Amendment 0002 - NP-BLRI 2B13 2H17 Etc.pdf

(x)

693C7322B000004 x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

ASHBURN VA 20147

ATTN: CONSTRUCTION

693C73

SUITE E2-3-300

QUANTUM PARK, 22001 LOUDOUN COUNTY PKWY

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

ASHBURN VA 20147

ATTN: ACQUISITIONS

693C73

SUITE E2-3-300

QUANTUM PARK, 22001 LOUDOUN COUNTY PKWY

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

See Block 1401/21/20220002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

12/16/2021

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Project NP-BLRI 2B13, 2H17, ETC

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

1) Repost the Environmental Report

2) Revise Solicitation B-Pages.

3) Revise plans sheets.

4) Revise Solicitation J-pages (Special Contract Requirements, SCRs) to make required changes.

5) Respond to bidder questions.

6) The bid opening date remains January 25, 2022, at 2:00 pm EST.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Amendment 0002

Info Page 1 of 3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Amendment No. 0002

Project NP-BLRI 2B13, 2H17, ETC

Blue Ridge Parkway

Solicitation: 693C73-22-B-000004

The purpose of this Amendment is to:

1) Repost the Environmental Report

2) Revise Solicitation B-Pages.

3) Revise plans sheets.

4) Revise Solicitation J-pages (Special Contract Requirements, SCRs) to make required changes.

5) Respond to bidder questions.

6) The bid opening date remains January 25, 2022, at 2:00 pm EST.

Solicitation B Pages Changes

Revised quantities and description for pay items 30101-4000, 40101-0100, 62403-0000 and

62502-0000

Plan Sheets Changes

1) Replaced plan sheets B01 through B08, C01 through C07, C09 through C10, and C18 through C25 and added plan sheet S14A.

Solicitation J Pages Changes

1) Add the following to Subsection 608.06 of the SCRs, page J-70:

Recondition waterway. Clean existing waterways including the removal of all debris, leaves, plant growth, and sediment. Repoint mortar in accordance with Section 620. Reset singular loose stones in accordance with Section 620.

2) Replace entire Section 305 of the SCRS with the new SCR Section 305 with Amendment 2.

Info Page 2 of 3

Bidders Questions

Question 1: The following question regarding Recondition Paved Waterway, Type 3 (Concrete

& Rubble) on the referenced project has been asked by a potential subcontractor and after review I concur that the question should be posed to FHWA for clarification. See below:

“I sorry to ask this but I can't find the details anywhere. Pay Item 60802-0300 Paved waterway, type 3 (concrete and rubbled paved) is on page 151. But for pay item 60815-0300 Reconditioned

" " there is no description. I've looked and couldn't find a spec book either. Can you find out what "reconditioned" means?

Also, in the plans there is a typical section for Type 5 Recondition but not for Type 3.

Response: See revised detail sheet.

Question 2: Sheet B03 in the plans showing the typical section for “Asphalt Concrete Pavement

Replacement” shows reconditioning the existing aggregate base prior to placing the new asphalt in Note #5. The note also says place additional aggregate base as directed by the CO. While there is a line item for Aggregate Base Grading (C or D), the summaries do not show that quantities have been provided for additional stone in the Overlook locations. Section 303 of the

Specifications does not address the extra stone.

How is the extra stone in the overlook roadbed reconditioning to be compensated? Or is it supposed to be incidental to the Roadbed Reconditioning item? The plans and specs are not clear as far as payment.

Response: If the CO determines that additional aggregate is required to be imported at the overlook locations, it will be compensated under pay item 30101-4000.

Question 3: With regards to Turf Establishment on the referenced project, there is only 1900 square yards in the quantity. Will this line item be an overrun to compensate for the Turf

Establishment (seeding & mulching) on the project that would need to be utilized for the shoulder items, ditch items, pavement water ways, pipe work, etc., i.e., anywhere with land disturbance? The General Contract Requirements nor the FHWA Specifications indicate that this is incidental to the associated line items and appears seeding and mulching should be paid under the Turf Establishment line item per Section 625.

Response: Additional Quantity added, see amendment 2.

Info Page 3 of 3

Question 4: I need some clarification on the grade of liquid asphalt for the referenced project.

• Special Contract Requirement 401.03 (page J-38) says “use a polymer modified asphalt binder performance grade PG 64-28 or PG 76-22 for surface asphalt”. It also states to use PG 64-22 or better for non-surface asphalt.

• The 2-line items for surface asphalt, 40401-0100 3/8” nominal size & 40101-0500 1/2” nominal size specifically states PG 64-22.

• The typical sections in the plans on sheets B01-B08 refers to PG 64-22 for both mix types on all typicals.

Given the reference to PG 64-22 specifically called out in the line items and typical sections, we have assumed we should price this project using PG 64-22. Given the contradiction, typically the line item description and plans would overrule.

Can you please clarify that a liquid grade of PG 64-22 is expected to be incorporated into the asphalt mixes of this project?

Response: The surface mix must contain a polymer binder in the mix so either PG 64-28 or PG

76-22 binder grades as stated in the Special Contract Requirements. A base course of asphalt can be PG 64-22 (non-polymer binder) or better. See revised typical sections.

ymer binder) or better. See revised typical sections.

PRELIMINARY WETLAND AND WATERS SUMMARY REPORT

CONTRACT #47QRAA18D00BP

NPS/FHWA PROJECT BLRI 2B13-2H17

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN MILEPOST 229-305

BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY, NORTH CAROLINA

PREPARED FOR:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

22001 LOUDOUN COUNTY PKWY

SUITE E2-3-300

ASHBURN, VA 20147

PREPARED BY:

CASTLE HILL ASSOCIATES, LLC

1197 FARNSWORTH ROAD, UNIT E

WATERVILLE, OH 43566

www.castlehillassociates.com

GSA SCHEDULE: 47QRAA18D00BP

September 15th, 2021

Contents

ABSTRACT

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY

2.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

3.0 PRELIMINARY RESOURCE DATA REVIEW

3.1 FWS HQ ES National Wetlands Inventory Data

3.2 North Carolina DEQ Stream Classification Data

3.3 USGS Topographic Maps Data

4.0 METHODS AND PROCEDUERS

4.1 Milepost Marker Verification

4.2 GPS Field Data Collection

4.3 WOTUS and Flow Determination

4.3.1 Stream Classification Verification

4.4 Wetland Identification

4.4.1 Wetland Sample Plots

4.4.2 Wetland Boundary, Size, and Classification

4.5 Vegetation Community Characterization

4.5.1 Dominant Community Type

4.5.2 DBH Tally

4.5.3 Invasive Species Cover

4.6 Quality Control and Assurance

5.0 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

5.1 Flow Determination

5.2 NCDEQ Stream Classification Verification

5.3 Wetland Determination

5.4 Vegetation Characterization

5.4.2 DBH Talley

5.4.3 Invasive Species Cover

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Preliminary WOTUS Determination

6.2 Preliminary Wetland Jurisdictional Determination

6.3 Vegetation Community and Invasive Species

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

8.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

9.0 REFERENCES

ABSTRACT

Castle Hill Associates conducted a preliminary Wetland and Waters survey for the Federal Highway Administration and the National Park Service for the proposed roadway and drainage improvement work along a 76-mile portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway between Milepost 229 and Milepost 305 from August 16th thru August 22nd. The purpose of the survey was to identify jurisdictional wetlands and waters located within 25 feet of each culvert inlet and outlet and 100 feet from each bridge location in order to guide future permitting needs. GPS coordinates, Photos, Stream Classification Verification, Wetland Determination and Classification, Vegetation Community Characterization, and DBH and Invasive Species Abundance data was collected at each sampling location.

In total, 293 of the 319 listed culverts and all 28 bridges were located during the sampling effort. Of the culverts and bridges located, 67 perennial and intermittent Jurisdictional Waters and 98 Ephemeral Non-Jurisdictional Drainage Channels were identified using the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Final Rule definitions. A total of 13 Trout Streams, 1 High-Quality Water, and 7 Outstanding Resource Waters classifications were verified in the field. Using both the USACE and NPS delineation criteria, 71 wetlands were identified within the limits of the project area. 31 wetlands were classified as Palustrine Emergent, 26 Palustrine Forested, 11 Riverine Rock Bottom, 1 Palustrine Scrub Shrub, and 2 wetlands contained multiple Cordwain classes. Most of the identified wetlands (48) were associated with either Perennial or Intermittent waters whereas 23 wetlands were associated with Ephemeral or No-Channel locations and most wetlands occurred directly in the riparian zone of the associated drainage channel or as a fringe wetland at the toe of the adjacent slope.

A preliminary assessment of all 71 identified wetlands indicated that 55 would likely be considered Jurisdictional and pursuant to Section 404/401 of the Clean Water Act. These jurisdictional wetlands either directly abut or have a likely surface water connection to an existing WOTUS. Conversely, the remaining 13 identified Wetlands would be considered Non-Jurisdictional/ Isolated. Due to the small, proposed impact size, it is unlikely that any of the isolated wetlands would require section 401 water quality certification permitting from the North Carolina Department of Water Resources pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0300. Although impacts to any isolated wetlands as part of routine culvert and bridge maintenance activities are likely considered Excepted Actions under section 4.2 of the NPS DO 77-1 procedural manual, coordination with NPS may be required to ensure a Wetland Statement of Findings is not required. A total of 3 wetlands were not given a jurisdictional classification due to limited data. The vegetation communities within the specified distances of the Sites consisted largely of Mixed Hardwood Forests with few (27) containing no trees with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) less than 3 inches. Common tree species consisted of Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Birch (Betula sp.), Paw Paw (Asimina triloba), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), White Pine (Pinus strobus), Red Oak (Quercus rubrum), and Great Laurel (Rhododendron maximum) and were common at almost all sampling locations. The most common and potentially problematic invasive plant species identified throughout the project area was Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium vimineum), being observed at almost 2/3 of sampled Sites.

Recommendations include (1) Proceed with a full Wetland Delineation and WOTUS assessment to confirm findings, (2) Coordinate with NPS WRD and prepare a Wetland Statement of Findings, if required and (3) prepare an Invasive Species Management plan to help mitigate unwanted spread of Stilt Grass and other invasive plants.

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY

Castle Hill Associates (CHA) conducted a preliminary Wetland and Waters survey for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Park Service (NPS) for the proposed roadway and drainage improvement work along a 76-mile portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway between Milepost 229 and Milepost 305 in Allegheny, Ashe, Avery, Caldwell, Watauga, and Wilkes Counties, North Carolina. The purpose of this preliminary survey was to locate 319 Culverts and 28 Bridge locations identified along the Blue Ridge Parkway and to determine the presence of Jurisdictional wetlands and waters, as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the state, with the purpose of identifying jurisdictional wetlands within the project area. This report was prepared in support of any subsequent applications and prepared by CHA for the FHWA.

The Sites were assessed using the 1987 U.S Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and associated 2012 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional supplement along with the National Parks Service 2016 Procedural Manual #77-1 for Wetland Protection. Additionally, stream flow classification was determined using the NCDEQ standards and the definitions contained in the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (Final Rule) that went into effect on June 22, 2020. The field investigation was conducted Between August 16th thru August 22nd and lead by Alex Duncan representing Castle Hill associates along with a team of trained technicians consisting of Sam Ansara, Aaron Bersee, Kevin Corbin, Lian Zadeng, Dana Samuelson, Ben Thompson, Phil Bailey and Walt Smith.

The data and recommendations expressed in this report are preliminary and have not yet been reviewed by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and/or the National Parks Service and is subject to revision based on review by those agencies.

2.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

The project area consisted of a 76-mile stretch along the Blue Ridge Parkway in Northwest North Carolina near the Municipalities of Boone, and West Jefferson. The scope of work consisted of locating Culverts and Bridges along the roadside and sampling the surrounding landscape for wetlands and waters and to characterize the general vegetation community that exists within the appropriate sample distances. Much of the project area consisted of sampling along steep slopes and in densely wooded habitats. Below is a brief overview of the vegetation and topography of the various sampling regions along the Parkway:

Mile Marker 229-233 – Consisted of relatively flat topography dominated by a mix of Oak (Quercus sp.) and Pine (Pinus sp.) woodlands with Pastoral and Private lands. Brush and Little Glade creek follow the parkway in several locations. Elevation averaged around 3,000 feet above sea level.

Mile Marker 233-243 – Consisted of a steeper/ dryer landscape with more topographic relief and rock outcroppings. The vegetation was dominated by mixed hardwood forests consisting of Maple (Acer sp.), Oak (Quercus sp.), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and White Pine (Pinus strobus). Mostly undeveloped and public parklands exist throughout this section. Air Bellows Gap, Doughton Campground, Brinegar Cabin, and several scenic overlooks dominate the landscape. Few riverine systems are found in this area and elevations average around 3,500 feet.

Mile Marker 243-253 – Consisted of a 10-mile stretch of relatively flat topography dominated by private and pastoral lands. Although mixed hardwood forest consisting of Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Birch (Betula sp.), and Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) still dominate the vegetation community, many more emergent and scrubby habitats exist. The Meadow Fork, Peak Creek and Laurel Fork Rivers provide more water in this area resulting in more available moisture and opportunity for wetlands. Soils were thicker and were generally classified as loamy. Elevation is lower at around 3,100 feet.

Mile Marker 253-267 – Consisted of a mix of steeper hills and pastoral valleys. Harwood forest consisting of Maples (Acer sp.), Oaks (Quercus sp.), Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Birch (Betula sp.) and White Pine (Pinus strobus) dominate the landscape. Fewer larger stream systems occur in this area and the overall less moisture seems available for wetland establishment. Soils are rockier and thinner and the elevation averages around 3,300 feet.

Mile Marker 267-282 – Consisted of an overall steeper landscape with large topographic relief and higher overall elevations at around 3,700 feet. Thicker hardwood forests dominate the landscape with few open/pastoral lands observed. Tree species such as Red Maple (Acer Rubrum), Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Birch (Betula sp.), Red Oak (Quercus rubrum) and White Pine (Pinus strobus) were the dominate species observed. The soils seemed much rockier and drier, resulting in a more open understory with fewer Great Laurel (Rhododendron maximum) dominated sites. Many scenic overlooks and public parks lands occur in this region.

Few major rivers and wetland complexes exist.

Mile Marker 282-293 – Consists of a mix of steeper wooded hills and open pastoral lands.

Lots of private property and grazing lands exists. Hardwood forests consisting of Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Red Oak (Quercus rubrum) and Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) dominate the vegetation with Great Laurel (Rhododendron maximum) in the understory. Many more rivers such as the Sandpit Branch and the East and West Branch of the New South Fork River flow through this area. Elevation is variable but averages around 3,500 feet.

Mile Marker 293-299 – Consists of a relatively flat landscape dominated by major river systems, such as the Boone Fork, Simms and Cold Prong Creek, that run adjacent to the parkway for many miles. This added moisture leads to Great Laurel (Rhododendron maximum) dominated understory communities and larger probability of wetlands. The Canopy is once again dominated by Facultative hardwoods such as Red Maple (Acer Rubrum), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Paw Paw (Asimina triloba) and Birch (Betula sp.) with Great Laurel (Rhododendron maximum) in the understory. Elevation was lower at around 3,400 feet.

Mile Marker 299-305 – Runs through the unique Grandfather Mountain area consisting of steep slopes, rock outcroppings and canyons. Stream systems are rocky and steep allowing limited ability for palustrine wetland formation. Vegetation is dominated by Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Paw Paw (Asimina triloba) and Birch (Betula sp.) with Great Laurel (Rhododendron maximum) in the understory. Lands are mostly public with many scenic overlooks and hiking trails. Soils are thin and rocky and the elevation is the highest of any sampling region at around 4,300 feet.

3.0 PRELIMINARY RESOURCE DATA REVIEW

A Preliminary desk review of available wetland, soil, and hydrologic data was reviewed prior to conducting field sampling. GIS field maps consisting of existing stream, wetland, topography, and mile marker locations were used in the field to guide crews and to help the wetland and waters verification process. A summary of the preliminary data collected and used for this project is listed below:

3.1 FWS HQ ES National Wetlands Inventory Data

The Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States GIS data was downloaded from North Carolina One Map and used to direct field sampling and to verify if any Mapped National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands exist in the project area. This data set represents the extent, approximate location and type of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the United States and its Trust Territories.

These data delineate the areal extent of wetlands and surface waters as defined by Cowardin et al.

(1979).

3.2 North Carolina DEQ Stream Classification Data

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Stream Classification GIS Data was downloaded and overlaid in ArcMap to determine if existing Trout, High Quality, or Outstanding Quality streams or associated tributaries intersect any of the sampling locations. All mapped stream classification features were verified in the field.

3.3 USGS Topographic Maps Data

Available USGS Topographic map data was downloaded and used as the Arc GIS base map for field surveys. Elevation data was used by field crews to help determine location of possible wetlands and natural stream valleys.

4.0 METHODS AND PROCEDU

A field sampling plan was developed to collect all data required by the FHWA for the 319 Culverts and 28 Bridge locations identified along the Blue Ridge Parkway. The preliminary data referenced above was used to direct field sampling efforts and to make sure all previously mapped wetlands, streams, and other important environmental features are surveyed within the identified distances of each sampling area. Specifically, the field sampling plan and associated data sheet included the following:

Verification of the milepost marker in the Field at each sampling location.

Lat/Long of Culvert inlet/outlet, bridge locations, and all identified stream and wetland features.

Waters of the U.S. determination to include flow determination (Intermittent or Perennial) according to NCDEQ standards.

Field verification of NCDEQ Stream Classification data.

Wetland identification and classification according to the USACE, NPS, and NCDEQ.

Characterize the vegetation community surrounding each sampled culvert or bridge to include dominant community type.

Identify any trees with DBH greater than 3” within the identified survey area.

Record any invasive plant species observed within the identified survey area.

Field crews used a Trimble Geo 7X handheld GPS unit to locate and verify each culvert inlet and outlet location. Coordinates provided by the FHWA were pre-loaded into each GPS unit and used in the field to navigate to each culvert and bridge location. Once located, the following information was collected at each sampling Site:

4.1 Milepost Marker Verification

Survey Crews verified the Milepost Marker in the field closest to the identified sampling location and recorded on the data sheet if any discrepancies existed.

4.2 GPS Field Data Collection

At each culvert inlet/outlet and bridge location, Survey Crews recorded Latitude and Longitude coordinates with a handheld Trimble GEO 7X unit. Points were labeled with the Site number followed by either an In or Out to distinguish between the Culvert Inlet or Outlet point. Additionally, coordinates of all wetland data plots were collected and labeled with the Site number and associated Cowardian classification.

4.3 WOTUS and Flow Determination

At each sampling location the Survey Crew evaluated the flow conditions of the stream or drainage channel. The water was classified as either Perennial, Intermittent, or Ephemeral according to the NCDEQ standards and the definitions contained in the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (Final Rule) that went into effect on June 22, 2020. The Survey Crew evaluated the channel both upstream and downstream of the bridge or culvert and identified the appropriate flow classification and recorded the dominant feature/s used to make the determination. Flow identifying features for Perennial and Intermittent waters used by the Survey Crews are summarized below and closely followed the 2010 Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins version 4.11 developed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.

Geomorphic Indicators

1. Clearly Defined Bed and Banks

2. Sinuosity along thalweg throughout sampling reach

3. In-channel Structure Development (Riffle, Pool, Run)

4. Particle Size Distribution in Channel

5. Active/Relict Floodplain

6. Depositional Bars/Benches

7. Recent Deposits of Alluvial material in channel of floodplain

8. Headcuts Upstream

9. Grade Control (i.e., Bedrock/LWD creates grade change)

10. Natural Valley/ Depressional Area

11. Second or Greater Channel Order

Hydrologic Indicators

1. Presence of Baseflow > 48 hours since last significant rainfall event.

2. Iron Oxidizing Bacteria

3. Leaf litter accumulation in the active channel.

4. Sediment on plants in Channel/Floodplain

5. Organic debris drift lines/piles

6. Soil oxidation as resulting from high water table.

Biological Indicators

1. Fibrous roots near hyporheic zone.

2. Rooted upland plants in streambed (indicator of Ephemeral Channel)

3. Aquatic Fauna (i.e., Macroinvertebrates, Mollusks, Fish, Crayfish, Amphibians, etc.)

4. Algae

5. Wetland Plants in Streambed (FACW/OBL)

4.3.1 Stream Classification Verification

At each sampling location the Survey Crew verified the NCDEQ Stream Classification Data in order to confirm if all identified Trout Stream, High-Quality Water or Outstanding Resource Water classifications are accurate in the field. The Survey Crew recorded all visual observations in the field that either support or deny the identified Stream Classification. Examples of visual observations are listed below and are based off the N.C. Stream Assessment and EPA Rapid Bioassessment Methodologies. The lack of features observed is not a guarantee that the NC Stream Classification is inaccurate.

Channel Flow Status (i.e., Water Reaches Both Banks).

Epifaunal Substrate Available (i.e., Snags, LWD, Undercut Banks, Cobble Boulders).

Channel Structure Present (Riffle, Pool, Run) Low Embeddedness (Siltation on Cobble, Gravel, Boulders, etc.).

Un-Altered/Natural Stream Profile Channel Stability (i.e., bank instability) Hydrologic Connectivity in the Floodplain No Visual Water Quality Impairments (Odor, Sediment, Color, Algae, etc.…) Bed Form and Substrate (Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, etc...)

Aquatic Life Observed Streamside Wetlands Present Stream Shading (i.e., instream canopy cover) Wide Riparian Buffer Width Riparian Buffer Structure (i.e., Densely wooded/natural vegetation vs. Mowed/Pasture).

Woody Stem Density/Count (Low, Medium, High).

4.4 Wetland Identification

Within 25 feet of each culvert inlet/outlet and within 100 feet of each bridge location the Survey Crew evaluated the potential for any USACE, NPS, and NCDEQ wetlands. If wetland conditions were suspected, Field Crews completed a 1987 U.S Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region data form.

4.4.1 Wetland Sample Plots

In all suspected wetland areas, Survey Crews established a representative sample plot that best characterizes the conditions of the Site. All sample plots utilized standard transect sample areas of 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer, 15-foot radius for the shrub/sapling layer, and 30-foot radius for trees and woody vines unless otherwise restricted in the field. Within each sampling plot, all dominant and at least 80% of the overall vegetation present within their respective stratum layers and transect distances was identified. The absolute percent cover and wetland indicator status of each species was used to calculate the dominance test to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present. When necessary, the prevalence index and other vegetation indicators was utilized.

Hydrologic indicators observed within the sample plot were recorded and wetland hydrology was considered present if at least one primary indicator and /or at least two secondary indicators were observed. In each sample plot a representative soil testing pit was dug to at least 18 inches, if feasible, to observe field indicators of hydric soils. A representative sample of the soil matrix and redox concentrations, if applicable, were colored using the 2009 Munsell Soil-Color Chart. The color, value, and chroma of each representative matrix and redox feature was listed in the soil section of the data sheet along with the appropriate hydric soil indicator, if applicable.

4.4.2 Wetland Boundary, Size, and Classification

Survey Crews did not complete a full delineation of identified wetland boundaries and no flags or demarcations were installed in the field. Instead, for all identified wetlands, Survey Crews took a representative photo, Lat/Long points, and estimated the relative size of the wetland feature. The Cowardin classification was also listed, or each wetland identified.

4.5 Vegetation Community Characterization

The vegetation community within the respective sampling areas at each Site was visually assessed by the Survey Crews. The dominant vegetation community, relative number of stems with DBH >3” and the dominant species and relative cover of Invasive plants was recorded at each Site.

Additionally, Survey Crews determined if the vegetation community was Continuous or restricted to either the Upstream or Downstream locations only.

4.5.1 Dominant Community Type

The Survey Crews determined the dominant vegetation community type at each Site using methods that closely follow the classification system identified in the North Carolina Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina manual. Vegetation classifications for the mountains and piedmont areas were considered and are summarized below.

Northern Hardwood Forest: Canopy dominated by combinations of mesophytic tree species, primarily Fagus, Betula, and Aesculus with Acer, Fraxinus, and Prunus.

Beech Hardwood Forest: Open or closed canopy of stunted trees, generally with a dense herb layer and little understory or shrub layer development. Fagus grandifolia is the most typical canopy species, though Aesculusflava (octandra) or Betula alleghaniensis (lutea) sometimes occur.

Oak Dominated Forest: Closed to somewhat open canopy dominated by Quercus sp. Can have fairly dense shrub layers.

Conifer Dominated Forest: Canopy strongly dominated by Abies fraseri or Picea rubens.

Grassy Bald: Herbaceous species dominate with patches of shrubs and small trees. Mainly

Danthonia compressa, Potentilla, Carex, Agrostis, and moss.

Heath Bald: Shrubs dominate, usually Kalmia latifolia and Rhododendron Boulderfield Forest: Closed to a somewhat open canopy, usually strongly dominated by

Betula alleghaniensis (lutea), sometimes with Aesculus flava (octandra) or Tilia americana var. heterophylla.

Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest: Canopy dominated by a mixture of bottomland trees such as Platanus occidentalis, Betula nigra, Celtis laevigata, Acer negundo, Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus sp., Liriodendron tulipi-fera, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Ulmus americana, Carya cordiformis, Juglans nigra, and Carya ovata. With understory and shrubs.

Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest: Canopy dominated by mixtures of flood-tolerant species, such as Liquidambar styraciflua, Ulmus americana, Quercus sp., Acer rubrum, Salix nigra, Populus heterophylla, and Fraxinus pennsylvanica. Understory Generally absent or dominated by Ulmus and Illex sp.

Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest: Canopy dominated by various bottomland trees such as Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua, Quercus, Ulmus americana, Celtis laevigata, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Pinus taeda, Carya ovata, and Carya cordiformis.

Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest: Forest with open to dense understory or shrub layer and sparse to dense diverse herb layer. Canopy a mixture of bottomland and mesophytic trees, including Betula nigra, Platanus occidentalis, Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Ulmus americana, Celtis laevigata, Juglans nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Carya cordiformis, Carya ovata, Quercus imbricaria, Acer rubrum.

Swamp Forest-Bog Complex: Forest with closed or open canopy and open or dense shrub layer, interspersed with small boggy openings in depressions. Tsuga canadensis or Acer rubrum are usually the dominant trees. Also contains a spruce dominated subtype.

High/Low Elevation/Hillside Seep: Generally, an open to dense bed of wetland herbs. Seeps are often small enough that they may be substantially shaded by trees, rooted in adjacent communities, but some are extensive and open.

Disturbed: Category will be used for any mowed or other location with active vegetation management.

Other: Category will be used when none of the above categories are present.

4.5.2 DBH Tally

Survey Crews determined the relative number of trees with DBH greater than 3” located within the survey area at each Site as either None observed or having Low, Medium, or High abundance.

4.5.3 Invasive Species Cover

Survey Crews recorded if any invasive plant species were present within the survey area at each Site.

If observed, the relative abundance of the dominant invasive plant was recorded as Low, Medium, or High.

4.6 Quality Control and Assurance

In an effort to ensure consistent data collection occurred among the multiple sampling crews, onsite training and Quality Control measures were implemented. Prior to starting field activities, a 2-hour field training event was held on the morning of August 16th. An abridged version of the Field Sampling Plan methods (Appendix A) was provided to each crew along with all supporting data sheets, maps, data tables, and reference materials. A brief discussion and Q&A session occurred at the hotel detailing the expectations of each crew and explaining the data collection and recording process.

Crews were then given GPS units and Cameras and trained on how to navigate and collect Lat/Long coordinates and to take consistent culvert and bridge photos. Following the training at the hotel, crews headed out in the field and reconvened at the Grandview Overlook for a field training. Each crew was shown the data collection process in the field and allowed to collect sample data at a nearby culvert location (C544). Once crews were comfortable with the data collection process they were allowed to proceed on their own in the field. At the end of each sampling day, Field Crews coordinated with Project Manager Alex Duncan and turned in all completed data sheets for review. GPS data was collected and processed each day to ensure accuracy and to record any sites that were not located or had unacceptable data standard deviations.

Following the field data collection effort, Project Manager Alex Duncan stayed behind several days to process and QA/QC data. Alex surveyed the entire 76-mile project area over a 2-day period attempting to collect any missed data and to re-sample sites for future comparison. Additional GPS Points, Photos, Data Sheets were completed in the field as needed. Alex also investigated suspected wetland areas that were not previously identified by the Survey Crews.

5.0 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

In total, 293 of the 319 listed Culverts were geolocated and surveyed during the field survey effort.

Of the 26 unlocated culverts, the majority were listed as not found by the FHWA from previous survey efforts. Many of the located culverts had specific inlets or outlets that were not located in the field. This was often due to steep/ unsafe terrain near culvert outlets or excessive vegetation growth that impeded the Survey Crews ability to visually locate the culvert feature.

Additionally, Survey Crews had difficulty determining the precise location of the culvert feature from the Lat/Long coordinates provided by the FHWA. When navigating to a specific culvert feature, in many instances the provided coordinates were up to 100 feet away from the actual culvert feature in the field. When coordinates positioned the Survey Crews in the middle of two culvert features, crews used the supplemental descriptors such as culvert size and material, to make the final field location determination. Of the 26 unlocated culverts, field data sheets were still completed by the Survey Crews to characterize the surrounding area and to determine if any wetlands still exist. All of the 28 Bridge locations were located and surveyed. A complete summary table of all the data collected is available in appendix B. It includes Site Name, Milepost Marker verification, GPS Coordinates, Flow Classification (NC = No Chanel, E = Ephemeral, I = Intermittent, P = Perennial), NCDEQ Stream Class Verification, Wetland Determination and associated Location, Cordwain Classification and Size Estimate, Vegetation Community Characterization Descriptor and Location, and Relative abundance of stems with DBH >3” and Invasive Species Cover. Full copies of all field data sheets are available in appendix C. Data sheets contain additional data used by the Survey crews to make their classification determinations such as dominant tree species and flow classification indicators. A discussion of each data collection section is below:

5.1 Flow Determination

A total of 36 Perennial and 31 Intermittent drainage channels were identified (Appendix B). Of the remaining sites a total of 98 Ephemeral Channels and 179 No Channels were observed. Many of the unlocated culverts in the field were classified as having No Channel due to the lack of observable drainage features in the suspected culvert location area by the Survey Crew. Due to the heavy rains that occurred earlier in the sampling week the majority of the sites had observable flow during sampling. Therefore, baseflow was not a reliable indicator of perennial or intermittent flow status.

Indicators such as Bed and Banks, Sinuosity, Rifle, Pool, Run sequences, Active Floodplain, Headcuts, and Grade Control structures were commonly observed indicators of Perennial and Intermittent streams. Ephemeral channels were most characterized with indicators of Leaf Litter Accumulation and Organic Drift Lines.

5.2 NCDEQ Stream Classification Verification

A total of 13 Trout Streams, 1 High-Quality Water (HQW), and 7 Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) were recorded (Appendix B). Of the verified Trout Streams in the field all but 2 were associated with Perennial waters. Ephemeral channels C438 and C439 were listed as a Trout Stream by the Survey Crew because of their close proximity to Fall Creek. The outlet of those culverts drains almost directly into the adjacent Trout Stream. For the majority of NCDEQ verified Streams, almost all of the possible field indicators were observed. Conversely, none of the listed streams would be considered inappropriately classified based on the field observations made by the Survey Crews. Although outside of the scope of this project, several of the stream channels sampled during this project have high potential to be futured listed as Trout, HQW, and ORW locations, specifically streams observed in the Grandfather Mountain and nearby areas.

5.3 Wetland Determination

A total of 71 wetlands were identified during the field sampling effort (Appendix D). Of which, 56 wetlands were identified using the 1987 USACE and associated regional supplement criteria and an additional 15 wetlands were identified based on the National Park Service Procedural Manual #77-1 Wetlands Protection (2016) criteria. Of all 71 identified wetlands, 31 wetlands were classified as Palustrine Emergent (PEM), 26 Palustrine Forested (PFO), 11 Riverine Rock Bottom (RRB), 1 Palustrine Scrub Shrub (PSS), and 2 wetlands were mixed, containing multiple classes. Of the identified wetlands, 24 were listed as continuous, spanning both upstream and downstream, while 27 wetlands were located only at the downstream end of the culvert or bridge and 20 were located only at the upstream end. When comparing size class determinations for the wetlands identified, 30 were classified as small (0-1 Acre in size), 33 were identified as ranging between 1-5 acres, and 8 wetlands were classed as 5-20 acres in size. None of the identified wetlands were classified as being larger than 20 acres. The majority of wetlands (48) identified were associated with either Perennial or Intermittent waters whereas 23 wetlands were associated with Ephemeral or No Channel locations. (Appendix B). The wetland narrative descriptions (Appendix D) list a vast majority of wetlands occurring directly in the riparian zone of the associated drainage channel or as a fringe wetland at the toe of an adjacent slope. Vegetation within the identified wetlands was generally consistent among classification types. Emergent wetlands were generally dominated by Jewel Weed (Impatiens capensis), Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Deer-Tongue Grass (Dichanthelium clandestinum), Lady Fern (Athyrim Felix-femina), and a mix of Goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and Sedges (Carex sp.).

Forested wetlands were typically dominated by a canopy consisting of Red Maple (Acer rubrum), River Birch (Betula nigra), and Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) with Great Laurel (Rhododendron mamimum), Kidneyleaf Buttercup (Ranunculus abortivus), False Nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and Lady Fern (Athyrim Felix-femina) in the understory and herb layer. Oftentimes, it was the herbaceous layer that help determine the presence or absence of the forested wetland systems. Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Birch (Betula sp.), and Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) trees were largely dispersed throughout all sampling locations, but the presence of these Facultative (FAC) and Facultative Wet (FACW) herbs were often found growing along the stream channels and other wooded wetland locations. The riverine wetland systems predominantly lacked soils and plants to sample in the adjacent palustrine zone. Therefore, the majority of the RRB classified wetlands were delineated based solely on hydrology with only a few canopy trees observed, often River Birch (Betula nigra) and Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) found growing in bedrock cracks and edges along the stream channel. Soils were mixed throughout the wetland sampling locations and classifications. In regions with flatter topography, thicker, loamy soils were present with either redox dark surfaces or depleted layers below a dark surface. Due to the steep topography of many sampling locations and their proximity to the stream channel multiple Sites either lacked soil or contained a thin layer or dark/mucky soils. For these locations the problematic MLRA indicator of A10: 2 cm Muck or the indicator Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) were used to prove hydric soils. Hydrologic indicators were varied and depended upon the region sampled. For the flatter topographic sampling locations, surface soil saturation and Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots was common in addition to Geomorphic position and Fac-Neutral Test. In steep locations with less available soil, few primary indicators of hydrology were observed in the palustrine zone. For these locations, hydrology was largely determined based on secondary indicators of Geomorphic Position, Drainage Patterns, and the Fac-Neutral Test. A summary narrative of each identified wetland is available in Appendix D while the complete USACE data sheets are available in Appendix E.

5.4 Vegetation Characterization

A total of 257 sites consisted of a Vegetation Community dominated by Mixed Northern Hardwood Forest (Approximately 75%), 31 Sites consisted of a Conifer dominated community, 14 Sites were Dominated by Oak, 30 Sites were Disturbed (mostly mowed or pasture lands), 10 sites were listed as Other (not fitting into a specific category), and 2 were classified as being dominated by an Emergent vegetation community (Appendix B). Of all sampled Sites, the majority (293) had a continuous (same vegetation both upstream and downstream) vegetation community, 26 locations had the dominant vegetation community restricted to upstream locations, while 15 Sites were restricted to downstream locations. For the purposes of the summary table (Appendix B), Sites that had multiple vegetation community classifications listed, had the most dominant and/or the vegetation community with the greatest number of stems selected. The complete vegetation community data sheets can be found in Appendix C, and they list both of the Vegetation Community types observed for the 51 non-continuous Sites. Although most Sites were listed as having a Vegetation Community dominated by Northern Hardwood Tree Species, many of these locations would have been better classified as Piedmont Levee or Bottomland Forest, specifically the Sites associated with culverts and bridges of Perennial and Intermittent channels. Many of the alluvial stream channels with rocky substrates were dominated by River Birch (Betula nigra) and Tulip Trees (Liriodendron tulipifera) and may have been best classified as Levee Forest. Similarly, many of the riparian terraces of the larger stream channels were dominated by Tulip trees (Liriodendron tulipifera) in the canopy with many Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) individuals occupying the lower canopy and understory and could have been classified as Bottomland Forests. And based on the thin organic soils typical of the Grandfather Mountain area, some of the Vegetation Communities may have been better classified as Boulderfield Forest.

However, many of the distinct species generally required for these classification determinations were missing or generally not located within the defined sampling distances. Overall, the dominant tree species located throughout the project area were relatively common and consistent among Sites. Tree species such as Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Birch (Betula alleghaniensis/ nigra), Paw Paw (Asimina triloba), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), White Pine (Pinus strobus), Red Oak (Quercus rubrum), and Great Laurel (Rhododendron maximum) were common at almost all sampling locations. The common and consistent Tree Canopy along with the relatively small sampling area, made it difficult to distinguish individual sites beyond the typical Northern Hardwood Forest general category most often reported. Additionally, very few, if any, rare or unique species were recorded at any Site during the field sampling.

5.4.2 DBH Talley

Of all Sites where the Vegetation Community was sampled, only 27 locations did not contain any trees with a Diameter at Breast Heigh (DBH) greater than three inches. Of the remaining Sites that contained trees with a DBH >3”, 68 were recorded as Low, 234 were recorded as Medium, and 20 were recorded as having a high relative density of stems. Sites that received the Low ranking often had a mix of pastoral lands along with remnant Hardwood Forest Communities with only a narrow woody community remaining along the drainage channel. The majority of Sites receiving the medium ranking contained a relatively dense canopy but also had a dense understory. Sites that earned the High ranking had a dense canopy with fewer understory species present.

5.4.3 Invasive Species Cover

Of all Sites where the Vegetation Community was sampled, 125 locations did not contain any Invasive Plant Species. Of the remaining Sites that contained Invasive Species, the relative density was recorded as low for 188, Medium for 24, and High for 7. Of the Invasive Plant Species observed, Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium vimineum) was by far the most prevalent. It was often found growing along the roadside and near the inlets of many culvert locations. It’s important to note that although found commonly growing along the road, Stilt Grass was rarely found invading the understory of Dense forests communities. Stilt Grass was also observed growing in several of the identified Emergent wetlands. Additional species observed were Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), Canada Thistle (Circium arvense), Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergia) but in relatively few locations and with limited overall cover. Based on the widespread cover and habit and spread, Japanese Stilt Grass (Microstegium vimineum) is the only Invasive Species Identified that has the ability to spread as a result of culvert repair/ maintenance activities. Stilt grass prefers to grow in shady locations and has been known to invade disturbed shaded floodplains.