R-2597_R-204DE_Nat_Resource

Draft
Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 from SR 1536 in Rutherford County to
US 221-NC 226 in McDowell County
State Project Nos. 6.899002T and 6.879005T
TIP Nos. R-2597 and R-204 D&E
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
October 2003
Prepared by:
BUCK 8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.buckengineering.com

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... I
1.1 Project Description..................................................................................................1
1.2 Methodology...........................................................................................................1
1.3 Qualifications of Principal Investigator..................................................................4
1.4 Definitions...............................................................................................................4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES........................................................................................... 5
2.1 Regional Characteristics..........................................................................................5
2.2 Geology....................................................................................................................5
2.3 Soils..........................................................................................................................6
2.4 Water Resources.....................................................................................................8
2.4.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters...............................................8
2.4.2 Best Usage Classification.........................................................................13
2.4.3 Water Quality............................................................................................13
2.4.3.1 Basinwide Assessment Report ....................................................13
2.4.3.2 Point Source Discharge Permits..................................................19
2.4.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts............................................................19
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES................................................................................................20
3.1 Terrestrial Communities........................................................................................20
3.1.1 Upland Forest.............................................................................................20
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest.......................................................................................21
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Community...........................................................21
3.2 Wildlife.....................................................................................................................21
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts........................................................................23
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities...........................................................................23
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities...............................................................................23
3.3.3 Recommendations to Minimize Impacts................................................24
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS.....................................................................................24
4.1 Waters of the United States..................................................................................24
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters....................................24
4.1.2 Permits.......................................................................................................25
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation......................................................26
4.2 Rare and Protected Species..................................................................................26
4.2.1 Species Under Federal Protection............................................................27
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status..........................................34
5.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................37
Buck Engineering
October 2003

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
TABLES
Table 1. Soils List for US 221 Improvements in Rutherford and McDowell Counties ........6
Table 2. Physical Characteristics of Streams within the Project Area...................................8
Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection in Rutherford and McDowell Counties ..........25
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Rutherford and McDowell Counties ..................32
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ............................................
Figure 2. Biotic Communities and Water Resources Map
..2
13
Buck Engineering
October 2003
ii

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) in preparation for an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed US 221 improvements in Rutherford and McDowell counties. The purpose of
this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed action.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed improvements are included as two projects in the 2004-2010 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TIP Project R-2597 is from Old US 221 (SR
1536) in Rutherford County to Goose Creek Road (SR 1153) in McDowell County. TIP
Project R 204 D&E is from SR 1153 to US 221-NC 226 (see Figure 1). The purpose of
the projects is to improve safety and traffic service along US 221. The proposed
improvements consist of widening US 221 from a two-lane roadway to a four or five -lane
roadway. The project study area extends approximately 500 feet on each side of the
existing roadway (see Figure 1).
1.2 Methodology
Published information and resources were collected prior to the field investigation.
Information sources used to prepare this report include the following:
oo United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps,
Rutherfordton North, NC Quadrangle, 1993, and Glenwood, NC Quadrangle,
1993
oo United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) Maps, Rutherfordton North, NC Quadrangle, 1994, and Glenwood, NC
Quadrangle, 1994
oo USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey for McDowell County,
1995 and Rutherford County, 2000
oo North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
basinwide assessment information (NCDENR, 1998 & 1999)
oo USFWS list of protected and candidate species, 2003
oo North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and unique
habitats, 2003
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World Wide
Web by NCDENR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS
list of protected and candidate species (January 2003). Information about species under
state protection was obtained from the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
1

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
NHP files were reviewed for documented sightings of species on state or federal lists and
locations of significant natural areas.
Buck Engineering
October 2003

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
Buck Engineering
October 2003

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
A field survey was performed on June 2 — 5, 2003 by Buck Engineering staff to inventory
natural resources such as plant communities, streams, wetlands, and habitat for federally
protected species. Plant communities were identified by visually observing and recording
dominant species. Plant taxonomy follows Radford et al. (1968). Vertebrate taxonomy
follows Potter et al. (1980), Martof et al. (1980), Webster et al. 0985), and Menhinick
(1991). Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Water resources
were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Wetlands within and near
the project area were delineated on June 3-5, 2003. Jurisdictional wetlands were
delineated and evaluated based on criteria established in the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and Guidance for Rating the
Values of Wetlands in North Carolina (NCDEHNR, 1995).
1.3 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Gregory W. Price, PWS, Senior Biologist
Education: MS, Biology, Appalachian State University, 1989
BA, Biology, Appalachian State University, 1985
Experience: Senior Biologist, Buck Engineering, 2000 to present.
Senior Engineering Technician, City of Durham Storm Water Services,
1997-2000.
Biology Instructor, Wake Technical Community College, 1993-1997.
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality, 1991-1997.
Environmental Technician, NC Division of Environmental Management,
1990-1991.
Biology Laboratory Instructor/Research Assistant, Appalachian State
University, 1985-1989.
Summer Naturalist, Duke Power State Park, 1985.
Expertise: NEPA investigations; Section 7 field investigations; wetland and stream
delineation and mitigation; water quality/biological monitoring of streams
and lakes, environmental education.
1.4 Definitions
For this report, the following terms are used to describe the limits of the natural resource
investigations. "Project study area" or "project area" refer to the areas along the full
length of the project alignment. The "project alignment" is the area of each proposed
detailed study alternative. The "project vicinity" is an area extending 0.5 miles on all sides
of the project study area. The "project region" is an area equivalent in size to the area
represented by a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map (61.8 square miles) with the project
study area occupying the center of the project region.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
L!

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The geology, soils, and water resources within the project area are discussed below with
respect to possible environmental impacts.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
The project area is located in north central Rutherford County and southeastern
McDowell County within the Southern Inner Piedmont and Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills
ecoregions (Griffith et al., 2002) of western North Carolina. This 19-mile project begins at
the proposed Rutherfordton Bypass near Old US 221 (SR 1536) and passes through the
Gilkey, Thermal City, Vein Mountain, and Glenwood communities. The project ends at
the intersection of NC 226 in Marion. The terrain within the area is mostly rolling except
for a five -mile portion near Vein Mountain where the terrain is steep and mountainous.
Elevations range from 940 to 1432 feet above sea level.
2.2 Geology
The complex geology underlying the existing US 221 region within the project area lies in
the Western Piedmont Thrust Stack Zone, and more specifically in the Inner Piedmont
Block (Horton, Jr., 1991). The Inner Piedmont Block includes metamorphic rocks such as
gneiss and schist that have been intruded by younger granitic rocks. The specific rock
types within the project area are listed below based upon the Geologic Map of North
Carolina published by the North Carolina Geological Survey in 1985.
Amphibolite and Biotite Gneiss — Interlayered; minor layers and lenses of hornblende
gneiss, metagabbro, mica schist, and granitic rock.
Biotite Gneiss and Schist — Inequigranular, locally abundant potassic feldspar and
garnet; interlayered and gradational with calc-silicate rock, sillimanite-mica schist, mica
schist, and amphibolite. Contains small masses of granitic rock.
Henderson Gneiss — Monzonitic to Grano-dioritic, inequigranular.
Inequigranular Biotite Gneiss — Weakly foliated to massive, contains plagioclase
megacrysts and, rarely, larger megacrysts of quartz and feldspar.
Metamorphosed Granitic Rock — Equigranular to megacrystic, foliated to massive.
Includes Taluca Granite.
Migmatic Granitic Gneiss — Foliated to massive, granitic to quartz dioritic; biotite gneiss
and amphibolite common.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
5

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
2.3 Soils
The process of soil development depends upon both biotic and abiotic influences. These
influences include past geologic activities, nature of parent material, environmental and
human influences, plant and animal activity, time, climate, and topographical position.
The project area includes six local soil associations: Evard-Cowee association, Hayesville-
Evard association, Iotla-Braddock-Rosman-Potomac association, Evard-Cowee-Fannin
association, Pacolet-Cecil association, and Madison-Pacolet-Grover association. A soil
association is defined as a landscape that has a distinctive proportional pattern of soils
consisting of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil. The soils within an
association can vary in slope, depth, stoniness, drainage, and other characteristics (USDA,
1995). These soil associations are described below based on information obtained from
USDA (1995, 2000). Individual soil types are described in Table 1.
The Evard-Cowee association is comprised of moderately steep or steep, well drained,
micaceous soils located on narrow, winding ridgetops and side slopes. Major soil series
within this association include Evard (59%), and Cowee (11%). These soils are all formed
in material weathered from gneiss and schist. Minor soils (30%) in the association include
Hayesville, Ashe, Chestnut, Edneyville, and Tate.
The Hayesville-Evard association consists of strongly sloping to steep, well -drained soils
that have a predominantly clayey or loamy subsoil. These soils are located on narrow
ridgetops and side slopes and are formed in material weathered from gneiss and schist.
Major soil series within this association include Hayesville (41%), and Evard (38%).
Minor soils (21%) in the association include Iotla, Colvard, Cowee, and Braddock.
The Iotla-Braddock-Rosman-Potomac association consists of nearly level to strongly
sloping, somewhat poorly drained to somewhat excessively drained soils with a
predominantly loamy, clayey, or sandy subsoil, located on nearly level floodplains and
stream terraces. These soils are formed in alluvium. Iotla (31%), Braddock (16%),
Rosman (13%), and Potomac (11%) are the major soils within the association. Minor
soils (29%) in the association include Dillard, Elsinboro, Colvard, Biltmore, and
Udifluvents.
The Evard-Cowee-Fannin association is comprised of moderately steep or steep, well
drained soils located on low mountain summits and side slopes. Major soil series within
this association include Evard (58%), Cowee (17%), and Fannin (10%). These soils are all
formed in material weathered from gneiss and schist. Minor soils (15%) in the association
include Greenlee, Tate, Bandana, and Ostin soils.
The Pacolet-Cecil association consists of gently sloping to moderately steep, very deep,
well drained soils that have clayey subsoil, located on summits and side slopes of
Piedmont divides. Major soil series within this association include Pacolet (69%) and
Buck Engineering
October 2003
C

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Cecil (17%). Minor soils (14%) in this association include Rion, Chewacla, Appling, and
Ashlar soils.
The Madison-Pacolet-Grover association consists of strongly sloping to steep, very
deep, well drained soils that have clayey subsoil, located on summits and side slopes of
Piedmont divides. Major soil series within this association include Madison, (54%),
Pacolet (21%) and Grover (10%). Minor soils (15%) in this association include Cecil,
Chewacla, and Hiwassee soils.
Table 1. Soils List for US 221 Improvements in Rutherford and McDowell Counties
mbol
Soil Unit Name
Ip
Sloe
General Characteristics
ApB
Appling sandy loam
1-6%
Well drained soil, found on summits and
footslopes of Piedmont divides.
BrC2
Braddock clay loam, eroded
2-6%
Well drained, gently sloping soils, found on high
stream terraces along many of the larger streams.
CaB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, eroded
2-8%
Well drained soil, found on summits of
Piedmont divides.
CaF
Chestnut-Ashe complex, stony
25-80%
Somewhat excessively well drained soil, found
on mountain ridgetops and side slopes.
ChA
Chewacla loam, occasionally
0-2%
Somewhat poorly drained soil, found on
flooded
Piedmont floodplains.
CoA
Colvard loam, occasionally flooded
0-2%
Well drained soil, found on floodplains along
streams in the intermountain areas.
EsB
Elsinboro loam, rarely flooded
14%
Well drained, gently sloping soils, found on low
stream terraces along many of the larger streams.
EvD
Evard loam
10-25%
Well drained, moderately steep soil, found on
mountain ridgetops.
EvE
Evard-Cowee complex
30-50%
Well drained soil, found on summits and
sideslopes of mountain divides.
EwE
Evard-Cowee complex
25-60%
Well drained, steep soil, found on mountain side
slopes.
FvA
Fluvaquents-Udifluvents complex,
0-2%
Somewhat poorly drained (Fluvaquents),
occasionally flooded
moderately well drained to well drained
(Udifluvents) soils, found on mountain
floodplains.
HaC
Hayesville loam
6-15%
Well drained, strongly sloping soil found on
intermountain foothills and ridgetops.
HcC2
Hayesville clay loam, eroded
6-15%
Well drained, strongly sloping soil found on
ridgetops in intermountain areas and foothills.
HeD
Hayesville-Evard complex
15-25%
Well drained, moderately steep soil, found in
intermountain areas and on side slopes of
foothills.
HuC
Hayesville-Urban land complex
6-15%
Well drained, strongly sloping soil, found
ridgetops and side slopes in intermountain areas
and foothills.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
VA

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Symbol
Soil Unit Name
S' owe
General Characteristics
IoA
Iotla sandy loam, occasionally
0-2%
Somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soil,
flooded
found on mountain floodplains adjacent to
streams.
MaD2
Madison clay loam, eroded
15-25%
Well drained soil, found on summits and
sideslopes of Piedmont broad and narrow
interstream divides.
PaC2
Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded
8-15%
Well drained soil, found on summits and
sideslopes of Piedmont divides.
PaD2
Pacolet sandy clay loam, eroded
15-25%
Well drained soil, found on summits and
sideslopes of Piedmont divides.
PtB
Potomac cobbly loamy sand,
1-5%
Somewhat excessively drained, nearly level to
frequently flooded
gently sloping soil, found on floodplains at the
headwaters of the major mountain streams.
PxA
Potomac-Iotla complex, mounded,
0-3%
Somewhat excessively drained to somewhat
frequently flooded
poorly drained, nearly level soil, found on
floodplains adjacent to streams.
RaE
Rion sandy loam
25-45%
Well drained soil, found on sideslopes of
Piedmont divides.
Uo
Udorthents, loamy
0-60%
Consists of areas that have been cut or filled
during grading for roads, railroads, dwellings,
recreational areas, and similar uses.
Ur
Urban land
Consists of areas covered by more than 85%
impervious surfaces.
2.4 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics likely
to be impacted by the proposed project (determined by field survey), best usage
classifications, and water quality aspects of the water resources. Probable impacts to
surface waters are also discussed, as well as means to minimize impacts. Impacts to the
water resources will be calculated once detailed study alternatives are established.
2.4.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The majority of the proposed project is located within the Broad River Basin, DWQ
subbasin 030802 (USGS 8-digit Hydrological Unit 03050105). The major tributary within
the project area, in this subbasin, is the Second Broad River. The northern end of the
project area is located in the Catawba River Basin, DWQ subbasin 030830 (USGS 8-digit
Hydrological Unit 03050101). The major tributary within this section of the project area is
North Muddy Creek.
Seventy-eight intermittent/perennial surface waters are located in the project area. These
include eighteen unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek, Cathey's Creek and ten
Buck Engineering
October 2003

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
unnamed tributaries to Cathy's Creek, three unnamed tributaries to Cherry Creek, Stoney
Creek, Rockhouse Creek (two crossings), Scrub Grass Branch, Second Broad River and
twenty-four unnamed tributaries to the Second Broad River, three unnamed tributaries to
Stanfords Creek, Goose Creek and one unnamed tributary to Goose Creek, North Muddy
Creek and four unnamed tributaries to North Muddy Creek, one unnamed tributary to
Hick's Branch, Youngs Fork and five unnamed tributaries to Youngs Fork. The streams
are listed in Table 2 and their locations are illustrated in Figure 2.
Table 2. Physical Characteristics of Streams within the Project Area
Average
Average
Stream
Stream
Stream
NCDWQ
Channel
Channel
Benthic Substrate
Best Usage
No
Name
Index No.
Width in
Depth in
Composition
Classification
Inches
1
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
4
1
Boulder, Cobble,
WS-V
Creek
(0*
Gravel, Sand
2
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
4
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Creek
(0*
Sand, Clay
3
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
4
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Creek
(0*
Sand, Clay
4
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
4
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Creek
(0*
Sand, Clay
5
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
4
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Creek
(0*
Sand, Clay
6
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
3
1
Gravel, Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
7
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
l 5-2.0
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
8
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
9
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
10
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
1 1
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
12
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
4
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Creek
(0*
Sand
13
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
14
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
15
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
16
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
1.5
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
17
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0*
Buck Engineering
October 2003
E

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Average
Average
Stream
Stream
NCDWQ
Channel
Channel
Benthic Substrate
Best Usage
No.
Name
Index No.
Width in
Depth in
Composition
Classification
Feet
Inches
18
UT to Mountain
9-41-12-6-
3-4
1
Sand, ClayWS-V
Creek
(1)*
19
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
20
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
2-6
2
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
Sand
21
Cathey's Creek
9-41-13-
30
8
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
(0.5)
Sand
22
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
3 4
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
Sand
23
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
2 3
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
Sand, Clay
24
UT to Cherry
9-41-13-5*
1.5
1
Gravel, Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
25
UT to Cherry
9-41-13-5*
2.5
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
26
UT to Cherry
9-41-13-5*
1.5
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
27
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
2-3
1
Sand
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
28
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
1-1.5
0.5
Sand
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
29
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
2.5-3
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
30
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
1.5-2
1
Sand, Clay, Silt
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
31
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
32
UT to Cathey's
9-41-13-
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Creek
(0.5)*
33
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
3
1
Gravel, Sand
WS-V
Broad River
34
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
3
1
Sand, Silt
WS-V
Broad River
35
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
2
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Broad River
36
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
1.5
1
Sand, Clay
WS-V
Broad River
37
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
4
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Broad River
Sand
38
Stoney Creek
9-41-9
12
6
Bedrock, Cobble,
WS-V
Gravel, Sand
Buck Engineering
October 2003
WE

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
Average
Average
Stream
Stream
NCDWQ
Channel
Channel
Benthic Substrate
Best Usage
No.
Name
Index No.
Width in
Depth in
Composition
Classification
Feet
Inches
39
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
1
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Broad River
Sand
40
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
6
6
Sand, Silt
WS-V
Broad River
41
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
1
1
Sand
WS-V
Broad River
42
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
1
1
Sand
WS-V
Broad River
43
Rockhouse Creek
9-41-8-1
3
2
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
and
44
Rockhouse Creek
9-41-8-1
6
2
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
and
45
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
2-3
1
Bedrock Boulder,
WS-V
Broad River
Sand
46
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
2
1
Bedrock, Boulder,
WS-V
Broad River
Sand
47
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
2
0.5
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Broad River
Sand
48
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
3
1
Gravel, Sand
WS-V
Broad River
49
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
3-4
1
Boulder, Cobble,
WS-V
Broad River
Gravel, Sand
50
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
2
1
Boulder, Cobble,
WS-V
Broad River
Gravel, Sand
51
Scrub Grass
9-41-6
12
6
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Branch
Sand
52
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
1.5
1
Sand, Gravel
WS-V
Broad River
53
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
2-3
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Broad River
Sand
UT to Second
Bedrock, Boulder,
54
Broad River
9-41-(0.5)*
10
2.5
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Sand
55
Second Broad
9-41-(0.5)
25
8
Boulder Cobble
WS-V
River
Sand, Gravel
56
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
2
1
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Broad River
Sand
UT to Second
Bedrock, Boulder,
57
Broad River
9-41-(0.5)*
15
4
Cobble, Gravel,
WS-V
Sand
58
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
3-4
1
Boulder, Cobble,
WS-V
Broad River
Gravel, Sand
Buck Engineering
October 2003
11

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Average
Average
Stream
Stream
NCDWQ
Channel
Channel
Benthic Substrate
Best Usage
No.
Name
Index No.
Width in
Depth in
Composition
Classification
Feet
Inches
UT to Second
Boulder, Cobble,
59
Broad River
9-41-(0.5)*
3
1
Gravel, Sand
WS-V
60
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
15
30
Sand
WS-V
Broad River
61
UT to Second
9-41-(0.5)*
1
1
Sand
WS-V
Broad River
62
UT to
11-32-1-2-
1.5
1
Gravel, Sand
C
Stanfords Creek
1*
63
UT to
11-32-1-2-
2
1
Gravel, Sand
C
Stanfords Creek
1*
64
UT to
11-32-1-2-
1-1.5
1
Sand
C
Stanfords Creek
1*
65
Goose Creek
11-32-1-2
12
3
Cobble, Gravel,C
Sand
66
UT to
11-32-1-2*
2
1
Sand, Silt
C
Goose Creek
UT to
67
North Muddy
11-32-1*
3-4
1
Gravel, Sand
C
Creek
UT to
68
North Muddy
11-32-1 *
2
1
Gravel, Sand
C
Creek
69
North Muddy
11-32-1
15
6
Boulder, Cobble,
C
Creek
Gravel, Sand
UT to
Cobble, Gravel,
70
North Muddy
11-32-1*
4
1
Sand
C
Creek
UT to
71
North Muddy
11-32-1 *
1.5
1
Gravel, Sand
C
Creek
72
UT to
11-32-1-1 *
5
2
Cobble, Gravel,
C
Hicks Branch
Sand
73
UT to
11-32-1-4*
1.5-2
1
Gravel, Sand
C
Youngs Fork
74
UT to
11-32-1-4*
5
2
Cobble, Gravel,
C
Youngs Fork
Sand
75
UT to
11-32-1-4*
8
3-4
Boulder, Cobble,
C
Youngs Fork
Gravel, Sand
76
UT to
11-32-1-4*
4-5
2
Cobble, Gravel,
C
Youngs Fork
Sand
77
UT to
11-32-1-4*
3
2
Piped, Gravel, Sand
C
Youngs Fork
Buck Engineering
October 2003
12

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Average
Average
Stream
Stream
NCDWQ
Channel
Channel
Benthic Substrate
Best Usage
No.
Name
Index No.
Width in
Depth in
Composition
Classification
Feet
Inches
78
Youngs Fork
11-32-1-4
15-20
g
Boulder, Cobble,
C
Gravel, Sand
Note:
* Unnamed tributaries (UT) carry the same surface water classification as the water body into which they
empty.
2.4.2 Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that is
designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. The project
area is located within the Broad River (Second Broad River) and Catawba (North Muddy
Creek) watersheds. The Second Broad River and its tributaries within the project area are
classified as Class WS-V (Water Supply V) water bodies (NCDENR, 2000). Class WS-V
waters have no categorical restrictions on watershed development or wastewater
dischargers like other WS classifications, and local governments are not required to adopt
watershed protection ordinances. North Muddy Creek and its tributaries are classified as
Class C water bodies. Class C water resources are used for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. There are no restrictions
on watershed development activities.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II)
or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study
area.
2.4.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potential impacts to water quality from point and non -point sources are evaluated. Water
quality assessments are based upon published resource information and field study
observations.
2.4.3.1 Basinwide Assessment Report
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for each of
the 17 river basins within the state. The Environmental Sciences Branch within the Water
Quality Section of the DWQ collects biological and physical data for use in basinwide
assessment and planning. River basins are reassessed every five years. The Basinwide
Assessment Program assesses water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate
(benthos) organisms throughout North Carolina. The monitoring sites will vary according
to needs assessed for a particular basin. Monitoring of benthos is conducted concurrently
Buck Engineering
October 2003
13

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
with monitoring of physical parameters in preparation for wastewater discharger permit
renewals for specific basins. Benthic macroinvertebrates
Buck Engineering
October 2003
14

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
Buck Engineering
October 2003
15

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
Buck Engineering
October 2003
10

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
Buck Engineering
October 2003
17

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
Buck Engineering
October 2003
IN

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
are important indicator organisms and are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality;
thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality.
The streams within the project area have not been sampled as part of this monitoring
program. However, some of the streams have been sampled downstream of the project
area. These streams include Mountain Creek, Cathey's Creek and Second Broad River (4
stations). The water quality of these streams ranged from Fair to Good based on ratings
in August 2000. No streams within the project area are listed on the DWQ 303d list of
impaired streams.
2.4.3.2 Point Source Discharge Permits
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All
dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. No permitted dischargers are
located in or upstream of the project area. Glenwood Elementary School, a minor
permitted discharger located near the northern end of the project, discharges to Goose
Creek downstream of the project area.
2.4.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Widening US 221 will affect many named streams and unnamed tributaries. Impacts to
water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities associated with
project construction, such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy
removal, instream construction, extending or replacing existing pipes and culverts, bridge
replacement, fertilizers and pesticides in revegetation, and pavement installation. The
following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the above -
mentioned construction activities:
oo Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
oo Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
oo Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and groundwater flow from construction.
oo Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
oo Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
oo Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
oo Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
oo Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
19

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will need to be strictly
enforced during the construction phase of the project. Limiting instream activities and
revegetating streambanks immediately following the completion of grading can further
reduce impacts.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of 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 relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Representative animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on
published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific nomenclature and common names
(when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent
references to the same species are by the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Most of the US 221 improvement project area is comprised of forested communities. The
forest communities are generally classified as upland forest and floodplain forest. The
forest community boundaries, however, are not well defined between each distinct
community. A maintained community located along roadsides, low residential areas, and
pastures also exists within the project area.
3.1.1 Upland Forest
Signs of logging within the last 25 to 40 years were evident along most reaches of the
project area. This community is dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), northern red
oak (Quercus rubra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), hickories (Carya spp.), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), blackgum (Nyssa
sylvatica), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), red maple (Acer rubrum), white pine
(Pinus strobus), pitch pine (Pinus rigida), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana). The
understory plants include flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), redbud (Cercis canadensis), sassafras (Sassafras albidens), blueberry
(Vaccinium spp.), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), foamflower (Tiarella
cordifolia), may -apple (Podophyllum peltatum), mapleleaf arrowwood (Viburnum
acerifolium) poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and greenbrier (Smilax spp.).
Rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and eastern
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) were present along the northern portion of the project area.
Most of the upland forest community closely represents the Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest natural community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Along the lower
slopes where American beech was prevalent, the community transitions into a Mesic
Buck Engineering
October 2003
ME

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Mixed Hardwood Forest natural community described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
The northern section of the project area consisting of eastern hemlock, rhododendron,
and mountain laurel resembles an Acidic Cove Forest as described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990).
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest
This community is located on floodplains adjacent to streams. Sections of this
community showed signs of recent logging or clearing. Dominant canopy trees include
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red
maple, tulip poplar, river birch (Betula nigra), and black willow (Salix nigra).
Understory plants include tag alder (Alnus serrulata), hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), greenbrier, honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), blackberry (Rubus spp.), red mulberry (Morus rubra), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy, wild
grape (Vitis spp.) and Christmas fern. Yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima),
rhododendron, eastern hemlock, highland doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana), wild
hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens) and witch -hazel (Hamamelis virginiana) were
present in some sections of the Second Broad River watershed. The floodplain forest
community corresponds to the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Montane
Alluvial Forest natural communities as described in Schafale and Weakley (1990).
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Community
This community encompasses habitats that have recently been or are currently impacted
by human disturbance, such as landscaped lawns, maintained roadside right-of-ways, and
pasture land. Because of mowing and periodic clearing, this community is kept in a
constant state of early succession. This community is made up of a diverse community
of grasses, herbs, and vines including fescue (Festuca spp.), panic grasses (Panicum
spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Heal-all (Prunella
spp.), sunflowers (Helianthus spp.), coreopsis (Coreopsis spp.), beggar ticks (Bidens
spp.), tick -trefoils (Desmodium spp.), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata), Queen Anne's
Lace (Daucus carota), Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), wild grape, asters (Aster spp.), morning glory (Ipomoea
spp.), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans). Transitions of this community with other
communities (upland forest and floodplain forest) also exist.
3.2 Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones for
foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals and birds
associated with ecotones and forest communities are least shrew (Crypototis parva),
southern short -tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), hispid cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus),
Buck Engineering
October 2003
21

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), and common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula). The project area may be host to a
variety of summer residents including red -eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), black -and -white
warbler (Mniotilta varia), hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), scarlet tanager (Piranga
olivacea), and Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii). Game birds and other
non -song birds that inhabit the area include ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), wood duck (Aix sponsa), American woodcock (Phillohela
minor), and various woodpeckers.
Reptiles likely to be found in the study area include the five -lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), broadhead skink (E. laticeps), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), ring -neck snake (Diadophus punctatus), garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortix). The streams in the area
provide breeding opportunities for many amphibians. Common amphibian residents in
the project area may include northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus),
blackbelly salamander (D. quadramaculatus), two -lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineata), redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), slimy salamander (P. glutinosus),
eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), spring salamander (Gyrinophilus
porphyritus), red salamander (Pseudotriton Tuber), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog (R. clamitans), pickerel frog (R.
palustris), wood frog (R. sylvatica), American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (B.
woodhousei), and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer).
The streams within the project area appear to support a variety of benthic
macroinvertebrates including mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, damselflies,
beetles, midgeflies, craneflies, and crayfish. The DWQ data collected downstream of the
project area exhibited a fairly high diversity of these organisms.
Based upon the DWQ fish data collected downstream (North Muddy Creek, Cathey's
Creek, and Second Broad River) of the project area, common fish species in the larger
creeks within the project area may include darters (Etheostoma spp.), shiners (Notropis
spp., Cyprinella spp., Percina spp.), sunfishes (Lepomis spp.), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), Rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), silver redhorse
(Moxostoma anisurum), striped jumprock (Scartomyzon rupiscartes), bullheads
(Ameirus spp.), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus
dolomieui), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).
Buck Engineering
October 2003
22

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 ME
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial
communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the
natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the plants
and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by project
construction from clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial community area.
However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less. Impacts to the terrestrial communities will be
calculated once detailed study alternatives are established.
Destruction of natural communities within the project area will result in the loss of
foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal
species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and
some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals
and less mobile species may suffer direct loss during construction.
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic habitat in the study area will be both directly and indirectly affected by the
construction of the project. Direct impacts will include the destruction of habitat by the
placement of culverts at stream crossings. Impacts to aquatic communities include
fluctuations in water temperatures as a result of the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter
and food resources, both in the aquatic and terrestrial portions of these organisms' life
cycles, will be affected by losses in the terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants
and animals will affect terrestrial fauna, which rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction and
recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments have the potential to
affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of
gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools
and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased
sedimentation may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Dissolved oxygen rates may be lower as well due to the influx of organic materials and
increase in water temperature.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
23

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Construction of this project should comply with the smallmouth bass moratorium
established by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). The instream
work and land disturbance within the 25-foot buffer moratorium runs from May 1 to
July 15. Both Rutherford and McDowell Counties are also trout counties, which may be
subject to a trout moratorium established by the WRC. However, the streams in the
project area do not appear to support trout (personal conversation with the WRC on
September 13, 2002) and therefore, will not be subject to a trout moratorium during
project construction.
3.3.3 Recommendations to Minimize Impacts
Measures to minimize terrestrial and aquatic impacts should include:
oo Strict enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control
sedimentation during project construction.
oo Minimizing clearing and grubbing activity.
oo Limiting or eliminating discharges into streams.
oo Reduction of fill slopes at stream/wetland crossings.
oo Sensitive placement of drainage structures.
oo Use of spanning structures or bottomless culverts over streams.
oo Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and
herbicide management.
oo Scheduling "in -stream" activity during dry or low flow periods.
oo Use of responsible litter control practices.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state regulatory
issues: "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
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). These waters are regulated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material
into surface waters or wetlands is subject to these provisions.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Table 2 lists and describes the physical characteristics of all surface waters within project
area. A total of 78 streams are located within the project area.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
24

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Wetlands within the project area that are shown on the NWI map (Glenwood, NC quad)
all lie within the Second Broad River's floodplain, east of the railroad tracks. These
wetlands are described as "palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily
flooded (PFOIA)" according to Cowardin's (1979) classification. Wetlands shown on the
NWI map may not meet "jurisdictional" status according to the USACE Wetlands
Delineation Manual (1987). Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence
of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. No impacts to these wetlands are
anticipated since impacts to the railroad system are not being considered.
Two wetlands delineated within the project area in Rutherford County lie along perennial
streams (see Figure 2, Sheet 2). These wetlands are not shown on the NWI map.
Wetland 1 appears to be a remnant of an artificial impoundment at the confluence of
Stream Nos. 29 and 30, both unnamed tributaries to Cathey's Creek. It is approximately
0.13 acres in size. Dominant vegetation for Wetland 1 consists of green ash, red maple,
wild raisin (Viburnum nudum), tag alder, Chinese privet, water primrose (Ludwidgia spp),
Japanese grass, sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilus), sedge (Carex spp.), and soft rush
(Juncus effusus). Wetland 1 exhibits wetland hydrology indicators including inundation,
distinctive wetland pattern, and water -stained leaves. Soils, recorded as 10YR4/2 for the
matrix, exhibits hydric soil indicators including low chroma color and aquic moisture
regime. The DWQ wetland rating for Wetland 1 is 68 out of a possible 100.
Wetland 2 is located approximately 0.5 miles north of Wetland 1 and is adjacent to
Stream No. 34, an unnamed tributary to the Second Broad River. It is a headwater forest
approximately 0.03 acres in size. Dominant vegetation for Wetland 2 includes green ash,
red maple, hornbeam, sedge, and Virginia creeper. Wetland 2 exhibits wetland hydrology
indicators including saturation in upper 12 inches, water marks, sediment deposits, and
distinctive wetland drainage patterns. Soils, recorded as 10YR4/1 for the matrix, exhibits
hydric soil indicators including low chroma color and aquic moisture regime. The DWQ
wetland rating for Wetland 2 is 55 out of a possible 100.
4.1.2 Permits
Due to the placement of fill associated with stream crossings over jurisdictional surface
waters (i.e. wetlands and surface waters), it will be necessary to obtain permits from the
USACE and the DWQ. A final permitting strategy cannot be developed until an
alignment footprint has been determined, and construction impacts are quantified.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state to certify that state water
quality standards will not be violated for activities which either involve issuance of a
federal permit or license or require discharges to Waters of the United States. The
USACE cannot issue a Section 404 permit until a 401 certification is issued. Therefore,
NCDOT must apply to the DWQ for 401 Water Quality Certification as part of the permit
process. If impacts are less than 150 linear feet of stream and less than 0.33 acres of
wetland, a General 401 Certification applies. However, if impacts are greater than these
Buck Engineering
October 2003
25

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
thresholds, the DWQ will have independent authority above USACE regulations to
require mitigation.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetland" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical
and biological integrity of "Waters of the United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation
of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance 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 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, "appropriate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts must be determined. 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.
Some unavoidable impacts to surface waters and wetlands will result from roadfill and
stream crossings.
Minimization includes the 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 the reduction of
median widths, right-of-way widths, and/or fill slopes.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
"Waters of the United States" have been avoided and minimized to maximum extent
practicable. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation
is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been achieved. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation of "Waters of the United States,"
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site if practicable.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural forces or
their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and protected species listed
Buck Engineering
October 2003

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
for Rutherford and McDowell counties, and any likely impacts to these species as a result
of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 Species Under Federal Protection
Plants and animals with a federal classification 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.
The USFWS lists species under federal protection for McDowell (4 species) and
Rutherford (5 species) counties as of January 29, 2003 (USFWS, 2003). These species
are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection in Rutherford and McDowell Counties
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
County
Biological
0011
Conclusion
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Bog turtle
T (S/A)
McDowell
N/A
Gymnoderma lineare
Rock gnome lichen
E
Rutherford
No Effect
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald eagle
T (PD)
McDowell
No Effect
Hexastylis naniflora
Dwarf -flowered
T
Rutherford
Unresolved
heartleaf
Hudsonia montana
Mountain golden
T
McDowell
No Effect
heather
Isotria medeoloides
Small whorled
.I.
McDowell,
Unresolved
pogonia
Rutherford
Myotis sodalis
Indiana bat
E
Rutherford
No Effect
Sisyrinchium dichotomum
White irisette
E
Rutherford
Unresolved
Notes:
oo "B - Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
oo "T - Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
oo "S/A - Similarity of Appearance" denotes a species that closely resembles in appearance to an
endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in
differentiating between the listed and unlisted species. The southern population of the bog turtle is
listed as T (S/A) due to Similarity of Appearance with the northern population of the bog turtle
(which is federally listed as Threatened and which does not occur in North Carolina).
oo "PD - Proposed for delisting" denotes a species that has been proposed by the USFWS for delisting
from the list of federally endangered and threatened wildlife. However, at the present time, the
species is still on the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and is thus protected under the ESA.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species follows,
along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
27

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
Federal Status: Threatened Due to Similar Appearance
Animal Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
Bog turtles are small (3 to 4.5 inches) turtles with a weakly keeled carapace (upper shell)
that ranges from light brown to ebony in color. The species is readily distinguished from
other turtles by a large, conspicuous bright orange to yellow blotch on each side of its
head. Bog turtles are semi -aquatic and are only infrequently active above their muddy
habitats during specific times of year and temperature ranges. They can be found during
the mating season from June to July and at other times from April to October when the
humidity is high, such as after a rain event, and temperatures are in the seventies. Bog
turtle habitat consists of bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and other wet environments,
specifically those that have soft muddy bottoms. The southern populations of bog turtles
(VA, TN, NC, SC, and GA) are listed as threatened due to similar appearance to northern
bog turtles that are listed as threatened. The southern bog turtle population is not fully
protected under the ESA, but may not be possessed, sold, traded, or collected. In the
northern states (CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA) bog turtles are fully protected under
the ESA (USFWS, 2002a).
The NHP files indicate a known population of bog turtles (first recorded in May 1993) in a
marshy meadow or degraded Southern Appalachian bog ("Vein Mountain Meadow
Bog") adjacent to Second Broad River and SR 1781 in McDowell County approximately
0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) south of SR 1802 junction. Dennis Herman of the NC Museum
of Natural Sciences stated that this is a known reproducing population. He said that these
turtles are utilizing the Second Broad River floodplain near the project area. He also
stated that transient bog turtles may use stream corridors, roadside ditches, and even
travel overland in dispersal route (personal communication with Dennis Herman on June
19, 2002).
As more detailed design information becomes available, more intensive surveys for the
bog turtle may be recommended in the Second Broad River floodplain area adjacent to
the project area. A Biological Conclusion is not required since T (S/A) species are not
afforded full protection under the ESA.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen)
Federal Status: Endangered
Lichen Family: Cladoniaceae
Date Listed: January 18, 1995
Rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen of the reindeer moss family. This species is
the only member of its genus occurring in North America. It occurs in small, dense
colonies of narrow, strappy, leaf -like pads. These strap -like lobes are usually blue -gray on
Buck Engineering
October 2003

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
the upper surface and generally shiny white on the lower surfaces. The fruiting -bodies are
borne at the tips of the strap -like lobes and are black, in contrast to the red to brown
fruiting -bodies of other reindeer moss lichens. These lichens fruit from July through
September. The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains of
North Carolina and Tennessee. They primarily inhabit vertical rock faces in areas of high
humidity such as river gorges or areas frequently bathed in fog. Most populations occur
above an elevation of 5000 feet (Russo, 2000).
Buck Engineering
October 2003
Wt

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area lacks high humidity environments such as deep river gorges or other seepy
wet rock faces. The highest elevation in the study area is approximately 1432 feet, well
below the elevations preferred by this species. A search of the NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats, conducted on May 30, 2003, shows no occurrences of this
species in the project areas. Therefore, no impacts to this species are anticipated during
the project construction.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Federal Status: Threatened (Proposed for Delisting)
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: March 11, 1967
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The
body plumage is dark -brown to chocolate -brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within 0.5 mile) with a clear flight path
to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are
the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitat exists for the bald eagle within the project area. A search of the NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on May 30, 2003, shows no
occurrences of this species in the project area. Therefore, no impacts to this species are
anticipated during the project construction.
Hexastylis naniflora (Dwarf -flowered heartleaf)
Federal Status: Threatened
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf is a low -growing, spicy -smelling, evergreen perennial herb.
Leaves are heart -shaped, alternate, leathery, untoothed, and 1.6 to 2.4 inches wide. Each
leaf is supported by a long, thin stalk, which rises directly from the subsurface rhizome.
This species has the smallest flowers of any North American plant in the genus
Hexastylis. The solitary flowers are fleshy, firm, grow at the end of the short stalks, and
often are found under forest litter and leaves near the base of the leafstalks. Every year,
each rhizome section produces one leaf, one flower, and a leaf scale. The flowers are jug -
Buck Engineering
October 2003
30

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
shaped, less than 0.4 inches long, and have a narrow sepal tube, ranging in color from
brown to greenish or purple. Flowering occurs from mid -March to early June; fruiting
begins in late May (Russo, 2000).
This plant grows along bluffs and north -facing slopes, boggy areas along streams, and
adjacent hillsides and ravines in rich deciduous forests. It is usually associated with
mountain laurel or pawpaw and requires acidic, sandy loam soils. The species needs
Pacolet, Madison gravelly sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam soils to grow and
survive. Provided the soil type is right, the plant can survive in either dry or moderately
moist habitat. For maximum flowering, the plant needs sunlight in early spring.
Creekheads where shrubs are rare, and bluffs with light gaps are the habitat types most
conducive to flowering and high seed production. Seed output is lowest in bluff
populations with a lot of shade (USFWS, 2002b).
Found in the upper piedmont regions of South Carolina and North Carolina, this species
has 24 known populations in an eight -county area. North Carolina has one population in
Catawba County, two in Lincoln County, and three populations each in Rutherford,
Cleveland, and Burke Counties. Both of the Lincoln County sites are in serious trouble.
One site may be lost, and the other has only 160 healthy plants. A third known Lincoln
County site was destroyed. Rutherford County also supported another site, but it was
eliminated by road construction. In addition to its known range, the plant may occur in
isolated areas in northwestern Gaston County, western Iredell County, and Yadkin
County, all in North Carolina (USFWS, 2002a).
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on May 30,
2003, shows no occurrences of this species in the project area. However, potential habitat
does exist in the project area for the dwarf -flowered heartleaf. An intensive field survey
needs to be conducted in April to early May to determine the presence of dwarf -flowered
heartleaf in the project area. This survey needs to be conducted prior to the completion of
the environmental document.
Hudsonia montana (Mountain golden heather)
Federal Status: Threatened
Plant family: Cistaceae
Federally Listed: October 20, 1980
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 across and about 6
inches high, and sometimes is seen in larger patches of a foot or two 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 inches long, and the plant is often somewhat yellow -green in
color, especially in shade. The leaves from previous years persist scale -like on the older
Buck Engineering
October 2003
31

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
branches. The flowers appear in early or mid -June, and are yellow, nearly an inch across,
with five blunt -tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. The fruit capsules are on 0.5-inch
stalks, roundish, and with three projecting points at the tips. These fruits often persist
after opening, and may be seen at any time of the year. Mountain golden heather begins
flowering in about its third year, and roots vegetatively at the edges once they form well-
rounded clumps, after perhaps 10 years. Large, well -rooted clones may become
fragmented into separate, self -maintaining plants. The majority of the existing plants
appear to have developed in this manner (USFWS, 2002a).
This plant is found only in Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, at elevations
of 2,800 to 4,000 feet. 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 (USFWS, 2002a).
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.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No potential habitat exists in the project area for the mountain golden heather. The
known populations are found in elevations well above the project area elevations. Also
no heath balds are present within the project area. A search of the NHP database of rare
species and unique habitats, conducted on May 30, 2003, shows no occurrences of this
species in the project area. Therefore, no impacts to this species are anticipated during the
project construction.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia)
Federal Status: Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1982
Small whorled pogonia is a small perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These plants
arise from long slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or six light
green leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish -green to
white petals and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring from
mid -May to mid -June. Populations of this plant are reported to have extended periods of
dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This small spring ephemeral orchid is not
observable outside of the spring growing season. When not in flower, young plants of
Indian cucumber -root (Medeola virginiana) also resemble small whorled pogonia.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
32

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus Medeola, which
has a solid, more slender stem (USFWS 2002b).
Small whorled pogonia may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically
grows in open, dry deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soil. It also
grows in rich, mesic woods in association with white pine and rhododendron (Russo,
2000).
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on May 30,
2003, shows no occurrences of this species in the project area. However, potential habitat
does exist in the project area for the small whorled pogonia. An intensive field survey
needs to be conducted in mid -May to June to determine the presence of small whorled
pogonia in the project area. This survey needs to be conducted prior to the completion of
the environmental document.
Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat)
Federal Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: March 11, 1967
The Indiana bat is 3.5 inches long, with mouse -like ears, plain nose, dull grayish fur on the
back and lighter cinnamon -brown fur on the belly. Its "wingspread" is 9.5 inches to 10.5
inches. From early October until late March and April, Indiana bats hibernate in large
clusters of hundreds or even thousands of individuals in limestone caves and abandoned
mines, usually near water. During summer the females establish maternity colonies of
two dozen to several hundred individuals under the loose bark of dead and dying trees or
shaggy -barked live trees like the shagbark hickory. Hollows in live or dead trees are also
used. Most roost trees are usually exposed to the sun and are near water. Males and
nonreproductive females typically roost singly or in small groups. Roost trees can be
found within riparian areas, bottomland hardwoods and upland hardwoods (Russo,
2000).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A survey for the Indiana bat is not required within the project area, based upon an internal
NCDOT memorandum dated July 2, 2002. A biological conclusion of No Effect was
rendered after representatives from the NCDOT and the USFWS reviewed physical data
including county listing, river basin information, and aerial photography for the project.
Also, a search of the NHP database on May 30, 2003 found that no populations have been
recorded in the project area.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
33

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (White irisette)
Federal Status: Endangered
Plant family: Iridaceae
Federally Listed: September 26, 1991
White irisette is a perennial herb with branching stems 4 to 8 inches tall. Leaves at the
base of the plant are pale to bluish green and grow to one-third to one-half the height of
the plant. The flowers are tiny, occurring in clusters of four to six at the tops of winged
stems. Flowering occurs from late May to July. The fruit is a pale to medium brown
capsule containing three to six rounded black seeds (Russo, 2000).
White irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North and South Carolina. It is
currently known from four populations in North Carolina and one in South Carolina.
North Carolina's extant populations are in the following counties: Polk (six populations),
Henderson (one population), and Rutherford (one population). The Greenville County,
South Carolina, site is contiguous with one of the Polk County, North Carolina, sites.
This species has apparently always been a narrow endemic, limited to an area in the
Carolinas bounded by White Oak Mountain, Sugarloaf Mountain, Chimney Rock, and
Melrose Mountain. Two of the remaining populations are within highway rights -of -way
and a third is inside a commercial recreation area (USFWS, 2002a).
White irisette occurs on rich, basic soils probably weathered from amphibolite. It grows
in clearings and the edges of upland woods where the canopy is thin and often where
down -slope runoff has removed much of the deep litter layer ordinarily present on these
sites. The irisette is dependent on some form of disturbance to maintain the open quality
of its habitat. Currently, artificial disturbances, such as power line and road right-of-way
maintenance (where they are accomplished without herbicides and during a season that
does not interfere with the reproductive cycle of this species), are maintaining some of the
openings that may have been provided historically by native grazing animals and naturally
occurring periodic fires (USFWS, 2002a).
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, conducted on May 30,
2003, shows no occurrences of this species in the project area. However, potential habitat
does exist in the project area for the white irisette. An intensive field survey needs to be
conducted in late May to July to determine the presence of white irisette in the project
area. This survey needs to be conducted prior to the completion of the environmental
document.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
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
Buck Engineering
October 2003
34

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 4 includes FSC species
listed for Rutherford and McDowell Counties and their state classifications. Organisms
that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list
of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979. However, the level of protection given to state -listed species does not apply to
NCDOT activities.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Rutherford and McDowell Counties
Scientific Name
Common Name
Counties
NC Status
Habitat
Present
Vertebrates
Aneides aeneus
Green salamander
Rutherford
E
Yes
Contopus borealis
Olive -sided flycatcher
McDowell
SC
No
Dendroica cerulea
Cerulean warbler
McDowell,
SR
Yes
Rutherford
Myotis leibii
Eastern small -footed
Rutherford
Sc
No
myotis
Neotoma floridana
Southern Appalachian
McDowell,
Sc
Yes
haematoreia
woodrat
Rutherford
Neotoma magister
Alleghany woodrat
McDowell
Sc
Yes
Pituophis melanoleucus
Northern pine snake
Rutherford
Sc
No
melanoleucus
Invertebrates
Caecidotea carolinensis
Bennett's Mill Cave
McDowell
SR
No
water slater
Speyeria diana
Diana fritillary
McDowell
SR
Yes
butterfly
Plants
Carex roanensis
Roan sedge
McDowell
SR-T
No
Chelone cuthbertii
Cuthbert's turtlehead
McDowell
SR-L
Yes
Delphinium exaltatum
Tall larkspur
McDowell
E-SC
Yes
Hymenocallis coronaria
Rocky shoal spider lily
McDowell
W3
Yes
Buck Engineering
October 2003
35

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
Scientific Name
Common Name
Counties
NC Status
Habitat
Present
Juglans cinerea
Butternut
McDowell,
W5a
Yes
Rutherford
Lilium grayii
Gray's lily
McDowell
T-SC
Yes
Monotropsis odorata
Sweet pinesap
McDowell,
SR-T
Yes
Rutherford
Saxifraga caroliniana
Carolina saxifrage
Rutherford
SR-T
Yes
Senecio millefolium
Divided -leaf ragwort
Rutherford
T
Yes
Shortia galacifolia var.
Northern oconee-bells
McDowell
E-SC
Yes
brevistyla
Silene ovata
Mountain catchfly
Rutherford
SR-T
Yes
Solidago simulans
Granite dome
Rutherford
SR-L
No
goldenrod
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora
or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
SC A Special Concern species is one that 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
Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated
material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also 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.
SR-L A Significantly Rare species whose range is limited to North Carolina and adjacent states.
SR-T A Significantly Rare species that is rare throughout its range (fewer than 100 populations).
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.
W3 A Watch Category 3 species is a species that has been reported in North Carolina without adequate
documentation.
W5a A Watch Category 5a species is a species that has declined sharply in North Carolina, but which
does not appear yet to warrant site -specific monitoring.
Buck Engineering
October 2003
at

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. and J.T. Finnegan, eds. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat,
T.F. MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina
and South Carolina, (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and
photographs). US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Horton, Jr., J.W. and V.A. Zullo, editors. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas: Carolina
Geological Society fifteenth anniversary volume. The University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, Tennessee.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan, eds. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List
of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
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.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. 1998. Basinwide Assessment Report of the Broad River Basin. NC Division of
Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. 1999. Basinwide Assessment Report of the Catawba River Basin. NC Division
of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDEHNR. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina.
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina. " Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome.html (27 Jul 2000).
Buck Engineering
October 2003
37

Natural Resources Technical Report
US 221 Improvement, TIP Nos. R-2597 & R-204 D&E
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. Personal communication made with Dennis
Herman on June 19, 2002.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Personal communication made with
Marla Chambers on September 13, 2002.
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 G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Russo, M. and J. M. Sweeney. 2000. Threatened and Endangered Species in Forests of
North Carolina: A Guide to Assist with Forestry Activities. International Paper Company
USACE Environmental Laboratory. 1987. US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y 87-1. US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey for McDowell
County, North Carolina.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2000. Soil Survey for Rutherford
County, North Carolina.
USFWS. 2002a. http://endangered.fws.gov/
USFWS. 2002b. http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html.
USFWS. 2003. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of
Concern, by County, in North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Buck Engineering
October 2003