20051984 Ver 2_Application_20090311

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
February 23, 2009
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
o 5- 1yq v. z
Mr. David Baker, NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
Subject: NW 23 Permit Application
Bridge Number 59 on SR 1324,Tanasee Gap Road, over Tucker Creek.
Transylvania County
State Project: B-4691 (DWQ Notification Only)
Dear Mr. Baker:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace Bridge
Number 59 on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap Road) over Tucker Creek (C; Tr) in Transylvania
County. The COE issued a permit (Action ID. 200630162-0163) for this project on January
30, 2006; however, due to a lack of funding the project was not constructed and the permit
expired March 18, 2007. Funding is now available and NCDOT would like to let this project
in the early summer of 2009 as part of the federal funding associated with the economic
stimulus package.
NCDOT proposes to replace this structure at the existing location. The new permanent bridge
is designed to minimize impacts by implementing longer spans and increasing hydraulic
capacity. Traffic will be detoured by employing a temporary bridge on the upstream side of
the existing bridge. The temporary bridge will span Tucker Creek, but it will be necessary to
temporarily impact a small unnamed tributary on the eastern side of the bridge. The removal
of the existing structure shall be performed by sawing and/or non-shattering methods such
that debris will not fall into the water. All work will be performed in a dry work environment.
Enclosed are the Categorical Exclusion document, a marked county map, a USGS
topographic map and photographs. Please note that the CE document states that this bridge
will be replaced with a 40-foot long by 4-feet high crown-span culvert. Since the CE was
written, a decision was made to replace the existing 20-foot bridge with a 55-foot single span
cored-slab bridge. This design change represents an improvement hydraulically and
environmentally.
y The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was checked for records of threatened and
endangered species. There are no records of threatened or 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 minimal impact during construction.
Tucker Creek is a cold water trout stream and is not suitable for freshwater mussels. For
these reasons, we believe this project will have "no effect" on threatened and endangered
species
Impacts to historic or cultural resources are not anticipated. Based on reviews (CE document)
by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Office of State Archaeology
(February 17, 2009 letter), this project will have no effect on historic or archaeological
resources.
? Impacts to Waters of the United States
Tucker Creek has a well-defined channel and is shown on the USGS topographic maps as a
perennial stream. The stream is of sufficient size to support fish, including trout, and other
aquatic organisms. The stream channel is composed primarily of sand, gravel and cobble.
The channel lacks vegetation. Tucker Creek flows approximately 2.5 miles to the North Fork
French Broad River. From this confluence, the North Fork French Broad flows
approximately 7.5 miles to the French Broad River. The French Broad River meets the
definition of a Traditional Navigable Water. For these reasons, we believe Tucker Creek is a
Relatively Permanent Water 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.
Station Existing Condition Proposed Condition Net
Impacts
Sites la East and West Timber Replace with Driven Piers; Stabilization
and lb End Bents with Mudsills of Each End Bent with Class H Rip Rap 50'
(25 LF/ea)
Site 2 Open Channel 36-inch Temporary Culvert for 20'
Installation of Detour Bride (Temp)
Impact for Riprap Stabilization of End Bents 50'
Total Temporary Impacts for Detour Bridge 20'
The bridge structure will be outside of the stream channel; therefore, the only impact from this
project is the riprap placed on the bank to protect the new end bents. We do not anticipate
that mitigation would be required for this stabilization.
The best management practices for sensitive waters will be used to minimize and control
erosion and sedimentation on this project. The construction foreman will review all erosion
control measures daily to ensure erosion and sedimentation are being effectively controlled.
If the planned devices are not functioning as intended, they will be replaced immediately 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 Mr.
David McHenry, Western Regional Coordinator, of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to comment directly to you concerning the 404 Nationwide Permit
request. Additionally, I am asking Mr. McHenry 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 (828) 497-
7953. Your early review and consideration will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Chris D. Lee, P.E.
Division 14 Bridge Maintenance Engineer
cc: Mr. Brian Wren, DWQ, DENR Raleigh (2 courtesy copies)
Mr. Mike Parker, DWQ, Asheville (1 courtesy copy)
Mr. Troy Wilson, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Mr. Dave McHenry, Western Regional 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
of Na TPe
o? ?oc
o
r r Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form version 1.3 Dec 10 2008

Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 23 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes
?No
Id. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
If. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program.
El Yes ®No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ®No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ? No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Bridge #59 on SR 1324
2b. County: Transylvania
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Rosman
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
B-4691
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
N/A
3d. Street address: N/A
3e. City, state, zip: N/A
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Bridge Management Engineer
4b. Name: Chris D. Lee; P.E.
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
North Carolina Department of Transportation
4d. Street address: 178 Henry Bird Road
4e. City, state, zip: Whittier N.C., 28789
4f. Telephone no.: 828-497-7953
4g. Fax no.: 828-497-6095
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: N/A
5b. Business name
(if applicable): N/A
5c. Street address: N/A
5d. City, state, zip: N/A
5e. Telephone no.: N/A
5f. Fax no.: N/A
5g. Email address: N/A
Page 2 of 10
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
la. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.2184 Longitude: -82.8932
1c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to

proposed project: Tucker Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C Tr
2c. River basin: French Broad River Basin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is disturbed from the roadbed and ditching. The vicinity is primarily fields and forest with single family
residences.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
100' in total project area
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To upgrade the functionally obsolete bridge with a new structure to meet current NCDOT standards.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
An on-site detour will be installed upstream of the existing bridge and the old bridge will be removed. A 55-foot cored
slab bridge will be installed to replace the existing 20-foot timber and steel bridge. Cranes, track hoes, dump trucks,
bulldozers, water pumps, sheet piling, various hand tools will be used to accomplish the work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
t
i
l
i
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
projec
(
nc
ud
ng all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: N/A
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions. The COE issued a General Permit Verification for NW 23
and 33 permit, Action ID. 200630162-0163 for this bridge project on January 30, 2006 that expired on March 18, 2007.
The project was not constructed due to lack of funding. The project will follow the same plans as previously submitted
and is scheduled to let in early summer of 2009.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
61b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f
.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W 1 ? P ? T N/A N/A ? Yes ? Corps

No
El
?DWQ N/A
W2 ? PEI T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ

W5 ?P?T
s Corps-
?No ?DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No. ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts N/A
2h. Comments: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number -
Permanent (P) or (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length

Temporary (T) intermittent
(INT
) DWQ - non-404, width (linear
other) (feet) feet)
Remove Mudsills;
S1 ® P ? T Riprap Stabilization Tucker Creek ® PER ® Corps
Both Banks ? INT ® DWQ 11 50
Each New Bent
S2 ? P ® T Culvert Placement UT Tucker Creek ®PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 2 20
S3 ?P?T R Corps
? IN ?DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER . ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 E] P F] T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ?DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 50
3i. Comments: Total Temporary Impact for Culvert is
20
Page 4 of 10
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water im acts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
Ot ? P ? T N/A N/A N/A N/A
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts N/A
4g. Comments: N/A
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then com lete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.

Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose of Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
number (acres)
pond Floode

d Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
Pt N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
P2
5f. Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes No if yes, permit ID no: N/A
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): N/A
5j.. Size of pond watershed (acres): N/A
5k. Method of construction: N/A
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? N/A ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact re uired?
B1 ? P ? T N/A N/A ? Yes
? No N/A N/A
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts N/A N/A
61. Comments: N/A
Page 5 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The new structure spans the creek. The on-site detour also spans Tucker Creek. The new structure is 35 feet longer
than the existing structure, which is better hydraulically and environmentally.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts are limited to the temporary culvert for detour bridge and riprap stabilization at the bents. Appropriate BMPs
according to the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be installed on the project prior to bridge work.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type N/A Quantity N/A
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ? cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
N/A
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10,,2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWO
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ? Yes ®No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 N/A N/A 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: N/A
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments: N/A
Page 7 of 10
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
la. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? ? Yes ONO
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.

Comments: N/A El Yes E] No
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Project is Covered by Individual NPDES
Permit NCS000250
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N/A
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWO Stormwater Program
? DWO401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply E] HOW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
51b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
f ®Yes ? No
use o
public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State _ ? Yes ®No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ®No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ®No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a rural secondary road. The bridge is being upgraded to standard load limits and width. The road is not being
upgraded and development patterns are not anticipated to change significantly.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? yes ®No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ®yes ? No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. El Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database and CE Document
Page 9 of 10
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
N/A-There are no marine or estuarine communities within the Blue Ridge Province
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
t
t
? Yes ® N
s
a
us (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in o
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
This bridge project has been screened by archaeologists with the NC Department of Transportation and the findings have
been approved by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO). See attached letter dated February 17, 2009
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
Ba. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
Bb. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: FEMA requirements were taken into consideration by the NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit during the design of the bridge.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Chris D. Lee

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is rovitlad.
Page 10 of 10
b sso
b
ania ag youa
Mason Greek \a
z µ
a op

°
cct a?
,oe,
e`a lb
4s°?
^
r G o `a
o
a5 -?0 Cep
o 0 0
J
p`a S'O
` d 0a Go
\Aac
o ?O?a
c"
P?9 Z
ac li!?? ?

0
s
a
a`
P?
?/
aa
? S
°ue g weJUnop
y OM0/ie we NC 2 4au 8 asp?b
a nlg

J/aaJJ/
4O
Vej P

.?`O
P?
g??lp
Po
aylors Br
u06a v
c
?a Oo

?m M
-YaaJp up IG v°c°j
am°nd GreeK JJl JUar
?'ap??
qu/ Dr si o
/(?
?
2\5 y
b
?
NG.
?
N
yQ1
U e
J
v
ac m Gm0
J o
v
Br
rry
iP

a MoM1° i'aai
J 6'q E'/y

'9+ s
U 'O a6'
a`, `ate %?
,NP G?aeK Haaap ipu
g
ti `
?O
e
°s
ccr E
'/aaa?p Oo?b\e Ga\? a 'Oy tee ON
n/>j ?(eMekol
/off ?c
o
i
e P\\ec N

L
N
O
aG G
U
a
a
N
e
c ?
? wens Gap ro
c
'o c ro ?s?

3
?

0
Zti n
p o
a ?

?aa? a

ada Rd U`
an ?
d ore K
RocK Gr K
G(oao\an
r
W
Z + (n
N
w ?
co
4 N
LO
0
O
(182° 54' .00" VN 082° 53' .00" W
nR'J° s9- hn m" w

v
r ? ? ° ? ? {t'f
- v f r
? \ ? ? ?
l.,
?' -/ jam %
.? •r' y ? (!
' ! d d;.'.i-?
a

, 11 ?
1?! v!( n??\ ?l l.. v? `
`Yj? ?? r ?\rl'L ? / ?/:a !?\L LR"726 \ .,

Z )
,III,l?1
?? (
q'Lt /
(1
t
1(
/
? ?
\ v
i 4t
? L
r? L
r,
\ /'\
\(,
Rz?
-
?
I

? 198
/ ?II
\ ,
_
?
1
1 ..
\ 1 a p
.? V
\.
?
\? I P 1 Z

?
` ^
? ?' ) Z
? w
0 I d
? in
p l ? r5
! (. ` < l
! V? ::a F\
zz
'I,l; l t' 1
li.,
1,` o

o l
, }U
w y n ?. ,,

\ \ I -
' i 1 \
/1 -1 ?\
t ?
f
%
t
?'
\ ti n .
-
\ \ ?;
J _
O
\ !
.l
.
t
.. rd Ra
I kA
' \ \ t logo-! ! _ ` \ )1) 1 \ ZJ 1(. , Z
8
N o\ ? ?? 1?.? ?---fir- ??! ,fir-".'\` \ ?. \. \ L Gl -.f \?r \ ? '

NvN
y'
?, v/- )t
``?tf'( ` r ;
l i dye. ,.?
? t \

70

41

??^
Z
Nc ff ?•y
c
1 r SCALE 1 :24000
' \`. 1 C
0
1 M
ILES N
0 10 00 YARDS p

t KILOMETER

- r.
Name: LAKE TOXAWAY
Date: 2/20/2009
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
uaz- 0s' uu.uu" vV I. 082° 52'(10 00" W
Location: 035° 13' 12.68" N 082° 53' 19.26" W NAD 27
Caption: B-4691, Bridge 55 on SR 1324 ( Tanassee Gap Road) over
Tucker Creek, Transylvania County
TIP No. B-4691, Bridge 59 on SR-1324, Tanasee Gap Road
Transylvania County
Tucker Creek Upstream from Bridge
TIP No. B-4691, Bridge 59 on SR-1324, Tanasee Gap Road
Transylvania County
Bridge from Upstream
Bridge from Downstream
TIP No. B-4691, Bridge 59 on SR-1324, Tanasee Gap Road
Transylvania County
On-site Detour Location Upstream of Bridge
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following die instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE. NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: B4691. Bridge 59 on SR 1324
State:NC County/parish/borough: Transylvania City: Rosman
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.2184' 1, Long. 82.8932°
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Tucker Creek (DWQ Class C Tr)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06010105010010
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 02/19/2009
Field Determination. Date(s): 2/21/2009
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. BHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There e * F "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters 2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 100 linear feet: 11 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on:
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waterstwetlands (check if applicable)'
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section BI.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section HI.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section H LB below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rap moshave been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section I LD.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4. -
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section IILC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size:
Drainage area:
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are river miles from TNW
Identify flow route to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known:
Project waters are = river miles from RPW.
Project waters are eli~t. _ aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Now that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
' Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that aoolv)?
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: -feet
Average side slopes: }'->ic1ctt.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/`yo cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stabifity [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks). Explain:
Presence of mn/riffle/ ool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry:
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: M.
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: .
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: f @ " . Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: . Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf litter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining ?
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by: Q
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
'A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily severjurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquaticlwildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TN W
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: i . Explain:
Surface flow is: R : i
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacencv Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm barrier. Explain: -
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are re river miles from TNW.
Project waters are erial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: a
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if anyj_
All wedand(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Mcgilsis
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary , in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TA`W?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section IILD:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TN Ws and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
Q TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
El Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Tucker Creek is 10-12 feet wide at the project site. It has sufficient flow to support trout and other
aquatic life. The unnamed tributary has a well-defined channel and had good flow.
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 100 linear feetll width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
EE Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
M Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TN Ws.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters 9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
5 Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):"
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
'To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Inswcdonal Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (fi).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC, " the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required forjurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
'augment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
FEMA/FIRM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):Project Site 2/212009.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicablelsupporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: This JD form covers both Tucker Creek and the unnamed tributary to Tucker Creek.
The impact areas are within 20 feet of each other.

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 (Saimo 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. 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 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 #1
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.
Oa 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

3
D.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage an maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
Special Project 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 NCDOT and all potential contractors should follow appropriate
guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines are presented
in three NCDOT documents entitled Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters
of the United States, and Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (BMPs-BDR) (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines
followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those
implemented for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (BMPs-PSW).
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 waters 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 ?
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any
minority or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is

the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ?
X

(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or

land use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of ?
X
1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic ?
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using ?
existing roads, staged construction or on-site detours? X
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?
Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Agency letters in response to the project scoping letters are provided in
Appendix A. Although no unfavorable responses were indicated above,
additional supporting documentation is provided for informational purposes in
Appendix B.
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-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:
J ? oay
Date
X TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
and Consultants
at 3 *rJect
For Type II (B) projects only:
Bridge Maintenance Unit
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

8
U.S. Department of commander 431 Crawfo d Street
Homeland SecuritUnited 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 concern with proposed bridge projects is the impact they may have on
navigation and whether the projects will require a bridge permit. In order for us to determine if a
bridge permit is required for each proposed bridge replacement, please provide the following
information:
a. Tidal influence of each waterway.
b. Navigational use of each waterway.
c. The depth of water and width of each waterway.
d. A list of adjacent property owners at each waterway.
Upon receipt of this information, we will inform you on the status of each bridge project. if you
should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mrs. Linda Bonenberger, Bridge
Management Specialist, at [phone].
N
,w
U
WAVERLY W. GREGORY, JR.
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
n,r.
North Carolina Department of
11-sr1.r0=-.ment and Natural Resources
Dizrision of Soil and YYater Conserzration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vouel, Director
MEMORANDUM: May 19, 2003
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: NCDOT Brid°e Replacement Projects
NCDENR
The NC Department of Transportation is preparing the planning and environmental
studies for 16 bridge replacement projects in Buncombe, Burke, Cherokee, Haywood, Jackson,
McDowell, Rutherford, Stanly, Surry, Transylvania and Yadkin Counties.
If construction is restricted to existing right-of-ways, there should be no impact to Prune
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 Prune 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 Prune 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
26i4 M:.,7 Sez ice Centel, Raleigh, Nor-tlm Caro7iaa 27698-2624
Phone. [phone] \ FAX: 929 -7Z St.559
Zrcteraet: vsrvcur.enr.stare.ac.tzr/EhTR/DSYYC/
AN £QVAZ OppORTVNIT'I ?AFFZgMATIY£ACZION £MPZ.OZ'Eg
50°e RECYCLED / 10%p06T GON6VM£R PAp£R
-a-
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

-3-
appropriate. For projects proposing a temporary onsite detour, the entire detour
area, including any previous detour from past construction, should be removed
in its entirety.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams and wetlands, or other waters resulting from construction of the project.
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.
-2-
extent of fill work within the waters of the United States, construction methods, and other
factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, to qualify for
nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project planning report
should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does not have
more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic environment. All
activities, including temporary construction, access, and dewatering activities, should be
included in the project planning report. Our experience has shown.that replacing bridges
with culverts often results in sufficient adverse impacts to consider the. work as having
more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items
need to be considered and addressed in the planning and environmental studies for the
subject projects: .
a. The studies/report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary
impacts to waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that
will be affected by the proposed project.
b. Off-site detours are generally preferable to on-site (temporary) detours which
impact waters or wetlands. if an on-site detour is the recommended action,
justification should be provided that demonstrates that alternatives with lesser
impacts are not practicable. Please not:, 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
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
a LY TO
ATIE ON OF:
Regulatory Division June 10, 2003
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mr. Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1565 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1565
Subject: Scoping comments for proposed Division 14 bridge replacement projects
Dear Mr. Summers:
Reference your letter of May 1, 2003 regarding our scoping review and comments
on the following proposed bridge replacement projects:
1. TIP Project No. B-3430, Bridge No. 43 on SR 1331 over Hanging Dog Creek,
Cherokee County.
2. TIP Project No. B-3431, Bridge No.
45 on SR 1331 over Beaver Dam Creek,
Cherokee County.
3. TIP Project No. 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,
Bridge Scopings 5
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s
June 26, 2003
trout buffer is recommended from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of
rainbow and brown trout. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the
design standards for sensitive watersheds.
7. B-4691, Transylvania Co., Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324 (Tang ee 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
Bridge Scopings 4
Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania, Haywood Co.'s June 26, 2003
Project specific comments:
B-3430, Cherokee Co., Bridge No. 43 over Hanging Dog Creek on SR 1331-(Beaver Dam
Road). Hanging Dog Creek is classified as C and is listed as significant aquatic habitat. The
hellbender (Cryptobranchus 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 parrishi), federal species of concern, is potentially present in the project area.
The knotty elimia (Eimmia interrupta), state endangered, is potentially present downstream
A moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout
buffer is recommended from January 1 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of
rainbow trout. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards
for sensitive watersheds.
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, Transylvama 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
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 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 ai ea should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws,
mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat
intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soiL
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam
underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of requesting
additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the
project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, Mr. Hal Bain with the NCDOT
- ONE should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for information
on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where
possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should
be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
® North Carot naWA&fe Resources Commission
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit, NCDOT
FROM: Maria Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator 7n Fw,a?- l Y?yt? u 3-
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: June 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Scoping review ofNCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects B-3430, B-
3431, B-4347, B-4348, B-4349, B-4690, B-4691, B-4692 in Cherokee, Jackson,
Transylvania and Haywood Counties.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has requested comments from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
III. . Project-Specific Comments
B-3430 Bridge 43 over Hanging Dog 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..lackson 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 maybe 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 may be required.
B-4692 Bridge 283 over Wesleys Creek, Haywood Co.
DWQ does not have any special concerns. Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: John Hendrix, USACE Asheville Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy
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.
I
I
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
water.
12. Helavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to rninimi?e
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should
1. 1
nspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
be i
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally;-the culvert or pipe invert
dd be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural thalweg depth).-- If
iple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream '
dull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to-+Y.
dplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream end to-restrict
P + Flew r? rhP',ha?P fl? ha , lfs1--Silled-harrels-should-be-filledwith-sedimeiivso-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
---- acontinuu=of-water-depth-and-channel-width-without substantial-modifications-of-velocity.----
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
reIlignment. 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.
I
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 prefe?l 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.
TFS,
?`QG
T
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek P.E.. Dirkwr
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 qq 11
FROM:. Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator GV a?l?
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 B-4692 in Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania and Haywood
Counties.
In reply to your correspondence dated May 1, 2003 (received June 19, 2002) in which you requested comments
for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
I General Comments Regarding Bridge 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 Raters
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 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 10'00'. 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. 16
NC
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733--6893 (fax), (httoI/h2o cnr state nc usIncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Alabama least trillium Trillium pusillum var. 1 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."
Cl 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 of 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.
*mstoric record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago':
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation
has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern
population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers
the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
January 29, 2003 Page 6 of6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sobrinus 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 gr•isescens 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-,, anus 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
Butteimut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri 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
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altos 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 diana 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 heardeaf Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysiniachia 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 Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila shorpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virgin ica var. caroliniana FSC
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation- Spruce-fir moss spider, Microhexura montivaga -
Critical habitat designated (see the July 6, 2001, Federal Register, 66:35547-35566).
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe,Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the West Fork Pigeon River (French Broad River system), from the
confluence of the Little East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the confluence of the
East Fork Pigeon River, and the main stem of the Pigeon River, from the confluence of
the West Fork Pigeon River and the East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the
N.C. Highway 215 Bridge crossing, south of Canton, North Carolina.
January 29, 2003 Page 4 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
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
Delphinium exaltatum
Euphorbia purpurea
Helonias bullata
Hymenophyllum tayloriae
Isotria medeoloides
Juglans cinerea
Lysimachia fraseri
Monotropsis odorata
Pycnanthemum torrei
Saxifraga caroliniana
Senecio millefolium
Silene ovata
Solidago simulans
Thaspium pinnatifidum
Waldsteinia lobata
FSC
FSC
Threatened
FSC
Threatened
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC*
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss .
Rock gnome lichen
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
A liverwort
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
..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.
Bryocrumia vivicolor
Gymnoderma lineare
Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
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
Aneides aeneus
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Corynorhinus raf nesguii
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Loxia curvirostra
Neotoma f oridana hoematoreia
Poecile atricapillus practicus .
FSC
FSC
T(S/A)'
FSC*
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC*
FSC

January 29, 2003 Page 3 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Hairy blueberry Vaccinium hirsutum FSC
JACKSON COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the Tuckasegee River (Little Tennessee River system), from the N.C. State
Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina, downstream to the
N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, North Carolina.
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate .
living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Green salamander
Rosyside dace
Hellbender
Wounded darter
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
"Sicklefin" redhorse
Indiana bat
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Olive darter
Northern pine snake
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
French Broad crayfish
Whitewater crayfish ostracod
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Mountain bittercress
Radford's sedge
Cuthbert's turtlehead
Aegolius acadicus FSC
Aneides aeneus FSC
Chnostomus funduloides ssp. 1 FSC
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Etheostoma vulneratum FSC
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Loxia curvirostra FSC
Moxostoma sp. 1 FSC
Myotis sodalis Endangered
(winter records)
Neotoma floridana hoematoreia FSC
Poecile atricapillus practicus. FSC
Percina squamata FSC
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Alasmidonta ravenehana Endangered
Cambarus rebw7w FSC
Dactyloctythere prinsi FSC
Phycoides batesd maconensis FSC
Speyeria diana FSC
Abies fraseri FSC
Cardamine clematitis FSC
Carex radfordii FSC
Chelone cuthbertii FSC
January 29, 2003 Page 2 of 6
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 concem (for a
complete list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program).
The information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and
herbaria, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal
species of concern, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated or
proposed.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent
counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
CHEROKEE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Clemmys muhlenbergii
T(S/A)'
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesqui FSC
Helibender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Blotched chub Erimystax insignis FSC
Junaluska salamander Eurycea junaluska FSC
"Sicklefm" redhorse Moxostoma sp. 1
l FSC
Endangered
Indiana bat is
Myotis soda (summer habitat)
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC*
Invertebrates
Hiwassee crayfish
Cambarus hiwasseensis
FSC
Parrish crayfish Cambarus parrishi FSC
Tan riffleshell Epioblasma florentina walkeri FSC**
Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia FSC*
Knotty rocksnail Lithasia christyi FSC
**
Littlewing pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered
Tennessee clubshell Pleurobema oviforme FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Cumberland bean Villosa trabalis Endangered
Vascular Plants
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia Cl*
January 29, 2003 Page I of 6
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. Ln.addition, off-site detours are
preferable to temporary on-site crossings in order to reduce stream-bank disturbance. We look
forward to reviewing the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference the log numbers assigned with our comments about each of them.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
. Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
. Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
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:
Project B-4347 (Log No. 4-2-03-345) - Our records indicate that there are known
locations of the green salamander (Aneides aeneus), a federal species of concern,
near the proposed project. We recommend conducting habitat assessments and
surveying any suitable habitat in the project area for this species prior to any
further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts
occur.
Proiect 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.
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 concem. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act
.1

Mr. Mike Summers
Page 2
Septem i& 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,
65Jon'M Zney,Zager
NEPA Administration
Environmental Policy and Planning
cc: Mr. John Sullivan, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
r'
ffMMNz=l
IN
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 B4349, 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 tributaTransylvania , yCounty

s
Uri 0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
September 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM
Division of Historical Resources
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook (V
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 59 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324
(Tanasee 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 aligrunent 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 µ,µ,w h
Location
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC
o.dcr.state.nc.us
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
46 17 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-86.`
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 715-48(
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 715-48(
Federal Aid # PFH-150(2)) TIP # B-4691 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
his?tot?rical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
TTOUS? ;r - 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 6) IT Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, o thei Federal Agency Date
Repre entative, HPO ate
--State Historic Preservation Officer ! Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

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 (MULICEY) 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 (I anasee 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, CH2M HILL, October 1989 to June 1996
Certifications: Wetland Professional-In-Training, Society of Wetland Scientists
Stream ID and Buffer Rule Applications Program, NCDWQ
Benthic Collection Protocols for Stream Restoration, NCDWQ
Expertise: NEPA investigations, Section 7 field investigations, wedand determination
and delineation, stream determination and delineation, stream and wetland
restoration, habitat assessments, Rosgen stream assessment and classification,
404/401 perm 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 water-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 neat 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 Waters (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 Be t Management Practices far 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 (Oncorbynchus 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 (Forsythia sp.), pussy
willow (Salix sp.), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and wild rose (Rosa multAra) on the downstream
side, and box elder (Ater 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 rioted during the field survey near the corner
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 Umncus spp.) and grasses (Poaceae family).
Dominant vegetation in the wetland area included needle rush, elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), swamp rose (R. palrutris), 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 of 4
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 (1) species, one Threatened due to Similarity 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 rnile 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 (Oncorbymbus 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
USGS4.5 Minute
Topographic Quadrangle:
Lake Toxamy
Contour Interval 40 Feel
Created 1946, PhotoreAsed 1969
Table 1. Protected Species Listed for Transylvania County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Preferred Habitat
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii
Carolina northern flying G/aucomys sabrinus colontus
squirrel
Invertebrates
Appalachian elkloe
Alasmidonta raveneliaha
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.
Habitat Available
No
No
No
Epioblasma capsaeformis E Inhabits small to medium rivers in areas with No
coarse sand to boulder substratum (rarely in
mud) and moderate to swift currents. It is
sometimes found associated with water-
willow (lusticia amedi na) beds and in
pockets of gravel between bedrock ledges in
areas of swift current.
Mountain sweet pitcher Sarracenia jonesh
plant
Mountain region bogs and streamsides on No
granite rockfaces along the Blue Ridge
Divide.
Page 1 of 2
,
r- C Table t. Protected Species Listed for Transylvania County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Preferred Habitat Habitat Available
Status in Study Area
Small-whorled pogoni a 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 avens Geum radiatum E Southern Blue Ridge Mountains on high- No
elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes
which are exposed to full sun; also in thin,
- gravelly soils of grassy balds near summit
outcrops.
Swamp pink Helonias bullata T Wetlands that are saturated but not flooded, No
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 while cedar, pitch
pine, American larch, and black spruce.
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare E On rocks in areas of high humidity either at No
- high elevations (usually vertical cliff faces) or
on boulders .& large rock outcrops in deep
river gorges at lower elevations.

Notes:
E Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T Threatened A taxon "likely to become e ndangered with in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range."
Page 2 of 2
REVISIONS
4 Q?yo
W ?

1
ti
m
I

0
u
0
0
0
.70
o
a? oO
'0 x
:z P? a
m

v - A ?ro
S S a[^ 6a Zp