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods
outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the project study area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USAGE.
4.2 PERMITS
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from
the USAGE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States".
A Nationwide Permit 23 is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or part, by another federal agency or department
where that agency or department has determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment, and
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
4-1

A Nationwide Permit 33 will be required if an on-site temporary detour is needed during construction
of Bridge No. 71. This permit authorizes temporary structures, work and discharges, including
cofferdams, necessary for construction activities or access fills or dewatering of construction sites;
provided the associated primary activity is authorized by the USACE or the U.S. Coast Guard, or
for other construction activities not subject to the USACE or U.S. Coast Guard regulations.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the DWQ, will also be required. This
certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
4.2.1 Bridge Demolition
The removal of the substructure may create some disturbance in the streambed. Conditions in the
stream will raise sediment concerns since the substrate contains silt; therefore, a turbidity curtain
is recommended.
According to comments received from Mr. Kevin Hining, District 7 Assistant Fisheries Biologist for
the NCWRC, Stony Fork Creek is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water and classified as
Hatchery Supported by the NCWRC. As stated previously in Section 3.2, wild brook trout are found
in this stream; therefore, instream construction is prohibited from November 1 to March 31 to avoid
impacts on trout reproduction.
4.2.2 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
policy is to.restoreand maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United
States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization,
and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance -Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
4-2

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and
degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes.
Minimization -Minimization includes examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint
of the proposed project through reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths.
Compensatory Mitigation -Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in
each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of
the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous with the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under Section 404 Nationwide
Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.5 acres (0.2 hectares) of wetlands and/or
300 linear feet (91.4 meters) of streams.
4.3 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due to factors
such as natural forces, competition from introduced species, or human related impacts such as
destruction of habitat. Rare and protected species listed for Wilkes County and any likely impacts
to these species as a result of the proposed project construction are discussed in the following
sections.
4-3

4.3.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one federally protected species for
Wilkes County as of the March 22, 2001 listing (Table 4.3.1).
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no recorded
occun'ences of any federally protected species in the project vicinity.
TABLE 4.3.1
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR WILKES COUNTY
-Scientifc;Name; - ~ Status,, ,:
'Common Name
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
(Bog turtle)
NOTES:
T(S/A) Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance (a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection).
Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) T(S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
Bog turtles are small [three to 4.5 inches (7.6 to 11.4 centimeters)] semi-aquatic turtles that have
a dark brown carapace and black plastrons. They usually exhibit distinctive orange or yellow
blotches on each side of the head and neck.
The bog turtle inhabits shallow, spring fed fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy meadows,
pastures which have soft, muddy bottoms, and clear, cool, slow-flowing water, often forming a
network of rivulets. Bog turtles inhabit damp grassy fields, bogs, and marshes in the mountains and
upper Piedmont.
4-4

The bog turtle is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7
consultation.
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened of Endangered. FSC are defined as species that are under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 4.3.2
includes listed FSC species for Wilkes County and their state classifications (January 2001).
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats showed no recorded
occurrences of any FSC species in the project vicinity.
4-5

TABLE 4.3.2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR WILKES COUNTY
Scientific Name North `_ .' Habitat
Carolina .
(Common Name) . 'Pre"sent
<Status ` -
Dendroica cerulea
(Cerulean Warbler)
SR I Yes
Speyeria diana I SR I Yes
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Juglans cinerea I ~/5 I Yes
(Butternut)
NOTES:
SR Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation
action is recommended).
W Watch list (any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in
the state but not warranting active monitoring at this time)
4.3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat is present in the project study area for any federally protected species. According to the
NCNHP, there have been no recorded occurrences of any rare or protected species within the
project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to either federal or state listed species are anticipated.
4-6

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.
Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society- Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
Hemmerly, Thomas E. 2000. Appalachian Wildflowers. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Justice, W. S. and C.R. Bell. 1968. Wild Flowers of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginias. University of Chapel Hill Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 1998.
5-1

Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Soil
Survey of Wilkes County, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastem United States.(The Red Book). United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Southeastem Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fem Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred
Knopf Publishing, New York, New York
5-2

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Photographic Record

B-4322
Photo #2: Bridge No. 71 facing South.
Photo #1: Bridge No. 71 facing North.

B-4322
Photo #3: Stony Fork Creek facing upstream.
Photo #4: Stony Fork Creek facing downstream.

r
2,
l6
x
O
2 ~
Tmp
W ^~
I
~O
~~
Oc
z
n~
~m
~~
c
m
w
,.~
s
t
r 4'
U1 .P W N ~
'~vD~~ntn~D
~~fJpc~cD~
~~D~cn~.im
m~~Z~~~m
~Z=m=~mv
p~Dp~o~~
z ooD~Do= r
O_
~CnD=C~~ ~ G7
m~`'~n~D ~ z
~T~o~~ ~ °
°o=~?c ~
~ pmz
m m~v
~ ~
z
v

~~
~,
}
~~~
9.
.. ,~~~ ..
.~ - ~'"
/~' ~ ~
~,,
r '"~!`' ~
t '' ''~
~X
•, ~~;~
4 ...r+