20061746 Ver 1_Complete File_20051106

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
G /?
t!
?W
41,
v.:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 30, 2006
Mr. David Baker, NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 061746
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
Subject: NW 23 Permit Application-B-4348
Bridge Number 156 on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek
Jackson County
State Project: B-4348 (DWQ Notification Only)
Dear Mr. Baker:
TheNorth Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace Bridge
Number 156 on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek (C, Tr) in Jackson County.
NCDOT proposes to replace this structure at the existing location. The road will remain open
during the construction process due to staged construction. The new bridge is designed to
minimize impacts by implementing longer spans and increasing hydraulic capacity. The structure
will be a spanning 60-foot cored slab bridge. The removal of the existing structure shall be
performed by sawing and/or non-shattering methods such that debris will not fall into the water.
All work will be performed in a dry environment. Sandbag cofferdams will be used if necessary to
ensure a clean, dry work area, and to minimize impacts to aquatic habitats,
I am attaching the Categorical Exclusion document. The USGS map location and a marked
county map are in the CE document.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was checked for records of threatened and
endangered species. There are no records of threatened and endangered species for the entire
Dicks Creek watershed, However, the Tuckasegee River is occupied critical habitat for the
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and is approximately one mile from the project.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service consulted on this project and requested a mussel survey of the
stream reach between the confluence of Dicks Creek with the Tuckasegee River to 100 meters
above bridge 156. A mussel survey was completed on July 16, 2003. No native mussels were
B-4348 on SR 1388 Page 2 October 17, 2006
found during this survey. This bridge will be replaced with another spanning structure that will
minimize long term impacts and will result in only very minimal impact during construction. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with a conclusion of "not likely to adversely affect"
for the Appalachian elktoe provided measures on the attached Project Green Sheets are adhered
to.
The Office of State Archaeology determined that this project is unlikely to affect significant
archaeological resources since it is being constructed on existing location.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Dicks Creek is at least a 40' order stream at the project site with a well-defined channel and is
shown on the USGS topographic maps as a blue line stream. The stream supports fish, including
trout, and other aquatic organisms. The stream channel is composed of boulder, cobble and
gravel and lacks vegetation. For these reasons, we believe that Dicks Creek is under the
jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. In order to construct the project, it will be
necessary to impact waters of the United States in the Little Tennessee River Basin. Specifically,
NCDOT is requesting to replace Jackson County Bridge No. 156 with a cored slab structure.
Listed below is a summary of the proposed impacts.
Site No.
Station Existing Condition Proposed Condition Net Impacts
Site 1 Southern Existing End Replace with new End Bent 0'
Bent (60 Lin. Ft.) and (60 Lin. Ft.)
associated class II rip
rap
Site 2 Northern Existing End Replace with new End Bent 0'
Bent (60 Lin. Ft.) and (60 Lin. Ft.)
associated class H rip
rap
Total net impact from new structure = 0 Sq. Ft.
Since the existing end bent removal of 60 linear feet is equal to the placement of 60 linear feet of
new End Bent, there will be no net impact. Therefore, there will be no mitigation required for this
project.
B-4348 on SR 1388 Page 3 October 17, 2006
The best management practices will be used to minimize and control sedimentation and erosion on
this project. The construction foreman will review all erosion control measures daily to ensure
sedimentation and erosion is being effectively controlled. If the planned devices are not
functioning as intended, they will be immediately replaced with better devices-
Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to proceed
with the construction project outlined above. By copy of this letter, I am asking Ms. Marla
Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) to comment directly to you concerning the 404 Nationwide Permit request.
Additionally, I am asking Ms. Chambers and Mr. Ed Ingle, Roadside Environmental Field
Operations Engineer (NCDOT), to comment directly to me concerning this permit request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Your early review and consideration will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
C.D. Lee, El
Division 14 Bridge Maintenance Engineer
cc: ,/jVlr. John Hennessy, DWQ, DENR Raleigh (1 Courtesy Copy)
Mr. Mike Parker, DWQ, Asheville Regional Office (1 Courtesy Copy)
Kfs. Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, NCWRC
Mr. Joel Setzer, P.E., Division Engineer, NCDOT, Sylva
Mr. Mark Davis, Division Environmental Officer, NCDOT
Mr. E. L. Ingle, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT
V I ?F'
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1388
Bridge No. 156 over Dicks Creek
Jackson County
Federal-aid Project No. PFH-1388(1)
State Project No. 8.2961401 (WBS PE 33678.1.1)
T.I.P. No. B-4348
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds, Erosion and Sediment
Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions
of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division 14
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly adhered to.
Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to design standards for sensitive
watersheds.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has identified prohibitions against
in-stream activities for the project area due to the presence of several aquatic species
currently protected under state and federal laws as well as for protection of rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss). In-stream activities are prohibited from January 1 through April
15 in order to prevent sedimentation from impacting fish eggs and fry downstream of the
project site.
Erosion and Sediment Control: The conditions described below are reiterated on the
erosion and sedimentation control plans, but are stated here for emphasis.
Sandbags filled with washed, small stone will be placed in the stream around the entire
construction area to filter any sediment that may enter the stream due to land disturbance
during construction. The sandbag fabric will be specified to ensure that the tightest
available weave is used. Stones are preferred over sand to prevent the accidental or
incidental introduction of sand into the stream. The stone will be specified to ensure that
it is washed at the quarry and is the appropriate size for filtration. The sandbags will be
installed at the beginning of construction and left in place until construction is complete.
They will not form a weir or other obstruction that would significantly impede
downstream flow.
Once the existing bridge decks are removed, silt fencing will be installed on top of the
existing concrete vertical abutments and wing walls to prevent material excavated from
Green Sheet
behind the existing abutments from entering the stream. After excavation, the existing
abutments will be cut down to a level sufficient only to allow clearance for the new cored
slab to be installed. The remaining portions of the old abutments will be left in place to
minimize sedimentation and maintain the bank profile at the bridge. The old abutments
will remain higher than the normal water level. By leaving the existing abutments in
place, disturbance to the stream bank and stream bed are minimized and the probably of
long term erosion is substantially improved. The existing bridge superstructures (decks)
will be removed from the top, piece by piece, to prevent introduction of the bridge
material into the stream.
The use of rip rap will be limited to the ends of the new wing walls and the excavated
area between the old and new vertical abutments. Filter fabric will be installed under the
rip rap. No rip rap will be placed in the stream.
Silt fencing will be installed at the tops of banks where appropriate to minimize overall
sedimentation.
Green Sheet
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4348
State Project No. 8.2961401 (WBS PE 33678.1.1)
Federal Project No. PFH-1388(1)
A. Project Description:
This project replaces Bridge No. 156 on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek in Jackson
County. The existing single-span, 41-foot bridge will be replaced with a
single-span cored slab-bridge, 60-feet in length and approximately 28-feet
wide. The new bridge will be stage-constructed in order to maintain traffic
on-site during the construction period.
B. Purpose and Need:
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 156
has a sufficiency rating of 47.3 and is structurally deficient. The
superstructure consists of a timber floor on steel I-beams. The substructure
includes Yount masonry abutments and wingwalls. Substantial rust exists on
the I-beams and decay is evident on the timber floor. The stream flows up to
and along the abutments. The bridge functions as a one-lane structure.
Therefore, the replacement of the existing Bridge No. 156 is necessary
because it is functionally obsolete as well as structurally deficient.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through
lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through
lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and
pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or
realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j . Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
O Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest area.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
2
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage an maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent. with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 260,000
Right of Way $ 0
Total $ 260,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current 2003 - 600 vehicles per day
Year 2030 - 1,200 vehicles per day
TTST - 2%
Dual - 1%
Accidents: According to crash records for the three-year period from
12/01/1999 to 11/30/2002, one crash was reported in the vicinity of the bridge.
The crash involved a collision with a fixed object. No fatalities or injuries
were report. It appears that neither the existing bridge nor approach roadways
contributed to the accident.
3
Design Speed: 50 miles per hour
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
School Buses: Two school buses cross Bridge No. 156 on SR 1388 each day.
Division Office Comments:
Road closure is not acceptable on this project because no detour route is
available. Stage-construction should be used so that traffic can be maintained
on-site during the construction period. One lane of traffic is acceptable during
construction.
Bridge Demolition:
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this
project, the NCDOT and all potential contractors should follow appropriate
guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines are presented
in three NCDOT documents entitled Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters
of the United States, and Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (BMPs-BDR) (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines
followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those
implemented for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (BMPs-PSW).
The proposed project is a Case 2 category as defined in the NCDOT's BMPs -
BDR. Case 2 allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery
areas. The NCWRC has identified prohibitions against in-stream activities for
the project area due to the presence of several aquatic species currently
protected under state and federal laws as well as for protection of rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). In-stream activities are prohibited from January
1 through April 15 in order to prevent sedimentation from impacting fish eggs
and fry downstream of the project site.
Offsite Detour: An on-site detour is proposed. The new bridge will be stage-
constructed so that traffic can be maintained throughout the construction
period.
4
E. Threshold Criteria:
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique
11
or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
?
X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than ?
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable x
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of U.S. Forest Service
lands? ? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQ W)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
F
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage ?
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any F1 X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ?
resources? X
5
(12) Will a U.S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? ? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or

business? ?
X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any
minority or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is
the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X ?

(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or
land use of adjacent property? ? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of ?
X
1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
6
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using
existing roads, staged construction or on-site detours? X_ F]
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the
bridge be replaced at its existing location (along the ?
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in X
association with the bridge replacement project be
contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? 1-1 X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic X
Places?
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which
are important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in X
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act
of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as X
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and X
Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Agency letters in response to the project scoping letters are provided in
Appendix A. Although no unfavorable responses were indicated above,
additional supporting documentation is provided for informational purposes in
Appendix B.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4348
State Project No. 8.2961401
Federal-Aid Project No. PFH-1388(1)
Project Description:
This project replaces Bridge No. 156 on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek in Jackson
County. The existing bridge will be replaced with a single-span cored-slab
bridge 60 feet in length and approximately 28 feet wide. The new bridge will
be stage-constructed in order to maintain traffic on-site during the
construction period.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X
Approved:
COQ\?_ ?_,U
Date
lek?l,?ml
Date P Kect
For Type II (B) projects only:
TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
and Consultants
, NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
Appendix A
Agency Comments
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 13, 2004
Mr. Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Summers:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for Bridge Replacements (B-4348, Bridge No. 156 on
SR 1388, and B-4349, Bridge No. 36 on SR 1388) over Dicks Creek, Jackson County,
North Carolina
As requested by Mulkey, Inc., for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, we have
reviewed the project environmental corrunitments, natural resources information, and biological
conclusions for federally protected species for the subject projects. The following comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided, the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) occurs approximately 1 mile downstream of the project sites in the
Tuckasegee River. Due to the close proximity to occupied habitat, a mussel survey was
conducted in Dicks Creek from its confluence with the Tuckasegee River to 100 meters upstream
of the project area. No native freshwater mussels were located during this survey. Although no
mussels were found during survey, we were concerned about potential direct and indirect effects
from the demolition of the existing structures and the design and construction of the replacement
structures.
We have reviewed plans for erosion control and demolition of the existing structures. Provided
the "green sheet" commitments are implemented and strictly adhered to, we concur with your
conclusion of "not likely to adversely affect" for the Appalachian elktoe for the subject projects.
We believe the requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations
under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this
review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Numbers 4-2-03-346 (B-4348) and 4-2-03-347 (B-4349).
Sincerely,
-P
?P
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
September 18, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for Two Bridge Replacements--B-4348, Bridge
No. 156 on SR 1388, and B-4349, Bridge No. 36 on SR 1388--over Dicks Creek,
Jackson County, North Carolina
As requested by Mulkey, Inc. (for the North Carolina Department of Transportation), we have
reviewed the natural resources information and biological conclusions for federally protected
species for the subject projects. The following comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided, the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana) occurs approximately 1 mile downstream of the project sites in Dicks
Creek, a tributary to the Tuckasegee River. Due to the close proximity of the sites to occupied
habitat, a mussel survey was conducted in Dicks Creek from its confluence with the Tuckasegee
River to 100 meters upstream of the project area. No native freshwater mussels were located
during this survey.
Although no mussels were found during the survey, there is still the potential for direct and
indirect effects from the demolition of the existing structures and the design and construction of
the replacement structures. As such, we cannot concur with a "not likely to adversely affect"
determination at this time. When information regarding the actions associated with these two
projects becomes available, we will provide further comments.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Numbers 4-2-03-346 (B-4348) and 4-2-03-347 (B-4349).
Sincerely,
1
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
Mr. Mike Summers, Project Manager, Bridge Maintenance Unit, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, 1565 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1565
NA
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
September 9, 2003
Mr. Mike Summers
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Summers:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, B-3430
and B-3431 IN CHEROKEE COUNTY; B-4348 AND B-4349 IN JACKSON COUNTY;
B-4690 AND B-4691 IN TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, AND B-4692 IN HAYWOOD
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the elevation and plan drawings provided in your letter of July 8, 2003,
on the proposed bridge replacements. Based on the plans provided, the following bridges
would not require Section 26a approval because they do not create a new obstruction and
are within the same alignment:
B-3430, SR 1331 (Beaver Dam Road) over Hanging Dog Creek, tributary to
Hiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee County
B-3431, SR 1331 (Beaver Dam Road) over Cook Creek, tributary to Hiwassee
Reservoir, Cherokee County
B-4348 and B-4349, SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road) over Dicks Creek,
Tuckasegee River tributary, Jackson County
B-46921 SR 1334 (Max Patch Road) over Wesley Creek, Pigeon River tributary,
Haywood County
The following projects would substantially widen the existing bridge by addition of lanes
and would still appear to require Section 26a approval:
B-4690 and B-4691, SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap Road) over Tucker Creek, French
Broad River tributary, Transylvania County
Mr. Mike Summers
Page 2
September 9, 2003
We will confirm these determinations when we review the Categorical Exclusion
documents and the final selected alternative during our permit review. If merger teams are
established for any of the projects, please include TVA in the coordination for the
project. In addition, if an environmental assessment is to be prepared for any project,
please contact TVA for consideration as a cooperating agency in the project.
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jon M. oney, ger
NEPA Administration
Environmental Policy and Planning
cc: Mr. John Sullivan, Division Administrator.
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 6, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
FROM: David Brook
M?r
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 156 on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek, B-4348, Jackson County, ER03-1337
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 2003, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources
which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as
proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above'referenced tracking number.
DB:bjs
Cc: Gregory Thorpe, NCDOT
Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
ADMINISTRATION
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
WWW
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
.state.ne.us
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994613
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-865
[phone] •715-48C
[phone] •715-48(
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
July 25, 2003
Mr. Mike Summers
Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Summers:
Subject: Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects in Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, and
Haywood Counties, North Carolina
As requested in your letter of May 1, 2003, we have reviewed the subject projects and provide
the following comments in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The maps included with your letter frequently did not contain adequate landmarks to be able to
easily find the project locations., Future maps or project descriptions should portray or reference
notable landmarks to enable the projects to be easily located. Additionally, there was reference
to demolition information in your cover letter, but it was not enclosed with our package.
The information we received for these eight projects does not include descriptions of the
structures that will replace the existing bridges nor does it include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of these projects. Therefore, our comments are limited primarily to the known
locations of listed species and federal species of concern. When the categorical exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects, we can offer more
substantive comments.
Enclosed is a species list for the four counties included in this package. This list provides the
names of species on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants as well
as federal species of concern. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed
or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you
advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found in the
vicinity of your projects. Our records indicate the following:
Cherokee County:
In general, while there are no known locations of the Indiana bat in the vicinity of
these projects, if trees will be cleared for these projects, habitat should be assessed
for this species; if suitable habitat is present, further surveys may be required.
Project B-3430 (Log No. 4-2-03-343) - Our records indicate known occurrences
of the sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp. l) in Hanging Dog Creek. Although the
sicklefin redhorse currently is a federal species of concern, its status is under
review. This species may be elevated to candidate status for federal listing. We
recommend surveying the project area for this species prior to any further
planning or on-the-ground activities. We also strongly recommend that this
bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
Project B-3431 (Log No. 4-2-03-344) - Our records indicate no known locations
of listed species in the project area. However, we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project area for these species
prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse
impacts occur.
Jackson County:
Project B-4347 (Log No. 4-2-03-345) - Our records indicate that there are known
locations of the green salamander (Aneides aeneus), a federal species of concern,
near the proposed project. We recommend conducting habitat assessments and
surveying any suitable habitat in the project area for this species prior to any
further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts
occur.
Project B-4348 (Log No. 4-2-03-346) and Project B-4349 (Log No. 4-2-03-347) -
Dick's Creek is a tributary to the Little Tennessee River, and it flows into
occupied habitat and designated critical habitat for the endangered Appalachian
elktoe (Alasmidonta raveniliana). Given the proximity of these projects to the
Little Tennessee River, we recommend surveying for listed mussels in Dick's
Creek prior to any on-the-ground activities. If mussels are located, additional
consultation will be required.
Transylvania and Haywood Counties:
Project B-4690 (Log No. 4-2-03-348), Project B-4691 (Log No. 4-2-03-349), and
Project B-4692 (Log No. 4-2-03-350) - Our records indicate no known locations
of listed species in the project areas. However, we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project areas for these
species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no
adverse impacts occur.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. In addition, off-site detours are
preferable to temporary on-site crossings in order to reduce stream-bank disturbance. We look
forward to reviewing the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference the log numbers assigned with our comments about each of them.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Carolina. Wildlife Resources
Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, CHEROKEE, JACKSON, TRANSYLVANIA,
AND HAYWOOD COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, and Haywood Counties, of North Carolina's federally listed
and proposed endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a
complete list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program).
The information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and
herbaria, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal
species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated or
proposed.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent
counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
CHEROKEE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Blotched chub Erimystax insignis FSC
Junaluska salamander Eurycea junaluska FSC
"Sicklefin" redhorse Moxostoma sp. 1 FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
(summer habitat)
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC*
Invertebrates
Hiwassee crayfish Cambarus hiwasseensis FSC
Parrish crayfish Cambarus parrishi FSC
Tan riffleshell . Epioblasma jlorentina walkeri FSC* *
Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia FSC*
Knotty rocksnail Lithasia christyi FSC
Littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered*
Tennessee clubshell Pleurobema oviforme FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Cumberland bean Villosa trabalis Endangered
Vascular Plants
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia Cl*
January 29, 2003 Page 1 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Hairy blueberry Vaccinium hirsutum FSC
JACKSON COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the Tuckasegee River (Little Tennessee River system), from the N.C. State
Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina, downstream to the
N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, North Carolina.
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Green salamander
Rosyside dace
Hellbender
Wounded darter
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
"Sicklefin" redhorse
Indiana bat
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Olive darter
Northern pine snake
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
French Broad crayfish
Whitewater crayfish ostracod
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Mountain bittercress
Radford's sedge
Cuthbert's turtlehead
Aegolius acadicus FSC
Aneides aeneus FSC
Clinostomus funduloides ssp. 1 FSC
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Etheostoma vulneratum FSC
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Loxia curvirostra FSC
Moxostoma sp. 1 FSC
Myotis sodalis Endangered
(winter records)
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Poecile atricapillus practicus. FSC
Percina squamata FSC
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Cambarus reburrus FSC
Dactyloctythere prinsi FSC
Phycoides batesii maconensis FSC
Speyeria diana FSC
Abies fraseri FSC
Cardamine clematitis FSC
Carex radfordii FSC
Chelone cuthbertii FSC
January 29, 2003 Page 2 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Tall larkspur
Glade spurge
Swamp pink
Gorge filmy fern
Small whorled pogonia
Butternut
Fraser's loosestrife
Sweet pinesap
Torrey's mountain-mint
Carolina saxifrage
Divided-leaf ragwort
Mountain catchfly
Granite dome goldenrod
Mountain thaspium
Lobed barren-strawberry
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss
Rock gnome lichen
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
Delphinium exaltatunt FSC
Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Helonias bullata Threatened
Hymenophyllum tayloriae FSC
Isotria nsedeoloides Threatened
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Monotropsis odorata FSC
Pycnanthemum torrei FSC*
Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Senecio millefolium FSC
Silene ovata FSC
Solidago sinsulans FSC
Thaspium pinnatifidunz FSC*
Waldsteinia lobata FSC*
Bryocrumia vivicolor
Gymnoderma lineare
Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the Little River (French Broad River system), from the Cascade Lake
Power Plant, downstream to its confluence with the French Broad River. .
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Green salamander
Bog turtle
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Hellbender
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Aegolius acadicus FSC
Aneides aeneus FSC
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Corynorhinus rafinesquii FSC*
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Loxia curvirostra FSC
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC*
Poecile atricapillus practicus FSC
January 29, 2003 ' • Page 3
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
French Broad crayfish
Oconee crayfish ostracod
Oyster mussel
Margarita River skimmer
Diana fritillary butterfly
Transylvania crayfish ostracod
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Alexander's rock aster
Cuthbert's turtlehead
Spreading avens
Smoky Mountain mannagrass
Swamp pink
French Broad heartleaf
Small whorled pogonia
Butternut
Fraser's loosestrife
Sweet pinesap
Flatrock panic grass
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Southern oconee-bells
Lobed barren-strawberry
Nonvascular Plants
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC*
Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Cambarus reburrus FSC
Cyniocythere clavata FSC
Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered
Macromia margarita FSC
Speyeria diana FSC*
Waltoncythere acuta FSC
Abies fraseri FSC
Aster avitus FSC
Chelone cuthbertii FSC
Geum radiatum Endangered
Glyceria nubigena FSC
Helonias bullata Threatened
Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Monotropsis odorata FSC
Panicum lithophilum FSC*
Sarracenia jonesii Endangered
Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia FSC
Waldsteinia lobata FSC
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation: Spruce-fir moss spider, Microhexura montivaga -
Critical habitat designated (see the July 6, 2001, Federal Register, 66:35547-35566).
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the West Fork Pigeon River (French Broad River system), from the
confluence of the Little East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the confluence of the
East Fork Pigeon River, and the main stem of the Pigeon River, from the confluence of
the West Fork Pigeon River and the East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the
N.C. Highway 215 Bridge crossing, south of Canton, North Carolina.
January 29, 2003 Page 4 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica ceruled FSC
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC
Southern Appalachian black-capped Poecile atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Eastern cougar Puma concolor couguar Endangered*
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe 41asmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phyciodes batesii maconensis FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir 4bies fraseri FSC
Piratebush Buckleya disticophylla FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain mannagrass Glyceria nub igena FSC
Small whorled pogonia . Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Torrey's mountain-mint Pycnanthemum torrei FSC*
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxilraga carohniana FSC
January 29, 2003 Page 5 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Alabama least trillium Trillium pusillum var. I FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
C1 A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation. .
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation
has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern
population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers
the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
January 29, 2003 Page 6 of 6
?QF \ NA T??p Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`Q G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
1 Division of Water Quality
Coleen H
C
` . Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 10, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator ''A'/
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-3430, B-3431, B4347,
B-4348, B-4349, B-4690, B-4691, and B-4692 in Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania and Haywood
Counties.
In reply to your correspondence dated May 1, 2003 (received June 19, 2002) in which you requested comments
for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
L General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Proiects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches; reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace the
bridge, then DWQ recommends'the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide Permit 23.
2. Bridge demolition should be performed using Best Management Practices developed by NCDOT.
3. DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream and do
not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for
human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation 1
canoeists and boaters.
4. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated
buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream Concrete is mostly
made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very
soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete or cement will change thf
pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream
7. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground
elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to
stabilize the soil and native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If
possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with
chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact,
allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
8. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath the
bridge.
t?..
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
III. Proiect-Specific Comments
B-3430 Bridge 43 over Hanging Dog Creek, Cherokee e&'
Although this stream is listed as Class C, there are significant aquatic resources (Federal and State listed species
of concern). DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs (particularly for
sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
B-3431 Bridge No. 45 over Beaver Dam Creek, Cherokee Co.
This stream contains several significant aquatic resources (Federal and State listed species of concern, threatened
and endangered species). DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs
(particularly for sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
Bailey Fork Creek is listed as WS-N. There are 30-foot vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition
to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B
.0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G).
B-4347 Bridke No. 3 over Norton Mill Creek, Jackson Co.
Norton Mill Creek is classified as C Tr +. The + sign indicates that this drains to Outstanding Resource Waters.
Since ORWs•represent the;State's highest water quality classification, DWQ would hope that a spanning. structure
is planned for this crossing.- In addition, there are numerous Federal and State listed species in the project
vicinity. Finally, we would stress that NCDOT should use the highest possible BMPs for protecting this resource.
B-4348 Bridke No. 156 and B-4349 Bridee No. 36 over Dicks Creek, Jackson Co.
DWQ is aware that there may be mussel populations on this site as well as Federal and State listed species of
concern. We recommend a spanning structure and maximizing the use of BMPs to minimize damage to these
aquatic resources. If NCDOT is replacing these structures with culverts, you should be aware that this involves
two impacts to the same stream-impacts must be added together and mitigation may be required.
B-4690 Bridke No. 55 and B-4691 Bride No. 59 over Tucker Creek, Translyvania Co.
If NCDOT is replacing these structures with culverts, you should be aware that this involves two impacts to the
same stream-impacts must be added together and mitigation may be required.
B-4692 Bride 283 over Wesleys Creek, Haywood Co.
DWQ does not have any special concerns. Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: John Hendrix, USACE Asheville Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
® North CarolinaW c ife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator 771
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: June 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Scoping review ofNCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects B-3430, B-
3431, B-4347, B-4348, B-4349, B-4690, B-4691, B-4692 in Cherokee, Jackson,
Transylvania and Haywood Counties.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has requested comments from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Bridge Scopings 2
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s
June 26, 2003
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be
planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws,
mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat
intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam
underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of requesting
additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the
project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, Mr. Hal Bain with the NCDOT
- ONE should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for information
on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where
possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should
be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
Bridge Scopings 3
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s
June 26, 2003
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other
than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain
bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the
upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be
filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious or mosquito breeding conditions.
Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to
accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or
notched baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern.. This
should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by
maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish
and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide a
continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain
dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water
velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts
aquatic life passage.
4. kiprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a
manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should
be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimise the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed
was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may
be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.
Bridge Scopings 4
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s June 26, 2003
Project specific comments:
B-3430, Cherokee Co., Bridge No. 43 over Hanging Dog Creek on SR 1331 (Beaver Dam
Road). Hanging Dog Creek is classified as C and is listed as significant aquatic habitat. The
hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganlensis), federal species of concern and state special
concern, has been observed downstream of the project area. A moratorium prohibiting in-
stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from
January 1 to.April 15 to protect the egg and fiy stages of rainbow trout. Sediment and
erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds.
2. B-3431, Cherokee Co., Bridge No. 45 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 1331 (Beaver Dam
Road). Beaver Dam Creek is classified as C-Tr. The Hiwassee headwaters crayfish
(Cambarus parrishi), federal species of concern, is potentially present in the project area.
The knotty elimia (Elimia interrupta), state endangered, is potentially present downstream.
A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout
buffer is recommended from January 1 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of
rainbow trout. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards
for sensitive watersheds.
3. B-4347, Jackson Co., Bridge No. 3 over Norton Mill Creek on SR 1107 (Whiteside Cove
Road). Norton Mill Creek is classified as C-Tr +. Numerous federal and state listed plant
and animal species have been found in the vicinity of the project. Coordination with the
resource agencies is expected. A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land
disturbance within the 25-fdot trout buffer is recommended from January 1 to April 15 to
protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout. Sediment and erosion control measures
should adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds.
4. B-4348, Jackson Co., Bridge No. 156 over Dicks Creek on SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road).
Dicks Creek, classified as C-Tr, flows to the Tuckasegee River. Potentially present in the
project area are the smoky dace (Clinostomus funduloides), state special concern, and the
Little Tennessee River crayfish (Cambarus georgiae), state significantly rare. The olive
darter (Percina squamata), federal species of concern and state special concern, has been
observed near the mouth of Dicks Creek. Present in the Tuckesegee River are the
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), federal and state endangered; wavy-rayed
lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola), state special concern; and wounded darter (Etheostoma
vulneratum), state special concern. A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land
disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from January 1 to April 15 to
protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout. Sediment and erosion control measures
should adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds.
5. B-4349, Jackson Co., Bridge No. 36 over Dicks Creek on SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road).
Same as B-4348 above.
6. B-4690, Transylvania Co., Bridge No. 55 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap
Road). A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot
Bridge Scopings
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s
June 26, 2003
trout buffer is recommended from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of
rainbow and brown trout. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the
design standards for sensitive watersheds.
7. B-4691, Transylvania Co., Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap
Road). Same as B-4690 above.
8. B-4692, Haywood Co., Bridge No. 283 over Wesleys Creek on SR 1334. No special
concerns indicated. Standard requirements should apply.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Sarah Kopplin, NHP
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division June 10, 2003
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mr. Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1565
Subject: Scoping comments for proposed Division 14 bridge replacement projects
Dear Mr. Summers:
Reference your letter of May 1, 2003 regarding our scoping review and comments
on the following proposed bridge replacement projects:
1. TIP Project No. B-3430, Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek,
Cherokee County. .
2. TIP Project No. B-3431, Bridge No. 45 on SR 1331 over Beaver Dam Creek,
Cherokee County.
3. TIP Project No. B4347, Bridge No. 3 on SR 1107 over Norton Mill Road,
Jackson County.
4. TIP Project No. B-4348, Bridge No. 156 on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek, Jackson
County.
5. TIP Project No. B4349, Bridge No. 36 on SR 1388 over Dicks Creek, Jackson
County.
6. TIP Project No. B-4690, Bridge No. 55 on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek,
Transylvania County.
7. TIP Project No. B-4691, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek,
Transylvania County.
8. TIP Project No. B-4692, Bridge No. 283 on SR 1334 over Wesleys Creek,
Haywood County.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, Department
of the Army (DA) permit authorization will be required for the discharge of excavated or
fill material in waters (and wetlands, if applicable) of the United States, including disposal
of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the projects,
-2-
extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, construction methods, and other
factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning report
should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does not have
more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic environment. All
activities, including temporary construction, access, and dewatering activities, should be
included in the project planning report. Our experience has shown that replacing bridges
with culverts often results in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having
more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items
need to be considered and addressed in the planning and environmental studies for the
subject projects:
a. The studies/report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary
impacts to waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that
will be affected by the proposed project.
b. Off-site detours are generally preferable to on-site (temporary) detours which
impact waters or wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action,
justification should be provided that demonstrates that alternatives with lesser
impacts are not practicable. Please note that an onsite detour constructed on a
spanning structure can potentially avoid permanent impacts to waters or
wetlands and should be considered whenever an on-site detour is the
recommended action. For projects where a spanning structure is not feasible,
the NCDOT should investigate the existence of previous onsite detours at the
site that were used in previous construction activities. These areas should be
utilized for onsite detours whenever possible to minimize impacts. For proposed
projects and associated on-site detours that cause minimal losses of waters or
wetlands, an approved restoration and monitoring plan will be required prior to
issuance of a DA nationwide or Regional general permit. For proposed projects
and associated on-site detours that cause more than minimal losses of waters or
wetlands, an individual DA permit and a compensatory mitigation proposal for
the unavoidable impacts may be required.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation including trees, if
-3-
appropriate. For projects proposing a temporary onsite detour, the entire detour
area, including any previous detour from past construction, should be removed
in its entirety.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams and wetlands, or other waters resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts to the aquatic
environment, specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life including
fish. The work must also not alter the stream hydraulics and create
flooding of adjacent properties or result in unstable stream banks.
g. The report should discuss and recommend bridge demolition methods and shall
include the impacts of bridge demolition and debris removal in addition to the
impacts of constructing the bridge. The report should also incorporate the
bridge demolition policy recommendations pursuant to the NCDOT policy
entitled "Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States" dated
September 20, 1999.
h. Lengthening existing bridges can often benefit the ecological and hydrological
functions of the associated wetlands and streams. In some cases bridge
approaches are connected to earthen causeways that were built over wetlands
and streams. Replacing these causeways with longer bridges would allow
previously impacted waters, wetlands and floodplains to be restored. In an effort
to encourage this type of work, mitigation credit for wetland restoration
activities can be provided to offset the added costs of lengthening an existing
bridge.
Projects should be screened to determine possible effects on federally protected
species, or cultural and historic resources known to occur in proximity to or
within counties of the project areas, and appropriate consultation/coordination
initiated with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act) or
the State Historic Preservation Officer (Historic Preservation Act) to comply
with the provisions of those regulations.
-4-
Should you have any questions please call Mr. John W. Hendrix in the Asheville
Regulatory Field Office at 828-271-7980, ext. 7.
Sincerely,

John W. Hendrix
Project Manager
U.S. Department of Commander 431 Crawford Street
Homeland Security United States Coast Guard Portsmouth. Va. 23704-5004
Fifth Coast Guard District Staff Symbol: Oan-b
-6227
34
United States Fax: Phone: 75'7) 3 7) 3938- 396 6334
(
Coast Guard Email: [e-mail]
Mr. Mike Summers
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Summers:
16591
29 May 03
This is in response to your letter dated May 6, 2003, regarding eight bridge replacement projects
in North Carolina.
The Coast Guard's main concern with proposed bridge projects is the impact they may have on
navigation and whether the projects will require a bridge permit. In order for us to determine if a
bridge permit is required for each proposed bridge replacement, please provide the following
information:
a. Tidal influence of each waterway.
b. Navigational use of each waterway.
c. The depth of water and width of each waterway.
d. A list of adjacent property owners at each waterway. .
Upon receipt of this information, we will inform you on the status of each bridge project. If you
should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mrs. Linda Bonenberger, Bridge
Management Specialist, at [phone].
Si:;;" WAVERLY W. (6kEGORY, JR. J

Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
7 ,
gyp'
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
May 23, 2003
Mr. Mike Summers
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1565
Dear Mr. Summers:
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS,
TENNESSEE RIVER WATERSHED, 'CHEROKEE, HAYWOOD, JACKSON, AND
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the maps provided in your letter of May 1, 2003, on the proposed
bridge replacements at 8 sites:
• *B-3430, SR 1331 (Beaver Dam Road) over Hanging Dog Creek, tributary to
Hiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee County
• *B-3431, SR 1331 (Beaver Dam Road) over Beaver Dam Creek, tributary to
Hiwassee Reservoir, Cherokee County
• B-4347, SR 1107 (Whiteside Cove Road) over Norton Mill Creek, Jackson
County. No TVA approval is needed for this action in the Chattooga River
(Savannah River) watershed.
• *B-4348 and *B-4349, SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road) over Dicks Creek,
Tuckasegee River tributary, Jackson County
*13-4690 and *B-4691, SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap Road) over Tucker Creek,
French Broad River tributary, Transylvania County
• *B-4692, SR 1334 (Max Patch Road) over Wesley Creek, Pigeon River
tributary, Haywood County
*Depending on final design and alignment, TVA approval may be needed.
Based on the information provided, we are not aware of any unique environmental
features at the bridge replacement sites. The categorical exclusion documents
prepared for these projects should note that an approval under Section 26a of the TVA
Act may be needed for bridge construction (except for the B-4347 project). If merger
teams are established for any of the projects, please include TVA in the coordination
Mr. Mike Summers
Page 2
May 23, 2003
for the project. In addition, if an environmental assessment is to be prepared for any
project, please contact TVA for consideration as a cooperating agency in the project.
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jon M. L AjManager
NEPA A Administration
Environmental Policy and Planning
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John Sullivan, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Enclosure
Typical Interactions During Project Development
• Send scoping notice to NEPA Administration. TVA will reply to scoping
notices and indicate that a Section 26a approval is needed, there is other
potential TVA involvement in the project, or explain that there is no TVA
involvement.
• Include TVA as a member of Section 404 Merger Teams for the
Tennessee River Watershed.
• Include TVA NEPA Administration on invitation list for monthly
Interagency Coordination meetings.
• Send monthly 13-month let list to NEPA Administration
• Include TVA as a "cooperating agency" in NEPA and SEPA documents
that require TVA permits or land use approvals
Send a copy of the preliminary draft of the EA or EIS to TVA NEPA
Administration for comment prior to public release and approval. TVA will
reply within the specified time frame, generally within three weeks.
• TVA will reply to merger team correspondence and environmental
documents with comments or reply that all the environmental issues are
addressed and that it has no comments.
• Send a copy of the publicly released EA or EIS to TVA.
• TVA may comment. If no comments are received during the review
period, NCDOT will assume that TVA has no further comments.
• Include TVA in Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultations. Notify
TVA if formal consultation is undertaken, including a Biological
Assessment and Biological Opinion. This will allow TVA to ensure that
the incidental take permit is issued in the name of TVA as well as FHWA.
• Include TVA in consultations under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. If a Memorandum of Agreement is prepared, provide
TVA an opportunity to be a signatory.
• Send a copy of the CE, FONSI, FEIS or ROD to TVA when completed.
1?Torth Carolina Depa?'trnex?t of
?xizz-3rorY m ent and ZV'at txx-a1 Resources
D3szision of Soil anci' V25 Lter Consex-sration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vogel, Director
MEMORANDUM: May 19, 2003
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects
NCDENR
The NC Department of Transportation is preparing the planning and environmental
studies for 16 bridge replacement projects in Buncombe, Burke, Cherokee, Haywood, Jackson,
McDowell, Rutherford, Stanly, Surry, Transylvania and Yadkin Counties.
If construction is restricted to existing right-of-ways, there should be no impact to Prime
or Statewide Important Farmland. Any acquisition of additional right-of-ways for increase size,
capacity or changes in approach could affect Prime or Statewide Important Farmland. In that
case, the environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the soil series and
not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are
exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland. -'
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
Cc: Mike Summers, NCDOT
2614 1Kaf1 Sex-Nrica Cezzter, Ralefglz, Noz-tlz Cax.olfaa 27699-1614
Plioae: 919 -733-2302 \ F.?X: 919 -715-.?-;559
Zzztezaet: sxrs?s?.a:zz-.state.ac.s:c/E2\TR/DSYf?C/
AST EQTTJL T . OpPORZ'LT2?TZTi \ AFgZR?1CTIYE ACTION £MpLOYER
SOS: REG'YGL7LD / 101.: POST GO1q61CX'MXEg p??R
Appendix B
Natural Resources Assessment
Appendix B
Natural Resources Technical Report
Natural Resources
Technical Report
T.I.P. Project B-4348
Replace Bridge No. 156 on
SR 1388 over Dicks Creek
Jackson County, North Carolina
State Project No: 8.2961401
(WBS PE No. 33678.1.1)
Federal-aid Project No. PHF-1388(1)
Prepared For:
. North Carolina
Department of Transportation
d
A
>FT0F TR
October 2004
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Methodology .........................................................................................................................2
1.4 Qualifications of Investigators ...........................................................................................3
2. Physical Resources ............................................................................... 3
2.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Water Resources ...................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources .......................................
2.3 Aesthetic Values ...................................................................................................................8
3. Biotic Resources ................................................................................... 8
3.1 Vegetative Communities .....................................................................................................9
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ................................................................................................................9
3.2.1 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ............................................................ 10
3.3 Aquatic Communities .......................................................................................................11
3.3.1 Anticipated Impacts to Aquatic Communities ................................................... 12
4. Waters of the United States .................................................................13
4.1 Surface Waters ................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands ..................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Permit Requirements ........................................................................................................ 13
4.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................14
5. Rare and Protected Species .................................................................16
5.1 Federally Protected Species .............................................................................................. 17
5.1.1 Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) .......................... 17
5.1.2 Indiana bat (Myods sodalis) .................................................................................... 17
5.1.3 Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) ....................................................... 18
5.1.4 Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) .......................................................... 19
5.1.5 Swamp pink (Helonias bullata) ................................................................................ 20
5.1.6 Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma linearr) ......................
5.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .................................................. 21
6. Conclusions ..........................................................................................21
7. References ............................................................................................23
Tables
1. Vegetative Community Impacts .....................................................................................................10
2. Federal Species of Concern and State List Species for Jackson County...... Appendix
Figures
1. Project Vicinity
2a. Terrestrial Communities
2b. Bridge Plan and Profile View
3. Soil Units
4. Area of Impacts (Aerial Photography)
Appendix
Photographs
Tables
Scoping Letter Comments
The Catena Group Mussel Survey Reports
Executive Summary
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, Inc. (Mulkey) conducted natural resource field
investigations for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 156 over Dicks Creek on
SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road) in Jackson County, North Carolina. The objective of the field
investigations was to determine existing natural resource conditions, to document natural
communities, wildlife, Waters of the United States, and to determine the presence of
threatened and endangered species or their habitats. Mulkey personnel conducted site
reconnaissance on April 2 and July 29, 2003. The field investigations of the site and
surrounding area, and information reviewed by Mulkey, indicated the following.
• The proposed project is identified as Transportation Improvement Program (I1P) Project
No. B-4348. The site is located about 3.5 miles north of Dillsboro and 1 mile north
of US 74, in the western portion of Jackson County. The study area is approximately
200 feet long and 100 feet wide, as measured from the proposed bridge end bents
and roadway approach centerline.
The project is located entirely within Little Tennessee River Subbasin 04-04-02.
Dicks Creek is the only surface water in the study area and is a tributary to the
Tuckasegee River. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) index
number for Dicks Creek is 2-79-42 and the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit is
06010203.
The Tuckasegee River is critical habitat for Appalachian elktoe (A.lasmidonta.
raveneliana), with an extant population located approximately one mile downstream
from Dicks Creek.
• Dicks Creek is classified by the NCDWQ as Class "C-Tr" waters. The "Tr"
designation indicates freshwaters that are protected for natural trout propagation and
survival of stocked trout species
Three plant communities were identified in the project study area: alluvial forest,
cove forest, and man-dominated. A narrow alluvial forest community is situated
along the stream banks and in the narrow floodplain of the study area. Surrounding
the narrow valley is a densely forested cove community. The man-dominated areas
are comprised of roadside and power line rights-of-way, regularly mowed lawns, and
a parking area adjacent to Dicks Creek. Anticipated impacts are shown below.
Vegetative Uommwu lm ac ts
'+?'...:.f.?,.y..?:???':'.?4"-}'til

+..I.++a.+a++ D?J? LLV113i l x
T? 1. ,
. ...:: ?:'.
al 4Y? Y .C??+ ,..j. ,,J? M, h
Alluvial Forest 0.19
Cove Forest 0.28
Man-Dominated Areas 0.25
No wetlands were observed within the study arm However, one wetland area was
identified approximately 250 feet upstream of the existing bridge. This wetland area
1. Introduction
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, Inc. (Mulkey) has been retained by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to prepare a Natural Resources Technical Report
for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 156 over Dicks Creek located on SR 1388
(Dicks Creek Road) in Jackson County, North Carolina. While the project area on Dicks
Creek Road is not located within Federal lands, this secondary road is designated as a United
States Forest Service highway. The following natural resources technical report is submitted
to assist in the consideration of alternative designs for the proposed project
11 Project Description
The proposed project, identified as TIP No. B-4348, will replace Bridge No. 156 over Dicks
Creek on its existing location in Jackson County (Figure 1 and photos). Project work will be
staged so that local traffic can be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Preliminary conceptual designs call for spanning the stream with a new bridge and
installation of new vertical abutments with wing walls at the existing grade. Bents or
abutments should be placed above the normal high water level in order to avoid impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters.
The existing bridge, constructed in 1974, is currently in poor condition and is classified as
functionally obsolete. Rehabilitation of the existing structure is not a feasible option due to
its age and deteriorating condition. Bridge No. 156 has a timber floor on steel beams with
Yount masonry abutments and has one span that is 41 feet long and 24.6 feet wide.
Roadway approaches at the bridge have a dear width of 23.9 feet Total roadway approach
widths are 18.6 feet, with shoulders 2 feet wide from the edge of pavement. The existing
road right-of-way is assumed to be 30 feet on the centerline, measured outward in either
direction. The existing bridge structure will be completely removed as part of this project
The proposed replacement bridge will be a prestressed cored-slab concrete structure with a
single span approximately 60 feet long and 28 feet wide (Figure 2a). This new bridge will be
approximately 4 feet wider than the existing bridge on the upstream side. Vertical concrete
abutments with wing walls will be installed above normal water levels at the existing grade.
This replacement will result in a safer structure, consistent with federal and state bridge
design standards.
This report describes the natural systems associated with the project's study area as defined
below. Natural resource investigations were completed using a study corridor approximately,
200 feet long, as measured from each end of the bridge, and 50 feet wide along the
centerline. As used in this report, the project study area denotes the area bounded by the
proposed construction limits. The project vicinity describes a larger area that extends
approximately one-half mile on all sides of the study area. The project region is the area
represented on a standard 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
quadrangle map.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations and delineations are performed using the three-
parameter approach as prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary technical literature describing the
parameters of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological indicators were also
utilized. Wetland functions are evaluated according to the NCDWQ's rating system,
4`" version (1995). Surface waters in the project area are evaluated and classified based on a
preponderance of perennial stream characteristics as defined in NCDWQ's Stream
Classification Method, 2"d version (1999).
L4 Qualifications of Principal Investigators
Investigator. Cindy S. Carr, Biologist
Education: BS Natural Resources (Ecosystem Assessment Concentration),
North Carolina State University
ASBA Business Administration, Calhoun State College
Experience: Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, November 2002 to present
Biologist, ARCADIS, May 2000 to November 2002
Sample Manager, CH2M HILL, October 1989 to June 1996
Certifications: Wetland Professional-In-Training, Society of Wetland Scientists
Stream ID and Buffer Rule Applications Program, NCDWQ
Benthic Collection Protocols for Stream Restoration, NCDWQ
Expertise: NEPA investigations, Section 7 field investigations, wetland determination
and delineation, stream determination and delineation, stream and wetland
restoration, habitat assessments, Rosgen stream assessment and
classification, and HAZWOPER.
Investigator. Julie R. Gibson, Scientist
Education: MNR (Natural Resources - Restoration Ecology), North Carolina State
University
BS Earth and Environmental Science, Lehigh University
Experience: Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, June 2003 to present
Morris County Park Commission, January 2000 to August 2001
Expertise: NEPA investigations, Section 7 field investigations, wetland determinations,
and habitat assessments.
2. Physical Resources
The project site encompasses an area in Jackson County approximately three miles north of
Dillsboro and about four miles northwest of Sylva. Jackson County is situated in the
southwestern part of the state and shares a border with Swain, Macon, Haywood, and
Transylvania Counties and with South Carolina. The site is located in the Blue Ridge
physiographic province and is approximately one-half mile southwest of the U.S. Forest
Service's Nantahala Gamelands. The geography of Jackson County ranges from relatively
flat basins and narrow valleys to rolling hills and very steep mountains (Sherrill, 1997). The
majority of the county is situated within the Tuckasegee River watershed, which drains
towards the north. Small portions in the southeast and southwest corners of the county are
drained by the Whitewater River and Chattooga River, respectively.
3
2 to 4 feet below the soil surface (Sherrill, 1997). Dellwood is classified as a hydric B
soil unit
The Soco-Stecoah complex (SoF) is typically 40 to 50 percent Soco soils and 30 to
40 percent Stecoah soils. These soils are moderately deep and are well drained.
They develop on very steep, south to west facing slopes of intermediate mountains.
Both soils have moderately rapid permeability and surface runoff is slow is
undisturbed areas. In disturbed areas or where forest leaf litter has been removed
runoff is rapid. Depth to weathered bedrock is between 1.5 and 3.5 feet deep on
Soco soils and 3.5 to 5 feet deep on Stecoah soils. Underlying bedrock is very
susceptible to landslides, especially during periods of intensive rainfall and heavy
traffic. Rock seams bearing large quantities of sulfur may be exposed during
construction. If this sulfur is washed into nearby streams it can harm or kill aquatic
life by increasing the acidity of the water (Sherrill, 1997).
• The Spivey-Santeetlah complex (SrD) is composed of moderately steep, very deep,
well drained Spivey and Santeetlah soils. This unit is found on benches, toe slopes,
and along drainageways in intermediate mountain coves. Spivey soils are formed in
colluvium and local alluvium from soils underlain by metamorphosed sedimentary
rocks that have moved downslope. They make up 45 to 55 percent of the complex.
Santeetlah soils are formed in colluvium from weathered metasedimentary rocks and
makes up 25 to 35 percent of the complex. This soil complex has a moderately rapid
permeability and slow surface runoff rate in undisturbed areas. However, disturbed
areas have a medium to rapid runoff rate. Depth to bedrock is more than 5 feet
The seasonal high water table is more than 6 feet from the surface.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration
of hydrophytic vegetation (Cowardin et al., 1979). Soils referred to as "hydric A" are
completely hydtic throughout the mapped soil unit "Hydric B" soils are non-hydric soils
that contain inclusions of hydric soils, usually in depressional areas or along the border with
other soil units. Based on the Jackson County soil survey (Sherrill, 1997), one hydtic B soil
map unit occurs in the project area: Dellwood (DfA) gravelly fine sandy loam.
2.2 Water Resources
The study area is located in the Tuckasegee River watershed of the Litde Tennessee River
Basin. This river basin begins in northeastern Georgia and flows northeastward through
seven large, unique mountain ranges before joining the Tennessee River in eastern
Tennessee (NCDWQ, 2002). The Little Tennessee River is critical habitat for three federally
listed endangered species: a fish, the Spotfin chub (C% iinella me acba) and two mussels, the
Appalachian elktoe (Alarmidonta raveneliana) and the Little-wing pearly mussel (Pegias fabula).
The Tuckasegee River is critical habitat for Appalachian elktoe, with an extant population
located approximately one mile downstream from Dicks Creek.
bioclassifications, which have been developed for North Carolina's major ecoregions, are
used to assess the various impacts of both point source discharges and non-point source
runoff. The nearest benthic macroinvertebrate sampling site to the project area is located
approximately four miles downstream on the Tuckasegee River at SR 1377 (Macktown
Road), west of Sylva in Jackson County. This site was last sampled in 1999 and was given a
bioclassification rating of "Good" (NCDWQ, 2000).
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by
law to register for a permit. According to the September 27, 2004 list of active NPDES
permits issued by NCDWQ, there are 20 permitted NPDES dischargers within the 04-04-02
subbasin. The largest discharger is the waste water treatment plant (WWTP) operated by the
Tuckasegee Water and Sewer Authority. Two WWTPs discharge to the Tuckasegee River
and to Scotts Creek downstream from the study area. Several minor dischargers are located
on the Tuckasegee River more than 20 miles upstream from the Dicks Creek confluence.
No significant compliance or toxicity problems have been reported for any facility operating
in this subbasin during recent years (NCDWQ, 2002).
The primary sources of water quality degradation in urban areas are non-point sources of
discharge, which include surface water runoff and construction activities. Short-term
impacts to water quality from construction-related activities include increased sedimentation
and turbidity. Long-term construction related impacts to water resources include substrate
destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible temperature
fluctuations within the channel due to removal of streamside vegetation. Precautions should
be taken to rninitni?e impacts to water resources from runoff and erosion in the project area.
Jackson County has locally-delegated erosion and sediment control programs that require
erosion and sediment control plans for activities disturbing more than one acre of land.
Dave Rosgen of Wildland Hydrology has established a classification system for stream
channels based on fluvial geomorphologic principles and landscape position. Based on the
Rosgen classification method and field observations made during the site visit, the stream
appears to be a "BY' type channel While the channel appears to be stable, it was most likely
relocated in the past as part of land development for agriculture and residences and to allow
road construction through the narrow valley.
2.2.1 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Aquatic communities are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment and
environmental impacts from construction activities may result in long-term or irreversible
effects. Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include increased
channeb ation and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the substrate
and impacts adjacent streamside vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to
increased siltation, which can clog the gills or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms,
fish, and amphibian species. Siltation may also cover benthos with excessive amounts of
sediments that inhibit their ability to obtain oxygen. These organisms are slow to recover
and usually do not, once the stream has been severely impacted.
7
locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and red maple (Acer rubrum). A dense layer of understory trees
and shrubs were observed, which included tag alder (Alnus serrulata), rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum), birch, and dog hobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana). Woody vines and
herbaceous species included greenbriat (Smilax spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefo&), poison ivy (To> codendron radicans), Japanese creeping grass (Microstegium
vimineum), plaintain (Plantago spp.), various grasses (Poaceae family), vetch (Vicia spp.), and
various species in the pea (Fabaceae) family.
Surrounding the narrow valley is a densely forested steep slope. This forested cove
community is best classified as a variation of a Rich Cove Forest (Schafale and Weakley,
1990). This community is found at low to moderate elevations in moist sheltered coves and
low slopes. The canopy can be very diverse, often dominated by tulip poplar, yellow
buckeye (Aesculus flava), basswood (Tilia americana), sweet birch, Canadian hemlock, American
beech, and Southern sugar maple (Acer saccharum). At the project site, this forest is found
primarily upslope of the bridge above the stream banks or directly adjacent to the roadway.
This community is dominated by Canadian hemlock, white pine, Northern red oak, and
American beech in the mature canopy. The shrub and woody vine understory is dominated
by rhododendron and doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana). A diverse herbaceous layer occurs
in the understory including mayapple (Podophyllum spp.), trilliums (Trillium spp.), Christmas
fern (Poll stichum acrostichoides), foamflower (Tiarella spp.), and bellwort (Umlaria spp.).
Man-dominated communities represent areas that are periodically maintained by human
influences, such as roadside and power line rights-of-way, regularly mowed lawns, and open
areas. NCDOT maintains a tight-of-way along Dicks Creek Road. The steep slope on the
west side of the road encroaches on the edge of the right-of-way. A sparse layer of
herbaceous vegetation, primarily grasses (Poaceae family), grows in the hard-packed rocky
soil in the right-of-way and the edge of the floodplain on the northeast side of the bridge.
This flood plain area appears to be used as a parking area for stream access, thus limiting the
success of woody vegetation growth.
Wetland deter rinations were completed as part of the Mulkey field investigations. One
potential wetland area was identified on the northwest side of Dicks Creek Road,
approximately 250 feet upstream from Bridge No. 156. This.wetland area is located in a
comer formed by Dicks Creek Road and a private driveway, and appears to be associated
with a small tributary that drains from a pond north of the site. Based on preliminary
functional design, this area is located outside the project boundaries. However, it is
recommended that a wetland delineation and jurisdictional verification with the USACE and
NCDWQ be completed if the final bridge and roadway approach design indicates this
wetland area will be impacted by project construction.
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
The alluvial forest, steep slope cove forest, and man-dominated communities offer a high
diversity of foraging, nesting, and cover habitat for many species of amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals. Species that may be associated with these types of communities are
described below. An asterisk (*) indicates the species that were directly observed or that
evidence was noted during field reconnaissance.
9
Project construction may impact soils and topography within the project area. The primary
sources of water-quality degradation in rural areas are agriculture and construction.
Precautions should be taken to minimise impacts to water resources in the project area.
Construction related impacts to water resources include loss of aesthetic values, substrate
destabilization,.bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible temperature
fluctuations within the stream channel caused by removal of streamside vegetation.
Temporary fluctuation in populations of animal species which utilize terrestrial areas is
anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-moving, burrowing, and subterranean
organisms will be directly impacted by construction activities, while mobile organisms will be
displaced to adjacent communities. Competitive forces in the adapted communities will
likely result in a redefinition of population equilibria.
3.3 Aquatic Communities
Dicks Creek is a perennial stream that flows in a southerly direction towards the Tuckasegee
River. The aquatic habitat in the Dicks Creek drainage area is expected to be diverse based
on the stable fluvial geomorphological condition of the stream channel observed at the time
of the field visit. The stream channel exhibits a bankfull width of approximately 20 feet in
the project area, with a substrate of large gravel, cobble, and bedrock. Water depths
averaged approximately 8 to 12 inches deep at riffles and runs and 2 to 2.5 feet deep at
pools.
The project area likely has a small amphibian population which may include salamanders and
frogs. Salamanders forage on insects, both aquatic and terrestrial, crustaceans, worms, and
other organisms in forest floodplains and vernal pools. Salamanders can be found in a
variety of habitats, although most are associated with small streams, vernal pools, and
seepages. They can also be found along streams where stones, large branches, and other
woody debris offers shelter for both the salamander and their food. They are active mostly
at night, but can be found by overturning logs and stones in wet areas along stream banks.
While no salamanders were observed, species such as the Eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viiidescens), spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus
quadramaculatus), and mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus) are commonly
found in mountain areas. Spring peepers (Hyla crucifer), pickerel frogs (Rana palustris), and
green frogs (K clamitans) are likely to be present in the project area. Spring peepers mainly
inhabit woodlands, while pickerel frogs are found along shaded streams and wet areas.
Green frogs live along streams, ponds, and lakes throughout North Carolina.
Mussel surveys were conducted by qualified biologists during July 2003. These surveys
ranged from the confluence of Dicks Creek and the Tuckasegee River upstream to a point
approximately 330 feet upstream of the project site. No mussels were found in the project
area at Dicks Creek during the survey. Fish species that may be associated with the project
area include creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), whitefin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera), and
margined madton (Noturus insignis).
11
4. Waters of the United States
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges into Waters of the
United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal
administrative agency of the Clean Water Act; however, the USACE has the responsibility
for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act The USACE
regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Water bodies, including lakes, rivers, and streams, are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program. Wetlands are also identified as Waters of the US. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants authority to individual States for regulation of
discharges into Waters of the US. Under North Carolina General Statutes, 113A "Pollution
Control and Environment" and codified in the North Carolina Administrative Code
(NCAC) 15A, the NCDWQ has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and
enforcement of the provisions of the Act
4.1 Surface Waters
The NCDWQ defines a perennial stream as a clearly defined channel that contains water for
the majority of the year. These channels usually have some or all of the following
characteristics: distinctive stream bed and bank, aquatic life, and groundwater flow or
discharge. Dicks Creek is a perennial stream identified in the project vicinity. Detailed
stream characteristics, including specific water quality designations, are presented in
Section 2.2 Water Resources and Section 3.3 Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife of this report
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater long enough and frequent enough under normal conditions to
support a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions
(Environmental Laboratory, 1989). Based on this definition, delineation of jurisdictional
wetlands is based on the presence of three diagnostic indicators: hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and hydrology. Based on preliminary conceptual designs, no wetlands will be
impacted by project construction.
4.3 Permit Requirements
The USACE issues general and individual permits. Nationwide permits (NWP) are a type of
general permit used throughout the United States that authorizes certain activities that are
considered routine and that are expected to have minimal adverse consequences to the
13
has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of impacts (to wetlands), minimising
impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40
CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimisation, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance mitigation 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 USEPA and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the slope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes. The following methods are suggested to avoid adverse impacts to
Waters of the United States.
• Consideration of all alternative courses of action, including the "No Build"
alternative.
• Within constraints related to the purpose and need of the project, and where
possible, move roadway alignment away from surface waters and wetlands.
Minimiation includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
the 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, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder
widths. The following methods are suggested to minimise adverse impacts to
Waters of the United States:
• Strictly enforce Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation
during project construction and to avoid dropping bridge components in the
water during demolition.
• Clearing and grubbing activity should be minimised,
• Decrease or eliminate discharges into Dicks Creek and its tributaries.
• Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas with judicious pesticide and
herbicide management
• Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
• Use responsible litter control practices.
Compensatory Mitigation includes restoration, enhancement, or creation for wetland and
stream functions and values that are lost when these systems are converted to other
uses. Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts
to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimised to the maximurn
extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetland" functions and values
may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate and practicable tninimi?ation has been required.
15
mapped population is a state-rare species, Eastern blazing star (Dodecatheon meadia), which is
located more than one and one-half miles downstream from the project site.
5.L1 Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sahdnus coloratus)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small, nocturnal gliding mammal approximately 10
to 12 inches in total length and 0.2 to 0.3 pounds in weight. It has a long, broad, flattened
tail that is about 80 percent of the head and body length. The eyes are prominent and it has
a dense, silky fur. A distinctive fold of fully furred skin connects between the wrists and
ankles (called the patagia) is supported by slender cartilages extending from the wrist bones.
Adult squirrels have gray with a brownish, tan, or reddish wash back and a grayish or buffy
white underside. Juveniles have a uniformly slate gray colored back and off-white underside.
They may live in family groups of both adults and juveniles of varying ages (USFWS, 1990).
Throughout its range, the Carolina northern flying squirrel is associated with boreal habitats,
especially spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests. They have been captured in conifer-
hardwood ecotones or mosaics consisting of red spruce (Picea mbens) and fir (Abies fraserii and
A. balsamea) associated with mature beech, yellow birch, sugar maple, Canadian hemlock, and
black cherry (Prunus serotina). Captures have been in stands of varying age, understory,
density, and composition but most have been in moist forest with some widely spaced
mature trees and snags. In North Carolina, all captures have occurred above 4,035 feet in
elevation. Their forage includes seeds, nuts, lichens, fungi, and insects (USFWS, 1990).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The cove forest community along the steep slopes surrounding the project site does not
offer appropriate habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. According to the USFWS
recovery plan, the project site elevation of 2,400 feet is well below the elevation of known
populations in North Carolina. No standing snags were observed in the project area during
the field visits. Since the bridge is to be replaced on existing location, it is anticipated that
construction will occur well within existing right-of-way boundaries. Therefore, it is
anticipated that replacement of Bridge No. 156 will have no effect on the Carolina northern
flying squirrel.
5.L2 Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
Federal Status: Endangered
State Status: Endangered
The Indiana bat is a small flying mammal less than 2 inches long with a wingspan of 9 to 11
inches wide. It weighs about 0.3 ounces and has fur that is brownish to grayish black above
and buff to light brown below. The Indiana bat feeds only on insects, including moths,
beetles, flies, bees, wasps, flying ants, and mosquitos. It hibernates from October to April in
large, dense clusters of up to several thousand individuals and requires caves and mines with
stable temperatures between 38°F and 43°F and high relative humidity. After emerging
from hibernation, the bats migrate to their summer roosting and feeding areas in eastern
17
Biological Conclusion: May Affect -Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Appropriate habitat for Appalachian elktoe may be available at Dicks Creek. Mussel surveys
were completed by qualified biologists in July 2003 to confine the presence of any mussels
in the creek near the project site. No mussels were found in the search corridor along Dicks
Creek or in the project area during the survey. Since the bridge is to be replaced on existing
location, it is anticipated that construction will occur well within existing right-of-way
boundaries. In a September 13, 2004 letter, the USFWS concurred with the conclusion of
Not Likely to Adversely Affect provided the project construction commitments for
demolition and erosion control are strictly enforced.
5.L4 Small-whorled pogonia (Isotrda medeoloides)
Federal Status: Threatened
State Status: Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia is a small perennial member of the Orchidaceae with long, pubescent
roots and a smooth, hollow stem 3.8 to 10 inches tall terminating in a whorl of 5 or 6 light
green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and measure up to 1.6 to 3.2 inches. It is
distinguishable from similar species such as purple fiveleaf orchid (I. verticillata) and Indian
cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana) by its hollow stem. 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 1 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. This plant is
believed to be self-pollinating by mechanical processes. 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.
The small whorled pogonia grows in mixed-deciduous or mixed- deciduous/coniferous
forests in second or third generation growth. It has also been known to occur in fairly
young forests and in maturing stands of white pine in South Carolina. Habitat is
characterized by sparse to moderate ground cover, open understory canopy, and proximity
to clearings such as roads, streams or canopy gaps. When it occurs in habitat where there is
relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density, flowering appears to be inhibited.
Decaying organic matter such as wood litter from fallen limbs and trees, leaves, bark or
stumps may be important for plant growth as various types of decaying vegetation are found
in habitat of extant populations (Oettingen, 1992).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A review of NCNHP maps in April 2003, shows that no known populations occur within a
two mile radius of the project site. At the project site, suitable habitat does not exist in the
proposed construction corridor. A one hour search for small-whorled pogonia was
conducted on April 2, 2003, along the steep wooded slopes within a 50 foot wide search
corridor as measured along the roadway centerline and adjacent to the project site. Even
though this was prior to the expected bloom period of mid-May to mid June, no plants with
the vegetative characteristics of small-whorled pogonia were observed in the search corridor.
Since the bridge is to be replaced on existing location, construction should occur well within
19
from other species. Fruiting bodies, which are borne at the tips of the straps and are black,
occur between July and September. Cup lichens (Cladonias spp.) are a similar species, but are
never blackened toward the base and have brown or red fruiting bodies. Apothecia are
cylindrical in shape and radial in symmetry. Propagation appears to be asexual, with colonies
spreading clonally. It is frequently found in association with andreaea moss (Andreaea spp.)
which has a distinctive reddish-brown color visible from a distance. Most populations of
rock gnome lichen occur above 5,000 feet in elevation (Murdock and Langdon, 1997).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A review of NCNHP maps in Ap:612003 shows that no known populations occur within a
two mile radius of the project site. Appropriate habitat for rock gnome lichen does not exist
at the project site. Since the bridge is to be replaced on existing location, it is anticipated
that construction will occur well within existing right-of-way boundaries. Therefore, the
replacement of Bridge No. 156 will have no effect on rock gnome lichen.
5.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
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. Species designated as
FSC are defined as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or species under consideration for listing for which there
is insufficient information to support listing.
Species identified as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern (SC) by the NCNHP 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. The
NCNHP lists of May 2003 included 39 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) as potentially
occurring in the county and 22 additional species receiving protection under state laws. The
Jackson County'FSC and the state protected species, their status, and the existence of
suitable habitat within the project area are shown in Table 3 which is included in the
Appendix.
6. Conclusions
The proposed project, situated about 3 miles north of Dillsboro in Jackson County, North
Carolina, will replace Bridge No. 156 on SR 1388 (Dicks Creek Road) over Dicks Creek on
existing location. Existing right-of-way is assumed to be 30 feet from the roadway centerline
outward- The proposed replacement bridge will be a prestressed cored-slab concrete
structure with a single span approximately 60 feet long and 28 feet wide. This new bridge
will be approximately 4 feet wider than the existing bridge on the upstream side.
Three plant communities were identified in the project study area: alluvial forest, cove
forest, and man-dominated areas. Terrestrial community impacts due to construction are
based on the permanent right-of-way boundaries and include 0.19 acres of alluvial forest;
0.28 acres of cove forest; and 0.25 acres of man-dominated areas.
21
7. References
Conant R., and J. T. Collins, 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern
and Central North America. Third Edition, Expanded. Peterson Field Guides.
Houghton Mifflin Publishers, New York, NY.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States
Department of the Interior. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual;
Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Fridell, John A., 1994. Appalachian Elktoe in North Carolina. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Asheville Field Office. Asheville, NC. World Wide Web: hitpWric-
es.fws.gov/mussel/-al2l2elk.h tmL Accessed on July 15, 2003.
Lee, D. S., C. R .'Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.,
1980 et seq. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina Museum of
Natural History, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. North
Carolina Biological Survey #1980-12.
Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey, Julian R Harrison, and Jack
Dermid, 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Murdock, Nora and Keith Langdon, 1997. Recovery Plan for Rock Gnome Lichen
(Gymnoderma lineare) (Evans) Yoshimura and Sharp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Asheville Field Office. Asheville, North Carolina.
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), 1999. Subchapter 1I - Forest Practice
Guidelines Related to Water Quality, Section.0100. 15A NCAC 11.0102. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), 1985. Geologic Map of North
Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2004. North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
Public Review Draft, April 27, 2004. NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Water Quality Section. Raleigh, North Carolina. World Wide Web:
h=://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General 303d.htm. Accessed October 12, 2004.
23
Schafale, M. P. and A. S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, A Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Sherrill, Michael L., 1997. Soil Survey of Jackson County, North Carolina. Natural
Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture. Raleigh, NC.
Stokes, Donald and Lillian Stokes, 1996. Stokes Field Guide to Birds, Eastern Region.
Little, Brown, and Company, New York, NY.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1990. Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucom
ys
sabrinus coloratus) Recovery Plan. Annapolis Field Office, Annapolis, MD. World
Wide Web: h=://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery 121ans/1990/900924cpdf.
Accessed on July 15, 2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1991. Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) Recovery Plan.
Region 5, Newton Corner, MA. World Wide Web:
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery plans/1991 /910930c pdf. Accessed on July 15,
2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1999. The Indiana Bat in Western North Carolina,
A Status Summary Update. Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2003. World Wide Web:
hM://waterdata-usgs.gov/nc/nwis/nwismm/?site no=0214655255&agency cd=U
SGS. Accessed on April 9, 2003.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr., 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
25
Prepared For: PROJECT VICINITY
B-43
48
Brill a No. 158 over Dicks Creek on SR 1388
1199 1 Jackson County, North Carolina
0*"
Feet USGS 7.5-Minute
?` t??t U L K E'1( 0 475 950 1,900 2,850 3,800 Topographic Quadrangle: FIglI?O•e No,
Whittier, North Carolina
M.W. Contour Interval 40 Feet
ENGINEERS C r, ON SULT ANTS 0 170 290 520 780 1,040
o
a?
.7
L CN
?J
}
?r
5
r}
0
o
U-
0 o
z "'
moo
00
00
M
N C

w C_
of
E
Z _g O
IVV
U
co 0
O o v?z

v
to
p
II oV
N
U7 O
tu
4 Z a
V

N
a?

"O
.C
m
L
O
U-
O
?Q
J
W11 c ?0
Z n u
® m hpm
r
e npaa
n'
n
Z eIp](C o x
.4
Bridge No. 156
MUL.KEY
I ENGINEERS G CONGUL7ANTS
Prepared For
Legend
Tributaries
Streams
F•at
o so , too zoo soo eoo USGS Digital
Orthographic Quadrangle: Figure No.
71 Meters Whittler, NC
0 12.5 25 50 75 too April 1995
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
B-4348
Bridge No. 156 on SR 1388 over Docks Creek
Jackson County, North Carolina
B-4348
Jackson County
Page 1 of 3
B-4348
Jackson County
Page 3 of 3
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern and State List Species for Jackson County, North Carolina
Federal State Preferred Habitat Available
Common Name Scientific Name Status Status Habitat in Study Area

Southern Appalachian Aegolius acadicus FSC T Spruce-fir forests or mixed No
saw-whet owl hardwood/spruce forests
(for nesting) [breeding
season only]
Southern Appalachian Sphyrapicus varius FSC SC Mature, open hardwoods Yes
yellow-bellied sapsucker appalaciensis with scattered dead trees
[breeding season only]
Southern Appalachian Neotoma floridana FSC SC Rocky places in deciduous Yes
woodrat haematoreia or mixed forests, in
southern mountains and
adjacent Piedmont
Wounded darter
Southern rock vole
Invertebrates
Engraved Covert
Etheostoma vulneratum FSC Sc
Microtus chrotorrhinus
carolinensis
Fumonelix orestes
Smoky Mountain Covert lnflectarius ferrissi
Wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola
Black mantleslug
Dwarf proud globe
Rainbow
Pallifera hemphilli
Patera clarki
Villosa iris
FSC Sc
Streams of Little
Tennessee system;
perhaps extirpated from
French Broad system
Rocky areas at high
elevations, forests or fields
- T Plott Balsam mountains
(endemic to this area).
T"` Great Smoky Mountains
and Plott Balsams
(endemic to these ranges).
SC French Broad, Pigeon, and
Little Tennessee rivers;
currently known only in the
Little Tennessee River.
SC"" High elevation forests,
mainly spruce-fir.
SC** Southwestern NC
mountains, west of the foot
of the Blue Ridge
Escarpment.
SC French Broad, Hiwassee,
and Little Tennessee rivers;
currently only known in the
state from the Little
Tennessee River.
Page 2 of 7
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern and State List Species for Jackson County, North Carolina
Federal State Preferred Habitat Available
Common Name Scientific Name Status Status Habitat in Study Area

Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia frased FSC E Found in forests, on Yes
roadsides
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC SR-T Forests, especially over No
mafic rock
Gorge filmy fern Hymenophyllum FSC - Restricted to deeply No
tayloriae sheltered, continuously
moist habitats in the
southern Applachians. Only
a few, extremely small sites
have been found
Granite dome goldenrod Solidago simulans FSC - Endemic to granitic domes No
in the vicinity of the NC-SC-
GA tristate boundary.
Occurs at only a few sites,
only one of which is
protected.
Lobed barren-strawberry Waldsteinia lobata FSC* - High steep slopes, terraces No
above watercourses with
constant high humidity and
shade. Often part of the
shallow mantle of moss and
duff that covers boulders or
river bluff ledges;
characterized by stands of
Rhododendron spp. and
mountain laurel (Kalmia
/atifolia ).
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC SR-T Moss or moist soil in or No
along rocky stream banks
or seeps within spruce and
spruce-fir-hardwood forests
at elevations above 1370 m
Mountain catchfly
Mountain thaspium
Silene ovata FSC
Thaspium pinnatifidum FSC*
SR-T Rich slopes, cove forests,
montane oak-hickory
forests
Occurs in forests and
woodlands with calcareous
bedrock
Yes
No
Page 4 of 7
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern and State List Species for Jackson County, North Carolina
Federal State Preferred Habitat Available
Common Name Scientific Name Status Status Habitat in Studv Area
Non-Vascular Plants
A liverwort
A liverwort
Highlands moss
Ammons's tortula
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
Gorge moss
Plagiochila sullivantii
var. spinigera
Plagiochila caduciloba
Schlotheimia lancifolia
Tortula ammonsiana
Plagiochila sullivantii
var. sullivantii
Pagiochila sharpii
Plagiochila virginica var. FSC
caroliniana
Spenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
Chiloscyphus FSC
appalachianus
Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
SR-L On moist rocks in spray
zones of waterfalls
E Rocks and streambanks in
humid gorges, spray zone
of waterfalls.
T* In mountains, found on
bark of hardwoods in cove
forests.
E Shaded rock faces,
probably with nutrient-rich
SR-L Damp rockfaces in humid
gorges, high elevation
rocky summits
SR-L Rockfaces in spray zone of
waterfalls, other moist
rockfaces
PE On bark of Fraser Firs in
spruce-fir forests
SR-T On rock faces in spray
zone of waterfalls
E Rocks and streambanks in
humid gorges, spray zones
of waterfalls
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Notes:
E Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a signifi
of its range."
FSC Federal Species of A species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or sped
Concern under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.)
PE Proposed EndangenA species that has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered but has
not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
PT Proposed Threatene A species that has been formally proposed for listing as Threatened but has
not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
SC Special Concern Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by thl
Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under certain
SR Significantly Rare Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as Endar
Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
Page 6 of 7
The
Catena
Group
Freshwater Mussel Surveys
410-13 Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27279
[phone]
NCDOT Bridge Nos. 156 and 36 on Dicks Creek Road (SR 1388)
Dicks Creek
Jackson County
North Carolina
Prepared For:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
ATTN: Ms. Leza Mundt
6750 Tryon Road
Cary NC, 27511
Prepared By:
The Catena Group
Hillsborough, North Carolina
July 30, 2003
lp,,?,2c, ??O
fiX Timothy W. Savidge
shell surface) is a shiny bluish white, changing to salmon color in the beak cavity portion
of the shell. A detailed description of the shell characteristics is contained in Clarke
(1981). Ortmann (1921) provides descriptions of the soft anatomy.
Little is known about the reproductive biology of the Appalachian, elktoe;
however nearly all freshwater mussel species have similar reproductive strategies, which
involves a larval stage (glochidium), which becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a
fish. Many mussel species have specific fish hosts that must be present to complete their
life cycle. Based upon laboratory infestation experiments, Watters (1994) identified the
banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) as the potential fish host for the AE, however the
banded sculpin does not occur in much of the range of the AE (including the Little
Tennessee River). Obviously another fish species serves as a host species in these areas.
The closely related mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) is a likely candidate. Pennak (1989)
should be consulted for a general overview of freshwater mussel reproductive biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
At the time of listing, two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe existed in
North Carolina; the Nolichucky River (including its tributaries of the Cane River and the
North Toe River), and the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. Since listing, the AE
has been found in additional areas. These "new" occurrences include extensions of the
known ranges in the Nolichucky (South Toe River) and Little Tennessee (Tuckasegee
and Cheoah rivers) rivers as well as a rediscovery in the French Broad River Basin
(Pigeon and Little rivers). Most of these newly discovered populations are small in size
and range and may be represented by very few (<5) observed individuals. The
Appalachian elk-toe has been observed in gravelly substrates often mixed with cobble and
boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates (USFWS
1996).
Threats to Species
The decline of the AE throughout its range has been attributed to a variety of
factors, including sedimentation, point and non-point source pollution, and habitat
modification (impoundments, channelization, etc.).
With the exception of the Little Tennessee River population, all of the other
populations are generally small in numbers and restricted to short reaches of isolated
streams. The low numbers of individuals and the restricted range of most of the
surviving populations make them extremely vulnerable to extirpation from a single
catastrophic event or activity. Catastrophic events may consist of natural events such as
flooding or drought, as well as human influenced events such as toxic spills associated
with highways or railroads. In 1998 a toxic spill resulting from tanker truck accident
carrying Octocure 554 (a chemical liquid used in the rubber making process), killed
several miles of mussel populations in the Clinch River near Cedar Bluff, Virginia. The
spill killed thousands of fish and mussels, including three federally protected species. The
Clinch River contains one of the most diverse mussel faunas in the United States. The
stretch of the river affected by the spill was one of the few remaining areas that contained
The zebra mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral
Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the
1980s. Since its introduction, this species has rapidly expanded its range into the
surrounding river basins, including those of the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and
MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food resources and space with native
mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of at least 20 freshwater mussel
species if it becomes established throughout most of the eastern United States (USFWS
1996). The- zebra mussel is not currently known from any river supporting AE
populations.
SURVEY EFFORTS
Dicks Creek is a perennial stream that could potentially provide habitat for the
Appalachian elktoe and thus surveys for this and other mussel species were conducted for
BHME.
Pre Survey Investigation
Prior to conducting in-stream surveys, a review of any survey work that had taken
place in Dicks Creek was performed. Sources consulted include the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) -systematic inventory (database) of rare plant and
animal species, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
The pre-survey searches did not reveal any records of freshwater mussel species
from Dicks Creek. The Applachian elktoe has been recorded at various locations in the
Tuckasegee River.
Mussel Surveys for this Project
Tim Savidge, Mike Wood and Shannon Simpson of The Catena Group, Inc.,
visited Dicks Creek on July 16, 2003. Mussel surveys were conducted from the
confluence with the Tuckasegee River upstream to a point approximately 100 meters
above the upstream most bridge.
Methodology and Results
Visual surveys were conducted using visual (batiscopes) and tactile methods. The
water was very clear during the site visit and visual surveys were easily conducted.
Water level ranged from <6 inches to 2.0 feet, averaging 1 foot.
Data points were taken at 3 locations within the reach surveyed. No mussels were
observed in the entire surveyed reach, in 7.5 person-hours of survey time.
Discussion
No mussel species were found in Dicks Creek during the survey efforts. It is
apparent that the Appalachian elktoe does not occur within the surveyed portion of Dicks
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha):
an unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Ortmann, A. E. 1921. The anatomy of certain mussels from the Upper Tennessee. The
Nautilus 34(3):81-91.
Ortman, A.E. 1918. The nayades (freshwater mussels) of the Upper Tennessee drainage.
With notes on synonymy and distribution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society 57:521-626.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, protozoa to Mollusca
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998.. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. The
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 328pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertebrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachussetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
6