20051984 Ver 1_Application_20051031

Y O C T 3 1 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 24, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock, NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
Subject: NW 23 Permit Application
Bridge Number 59 on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek
Transylvania County
State Project: B-4691 (DWQ Notification Only)
Dear Ms. Pennock:
®51984
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace Bridge
Number 59 on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek (C; Tr) in Transylvania County.
NCDOT proposes to replace this structure at the existing location. Traffic will be detoured by
employing a temporary spanning bridge structure on the upstream side of the existing bridge.
The new permanent bridge is designed to minimize impacts by implementing longer spans and
increase hydraulic capacity. 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 and a marked county map. The USGS map
location is in the CE document. Please note that the CE document states that this bridge will be
replaced with 40-foot long by 4-feet high crown-span culvert. Since the CE was written a
decision was made to replace this structure with a 55-foot single span cored-slab bridge. This
design change represents an improvement hydraulically and environmentally.
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
Tucker Creek watershed. 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.
B-4691 on SR 1324
October 24, 2005
The stream at the bridge site is a cold water trout stream and is not suitable for freshwater
mussels. For these reasons, this project will have "no effect" on threatened and endangered
species
Impacts to historic or cultural resources are not anticipated. Based on reviews by the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Office of State Archaeology, this project will have
no effect on historic or archaeological resources.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Tucker Creek is at least a 3rd 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 is of sufficient size to
support fish, including trout, and other aquatic organisms. The stream channel is composed
primarily of cobble and gravel and lacks vegetation. Therefore, we believe that Tucker Creek is
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers. In order to construct the project, it
will be necessary to impact waters of the United States in the French Broad River Basin.
Specifically, NCDOT is requesting to replace Transylvania County Bridge No. 59 with a cored
slab structure. Listed below is a summary of the proposed impacts.
Site No. Existing Condition Proposed Condition Net Impacts
Station
Site 1 Western Existing End Structure Removal and Replace 0'
Bent and Associated Rip with Class II Rip Rap (55 LF)
Rap Fills (55 LF)
Site 2 Eastern Existing End Structure Removal and Replace 0'
Bent and Associated Rip with Class II Rip Rap
Rap Fills (55 LF)
Site 3 NA Temporary Bridge 60 LF (Temp)
Temp. Impacts from temporary bridge = 60 LF
Perm. Impacts = 0 LF
Total net impact from new structure = 0 Sq. Ft.
B-4691 on SR 1324
October 24, 2005
Since the existing bank stabilization and end bent removal of 55 linear feet is equal to the
placement of 55 linear feet of rip rap associated with the new bridge, there will be no net impact.
Therefore, there will be no mitigation required for this project.
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: Ar. John Hennessy, DWQ, DENR Raleigh (2 courtesy copies)
Ms. 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

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1324
Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek
Transylvania County
Federal-aid Project No. PFH-150(2)
State Project No. 8.2001801 (WBS PE 33837.1.1)
T.I.P. No. B-4691
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
The NCWRC requests a moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance
within the 25-foot (7.6-meter) trout buffer from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg
and fry stages of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Sahno trutta).
Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for
sensitive watersheds.
Green Sheet
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4691
State Project No. 8.2001801 (WBS PE 33837.1.1)
Federal Project No. PFH-150(2)
A. Proiect Description:
This project will replace Bridge No. 59 on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek in the
Balsam Grove community in Transylvania County. The existing single-span,
20-foot bridge will be replaced with a 40-foot long by 4-feet high crown-span
culvert. Stage construction will be used so that traffic can be maintained
throughout the construction period.
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 59 has a
sufficiency rating of 48.7 and is functionally obsolete. It is a two-lane bridge
with a clear roadway width of 16.9 feet. The caps and risers are heavily
weathered and the posts and sills show light decay. Bulkheads and wingwalls
are heavily weathered with scattered decay, and the bulkhead at abutment 41
is leaning away from the stream at approximately 1.5 inches per foot. The
edges of the stream flow into and along the abutments and there is a scour
hole in the stream bed beneath the bridge. There is scattered light settlement in
both approach roadways and the bridge surface has scattered map and
transverse cracking. The replacement of Bridge No. 59 is necessary due to its
deteriorating condition and functional status.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. 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
O 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.
2
S. 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
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
D.
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 UNIT 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.
Special Proiect Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 190,000
Right of Way $ 0
Total $ 190,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current 2003 - 350 vehicles per day
Year 2030 - 850 vehicles per day
TTST - 2%
Dual - 1%
3
Accidents: According to crash records for the three-year period from
12/01/1999 to 11/30/2002, no crashes were reported in the vicinity of the
bridge.
Design Speed: 45 miles per hour
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
School Buses: According to Transylvania County Schools, two buses cross
Bridge No. 59 each day, for a total of four crossings.
Division Office Comments:
There is no available detour; therefore the construction would have to be
phased to allow traffic to be maintained on the roadway during construction.
One lane of traffic is acceptable.
Bridge Demolition:
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this
project, the N CDOT and all p otential c ontractors 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).
It is recommended that this project be considered Case 2 under BMPs-BDR
guidelines. A Case 2 project allows no work in the water during moratorium
periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into
nursery areas. The NCWRC requests a moratorium prohibiting in-stream
work and land disturbance within the 25-foot (7.6-meter) trout buffer from
October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Sediment and erosion
control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds. This recommendation is based upon classification of waters in
the project area and comments received from agencies during the consultation
process.
Offsite Detour: Stage construction will be used so that traffic can be
maintained on-site throughout the construction period.
E. Threshold Criteria:
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
4
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique
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
(HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in eaters of the United States

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 ? X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ?
resources? X

(12) Will a U.S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? X
5
(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 ?
, is 1
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 1:1 volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using ?
existing roads, staged construction or on-site detours? X
business? X
adverse human health and environmental effect of on way, any
minority or low-income population? X
(17) (18) If Will the the project project have involves a the acquisition of disproportionately right high and
6
(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? 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.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4691
State Project No. 8.2001801
Federal-aid Project No. PFH_150(2)
Project Description:
This project will replace Bridge No. 59 on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek in the
Balsam Grove community in Transylvania County. The existing bridge will
be replaced with a 40-foot wide by 4-foot high-crown span culvert. Stage
construction will be used so that traffic can be maintained throughout the
construction period.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Approved:
00y
Date
3
at
For Type II (B) projects only:
TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
and Consultants
Bridge Maintenance Unit
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
Federal Aid" PFH-150(2)) TIP ft B4691 County: Transylvania
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 59 on SR 1324 over Tucker Creek
On 06/14/2004, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
`? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
?J There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
/ \ \ project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
_US? is considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
/?\ All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
Representativ CD T Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, o they Federal Agency (fDate
Representative, HPO ate
State Historic Preservation Officer U Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
lhw-lei `
h
'+O?CC Of Nr F`,G
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
September 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook emy5, LQa
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324
(I'anasee Gap Road) Balsam Grove, B-4691, Transylvania County,
ER03-1340
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 2003, concerning the above project
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and
evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings
to us.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment and there is no onsite detour, it is
unlikely that significant archaeological resources will be affected and no investigation is
recommended. If, however, the replacement is to be in a new location, or an onsite detour is
proposed, an archaeological survey is recommended.
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.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT www h
Location
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
3o.der.state.ne.us
Meiling Address Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-86
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone] • 715-48
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone] • 715-48
U, I
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-4692, 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, nsylvania 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,
Ton M. ney, Ma?riager
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
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 sicklefm redhorse (Moxostonia sp.1) in Hanging Dog Creek. Although the
sicklefm 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:
Proiect 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.
Sin/cce?re'ly,, /
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)'
Rafrnesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus raftnesquii FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Blotched chub Erimystax insignis FSC
Junaluska salamander Euryceajunaluska FSC
"Sicklefm" redhorse Moxostoma sp. 1 FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
(summer habitat)
Olive darter Percina squarrata 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 CI *
January 29, 2003 Page I of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Hairy blueberry Vaccinium hirsutum FSC
JACKSON COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe,Alasmidontaravencliana -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
"Sicklefrn" 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'sturtlehead
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 jloridana haematoreia FSC
Poecile atricapillus practicus. FSC
Percina sguamata FSC
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
Duyomanes bewickii altus FSC
Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Cambarus reburrus FSC
Dactylocrythere 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: exaltatun: FSC
Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Helonias bullata Threatened
Hymenophyllum tayloriae FSC
Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Monotropsis odorata FSC
Pycnanthemum torrei FSC*
Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Senecio millefolium FSC
Silene ovata FSC
Solidago simulans FSC
Thaspium pinnatifidum FSC*
Waldsteinia lobata FSC*
Bryocrumia vivicolor
Gynnnoderma lineare
Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana
Sphenolobopsis pearsond
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)'
Coryncrhinus raf:nesquii FSC*
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Loxia curvirostra FSC
Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC*
Poecile atricapillus practicus FSC
January 29, 2003 ?age 3 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAA E STATUS
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 Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus FSC
Oconee crayfish ostracod Cymocythere clavata FSC
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered
Margarita River skimmer Macromia margarita FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC*
Transylvania crayfish ostracod Waltoncythere acuta FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Alexander's rock aster Aster avitus FSC
Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii FSC
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
Smoky Mountain mannagrass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Flatrock panic grass Panicum lithophilum FSC*
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii Endangered-
Southern oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia FSC
Lobed barren-strawberry Waldsteinia lobata FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gyn:noderma 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 (seethe 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)r
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea 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 Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phyciodes batesii maconensis FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies 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 nubigena FSC
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachiafraseri FSC
Torrey's mountain-mint Pycnanthemum torrei FSC*
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
January 29, 2003 Page 5 of 6
CONLMON 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."
CI A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing.
FSC A Federal species of concem--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 souther
population of the species. in addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers
the souther population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
January 29, 2003 Page 6 of 6
W ATFR
Q
I ? r

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross ]r., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 10, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit 1 l
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator (:vau)
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-3430, B-3431, B-4347,
B-4348, B-4349, B-4690, B-4691, and B4692 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 Bridle Replacement Projects
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 b
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 the
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 rcads 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. I
t40
N. C. Division of Rater Quarry, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Scrvicc Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
Customer Service tF. 1-877-623-6748
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented prior
to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent sedimentation
of water resources.
11. 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
12. 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. This equipment should
be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
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 azerequired, 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-"k'.
flo;odplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream end to restrict
or mosquito nree?
flows to accomm
baffles should be
passage: 1) by de
providing resting
Z. i
fl(
tiple pipes or
to allow for v
3. C
re
er
in
4. R
or pipes
of structures
ntenance and
) should not b
des aquatic li'.
and installed.
conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low
fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched
tlled in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life
ing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
es for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide
are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during normal
passage.
be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid channel
the stream channel must be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet
ly decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased
s aquatic life passage.
placed in the. active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally designed,
in most cases, we prefei 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, minimize 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.
III. Project-Specific Comments
B-3430 Bridge 43 over Hanging Doe Creek, Cherokee Co.
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-IV. 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 Bridge 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 Bridge No. 156 and B-4349 Bridge 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 Bridge No. 55 and B-4691 Bridge 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 maybe required.
B-4692 Bridge 283 over Wesleys Creek, Havwood 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 Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator 777 o,? l n??i ?a c2
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE:. June 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Scoping review of NCDOT'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:
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
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
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
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.
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 amdromous 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:
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. Riprap 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.
Inmost 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, minimize 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:
1. 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 alleganiensis), 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 fry 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 parrisht), federal species of concern, is potentially present in the project area.
The knotty elimia (Elimia interrupts), 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.
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-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.
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.
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, NH?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
B LY 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, Br idge No. 45 on SR 1331 over Beaver Dam Creek,
Cherokee County.
3. TIP Project No. B-4347, 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. B-4349, 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 pert 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

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
TTor'th Carolina Department of
TzXZrironXnent and PTatuz-al Rerovurces
Di szzsion of Soil axxa N O ter Consersration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vogel, Director
MEMORANDUM: May 19, 2003
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison 7
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects
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
26X4 Mail Se -ice Cexat r, Ralaigh, North Caroliz m 2 76 9 9-1614
Phone:9X9-7332302 \ FFZX: 92.9-7 Z5-?SS9
Znteraet: ztsrstvur.enr.state.ac_ua/E1?TR/DSYYC/
AN EQUAL OPpORTVNZTY \ AFFZRMtCTZYE ACSZON EMP?YER
50:: RECYCLED / 10°q ?06T GON6VnZER PAPER
U.S. Department of Commander 431 Crawford Street
Homeland SeCUrlty United States Coast Guard Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
Fifth Coast Guard District Staff Symbol: Oan-b
United States Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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 concem 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].
Cyt/'\\\/v`A/verre y,
WAVERLY W. GORY, JR.
Y Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
Natural Systems
Site Assessment
T.I.P. B-4691
Bridge No. 59 on SR 1324
over Tucker Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
September 2003
Introduction
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants (MULKEY) has been retained by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to prepare a programmatic categorical exclusion
for a bridge replacement project located in Transylvania County, North Carolina. The
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap
Road), which is identified as Transportation Improvement Project (T.I.P.) B-4691 (Figure 1).
This assessment report briefly describes the natural systems associated with the bridge
location. Field investigations at the project site were conducted by a qualified biologist from
MULKEY during April 2003. The field survey was undertaken to determine natural resource
conditions and to document natural communities, wildlife, and the presence of protected
species or their habitats. Published information regarding the project area and region was
derived from a number of resources. Information concerning the occurrence of federal and
state protected species within the project vicinity was gathered from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service list of protected species and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
database of rare species and unique habitats.
Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Cindy S. Carr, Biologist
Education: B.S., 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, C112M 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,
404/401 permit applications, and USEPA HAZWOPER training.
Page 1 of 4
T.I.P. B-4691
Transylvania County
Natural Systems Assessment
Water Resources
The project site occurs in the upper portion of the French Broad River Basin. This basin is
composed of the French Broad River, Pigeon River and Nolichucky River drainage areas.
Tucker Creek is located within Subbasin 04-03-01, which includes the North and West Fork
French Broad River headwaters. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
stream index number for Tucker Creek is 6-3-10 and the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit is
06010105. The project is situated in the Balsam Grove community approximately 6 miles
(9.7 kilometers) north of US 64 and about 10 miles (16 kilometers) west of Brevard.
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses. Tucker
Creek, as well as its tributaries Methany Creek, Johnnies Creek, and Jake Branch, are Class
"C - Tr" waters. There is an unnamed tributary in the project area that converges with
Tucker Creek just south of the bridge on the east side of the main stream. It is assumed to
have the same classification as Tucker Creek since it is not classified separately. A Class "C"
designation denotes freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, and others uses. The "Tr" designation denotes
freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. There are
currently no 303(d) listed streams in the project area.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-
quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical
water-quality data. The type of watet-quality data or parameters collected is determined by
the waterbody's classification and corresponding water quality standards. The AMS
determines the "use support" status of waterbodies, meaning how well a waterbody supports
its designated uses. There are three AMS monitoring stations in this subbasin; however,
there are no AMS monitoring stations along Tucker Creek near the project site. The most
recent use support rating for Tucker Creek is "fully supporting." A fully supporting rating is
given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and generally has good or
excellent water quality.
It is possible that the plant nursery in the project area (discussed in the following section)
could be a source of nitrogen runoff from fertilizers. 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.
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from
construction. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage and control runoff. Such
measures should include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions for waste
materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road maintenance
measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Water (BMPs - PSW),
Sedimentation Control guidelines, and design standards for sensitive watersheds (15A
NCAC 04B:0124) should be strictly enforced during the construction stages of the project.
Page 2 of 4
T.I.P. B-4691
Transylvania County
Bridge demolition activities to remove the existing bridge are elements of the build
alternative. The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will follow
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR). As per the
BMPs - BDR, all methods of demolition shall be considered and implemented where
practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water.
This project is considered a Case 2under BMPs-BDR guidelines. A Case 2 project allows no
work in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and
larval recruitment into nursery areas. The NCWRC requests a moratorium prohibiting in-
stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot (7.6-meter) trout buffer from October
15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout (Oncorhymbus mykiss) and
brown trout (Salmo trutta). Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the
design standards for sensitive watersheds.
Biotic Resources
Vegetative communities at the bridge site are representative of areas impacted and modified
by rural residential and agricultural uses. There are two private homes near the bridge, and a
plant nursery in the southwest portion of the study area. The northwest portion of the study
area has a grass lawn that extends to the stream. The northeast and southeast study areas
contain grassy fields that extend to within 5 feet (1.5 meters) of Tucker Creek. There is a
narrow riparian corridor along the stream that consists of forsythia (Forsytbia sp.), pussy
willow (Salix sp.), tag alder (Alnus serr lata), and wild rose (Rosa multiiAra) on the downstream
side, and box elder (Acer negundo), tag alder, and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) on the
upstream side of the bridge.
There is a commercial nursery bedding plot containing trees and shrubs upstream from the
bridge to the southwest. A small wetland was noted during the field survey near the comer
of this property adjacent to Tucker Creek and SR 1324, approximately 50 feet (15 meters)
southwest from Bridge No. 59. This wetland was characterized by surface inundation up to
5 inches deep with hummocks of needle rush (Juncos spp.) and grasses (Poaceae family).
Dominant vegetation in the wetland area included needle rush, elderberry (Sambocus
canadensis), swamp rose (R. palustris), and various asters (Asteraceae family). The wetland was
not delineated or documented on data sheets since the project is not expected to extend into
this area.
Existing Stream and Wetland Conditions
The stream exhibited a moderate flow with clear water over a substrate of sand, gravel, and
cobble with a few boulders occurring near the bridge. The channel width averaged from 10
to 12 feet (3.1 to 3.6 meters) both upstream and downstream from the bridge. Channel
pattern at the project site was characterized by a long riffle and run segment over sand,
gravel, and cobble. The downstream pattern within 100 feet of the bridge exhibited a riffle
and meander pool sequence over a gravel and cobble substrate. Bank heights were
approximately 3 to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters) above the water surface. A narrow unnamed
tributary, approximately 1 foot (0.3 meters) wide with water approximately 4 inches (10.2
Page 3 of4
T.I.P. B-4691
Transylvania County
centimeters) deep converges with Tucker Creek on the southeast side, immediately upstream
of the bridge. This stream drains across a maintained grassy field or yard at a private
residence. No jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project limits.
Protected Species
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under separate laws. As of the 25 February
2003, Transylvania County species list, the USFWS identified six Endangered (E) species,
two Threatened (I) species, one Threatened due to Similatity of Appearance [T(S/A)], and
30 Federal Species of Concern (FSC) as occurring in the county. A review of habitat
requirements for species listed as threatened or endangered was completed prior to the field
visit (Table 1). A search of the project site found neither evidence of appropriate habitat for
these species nor any evidence of these species occurring at the site.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists of May 2003 included the federally listed
species referred to above as well as additional species receiving protection under state laws.
Natural Heritage Program maps were reviewed on February 10, 2003 to determine if any
protected species have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that
no protected species are known to occur within a one mile radius of the project site.
Agency consultation was undertaken for this project with the USFWS, NCDWQ, and North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The USFWS commented that there are
no known locations of listed species in the project area. The NCDWQ noted that if culverts
are used as replacement structures, the impacts would be added together for both B-4690
and B-4691 since these projects cross the same stream and mitigation could be required.
The NCWRC recommends a moratorium prohibiting instream work and land disturbance
within the 25 foot trout buffer from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages
of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta). Sediment and erosion
control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds.
Page 4 of 4
B-4690 and B-4691
Tucker Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
USGS-7.5 Minute
Topographic Quadrangle:
Lake Tozaway
Contour interval) Feet
Created 1948. Photoremetl 1969
-Table 1. Protected Species Listed for Transylvania County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Preferred Habitat Habitat Available
Status In Study Area
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergn
Carolina northern flying Glaucomys sabrinus co/oratus
squirrel
Invertebrates
Appalachian elkloe
Alasmidonta ravenehana
Oyster mussel
Vascular Plants
T(S/A) Slow, shallow, muck-bottomed rivulets of
sphagnum bogs, calcareous fens,
marshy/sedge-tussock meadows, spring
seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub
swamps; habitat usually contains an
abundance of grassy or mossy cover. The
turtles depend on a mosaic of microhabitats
for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation,
and shelter. Nests in open and elevated
ground in areas of moss, grassy tussocks,
or moist earth (see Bury 1979). Digs shallow
nest or lays eggs in the top of a sedge
tussock. Found in bogs, wet pastures, wet
thickets of Mountain and Piedmont habitats.
High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir, in
Mountain region. Prefers coniferous and
mixed forest, but will utilize deciduous
woods; riparian woods; optimal conditions
have cool, moist, mature forest with
abundant standing and down snags.
Occupies tree cavities, leaf nests,
underground burrows; prefers cavities in
mature trees as den sites.
Found in relatively shallow, medium-sized
creeks and rivers with cool, clean, well-
oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water.
Most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow
flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free,
coarse sand and gravel substrate associated
with cobble, boulders, and/or bedrock.
Stability of the substrate appears to be
critical, and the species is seldom found in
stream reaches with accumulations of silt or
shifting sand, gravel, or cobble. Only in the
Little Tennessee and Nolichucky drainages
at present.
No
No
No
Epioblasma capsaeformis E Inhabits small to medium rivers in areas with No
coarse sand to bouldar substratum (rarely in
mud) and moderate to swat currents. It is
sometimes found associated with water-
willow (lusticia americana) beds and in
pockets of gravel between bedrock ledges in
areas of swift current.
Mountain sweet pitcher Sarracenia jonesii
plant
Mountain region bogs and streamsides on No
granite rockfaces along the Blue Ridge
Divide.
Page 1 of 2
Table 1. Protected Species Listed for Transylvania County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Preferred Habitat Habitat Available
Status in Stud Area
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T White pine forests throughout Mountain and No
Piedmont regions and open, dry, deciduous
woods with acid soil. It occurs in habitat
where there is relatively high shrub coverage
or high sapling density
Spreading evens
Swamp pink
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen
Geum radiatum E Southern Blue Ridge Mountains on high-
elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes
which are exposed to full sun; also in thin,
gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit
outcrops.
Helonias bullata T Wetlands that are saturated but not flooded,
including southern Appalachian bogs and
swamps. Atlantic white cedar swamps,
swampy forests bordering small streams;
boggy meadows and spring seepage areas.
Commonly associated with some
evergreens, including white cedar, pitch
pine, American larch, and black spruce.
Gymnoderma lineare E On rocks in areas of high humidity either at
high elevations (usually vertical cliff faces) or
on boulders & large rock outcrops in deep
river gorges at lower elevations.
No
No
No
Notes:
E Endangered
T Threatened
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range."
Page 2 of 2
tiC-)

84691
Bridge No. 58 N
on SR 1324 m
2

Tanasee Gap Rd sley Fields Rd
Pres
s9

?s

Macedonia Church Rd r
?ooP d
'ache

0 OA Source:
0.8 1.6 Miles CGIA 2000

Figure No.
0 650 1.300 2,600 Meters

,nc
E P - Prepared For Project Vicinity
.
,
^e• RO 33127 Y
U161h.NMeardo<=,°s
919851 ? B-4691 on Tucker Creek
°'°°°''°'°`" ?•? Transylvania County, North Carolina

boa
B-4690
Bridge No. 55 v
on SR 1324
m
m
SR 1324
Bess/e
Y F/e/
as

?s
?s

Macedonia Church Rd

Source:
0 04 0.e 16 Miles CGIA 2000
Figure No.
0 625 1,250 2.500 Meters

,,,„
,M
M?9
e,
?Km9 Prepared For
Project Vicinity
.
.
,
r
9
P'O' 3
I 327
C_I • 276M
„«?
919-851-191)
_

?

-4690 on Tucker Creek

----? 919-051-191BFAY F
1
Transylvania County, North Carolina

. a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 1, 2003
•C
WE DNDS 1441 GROUE,Gti
d?
i
MAY 1 '2200'3;
Cynthia Van der Wiele
DENR-Division of water Quality/Wetland WATER QUALITY SECTION
1621 Mail Service Center '
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
RE: Request for comments on Bridge Replacement Projects B-3430, B-3431, B-4347,
B-4348, B-4349, B-4690, B-4691, and B-4692.
Dear Ms. Van der Wiele:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing the planning
and environmental studies for the replacement of the subject bridges. We anticipate that the
projects will be processed as Programmatic Categorical Exclusions. The bridge replacement
projects are included in NCDOT's 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The purpose of this letter is to solicit your input concerning the potential impact of the
proposed projects upon social, economic, demographic, land use or environmental conditions
near the projects. A vicinity map and bridge demolition package is attached for each project,
described below. All of the projects are located within NCDOT Division 14.
B-3430, Cherokee County, Replace Bridge No. 43 over Hanging Dog Creek on SR
1331 (Beaver Dam Road) west of Murphy.
¦ B-3431, Cherokee County, Replace Bridge No. 45 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR
1331 (Beaver Dam Road) west of Murphy.
¦ B-4347, Jackson County, Replace Bridge No. 3 over Norton Mill Road on SR 1107
(Whiteside Cove Road) southwest of Cashiers.
• B-4348, Jackson County, Replace Bridge No. 156 over Dicks Creek on SR 1388
(Dicks Creek Road) near Dillsboro.
¦ B-4349, Jackson County, Replace Bridge No. 36 over Dicks Creek on SR 1388
(Dicks Creek Road) near Dillsboro.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
BRIDGE MAINTENANCE UNIT FAX: [phone] BERYL ROAD
1565 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH, NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1565 WESSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US

¦ B-4690, Transylvania County, Replace Bridge No. 55 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324
(Tanasee Gap Road) in the Balsam Grove community.
B-4691, Transylvania County, Replace Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324
(Tanasee Gap Road) in the Balsam Grove community.
¦ B-4692, Haywood County, Replace Bridge No. 283 over Wesleys Creek on SR 1334
in the Fines Creek community.
. Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for these projects.
This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the projects. To allow us to
fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed projects, please respond in writing by June 3, 2003
concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts. of the proposed projects relating to the interest of
your agency.
If you have any questions or comments concerning these projects, please contact me at
[phone], ext. 8277. Thank you for your assistance.
Siinnccerrely,
Mike Summers
Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
LWM/ms
Attachment

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: June 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects B-3430, 13-
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.
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
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

Bridge Scopings
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co. 3 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. Riprap 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, minimize 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
Bridge Scopings
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.
June 26, 2003
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
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.
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
JU/V I X11 ?""??'!/P
Level I Assessment 0003
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 500 feet of stream, preferably in an upstream direction starting abot e?`®/1'
the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditions. To perform a 'V
proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description which best fits the
observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an intermediate score. A
final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream-Tucker Creek_Locationlroad: SR 1324_(Road Name_Tanasee Gap Rd.___)County_Transylvania
Date May 27, 2003 8 Digit HUC Basin French Broad Class C-trout
Stream Coder Catchment Size (mi')
Observer(s)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic ? Sand Hills
Agency Identification/Tracking Information (TIP#, Action#, etc.) _B-
4691
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location.
Visible Land Use: 50 %Forest 15 °/oResidential %Active Pasture -30-% Active Crops
5 %Fallow Fields % Commercial °/nlndustrial */oMer - Describe:
Observed driving through watershed or from maps, aerial photos, etc.
Watershed land use : X?Forest XAgriculture XUrban ? Animal operations upstream ? Commercial
* The following three (3) parameters are all estimated:
Width: (ft) Current wet width - Stream 18'_ Channel (at top of bank) ? Width variable 6'- 2..5'
Stream Depth: (ft) Riffles - Avg Max - Pools - Avg Max.
Bank Height (from deepest part of ch annel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (ft)
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
General Observations
?Channelized Ditch ?Dam upstream ?Other hydrologic alterations
?Marmade Stabilization ?Rip-mp, cement, gabions ?Sediment/gmde-control structure ?Berm/levee
?Deeply incised ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
?Steep,straight banks ?Bar development ?Buried structures ?Exposed bedrock
?Recent overbank deposits ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
?Excessive periphyton growth X?Livestock with access to stream ?Evidence of human
use (trash, foot paths, etc.)
Flow conditions : ?Mgh XNormal ?Low
Turbidity: XClear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Current Weather Conditions:-Partly Cloudy Recent Weather Conditions
Photos: ?N X?Y X? Digital ?35mm
Remarks: Wooden bridge with wooden floor, railings and wing walls. Substrate silty bottom with some grovel, rocks and small
boulders. Fish present. B-4 A very small tributary comes into Tucker Ck. Just above the bridge. Recent riparian vegetation
removed downstream (see picture).
Level I Assessment
,,
` 41't 4
f ? (tt
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 500 feet of stream, preferably in an upstream du
G?c tionstamngabove 11
the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average stream conditionsrrTo perform a
proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the description whichtbe^sffits the
lie
observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions, select an mtermediate•scoA
final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream-Tucker Creek_Locationtroad: _SR 1324_(Road Name_Tanasee Gap Rd.,County_Transylvania
Date May 27, 2003 8 Digit HUC Basin_French Broad Class_C-trout
Stream Order 3 Catchment Size (mi')
Observer(s)
Latitude Longitude Ecoregion: ? P ? Slate Belt ? Triassic 0 Sand Hills
Agency Identificationrrmcking Information (TIP#, Action#, etc.) _B4690
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location.
Visible Land Use: 70 %Forest _20_%Residential _10_%Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial °/dndustrial %Other - Describe:
Observed driving through watershed or from maps, aerial photos, etc.
Watershed land use : XForest Xgriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream ? Commercial
* The following three (3) parameters are all estimated:
Width: (ft) Current wet width - Stream _21'_ Channel (at top of bank) ? Width variable 6" to 2'
Stream Depth: (ft) Riffles - Avg Max _ Pools - Avg Max.
Bank Height (from deepest part of channel (in riffle or run) to top of bank): (ft)
Bank Angle: ° or ? NA (Vertical is 90', horizontal is 0'. Angles > 90' indicate slope is towards mid-channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
General Observations
?Channelized Ditch ?Dam upstream ?Other hydrologic alterations
?Manmade Stabilization ?Rip-rap, cement, gabions ?Sediment/grade-control structure ?Bermflevee
?Deeply incised ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
?Steep,straight banks ?Bar development ?Buried structures XExposed bedrock
?Recent overbank deposits ?Heavy filamentous algae growth ?Green tinge ?Sewage smell
?Excessive periphyton growth XLivestock with access to stream ?Evidence of human use (trash, foot paths, etc.)
Flow conditions : ?High XNormal ?Low
Turbidity: XClear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?Tannic ?Milky ?Colored (from dyes)
Current Weather Conditions: mostly cloudy Recent Weather Conditions
Photos: XN Y Digital ?35mm
Remarks:-Timber bridge with floor and railings. Concrete Wing walls. Some sand-and silt but bedrock downstream
B-3 with fish present. Below bridge stream has a lot of bedrock and steep waterfall type drops.

t3- elzer 91
7Z Sa?
T?"s /v?n,jA auN4
¢? t ZJ n1STJ? e.A?-
S n
O
°v
o
T ?
F

T:
?wx
'v
y
n O H
n z
vvo
Nm
w
poNA
yH
imo
pNln
H N
mn
moo
?OO
H
'z
N
ny
ySH
own
m
mno
mp
?m
o°
< N
mr
°?
. o
Op?
2 6
II II II II II ?
v?cq-° rn

k ? N )
qv

00,40 Z
?o -1-0[> - C
II II II II II
v) L4 Ln rn
(nVj?22 4Qz-
W
S?gL?r L4+ co
L4 o?
VN rn
x
N11--o
SYL VAN
004-H
m
?z

Nm NE
yNm Hz H'
D O D? 1 ?
'1Z
VJ? 0 ° Off} ti
O O O O m V 1 ` ?
Jw w ? m ?
\H °N m
n ?
I 1\j
N ? IP?1
n \ml
?i
r 199
I p
n
9C I s
? W
9 w
y
I D
Ja?
SOIL-
E = o m
TV
?m
a ry
a
z J
n m° a A N v 'pal )?r?J
--SI< ^OV aXm ?V .lV NO W
0 \,Ky
J yy NO nN0 `O O 1
O°H Vm VHm 00 ' // mn \ \ YKII
X O Z 5 N ° p
D 4) O ? ? 31 \(
ryn r rE
o k2\ ld ? \
OOk21
?-il-oD? c
II it II II II 'A
T IN ln° m
??yQQ; N
W.?N I
LV? t-
W Od
?r
I
?QV)c) V
co to m-+o?v
0 x ?DCO

0
< r-IZc-
DH-Im
ri
r
w
X L) `1 > C-) 0 -? n
M b mZ -?

a
i Ri
C # .p O Ln.. ?
r Z) Z
S
U1 Co 0 >
°
®
0

i
s
m
z0b ?-0
Z7 O
s
HY?
Ln
N
0
Sy
Z F-
C) 0
o
a m <0
:?a Ln o >.
so z O -'o
- m r >
W D

r.
,.? q
N Ln
4D
.ll ®
A-ll"OD:?
nn"uuZ
?LnaiN 4'D
to t?ilb?N+
UI
N vie
U2 C2..
~r
`I
y=
L'
K
O?
Ni
?A
I
Go x"
I ! ?
1 / y0' n n
Cox ;??
?/ o<
n
g p/
z
0
V1 V1NNy ) / 1nz
yyyy- / / OIp
DoMoT ymo
w o r o T N m ? I m<
IT JfnfH av / J 0
Iw °OLI,
I ?' nH wN ov I
W? mSy O
J A
rOO?? ?Z ?M I H
ZZ
" ° .
Jy-n u'o nn ,r np
tin o yo o
v!^ 0
ao J
m / h
Nm H o
?.nN DN ?° A lO /Dt Oti
n O.
N 9 /VJ
wA _n ?? ?y np p O
An.
?V H N
KZD A
10 °° V
'0
rD Cw o
nV ? w yU O
m N 2
0
cq ! xg
FFr \ ? V ?%6 bps
al 0 4 ? Vrn1 ?? t7f^?
do"0
8.200180.
I
V _ 'N
N
mO
mn
O

?
mA
Hm
r `?l
?
D
K
?
k
O

200
s
\. L9?
4Y \
\
NP \ b
\ \ . \ yo
C
O l
\ \ \.\.?\
mWy? \ \ ?

O y
?
O m

o N
° w \
m
x

O '

?

D

.AT

Ty

NCH-1
N

r20

?I4IS
y
m£Z?4-ISOw2
"
m
° z o m?o oo mym m
om
y mm
< v ^ H
°iN rm
vi?nr vy°

y m
m
N
1
z
mZ''1 C
]1wmV1
n
DVA
O°
ATN
HHAwO"O ?nT

n

? O

O H
p
Op0
p O
C H
O< y

A
?
?
H
Oz-Im?ADL
G1
ZyN

N HVIC

H 'y O

O x U A Z-6
f
T
?
°
w
N
ADA

y
?,p ln-1
n
Zw!n
x A C -1
m D y
A
°
•-(
A Z A m? °
O m?OH
; LI=A HyA
m V -1
COyr
w
?
'^ y K r wzw y
NH .NO °
m nv
zo
x s m sw Inoy Zoe Axm mnx n mnozrC
A
° N ?s Z'" XMZ CCn n ?HN m m m? wox w
m y Hx z z U
m T'-
n
z
Z
n
yoK ?v mV
N N L z
z Nn
0
Z
?r IM

r
m O
°
r
nxA Ny
A
r O ?m Nn C
i .n ZOZ l
l y w W N D
zmmw O
V
O
n O n
D H<
0
D N-iT nZ
° O m m
y
Z N yONH V?nT
p
z
z
m is vow x
n.
.l-1
m owo
M
M <v J
a - H y-1
a nc
im
O
N .ll H-1 A- myH *
K
*
K NN Z Z H nyZr OHI
H N
Z Z
Z
V p O O N H H O Z N w
N Z O Z'
a Z K
KO H
Ty NT
1 OZO Z N 'L (O"OO
k
O YY ly '
VI
Ny N O mO 0 ?^
O H ASFATD
y
O yl Sz
0 O>;
-^ ypH (P U 0 mti0(nH

TO
Z ?.. D
y O, m mnw .?H y V
°mA?O
O
y NN rNS
m -IHDZ
°
x -Im
v OZ O N V?
o 0 o H HN -ST
m
?
°
Sz w oH oN ? n nva
i
Amn
p
0
m
O 00
Z r^NV NVOm
1 Z O
0 OO
A y -? -J
O O O '^pny V
3
N
A

H (n m?m V

?
° H
C AZ
?'O V
S
N
A O
H Hy° nON
1 ?'
Z ?
Z N N N MF'OO
+
Z
Z .n yl
T y
, H"
0
.
V
-IH
T
° H Hm CIO,
m H
O
r
z r m
O O mr AN p
Z
O
m
In