R4748

c?
t
1110
d yra.,y
E?@
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
/VoV o
X446
?? r1tig1?R SR4111Ck
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING
CONCURRENCE POINT #2A
Bridging Decisions
TIP Project R-4748
WBS Element No. 40118.1.1
New Location From SR 1660 from (Siler Road)
to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road)
South of US 441
Franklin, Macon County
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Please review the information packet for TIP No. R-4748. The information provided is intended
to allow the merger team to concur on point #2A for the bridging decisions pertaining to this
particular project. Please understand that concurrence on the bridging decision is needed to
move forward for this project in the event that an alternative that includes bridging is selected as
the Least Environmentally Damaging Alternative. There will be an opportunity to adjust
decisions (if needed) based on more accurate information gathered throughout the planning
process at the Avoidance and Minimization phase of the process. Please respond with comments
or questions via email to Undrea Major at [e-mail]. My phone contact
information is 919.733.7844 extension 212.
Please sign the concurrence form and return it to my attention at 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699. You may also fax the concurrence sheet to expedite the process
to my attention at 919.733.9794. Thank you for your patience and cooperation in this endeavor.
Sincerely,
t4v6 ` .
Undrea Major, Pr ject Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Anlysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
SECTION 404/NEPA INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT NO. ZA
BRIDGING AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW
PROJECT TITLE: Transportation Improvements in the area of SR 1660 (Siler Road) and
SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) South of US 64/23/441, Macon County, TIP No. R-4748,
State Project No. 40118.1.1
PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The purpose of the project
is to create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity of Siler Road and Wiley
Brown Road and improve traffic flow in the project area.
PROPOSED STRUCTURES AT MAJOR CROSSINGS:
1. Alternative A-Northern Alignment Cross the Little Tennessee River with a 360-foot
bridge.
2. Alternative B -Center Alignment: Cross the Little Tennessee River with a 345-foot
bridge.
3. Alternative C-Southern Alignment Cross the Little Tennessee River with a 380-foot
bridge.
The project team has concurred with the hydraulic structures and lengths for the proposed
project as listed above.
NAME AGENCY DATE
FHWA
USEPA
USACE
USFWS
NCDOT
NCWRC
NCDWQ
NCSHPO
TVA
L
OF ?/v
?s O hgTF ??(/J
Re?N
CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING ON
FEBRUARY 13, 2007
PROJECT ENGINEER
UNDREA MAJOR
R-4748
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.

AGENDA
Western Concurrence Meeting
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
10:30 AM to 12:00 Noon - Undrea Major, NCDOT, PDEA
TIP No. R-4748 - New Route from SR 1660 to SR 1662 South of US 441 Near Franklin,
Division 14, Macon County
Team Members:
David Baker, USACE
Undrea Major, PDEA
Jake Riggsbee, FHWA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, WRC
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Harold Draper, TVA
Matt Roark, Southwestern RPO (non-signatory)
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
David Chang, Hydraulics
Doug Allison, Right of Way
Jamie Wilson, Division 14
Mark Davis, Division 14
Jay Bennett, Roadway Design
Charles Brown, Location and Surveys
Tom Norman, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Don Lee, Roadside Environmental
Pat Simmons, Rail Division
Njoroge Wainaina, Geotechnical
Jim Dunlop, Traffic Engineering
Carla Dagnino, NEU
Teresa Hart, PDEA
James Bridges, PDEA
* The purpose of this meeting is to revisit and reach concurrence on CP 2 reach
concurrence on CP 2A.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA ?F SR 1 660 (SILER
ROAD) AND SR 1 662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD) SOUTH OF US
64/23/441
MACON COUNTY

NCDOT TIP PROJECT No. R-4748
STATE PROJECT NO. 401 IS. 1.1
NEPA/SECTION 404 MERGER MEETING AGENDA
CONCURRENCE POINTS 2 AND 2A
FEBRUARY 1 3, 2007
INTRODUCTIONS AND SIGN-IN
PROJECT OVERVIEW/DESCRIPTION
ALIGNMENT/BRIDGING ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
DISCUSSION
SUMMARY/FINAL COMMENTS
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
BRIDGING AND ALIGNMENT REVIEW
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF
SR 1 660 (SILER ROAD) AND SR 1 662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD)
SOUTH OF US 64/23/441
MACON COUNTY
STATE PROJECT No. 401 IS. 1.1
N C D OT T. I. P. PROJECT No. R-4748
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mro N??
JULY 2006
PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 2751 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................1
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................1
3.0 Purpose of the Proposed Action ......................................................................... 1
4.0 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................2
4.1 Meeting with Local Representatives ................................................................................ 2
4.2 Citizens Informational Workshop .................................................................................. 2
5.0 Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 5
5.1 Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................5
5.2 Alternative A - Northern Alignment ............................................................................. 6
5.3 Alternative B - Center Alignment .................................................................................. 6
5.4 Alternative C - Southern Alignment .............................................................................. 6
5.5 Alternative D - Western Alignment without Bridge ...................................................6
5.6 Roundabout Option .......................................................................................................11
6.0 Alternatives Analysis ...............................................................................................11
Appendix A ..................................................................................................................17
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Vicinity .................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Project Study Area and with Alternatives ........................................................................4
Figure 3a. Environmental Features Map with Alternatives, Intersection Option ...................... 7
Figure 3b. Environmental Features Map with Alternatives, Roundabout Option ...............9
Figure 4. Floodplain Map .................................................................................................................16
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives - Major Stream Crossings ...........................13
Table 2. Comparison of Impacts by Alternative ...........................................................................14
iii

BRIDGING AND ALIGNMENT
REVIEW

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2006-
2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as NCDOT Project No. R-4748. An environmental
assessment is being prepared in accordance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
of 1971, as amended (North Carolina General Statutes Article I Chapter 113A), as codified in
the North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 1, Chapter 25. The schedule for this project
includes completing the environmental assessment in November 2006, right-of-way acquisition
occurring in 2009 and construction in 2010. The NCDOT TIP estimates combined right-of-way
and construction costs for the project at $8,100,000.
2.13 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located in Macon County, North Carolina just south of US 64/23/441
and the Town of Franklin (see Figure 1).
The proposed action will provide transportation improvements in the vicinity of SR 1660 (Siler
Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road). The proposed project as shown in the NCDOT TIP
includes a new location roadway connecting Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road, and a new
crossing of the Little Tennessee River. Four Build alternatives are currently being evaluated for
the proposed project.
The project study area is bounded on the west by US 23/441, on the north by US 64/23/441,
on the east by the Cullasaja River, and is approximately 0.4 mile wide (see Figure 2). The
proposed project would connect major developments that are anticipated or underway east and
west of the Little Tennessee River and provide an alternate route for traffic traveling to and
between these locations, minimizing the amount of traffic utilizing the regional roads for local
trips.
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The primary purposes of the proposed action were approved by the NEPA/Section 404 Merger
Team at their December 8, 2005 meeting (See meeting minutes in Appendix A):
¦ Create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity ofSiYer Road and
Miley Brown Road.
The proposed action will create additional access to sites currently proposed for institutional and
commercial development on both the east and west side of the Little Tennessee River and will
facilitate better traffic circulation between these sites. Without this access, the proposed
development will increase the mix of local traffic and regional traffic on the limited road system
in this area of Macon County. Currently, US 64/23/441 is the only crossing of the Little

Tennessee River in the vicinity of this proposed development. As these sites develop, they will
provide new jobs that could enhance the area's economy.
0 Improve traffic flow in the project area.
The proposed road improvements will reduce future traffic that would otherwise be assigned to
existing roadways. This improvement will help separate local traffic from regional traffic,
minimizing the rate at which increases in traffic will result in lower Level of Service on existing
facilities and improving traffic safety.
4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
4.1 MEETING. WITH LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES
At the March 21, 2006 Concurrence Point 2 meeting, Merger Team members requested that the
NCDOT investigate adding a fourth alternative for study that does not cross the Little
Tennessee River. Minutes from the meeting are located in Appendix A. The NCDOT held a
meeting on June 27, 2006 with representatives from the Town of Franklin, Macon County,
Southwestern Community College, and the Macon County Public Library to gain local input on
a fourth "non-crossing" alternative. Minutes from the meeting and a letter received from
Southwestern Community College are included in Appendix A.
The meeting attendees were reluctant to add an alternative that did not cross the river, citing
current poor traffic conditions and the need to improve access to the community college, library
and other proposed development. After additional discussion focusing on the need to evaluate a
fourth alternative, three ideas were presented, all of which included a road on new location.
Potential non-crossing alternatives discussed include the following.
1. Follow an alignment similar to Alternative A from both the east and west, but
instead of crossing the river the roadway would turn under the existing US 64
bridges and extend back in the direction that each road originated from.
2. Extend Siler Road to the south and then west to tie into US 23/441.
3. Create a road that extends from Allman Drive to Siler Road in the vicinity of where
Alternatives B or C tie in.
The third suggestion was determined to be the most feasible non-crossing alternative in terms of
constructability and impacts minimization. During the meeting a suggestion was made that a
roundabout option be considered for the Dowdle Mountain Road (SR 1659) and Wiley Brown
Road intersection area. Alternative D - Western Alignment without Bridge and the Roundabout
Option are presented in section 5.0.
4.2 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held for the proposed project on February 15, 2006 at
the Macon County Community Building on US 23/441 (Georgia Road) in Franklin.. The
purpose of the workshop was to introduce the project and present the study area to the
community. Several written comments were received at the meeting.
2
f - lll0 - I s!• j
- , 3x J -- - _ \l
\ I?
\ \ eae
J \ ? 148 ? ? urn P3? ? J
21
SAS
hate ss?
L62
° C
IEL
R-4748
wl
,? F- - IM
s€x
PROJECT VICINITY
s?
r .;toga- a_ rn? ,?
?r J ,Kyle j NA, ICNAL -? -'"
z? 0
of" s vu?ua.§? t
? ?? ? q High c^tl.:
?v North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
r Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
MACON COUNTY
R-4748
SR 1660 TO SR 1662
SOUTH OF US 6423/441
0 miles 0.5 mflac 1.0
FIGURE 1
O
V
O
V
C?
G
00
N1
w/
0 CD
Z M
.? N
V V)
•? D
ac
CL =
~ o
F- U)
O
0 'co
U A
Z
V?
O
/A
A
tN?
U)
0
o
C? NNo T
G LL
6 0
U U m m
c c E
a m U o 8 0 m
m m o
C Q Q Q Q cn
m
i
?-z N a
WN >,
w z O
U
z
L+ m O a ? ''?AAd
L
L
a
N
Lq
o -
N
O
0-
Thirty-nine citizens and local officials registered at the workshop. Most workshop participants
had a positive view of the proposed project as illustrated in the NCDOT TIP. Many felt that the
proposed road would be an asset to the area, making Southwestern Community College and the
new library more accessible to citizens living east of the Little Tennessee River, within the study
area and beyond. A comment was also made that the proposed road would provide better fire
department (located east of the river) access to areas west of the Little Tennessee River,
including the new community college and library.
Some citizens were concerned about safety, in particular in the vicinity of the Dowdle Mountain
Road, Wiley Brown Road, and US 64/23/441 intersections in the study area. It was noted that
11 school buses from Macon Middle School come through these intersections to travel west and
south and that the proposed road would provide an alternative route for these buses currently
using US 64/23/441.
A representative of Duke Power Company commented on the tract of land that the company
owns east of the Little Tennessee River. He said that the land was very valuable because of
location and topography, and that it has considerable potential for commercial and/or small
industrial development. The representative voiced his concern about any proposed roadway
alignment that would impact the company's property.
5.o ALTERNATIVES
The NCDOT presented the No-Build alternative and three build alternatives, Alternatives A, B
and C, at the March 21, 2006 Merger Meeting. At the meeting, the Merger Team concurred that
the three build alternatives and the No-Build alternative should be moved forward for detailed
study. In addition, the Team requested that a "non-crossing" alternative be added for evaluation.
' In response, the NCDOT added Alternative D - Western Alignment without a Bridge. In
addition, at the request of local representatives, a Roundabout Option on the eastern side of the
Little Tennessee River has been added for consideration. The four Build alternatives and two
' intersection options are presented in Figures 3a and 3b.
5.1 DESIGN CRITERIA
I
I

To the extent possible, alignment centerlines were placed to minimize impacts to resources,
provide alternatives that are constructible, and cross streams and floodplains at a reasonable
angle. The following design criteria were also used when preparing the alternatives:
1. Design speed of 40 miles per hour;
2. Maximum grade of 13 percent;
3. Typical Sections
a. Lane Width: 12 feet
b. Roadway Width: 40 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders
c. Structure Width: 32 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes and 4-foot offsets
4. Side slopes of 6:1 (minimum) to 2:1 (maximum) for all cut or fill heights.
5

5.2 ALTERNATIVE A - NORTHERN ALIGNMENT
Alternative A is the northernmost alternative, traveling adjacent to US 64/23/441 and
functioning similar to a service road. It is approximately 1.41 miles long. Alternative A begins at
the northern end of Siler Road (approximately 0.39 mile from US 23/441), forming a "T"
intersection with Siler Road to the south, and continues east parallel to US 64/23/441, crossing
the little Tennessee River with a 360-foot long bridge.
Alternatives A, B, and C make improvements in the vicinity of Dowdle Mountain Road, Wiley
Brown Road and SR 1701. The current alignment of Dowdle Mountain Road curves to the
northeast as it approaches and intersects with SR 1701, just south of the signalized intersection
of SR 1701 and US 64/23/441. Proposed intersection improvements realign the section of
Dowdle Mountain Road east of SR 1701 to south of the gas station, increasing the distance of
the intersection from US 64/23/441. The realignment results in a north-south section of
Dowdle Mountain Road intersecting with an east-west section. For purposes of this report,
Dowdle Mountain Road east of SR 1701 will be referred to as "East Dowdle Mountain Road."
After bridging the Little Tennessee River, Alternative A continues to the east and south to create
a four-way intersection with Dowdle Mountain Road, SR 1701 and East Dowdle Mountain
Road. All four legs of the intersection include dedicated left-turn lanes. Wiley Brown Road
forms a "T" intersection with Dowdle Mountain Road just south of the four-way intersection.
On US 64/23/441, the left-turn lane for SR 1701 is lengthened from 200 feet to 800 feet to
provide additional storage.
5.3 ALTERNATIVE B - CENTER ALIGNMENT
Alternative B most closely resembles the alignment shown in the TIP. This alternative begins
approximately 0.60 mile from US 23/441 forming a "T" intersection with Siler Road to the
south. Alternative B continues to the east parallel to US 64/23/441, crossing the Little
Tennessee River with a 345-foot long bridge. The alignment continues to the northeast to
US 64/23/441 and is approximately 1.47 miles long. Dowdle Mountain Road is realigned to
form a "T" intersection with East Dowdle Mountain Road and Wiley Brown Road is extended
to form a "T" intersection with Dowdle Mountain Road. On US 64/23/441, the left-turn lane
for SR 1701 is lengthened from 200 feet to 800 feet to provide additional storage.
5.4 ALTERNATIVE C - BOUTHERN ALIGNMENT
Alternative C is the southernmost alternative and is approximately 1.43 miles long. This
alternative begins near the southern end of Siler Road and continues southeast crossing the
Little Tennessee River with a 380-foot long bridge. Siler Road ties in to Alternative C with a "T"
intersection. This alignment continues to the northeast to US 64/23/441. Dowdle Mountain
Road is realigned to form a "T" intersection with East Dowdle Mountain Road and Wiley
Brown Road is extended to form a "T" intersection with Dowdle Mountain Road. Alternative C
also lengthens the left turn lane for SR 1701 on US 64/23/441 from 200 feet to 800 feet to
provide additional storage.
5.5 ALTERNATIVE D - WESTERN ALIGNMENT WITHOUT BRIDGE
Alternative D begins at the intersection of Allman Drive and US 23/441, continuing to the
northeast to tie into Siler Road. Allman Drive is realigned to form a "T" intersection with
6
_ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __.. ___ _ _ _.-_ ?_. 1
?r ¦r . ?r r? . r ?r it rr r r rr ?r rr ? _. u
Alternative D. Similarly, to the north, existing Siler Road is realigned to form a "T" intersection
with Alternative D. This alternative is approximately 0.68 mile long.
5.6 ROUNDABOUT OPTION
A roundabout option is provided for Alternatives A, B and C where they tie into existing
roadways east of the Little Tennessee River. For Alternative A, the proposed roadway, East
Dowdle Mountain Road, SR 1701, and Dowdle Mountain Road form a four-leg roundabout.
Wiley Brown Road ties into Dowdle Mountain Road at a "T" intersection south of the
roundabout For Alternatives B and C, SR 1701, the proposed roadway, and East Dowdle
Mountain Road form a three-leg roundabout Dowdle Mountain Road forms a "T" intersection
with East Dowdle Mountain Road to the east of the roundabout. To the south of the
roundabout, Wiley Brown Road forms a "T" intersection with Dowdle Mountain Road.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
A comparison of the alternatives is shown in Table 2 and discussed below. The roundabout
options for Alternatives A, B and C have similar impacts to the intersection option for these
alternatives; however, the roundabout option results in slight decreases in the right-of-way
requirements and construction costs for each of these alternatives.
I Preliminary background research of state files showed no known historic sites and one
archaeological site within the project study area. Additional archaeological studies are underway.
Alternatives A and D have 580.5 linear feet and 318.0 linear feet of stream impacts, respectively.
¦ Alternative B and C do not have stream impacts; however, both have 0.021 acre of wetland
impacts. Alternative A has 0.045 acre of wetland impacts. Alternative D does not impact
' wetlands. At the time of this report, the jurisdictional status of these resources had not been
determined. Two water bodies within the project study area, the Cullasaja River and
Cartoogechaye Creek, are designated trout waters (Tr) of the State. No high quality waters
' (HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), water supply (WS I-V), 303(d) listed waters, or
critical areas (CA) occur within the study area. There are no North Carolina Division of Water
Quality buffer rules currently present in the Little Tennessee River Basin; however, the North
' Carolina Division of Land Resources does require a 25-foot vegetated buffer between Tr waters
and graded construction sites.
Scoping letter response comments received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission indicate that there is a construction moratorium from May 1 to July 15 for the
protection of smallmouth bass spawning. The proposed project is located in the Tennessee
Valley Authority's (TVA) Land Management District. A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the
TVA Act is required for all construction or development involving streams or floodplains in the
Tennessee River drainage basin.
' id
ifi
d b
i
h
il
if
ent
e
and W
A total of eight threatened or endangered species were
y the US F
s
dl
e
Service as potentially occurring in Macon County as of the March 8, 2006 list. Natural Heritage
' Program maps were reviewed on May 10, 2006 to determine if any species receiving federal
protection have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that two
federally protected species, spotfin chub and Virginia spiraea, are known to occur within a one

11

mile radius of the study area. Suitable habitat is present in the study area for Virginia spiraea as
well as small-whorled pogonia. A bloom time survey of all appropriate habitat was conducted
on June 6, 2006. No occurrence of either species was found during the survey. Additionally, the
Little Tennessee River is identified within the project study area as critical habitat for the spotfin
chub. The Little Tennessee River and other surface waters present within the project study area
also provide appropriate habitat for Appalachian elktoe and little-wing pearlymussel, in addition
to spotfin chub. A freshwater fish and mussel survey is being conducted by the State for the
presence of these species. The result of those surveys was not available at the time of this
report. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been issued for the remaining species listed
as federally protected.
Impacts to the Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest community vary by alternative. Alternative B has
the greatest impacts at 10.47 acres and Alternative C has the least impacts at 1.08 acres.
Major utility impacts for Alternative A include two water line crossings (on fill), the relocation of
one gas line and a fiber optic junction box, and transmission line impacts. Alternative B includes
two water line crossings (in cuts), the relocation of one gas line, and transmission line and
sanitary sewer line impacts. Alternative C includes two water line crossings (in cuts), the
relocation of one gas line and a fiber optic junction box, and transmission line impacts. This
alignment also crosses a sanitary sewer line. Alternative D will have more substantial impacts to
water and gas lines than Alternatives A, B and C, and impacts to a power line. However, this
alternative will not impact the transmission line east of the river.
Alternative D is the least expensive alternative at $2,000,000 and Alternative B is the most
expensive at $8,700,000. The roundabout option for Alternatives A and C reduces the
construction cost of these alternatives by $300,000 each. The roundabout option for Alternative
B reduces the construction cost by $900,000. Alternatives A, B and C cross the existing
greenway adjacent to the Little Tennessee River. Alternative C willrelocate a portion of the
greenway closer to the river.
Impacts to prime farmland soils and residential displacements were calculated. Alternative A
impacts less than 0.1 acre of prime farmland soils and has no displacements. Alternative B
impacts 1.0 acre of prime farmland soils and has no displacements. Alternative C impacts 2.8
acres of prime farmland soils and has three residential displacements. Alternative D has no
farmland soil impacts and two residential displacements. Alternative B traverses steep terrain
with significant elevation changes. This alternative will require substantial earthwork. Alternative
B has the greatest impacts to properties slated for development.
12

N
M
0
U
c?
tj
uo
0
Cdd
,%4
^
/-i
0
rl
0
0
U
H
v?
z
w
H

L
v
Q

z z z z z z z z z

4-4

y VD U
V) y ?+ d r; 00 cN LO O ON N
U Q

a

I M C\
O en OD
M ON Lr)
P

4J
a
sa
a?

O O M N O O
U ?
PLq

a

Pq ,? v ¢ a
CL4 t4-4 O U bA
O O
O sa

4? 0
4.4

y

LZ U)
ai
U
u P-4
w
y
U
ai
b
O
0 11"4

Q
4-4
a
?

Q.

o

b

„

o

u a?

U 4-4

? rn
o

?
1 cn uo G Q °
Q

y
Cd
O
0
O
.ti
cad
rL4
O
U
N
Cd
H
Q

i. 00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
?
O
O
°
° "t
Ti
c)
N
O
O
O O
U
I
U
;J

M

r

O

O

O

O

O

O

V

O

O
-d
U

?

0

0
N

M

O

O

N

? 00

H

W
U
U
d O O O O O O Ln O O v°i
u
4-4 U
C:) O O O p
I
i
1
?

O

O

O

O

O

O

M

O

O
't3
0
w

v

O

O

O

?
N 00

sa
O
O
U

4 x
O
n N
?
°' yid
O 4?
U y •-?]
U

`-?
bA
cu
44
0
?
U

?
H U
U
"'

?
C?

U
..
/?
0.4
~

GUd
I"
?<
u

?
c?
0

(p
Lam'
?O U
' C
'C7
M
-fl
44
Q Q''

0
"

P-4

a -0
°
°o

4-4

"

4?

x Q)

-V4

4.4

w

?

(U

°

°' u

x
x P4 U U r-,
-.
X

k
0
0
'N
v
d'

I
Q ?

w o
06
O
° °
z
o
° O
z O
z 0
z °
o
cli

°
y ? O
??yy?•?? ''t
N ?
7? o
o
0 0
00 \0
O
O
O
O G O z z
O O
r
N N
`-"
C

H

z

N
y `a t1 0
O o O O O
z O
z O
z
? 0
N N
o
bq= 6q:

v u
\ O O
?n
r
cc
O
O
z ce
° 7d
"I

O

z

z

O O O U.

" O

G? ij '
VrV

4
1 cn
-

;-I
0

-" O
U
U 4-4
c'
R, ^

^
O P i
y
4?
'
a ?+ V) r, 4.4 O b?0 d
?c

+y Q?

u

-0

(n O

r+
-4 O

4 O

? ? y .....?

Q?
5 O U O s?
C? _
sa N
aA U
'? U CL4 , ° L."
U O Q
O O
w \ ?a O O P-,
x -cs a U
t. u 4? 0 ° y
u 1:14
o
o

U
O
?a
cad
°
,Q4
^
i• L,
w
V
co
4
i±
U ?
U
b
? U
O
0
0 4-4
'0 'zi o
4-4 ?" cd
r U
';-4 Cd
Q: ? 4.11

-'m
a?
:?a
= W 0 2
G qq
E?myBE

L
:E
ao < a
c ='? `° U
'

Z W F
1 .p
S
1-
B

o
O g a F W
W 2 X
3
O9Q 444
E
SESaB
0 OC x pCD '
p
¢
8??=w
•°i
c Z z
O b
W'' FW-> z
> Z
a$Y
a
0 tJ o
V ?Z
` v ?
osEar
Q
z O
o a
a
102- Z
V W w
U. Z ty '?
LL? OLL O n
O:Q.W
rR
u in
'9 °a m'E
Z d= W vw V co a ?LL oE`=LL$

ss

a a
4e? •.
asmam
r£o°S
A am
V H
•
a `
`
\?.C R
.:.? 'J -.' .[
J L
'q
a a\ df
- - " f ? 5
019 -
Y ,
'
` - by
°ry '
^h
_=
.
.• if
?t
?
-:c
'
tee
It
7ls
?Q,'`' OCgI `y
qSC a,. 0•? ` ;?? • ? '
_ ; ?
dt!' Pv%^•(?
oy
yY, q r Q ? 1 a'
u

? ?,Ac (i ? aY,;•
L_'^? ! 5'
` 'b'$ •ae,__s';''=-a 1? ,,..
??' ,4`:1 i;•is5$'• .i'
OZ jn"'
?': f'C:;?S
?/ ??
b Ht Zt `tiv! y ,? 4 ?'?„ 'a
? ° e?S? yaL? 'C :. _ n x
o?ad` .. i y'I/ •? "lC
j
?A? ?
p >
_•,. 'e
W d
?v 1
y
n'e.° "J
Z
lY "
`
p
C ° 4Q' 6(SI ?.??. n e 4 „i' ° ?.••
!} ! ar .
Qry-JA " ,f
,
w
.

?4Sic? ? :.
d? ,%r .?!Y!SM.:.• r
S
. oc 4y
?d
u
991 VS

I's

y. W
Z
i Ws? x
O

•
a
- W

J
Y

L
.:yew

a
O 0 ,? ??",. eaa,
... 'e, H]NVBB 319AR19 ,' =nz .? "F
..•

i. , r
`291'M'S
7?
1?
n n°. - O
ABNWO i e

x
-
!' ?,7 ?? ::°° y"i °. ??w?`'af
•ari! A x ZA91IS
">??* ," ;? ad S .' (i .M - map ? j ?/` •? ?.
>
4
' v
J
'
'
a gR
C"q;l
?;
-
?
/
i ?p
_
?
:
xy. ;
? yi' n y P •
1? as'? >4 N1
,4 ri
fi y,9

e
li w1 MR ?Sa yr"
l M1.
T. .. e.,' >^rz
.>

V
W
L
LL
C
ca
Q"
0
LL
`
ca
}
O
O

4,*-mULKEY
ENGINEEP6 & r-c3 ISULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Meeting Participants
FROM: Lisa Warlick, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
DATE: February 22, 2006
SUBJECT: Transportation improvement project south of US 64/23/441 between SR 1660
(Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), Macon County,
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
A Merger meeting was held for the subject project on December 8, 2005 in the board room of
NCDOT's Highway Building. Meeting attendees are provided below. A summary of the meeting
follows.
MEETINs RARTICIRANTS

Ron Allen NCDOT - Roadway
James Bridges NCDOT -PDEA
Marella Buncick U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Carla Dagnino NCDOT - Natural Environment
Mark Davis NCDOT - Division 14
Harold Draper Tennessee Valley Authority (via Asheville)
Mike Fendrick PBQD
Brett Feulner NCDOT -PDEA
Cliff Hamilton NCDOT -PDEA
Teresa Hart NCDOT - PDEA
Amada Jones U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville)
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Ed Lewis NCDOT - Public Involvement & Community Studies
Undrea Major NCDOT -PDEA
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Ron McCollum NCDOT - Roadway
Christopher Militscher U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
Leigh Morris Mulkey
John Pilipchuk NCDOT - Geotechnical Engineering
Angie Pennock U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville)
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Sandra Stepney NCDOT - Roadway
Wilson Stroud NCDOT -PDEA
Lisa Warlick Mulkey
Ryan White NCDOT - PDEA
Jamie Wilson NCDOT - Division 14
Brian Wrenn N. C. Division of Water Quality
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 27511 PO Box 33127 RALEIGH, NO 27535 PH: 919-851-1912 FAX: [phone] WWW.MULKEYINC.CDM
Undrea Major opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. In addition to those in
attendance at the Raleigh location, three individuals joined the meeting by video from Asheville,
North Carolina. Most attendees had information packets mailed to them ahead of time that included
the Purpose and Need document. Those who did not have the packet were offered copies of the
materials. Everyone in attendance was given an addendum that included updated traffic information,
an updated Purpose and Need statement, and a revised concurrence form. Mr. Major stated that the
reason for the meeting was to agree on Concurrence Point One, the Purpose and Need of the
proposed project. He provided a brief description of the project, and then turned the meeting over to
Liz Kovasckitz, who began a PowerPoint presentation. The meeting was open for questions and
answers both during the presentation and afterwards.
Ed Lewis had questions about the traffic in the vicinity of the project. Mike Fendrick provided an
explanation of average daily traffic with and without proposed developments in the project area.
Chris Militscher noted differences between the original Purpose and Need statement received by mail
and the updated one included in the addendum handout. Mr. Militscher said that he agreed with the
purpose of creating access to sites slated for development, but did not agree with the updated
wording of supporting economic development. He said there would need to be additional
information in the Purpose and Need document specific to economic development in order to
support economic development as a valid purpose. Mr. Militscher said that there was no evidence
that potential new jobs from proposed developments in the project vicinity would be suitable for the
segment of the population in the Franklin area that is below the poverty level.
Brian Wrenn had questions about the level of service on US 64 with 44,000 vehicles per day in the
project area. Mike Fendrick explained the details of the traffic signal temporarily installed at US 64
and SR 1701. He said that if the signal remained, that the level of service would be poor, but if the
signal was removed, that level of service would improve.
Mr. Militscher questioned the proposed convention center on Siler Road. He commented that the
area is fairly remote for a development such as this, and wondered how many would actually use it,
and if it would provide many jobs for the impoverished people in the area. During further discussion
of the wording to support economic development in the Purpose and Need statement, Mr. Militscher
said that there was no evidence that the proposed developments in the project area would sustain
economic development to the design year 2030.
Angie Pennock stated that a substantial Community Impact Assessment would be needed for the
proposed project. Mr. Wrenn indicated that he would like to see a quantitative Indirect and
Cumulative Effects study for the project.
Marella Buncick noted that the Little Tennessee River is critical habitat for spotfin chub. She said
that a new crossing of the river could be an issue because of this.
A question was asked regarding the funding source of the project. Teresa Hart noted that the project
was state funded, and no federal funds would be used.
Mr. Wrenn said that the N. C. DWQ would be interested in working with the Town of Franklin and
Macon County to create a development plan for the project area that included stormwater
management, riparian buffers, and other management practices.
Marella Buncick asked if there were other roads in the project vicinity that will need improvements.
Ms. Kovasckitz responded that the Dowdle Mountain Road intersection may need improvement and
that there could be safety benefits in tying those improvements in with the proposed project.
2
Jamie Wilson said that Siler Road had recently been improved to secondary road standards, and that
there were no plans to include additional improvements as part of the proposed project. He said that
additional improvements would be needed eventually on Siler Road.
Mr. Wrenn said that many of the traffic flow issues in the project area could be handled by
improving existing roads instead of building the proposed road.
Marla Chambers agreed with Mr. Wrenn and said that she did not see the need for the proposed
road, especially since it proposes a new crossing of the Little Tennessee River in close proximity to a
current crossing. She said the new road would encourage development next to the river, where
development should instead be discouraged.
Ms. Buncick asked if there is a hazardous spill catch basin at the US 64 crossing of the Little
Tennessee River. Mr. Wilson said he was not aware of one. Ms. Buncick inquired if there is access to
the river floodplain in the area. Mr. Wilson said that there is a service road that connects to a walking
trail which goes underneath the US 64 bridge, but that there is currently no other access to the area
from either side of the bridge.
Mr. Militscher said that on a. similar project more specifics on planned development in the project
area were provided. He indicated that he would like to see the same level of detail for the Macon
County project, such as a development plan for the proposed projects in the vicinity.
Mr. Wilson emphasized the known development that is currently taking place, such as the library and
community college, and the need for connectivity in the project area. He said there is no way to
know which private development projects will be built, and that those projects are not the driving
force for the proposed road. Mr. Wilson said the county does not have zoning laws and questioned
' how to control what an individual wants to build on his own land.
Ms. Kovasckitz asked if the original Purpose and Need wording could be used if the words
' "economic development" were removed. Mr. Militscher said that would be more acceptable. He also
said that if an emphasis on safety could be used, that it would be better.
Mr. Wilson noted that other county functions would likely relocate to the proposed project area near
' the college site. Mr. Wrenn reiterated that he would like to see a plan developed in conjunction with
the Town of Franklin and Macon County for protection of natural resources.
' Harold Draper said that the Purpose and Need statement should include that the proposed project is
consistent with planned development for the area. Sarah McBride said she was concerned that the
proposed road would be poorly planned in conjunction with other planning.
' Mr. Militscher noted that building a new road does not guarantee positive economic development.
He said that he would like to see site plans for the proposed projects in the area. He also requested
' the number of jobs that would be created by the developments. Ms. Kovasckitz and Mr. Wilson
responded, saying that some developers wanted to keep their activities private, and that limited
information is available on specific site plans and potential jobs created. Mr. Militscher said that if
"economic development" was removed from the Purpose and Need wording, that this information
' may not be needed. He also noted that the there would be two remaining purposes: connectivity, and
traffic flow. He said that if traffic flow is improved on existing roads, connectivity may not be
needed, and that connectivity does not stand on its own.
Ms. Chambers said that she did not see the need for the proposed road, and that transportation
improvements could be made on existing roads. She said she was not in agreement with the current
' title of the project, since she did not believe the road was needed. A suggestion was made to change
the tide to include "proposed transportation improvements," and Ms. Chambers agreed.
Ms. Hart asked if the wording "create access to sites slated for development" was acceptable. The
Merger Team indicated it was. Mr. Major asked if the group would agree to use the wording in the
original Purpose and Need packet Team members indicated that "connectivity" should be removed
from the Purpose statement.
The Merger Team agreed to remove from the project title "new location roadway" and replace it
with "proposed transportation improvements." It was also agreed that the Purpose and Need
statement should be amended to read:
"The purpose of the project is to create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity
of Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road, and to improve traffic flow in the project area."
Mr. Major then adjourned the meeting.
4
0
MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Meeting Participants
' Ftxom: Lisa Warlick, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
DATE: March 24, 2006
SUBJECT: Transportation improvement project south of US 64/23/441 between SR 1660
(Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), Macon County,
' NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
A Merger meeting was held for the subject project on March 21, 2006 in the board room of
' NCDOT's Highway Building. Meeting attendees are listed below. A summary of the meeting follows.
' MEETING PARTICIPANTS
David Bender NCDOT - Bike and Pedestrian
Jay Bissett Mulkey
' James Bridges NCDOT - PDEA
Marella Buncick U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Carla Dagnino NCDOT - Natural Environment
' Harold Draper Tennessee Valley Authority (via Asheville)
Mike Fendrick PBQD
' Brett Feulner
Teresa Hart NCDOT - PDEA
NCDOT - PDEA
Tim Jordan Mulkey
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
' Gary Lovering NCDOT - Roadway
Steve Lund U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville)
Undrea Major NCDOT - PDEA
' Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Christopher Militscher U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
John Pilipchuk NCDOT - Geotechnical Engineering
Jake Riggsbee FHWA
' Joel Setzer NCDOT - Division 14
Amy Simes NCDENR
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Sandra Stepney NCDOT - Roadway
Greg Thorpe NCDOT - PDEA
' Lisa Warlick Mulkey
Brian Wrenn N. C. Division of Water Quality

MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 2751 1 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGH, NC 27535 PH: 9 19-651-1 912 FAX: [phone] B Ww .MULKEYINC.COM
I
Undrea Major opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. In addition to those in
attendance at the Raleigh location, two individuals joined the meeting by video from Asheville, North
Carolina. Attendees had information packets mailed to them ahead of time that included the
Evaluation of Alternatives document. Extra copies of the document were available at the meeting.
Mr. Major stated that the reason for the meeting was to agree on Concurrence Point 2, to determine
which alternatives to carry forward for detailed study. He provided a brief description of the project
and then turned the meeting over to Liz Kovasckitz. The meeting was open for questions and
answers both during the presentation and afterwards. Ms. Kovasckitz gave a PowerPoint
presentation, which provided a brief review of the project, the Purpose and Need agreed upon at the
Concurrence Point 1 meeting, comments from the Citizens Informational Workshop held for the
project, and introduced potential alignments for consideration.
Chris Militscher asked if there was an estimate of impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Ms. Kovasckitz
referred him to the FEMA map figure in the Evaluation of Alternatives document. Mr. Militscher
reviewed the figure and offered a rough estimate of approximately 400 to 500 linear feet of impacts.
A meeting participant questioned the FEMA map year of 1978 and was informed that it was the
most recent available. Mr. Militscher estimated approximately one acre of impacts to the 100-pear
floodplain based upon a 40-foot wide typical section. Jay Bissett commented that part of the area of
estimated impacts would be bridged. Mr. Militscher then said that impacts could total approximately
one-half to one acre, and said that he would like the actual acreage to be included in the impacts table
at the next meeting.
Mr. Militscher asked about utility conflicts. Ms. Kovasckitz referred to a map display of the project
area and pointed out the power transmission line that extends through the area. She said that detailed
studies had not been completed on utility conflicts.
Sarah McBride asked how far away Alternative A was from US 64/23/441. Ms. Kovasckitz said it
was very close, serving as a service road adjacent to US 64/23/441. Ms. McBride questioned whether
Alternative A was viable because it was so close to the existing road. Ms. Kovasckitz commented that
the alignment would provide access to sites slated for, or currently under, development and provide
an alternative route for school and emergency service traffic.
Mr. Militscher asked about the convention center, which was previously shown on project mapping
but did not show on current mapping. Ms. Kovasckitz said that the convention center location was
shown on the map, however, specific names of proposed developments were changed to "Proposed
Development." Mr. Militscher commented that part of the Purpose and Need was to support
development and noted that one project alternative appeared to cross over the proposed convention
center site. Ms. Kovasckitz pointed out that the proposed alignment corridors were 500 feet in width,
indicating they would not necessarily go over the site once an actual alignment was determined.
Marella Buncick commented that at the Concurrence Point 1 meeting there was discussion of an
alternative that would provide improvements without crossing the Little Tennessee River. She said
that from a safety standpoint, four-lane divided highways were safer than two-lane roadways. Ms.
Buncick said she would still like to see an intersection improvement alternative that would not cross
the river. Marla Chambers and Brian Wrenn agreed and said there should be an improve existing
alternative.
Ms. Chambers said that the proposed road is a convenience that crosses a major critical habitat and
that she would prefer that development be discouraged in the floodplain and areas surrounding the
river. She pointed out that the study area boundaries were inconsistent related to existing roads.
James Bridges noted that the boundary could be revised to include US 64/23/441.
2
Mr. Bridges said that an alternative that would improve existing conditions and not cross the river
was not discounted. He said that a meeting was conducted on the subject and that no conclusion was
reached on an improve existing alternative that would meet the Purpose and Need of the project. He
said the NCDOT is not excluding the possibility of an improve existing alternative.
Mr. Major said that Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road could be evaluated for improvements, and
noted that there could be discussion on an improve existing alternative in addition to the corridor
alignments shown. Mr. Major asked if there was a problem with carrying forward any of the
alternatives as currently proposed.
Jake Riggsbee asked if there was one corridor that everyone could agree upon as least desirable,
potentially Alternative C since it has two stream crossings.
Ms. Buncick asked how impacts to the 100-year floodplain could be minimized. She said floodplain
impacts were her highest priority, and that she would like the entire floodplain bridged, especially
since additional development will be coming soon.
' Mr. Militscher commented that he would not necessarily be prepared to drop any alternative at this
time. He noted that there had been no cost estimates calculated. He said that he would be in favor of
adding an improve existing alternative, and that the public's concern over safety, which Ms.
Kovasckitz summarized in the presentation, needs to be addressed. Mr. Militscher said he would like
to see an extension or spur of Siler Road that did not impact the 100-year floodplain. He said it could
possibly provide access to sites without crossing the river.
Ms. Kovasckitz commented that citizens and local officials in the area were interested in connectivity.
Mr. Militscher said that he would like to add a fourth alternative to improve existing, and that the
' cost of a new bridge may not be justified for convenience.
A meeting participant asked if improvements were needed to US 64/23/441 as part of an alternative.
Mr. Riggsbee said that constructing turn lanes could be a possibility. Ms. Buncick said that she did
not think that capacity was an issue.
Ms. Kovasckitz summarized participant discussion, which suggested that an improve existing
' alternative that added a spur off of Siler Road and provided improvements to the intersections at
Dowdle Mountain Road, Wiley Brown Road, and SR 1701 could be included.
Ms. Buncick said that costs will be needed for comparison of the alternatives, and that it would be
prudent to look at an alternative without a bridge for the sake of cost. She asked Joel Setzer if
Dowdle Mountain Road had been improved. Mr. Setzer stated that a traffic signal was added at US
64/23/441. He noted that Macon Middle School is the only middle school in the county and that
there is heavy traffic associated with the school. Mr. Setzer said the signal was considered a
temporary measure.
Ms. Chambers asked if SR 1701 was the only access to US 64/23/441 on the west side of the Little
Tennessee River in the area. Mr. Setzer said that it was the only at-grade intersection for several
miles.

Ms. McBride asked about the condition of the existing bridges in the project area that carry US
64/23/441 over the river. A meeting participant answered that the bridges have sufficiency ratings of
' 97 out of a possible 100.
Steve Lund said that if a USACE permit is needed that he would want to see an alternative evaluated
that did not bridge the river. Harold Draper said that for all alternatives that do cross the river,
3

minimisation and mitigation measures should be considered.
Mr. Major suggested adding a fourth alternative that would upgrade the intersections at Dowdle
Mountain Road and Wiley Brown Road and add a spur to Siler Road. It was suggested that the
wording could be less specific, such as "improve existing without bridging the Little Tennessee
River," and that local citizens and officials could be consulted for specific recommendations. Mr.
Major asked if there were any objections to adding the fourth build alternative to the Concurrence
Point 2 form. There were no objections. It was noted that "improve existing" could include a new
location road component.
Ms. Buncick asked if a new bridge could be constructed without getting into the water. Mr. Setzer
said that it was probable. He noted that the river and floodplain would be taken into consideration
and that both could possibly be spanned. Mr. Militscher and Ms. Buncick noted that there would be
issues related to deck drainage that would need to be worked out
Mr. Militscher noted that the long-term maintenance cost of bridges can be expensive, so it was good
to have an alternative in place to improve existing. He said that the Interagency Leadership Team is
looking for a project to integrate transportation improvements and local planning and development,
and that the proposed project may be a good candidate for a pilot project.
Ms. Chambers said that the locals in the project area should be encouraged to protect their
floodplains and practice good stormwater management during development to protect their
resources.
Brian Wrenn suggested that green sheet commitments could include cooperation between local
municipalities and the NCDOT that encourages economic growth but does so smartly.
Mr. Major circulated the Concurrence Point 2 form for signature. He said that the Concurrence Point
2a meeting would likely be in early summer and reiterated the project's tight schedule. Ms. Buncick
asked if enough information could be provided at the Concurrence Point 2a meeting so that some
alternatives could be eliminated. Other attendees agreed with the idea.
The final wording on the fourth alternative was "improve existing without river crossing." Although
it was not in the wording, the Merger Team agreed verbally that it could also include some new
location roadway.
The meeting was adjourned.
4
t
1?[ULKEY
E?' GINEERS & CONS€ LTANTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Undrea Major, James Bridges, Gary Lovering, Joel Setzer
' FFaom: Lisa Warlick, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
DATE: July 10, 2006
SUBJECT: Transportation improvement project south of US 64/23/441 between SR 1660
(Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), Macon County,
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
A meeting was held for the subject project on June 27, 2006 in the Town of Franklin's board room.
A summary of the meeting follows. Major discussion points are summarized by category and
therefore may not be presented in chronological order.
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Wilma Anderson Macon County
J. Randolph Bulgin Macon County Public Library
Conrad Burrell NCDOT Board Member
Rebecca Crawford Town of Franklin
Mike Decker Town of Franklin
Jay Gibson Town of Franklin
Stacy Guffey Macon County
Connie Haire Southwestern Community College
Tim Jordan Mulkey
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Gary Lovering NCDOT Roadway Design
Joel Setzer NCDOT Division Engineer
Karen Wallace Macon County Public Library
Lisa Warlick Mulkey

MEETING PURPOSE
Liz Kovasckitz opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. A meeting agenda,
project summary, and map showing the existing alternatives was distributed. After the introductions,
Ms. Kovasckitz gave a brief description of the project that included a review of the three proposed
alternatives, the Purpose and Need, the type of document to be produced, the Merger process, and
the schedule. The schedule was presented as follows: Environmental Assessment in November 2006,
Public Hearing in January 2007, Finding of No Significant Impact in May 2007, Right-of-Way in July
2008, and Construction in fall 2009.
Ms. Kovasckitz said that in the last Merger meeting for the project, some of the agency
representatives had expressed a desire for an alternative to be studied that did not cross the Little
Tennessee River. There were environmental concerns regarding the crossing and some agencies felt
that a fourth alternative that would serve the Purpose and Need of the project without crossing the
river should be evaluated. Ms. Kovasckitz explained that the purpose of today's meeting was to gain
' local input on a "non-crossing" fourth alternative for the project.
MULKEY INC. 67513 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 27511 PO Box 331 27 RALEIGH, NC 27835 PH: 919-B51-1912 FAx: 919-S51-191S WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
EmSTINig ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION
Joel Setzer asked if Alternatives B and C were the same on the eastern side of the Little Tennessee
River. Ms. Kovasckitz said they were. Connie Haire asked for clarification on the map coloring for
Alternatives B and C and was informed that the yellow alignment represented both alternatives on
the eastern end.
Stacy Guffey pointed out fill areas associated with the alternatives. He said that Alternative A has the
least impacts to the existing greenway and floodplain. Mr. Guffey said that the County is revising
their floodplain ordinance to address fill because it is a big problem. He said Alternative A was his
preference.
Mr. Burrell noted that Alternative A will be located immediately adjacent to US 64/23/441. He asked
how that would affect proposed development Ms. Haire noted that on the west side of the river
there may need to be spurs to serve development She said Alternative C seemed to best serve
development needs.
Mr. Setzer said that an alignment that best serves public institutions should be of high importance.
Mr. Lovering commented that each alternative has its pros and cons. Alternative A impacts small
wetlands and there are intersection issues at Wiley Brown Road and Dowdle Mountain Road.
Alternatives B and C do not have as many intersections problems. Alternative B will require a large
cut in the vicinity of proposed development and a lot of grading will be needed. Mr. Lovering said he
liked Alternative C because of the longer bridge length and reduced amount of cuts required. He
noted that impacts to the greenway and floodplain would be minor.
Mr. Setzer asked which alternative was most compatible with the community college and library. Mr.
Lovering said that Alternative B goes between property lines, and that Alternative C is most
compatible. Tim Jordan noted that Alternative A could be expected to be the least expensive of the
three existing alternatives. He said that Alternatives B and C will require relocating transmission lines,
extensive cuts, and longer bridges. Mr. Setzer asked if Alternative C impacted a nearby tributary. Mr.
Jordan said it did not Mr. Jordan noted that Alternative C tied into the steepest grade.
Mr. Burrell asked if costs were available for the alternatives. Mr. Lovering said they were not available
yet, but that in general, Alternative A would be the least expensive, and Alternatives B and C more
expensive.
Mr. Guffey made note of the land that the County owned and said that he was concerned about
visual impacts to pasture areas associated with Alternative C. He said that Alternatives A and B
would be better than C. Mr. Jordan noted that as far as elevation is concerned, Alternative A would
be on the existing elevation, Alternative B would be 10 feet or more higher, and Alternative C would
be 15 feet or more higher.
Ms. Haire asked if Alternative B cuts through some of the proposed development Mr. Lovering said
that the alternative was designed to parallel property lines where feasible to lessen impacts. Mr.
Burrell said that Alternative C was in the middle of potential future development He said that
Alternative B was at the property line of the County, and that an alignment farther away from
planned development would require more spurs.
Ms. Haire asked what the distance was between the US 64/23/441 bridges and Alternative C. Ms.
Kovasckitz said less that one-half mile.
Rebecca Crawford commented that all areas under consideration were within Franklin's ETJ. She
said that Mr. Vander Would had not submitted plans yet, and re-zoning of the area would be needed.
2
She said that the Town has to do what is in the best interest for the area, and that a crossing
alternative seemed good. Ms. Kovasckitz said that the agencies were concerned about how
development would occur in the area and that possibly the Division of Water Quality would want to
work with the Town on stormwater and buffer guidelines. Ms. Crawford said that a principles of
growth plan was under development, and that the Town's zoning code will be revised. She said that
for now it is best to help the community college and library, and to work on future traffic.
Mr. Jordan said that Alternative A spurs to development may be cheaper; with Alternative B there
would be 30 to 40 feet difference between the road and the properties and a lot of leveling would be
required.
Jay Gibson said that he thought Alternative C was best and that it would not affect the floodplain as
much.
' Wilma Anderson asked about right-of-way costs for Alternatives A-C. Mr. Lovering said that all
would be similar. He said that the costs associated with moving the power line for Alternatives B and
C will be very expensive. Alternative A may not require moving the lines.
Ms. Haire said a potential civic center may be located south of Alternative C though it could be
elsewhere as well, and that soccer fields in the area will be improved.
NON-CROSSINc3 ALTERNATIVE DiscuSSION
Mike Decker asked how the needs for the project could be accomplished without crossing the river.
' Karen Wallace wanted to know if road widening would be involved. Ms. Kovasckitz said that the
non-crossing alternative could involve several approaches, such as a spur off of Siler Road, and
intersection improvements on Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road. Tim Jordan mentioned a comment
' from a previous meeting that suggested extending from Siler Road west to US 23/441.
Conrad Burrell asked why there was a problem with crossing the river if it was spanned. Ms.
Kovasckitz said that while Alternatives A-C do span the river, the agencies had concerns regarding
protected species and floodplain impacts. Mr. Burrell commented that much of the surrounding
property will be developed. He said that school buses need another alternative to US 64/23/441 and
that a dead-end spur did not seem logical. He said that the first community college building will be
opening soon, and that the library is set to open in January. Plans now include five additional
buildings for the community college, and a dead-end spur will not work.
J. Randolph Bulgin commented that without a river crossing, the community would be no better off
than what current conditions provided. Mr. Lovering explained the need to address the agencies'
concerns.
Ms. Haire noted that if Siler Road remains a dead-end, future growth will need to be slowed down on
the road. She said that the Siler Road/US 23/441 intersection was very difficult and that the
proposed project would provide an alternative entry to the community college and library. This
would help with the intersection, which was currently one of the worst in the area.
Mr. Guffey said that he was concerned about land owned by the County that it intends to maintain
' for the greenway. Ms. Kovasckitz asked if there would be a problem relocating a portion of the
greenway closer to the river. Mr. Guffey said no. His concern was the aesthetic value of the pasture
next to the greenway, which adds to the area. Mr. Guffey asked if a fourth alternative could involve
extending under the existing US 64/23/441 bridges. Mr. Lovering said that a two-lane road with the
required horizontal and vertical clearances was probably not feasible. Mr. Jordan commented that it
would also be in a flood area.

3
1
Another alternative was discussed that would extend Siler Road to the south across Cartoogechaye
Creek to US 23/441.-This potential fourth alternative would result in two bridge crossings of the
creek, and involve protected species habitat, a proposed greenway, trout waters, and floodplain
impacts.
Ms. Haire asked what would happen if a fourth alternative was not presented at the next Merger
meeting. Mr. Setzer said that the agencies would view it as a lack of effort to address their concerns.
Ms. Wallace asked if there was another access point to the area that did not include a bridge, would
that be a valid alternative. Mr. Setzer said that such an alternative could be presented.
There were questions on the wording of the Purpose and Need of the project Ms. Kovasckitz read
the Purpose and Need statement to the group.
Mr. Burrell said that if there is no river crossing, then there is no need to do anything on the east side
of the river. He said that Alternative C could be extended to US 23/441, but that would bring traffic
to an already congested area. Mr. Setzer said that the only way a fourth alternative would serve the
area is to provide additional access to the community college and library from the west at US 23/441.
Mr. Lovering commented on the poor traffic conditions at Siler Road and US 23/441, and said a
fourth alternative to connect to US 23/441 at another location could provide some relief, although
there would likely still be poor traffic conditions. Mr. Setzer said that a fourth alternative connection
to US 23/441 could contribute to already high crash rates on US 23/441.
Mr. Lovering asked Mr. Setzer's opinion on the intersection at US 64/23/441 and Dowdle Mountain
Road. Mr. Setzer said that the traffic signal there has improved safety. There are no plans to change
the current conditions, though future volumes on US 64/23/441 may necessitate changes. He
suggested considering a roundabout at Wiley Brown Road and Dowdle Mountain Road Ms. Haire
and Ms. Wallace were in agreement on considering a roundabout. There were discussions about the
best approach, including possible effects to the gas station owner there. It was concluded that there
may need to be a new access point to the gas station.
Mr. Lovering commented that the fourth alignment could tie into Allman Drive, would not cross the
river, and would connect to US 23/441. He asked if there were any problems with school buses
using the roundabout. Mr. Setzer said no and Mr. Burrell noted that school buses use a roundabout
in Haywood County.
Mr. Jordan questioned whether some buildings/houses had been demolished near Siler Road. They
had been.
Ms. Kovasckitz summarized that the fourth alternative would consist of doing nothing east of the
river, and making a new connection to US 23/441 from Siler Road via Allman Drive in the vicinity
of where either Alternative B or C connects to Siler Road.
Ms. Kovasckitz noted that there was a lot of discussion on the alternatives and asked if there was one
the group preferred. There were three votes for Alternative C, and one comment that costs were
needed.
Mr. Setzer commented that other questions remained to be asked such as if the community college
preferred to be on a dead-end road or have a road extending through their campus; how best to serve
development; and, whether the road should extend through properties or at outer edges.
Mr. Burrell said that for the fourth non-crossing alternative, extending the road all the way through
to US 23/441 would provide a safety improvement in case of some type of disaster at the community
college.
4

SOUTHWESITRN
July 12, 2006.
Ms. Elizabeth Kovasekitz, AICP
Mulkey Engineering & Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 26511
447 College: Claw . S o, N r . s clirnY 28779
028' '-86-4t19I • ';80i?'i'' 4411-4091 S Fox 22S" •?5 {3 1.29
Re: NCDOT 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Project No. R-4748
Dearlv1s. Kovasckitz:
On behalf of Southwestern Community College, thank you for meeting with our college representative and several
Macon County officials on June 27, 2006 to discuss an alternative location for a roadway connecting Siler Road and
Wiley Brown Road, and anew crossing of the Little Tennessee River.
Southwester Community College (SCC) has the first building of a new campus in Macon County under construction
near the end of Siler Road. We anticipate occupying this building in January 2007 and will have a full schedule of classes
there as well as at our annex site in dow nto«>in Franklin. We are starting with six curriculum degree programs and we
anticipate having an enrollment of some 300-500 curriculum students as well as several hundred students attending
continuing education classes. In addition to the regular college students, we will also have 50 Early College High School
students attending classes full-tinge there. Public school buses will transport these students to the Macon Campus. The
college students and the high school students, as well as faculty and staff, will use the Siler Road access to the campus.
We enthusiastically support the construction of a roadway connecting Siler Road to Wiley Brown Road to accommodate
the increase in traffic that the college will generate. The new Macon County Public Library will be located on the same
site with SCC and the users of the library will also generate daily traffic on Siler Road. A connecting roadway will allow
our students, faculty and staff two entrances to the campus site, taking much traffic off the Hwy. 441 S intersection with
Siler Road. We understand that Hwy. 441 is heavily traveled and accidents occur frequently.
At the meeting on June 27,.representatives were asked to consider an. alternative route that would not cross the Little
Tennessee River. Although the group suggested an alternative route that did not cross the River, we believe it is amore
dangerous option, creating a hazardous intersection just south of the Siler Road intersection on an already busy and
dangerous Hwy. 441. For the safety of our college and high school students and library patrons, we oppose this
alternative option.
We support the original TIP program's proposed roadway that creates a connecting road between Siler Road and Wiley
Brown Road and crosses the Little Tennessee River.

I
Sincerely,
(Cecil L. Groves, resident
c: Conrad Burrell, Chairman, SCC Board of Trustees
Karen Wallace, Director, Macon County Public Library
Connie Haire, Vice President, SCC Macon Campus
1

ALIGNMENT REVIEW
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA OF
SR 1 660 (SILER ROAD) AND SR 1 662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD)
SOUTH OF US 64/23/441
MACON COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO. 401 1 8.1 .1
N C D OT T. I . P. PROJECT No. R-4748
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JANUARY 2007
PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 2751 1
e o f
L-?T, Y-
C- kk
???5 L? • COf ? ?(614'? ? ? 4'v? i ? ? ifi? • 1 Vn
-- E skde stj, V" but ?J?o
?,\j is cx? ?j
insQc?. ro?w?d o?ow?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

L

I l

n

0

fl
1.0 Purpose of Today's Meeting ....................................................................................1
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................1
3.0 Purpose of the Proposed Action .............:................................................................1
4.0 Alternatives ...............................................................................................................1
4.1 Design Criteria ................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Alternative A - Northern Alignment ............................................................................. 3
4.3 Alternative B - Center Alignment .................................................................................. 4
4.4 Alternative C - Southern Alignment .............................................................................. 4
4.5 Alternative D - Non-Crossing Alternative ................................................................... 4
5.0 Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................9
6.0 Public Involvement ................................................................................................10
6.1 Meeting with Local Representatives .............................................................................10
6.2 Citizens Informational Workshop ................................................................................15
Appendix .......................................................................................................................17
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Environmental Features Map with Alternatives A, B and C ........................................ 5
Figure 3. Environmental Features Map with Alternative D ......................................................... 7
Figure 4. Floodplain Map ..................................................................................................................14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives - Major Stream Crossings ...........................11
Table 2. Comparison of Impacts by Alternative ...........................................................................12
iii
F
ALIGNMENT REVIEW
1 .O PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
The purpose of today's meeting is to present information to support modification of Alternative
D, the Non-crossing Alternative (Concurrence Point 2).
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Draft
2007-2073 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as NCDOT Project No. R-4748. The
schedule for this project includes completing the environmental assessment in early 2007, right-
of-way acquisition occurring in 2009 and construction in 2010. The NCDOT TIP estimates
combined right-of-way and construction costs for the project at $8,588,000.
The proposed project is located in Macon County, North Carolina just south of US 64/23/441
and the Town of Franklin (see Figure 1). The project study area is bounded on the west by US
23/441, on the north by US 64/23/441, on the east by the Cullasaja River, and is approximately
0.4 mile wide.
The proposed action will provide transportation improvements in the vicinity of SR 1660 (Siler
Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road). The proposed project as shown in the NCDOT TIP
includes a new location roadway connecting Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road, and a new
crossing of the Little Tennessee River. Four Build alternatives are currently being evaluated for
the proposed project.
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the project is to create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity of
Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road and improve traffic flow in the project area. The purpose and
need for the proposed action were approved by the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team at their
December 8, 2005 meeting (See meeting minutes in Appendix A):
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
The NCDOT presented the No-Build alternative and three build alternatives, Alternatives A, B
and C, at the March 21, 2006 Merger Meeting. At the meeting, the Merger Team concurred that
the three build alternatives and the No-Build alternative should be moved forward for detailed
study. In addition, the Team requested that a "non-crossing" alternative be added for evaluation.
In response, the NCDOT added Alternative D - Western Alignment without a Bridge. In
addition, at the request of local representatives, a Roundabout Option on the eastern side of the
Little Tennessee River was added.
x [3
nteetlah l4? Almry(? 12m 1'?y 2"4 W:IIetS 9
Ch a t Stecoah J 4 Lauada 1 p Inc
v0ilf }
q 5 1 a
a insvill ? ? ?- 28 1 16 6 107
1 G4,r ?? c?r
I = ?? x ewhae
East Leport
1Y t !A 1
J A ' K S
Gsk'?. 1 ! NATIONAL r ..i_1 ?uck aege
t aw S I wmdcoa e.
t 01
Franklin t t Cuasaja ?i m FOREST
L A ??? ?olnbw Pdngs t, !{i
a
H, h
C- o ; ? I Y ? * H^^p?on !
A S
o?m
?y reeV i± 1 `: Srqu t
CAROLINA:' ?? ?' ? Irvly?a?? loc _ rsm ? e ti
rJ ? UkrT?
Projectvicinitya????i5> >r.?
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Proposed Transportation Improvements in the Area of
SR 1660 and SR 1662 South of US 64/23/441
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
Macon County
O'µORiM?
ti lQ v?
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
9, tP
y?rOFiRANSR°p
n
SR 1158 D
Womack St. 441
Z?
SR 1157 ?y0
Golf View Dr. ?Q 1
0 oa?F
64
t
Cu\\asa\aR`?ec
s
7
Ra
9 ??a o O° ,S Gf 66,>
i
a'te' diOGSSs
Cargo
09 'po•
e creek
SR 1662
o Wiley Brown Rd.
23
441
Legend
o Roads IN
Study Area
l Rivers
Franklin City Limits
o rz o.zs '"z os

7

A Bridging and Alignment Review (Concurrence Point 2a) document was distributed to Merger
Team members in July 2006. No meeting was conducted for this Merger point; however,
concurrence on the proposed structures for Alternatives A, B and C was requested from Team
members by mail. The Bridging and Alignment Review document contained information on the
non-crossing alternative, Alternative D.
Alternative D (Western Alignment) as portrayed in the Concurrence Point 2a package included
improvements in the vicinity of Siler Road. The NCDOT proposes to modify Alternative D so
that it also includes improvements on the east side of the Little Tennessee River in the vicinity
of Wiley Brown Road to meet the purpose of the proposed project (see Section 4.5 and Figure
3). Alternatives A, B and C are unchanged.
The four Build alternatives and two intersection options are presented in Figures 2 and 3.
4.1 DESIGN CRITERIA
To the extent possible, alignment centerlines were placed to minimize impacts to resources,
provide alternatives that are constructible, and cross streams and floodplains at a reasonable
angle. The following design criteria were also used when preparing the alternatives:
1. Design speed of 40 miles per hour;
2. Maximum grade of 13 percent;
3. Typical Sections
a. Lane Width: 12 feet
b. Roadway Width: 40 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders
c. Structure Width: 32 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes and 4-foot offsets
4. Side slopes of 6:1 (minimum) to 2:1 (maximum) for all cut or fill heights.
'
4.2 ALTERNATIVE A - NORTHERN ALIGNMENT

' Alternative A is the northernmost alternative, traveling adjacent to US 64/23/441 and
functioning similar to a service road. It is approximately 1.41 miles long. Alternative A realigns
the.northern end of Siler Road (approximately 0.39 mile from US 23/441), and continues east
' connecting to Dowdle Mountain Road (approximately 0.20 mile from Wells Grove Road).
There is a proposed signal at the intersection of Alternative A and Dowdle Mountain Road. The
proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders including two-
foot paved (Figure 2). A 360-foot long bridge crossing the Little Tennessee River will provide
two 12-foot travel lanes with a four-foot shoulder on each side
The desi
n speed is 40 m
h
.
g
p
.

' On US 64/23/441, the left-turn lane for SR 1701 is lengthened from 200 feet to 800 feet to
provide additional storage.

' Roundabout Option - This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with four legs at the
intersection of Alternative A and Dowdle Mountain Road. This would replace the signalized
intersection.

4.3 ALTERNATIVE B - CENTER ALIGNMENT
Alternative B most closely resembles the alignment shown in the TIP. It is approximately 580
feet south of US 64/23/441. Alternative B realigns the northern end of Siler Road
(approximately 0.48 mile from US 23/441), and continues east connecting
to US 64/23/441. Dowdle Mountain Road is realigned to form a "T" intersection
with Alternative B. The proposed mainline will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-
foot shoulders including two-foot paved (Figure 2). A 345-foot long proposed bridge crossing
the Little Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with four-foot shoulders on each
side. Alternative B is approximately 1.47 miles long with a design speed of 40 mph.
On US 64/23/441, the left-turn lane for SR 1701 is lengthened from 200 feet to 800 feet to
provide additional storage.
Roundabout Option - This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the
intersection of Alternative B and Dowdle Mountain Road.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE C - SOUTHERN ALIGNMENT
Alternative C is the southernmost alignment, approximately 925 feet south of US 64/23/441. It
realigns Siler Road (approximately 0.63 mile from US 23/441), and continues east connecting
to US 64/23/441. Dowdle Mountain Road is realigned to form a "T" intersection
with Alternative C. The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-
foot shoulders including two-foot paved (Figure 2). A 380-foot long proposed bridge crossing
the Little Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with a four-foot shoulder on
each side. About 460-feet of the greenway trail will be relocated under the bridge. Alternative
C is approximately 1.43 miles long with a design speed of 40 mph.
On US 64/23/441, the left-turn lane for SR 1701 is lengthened from 200 feet to 800 feet to
provide additional storage.
Roundabout Option - This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the
intersection of Alternative C and Dowdle Mountain Road.
4.5 ALTERNATIVE D - NON-CROSSING ALTERNATIVE
Alternative D is on new location beginning at the intersection of Allman Drive and
US 23/441 and extends Siler Road (approximately 0.29 mile toward Little Tennessee River).
Alternative D continues on the east (approximately 0.13 mile from Little Tennessee River)
connecting to US 64/23/441. Allman Drive is realigned to form a "T" intersection with
Alternative D, plus Dowdle Mountain Road is realigned to form a "T" intersection
with Alternative D. The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-
foot shoulders including two-foot paved (Figure 3). There is no crossing of the Little Tennessee
River. Alternative D is approximately 1.82 miles long with a design speed of 40 mph.
On US 64/23/441, the left-turn lane for SR 1701 is lengthened from 200 feet to 800 feet to
provide additional storage.
Roundabout Option - This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the
intersection of Alternative D and Dowdle Mountain Road.
4
FA ?.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
A comparison of the alternatives is shown in Table 2 and discussed below. The roundabout
' options for the alternatives have similar impacts to the intersection option for these alternatives;
however, the roundabout option results in slight decreases in the right-of-way requirements and
construction costs for each of these alternatives.

Preliminary background research of state files showed no known historic sites and one
archaeological site within the project study area. Archaeological studies will be conducted prior
' to construction.
An agency field verification meeting was conducted on July 21, 2006 with the US Army Corps of
' Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality to determine the jurisdictional status of
resources in the study area. Alternatives A and D have 580.5 linear feet and 311.0 linear feet of
stream impacts, respectively. Alternative B and C do not have.stream impacts. Alternative A has
' 0.024 acre of wetland impacts. Alternatives B, C and D do not impact wetlands. Two water
bodies within the project study area, the Culla.saja River and Cartoogechaye Creek, are
designated trout waters (Tr) of the State. No high quality waters (HQW), outstanding resource
' waters (ORW), water supply (WS I-V), 303(8) listed waters, or critical areas (CA) occur within
the study area. There are no North Carolina Division of Water Quality buffer rules currently
present in the Little Tennessee River Basin; however, the North Carolina Division of Land
' Resources does require a 25-foot vegetated buffer between Trout waters and graded
construction sites.
' Scoping letter response comments received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission indicate that there is a construction moratorium from May 1 to July 15 for the
protection of smallmouth bass spawning. The proposed project is located in the Tennessee
' Valley Authority's (TVA) Land Management District. A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the
TVA Act is required for all construction or development involving streams or floodplains in the
Tennessee River drainage basin.
' d
d
i
id
ifi
d b
h
US Fi
h
d
ildlif
angere
spec
es were
ent
e
y t
e
s
an
e
A total of eight threatened or en
W
Service as potentially occurring in Macon County as of the March 8, 2006 list. Natural Heritage
Program maps were reviewed on May 10, 2006 to determine if any species receiving federal
protection have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that two
federally protected species, spotfin chub and Virginia spiraea, are known to occur within a one
' mile radius of the study area. Suitable habitat is present in the study area for Virginia spiraea as
well as small-whorled pogonia.. A bloom time survey of all appropriate habitat was conducted
on June 6, 2006. No occurrence of either species was found during the survey; however,
' following NCDOT policy a re-survey for Virginia spiraea will need to be conducted on a
biennial basis prior to permit issuance. Additionally, the Little Tennessee River is identified
within the project study area as critical habitat for the spotfin chub. A biological conclusion of
t "No Effect" has been issued for the remaining species listed as federally protected.
Impacts to the Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest community vary by alternative. Alternative B has
' the greatest impacts at 10.47 acres and Alternative C has the least impacts at 1.08 acres.

Major utility impacts for Alternative A include two water line crossings (on fill), the relocation of
one gas line and a fiber optic junction box, and transmission line impacts. Alternative B includes
two water line crossings (m cuts), the relocation of one gas line, and transmission line and
sanitary sewer line impacts. Alternative C includes two water line crossings (in cuts), the
relocation of one gas line and a fiber optic junction box, and transmission line impacts. This
alignment also crosses a sanitary sewer line. Alternative D will have more substantial impacts to
water and gas lines than Alternatives A, B and C, and impacts to a power line. However, this
alternative will not impact the transmission line east of the river.
Right-of-way and construction cost estimates are shown in Table 2. The estimates range from a
total of $7,323,000 to $10,185,000. Alternative A - Roundabout Option is the least expensive
alternative and Alternative D - Roundabout Option is the most expensive alternative.
Alternatives A, B and C cross the existing greenway adjacent to the Little Tennessee River.
Alternative C will relocate a portion of the greenway closer to the river.
Impacts to important farmland soils and residential displacements were calculated. Alternative A
impacts approximately 2.51 acres of important farmland soils and has no displacements.
Alternative B impacts 5.27 acres of important farmland soils and has no displacements.
Alternative C impacts 9.41 acres of important farmland soils and has two residential
displacements. Alternative D has 10.77 acres of important farmland soils impacts and four
residential displacements. Alternative B traverses steep terrain with significant elevation changes.
This alternative will require substantial earthwork. Alternative B has the greatest impacts to
properties slated for development.
6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
6.1 MEETING WITH LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES
At the March 21, 2006 Concurrence Point 2 meeting, Merger Team members requested that the
NCDOT investigate adding a fourth alternative for study that does not cross the Little
Tennessee River. Minutes from the meeting are located in Appendix A. The NCDOT held a
meeting on June 27, 2006 with representatives from the Town of Franklin, Macon County,
Southwestern Community College, and the Macon County Public Library to gain local input on
a fourth "non-crossing" alternative. Minutes from the meeting and a letter received from
Southwestern Community College are included in Appendix A.
The meeting attendees were reluctant to add an alternative that did not cross the river, citing
current poor traffic conditions and the need to improve access to the community college, library
and other proposed development. After additional discussion focusing on the need to evaluate a
fourth alternative, three ideas were presented, all of which included a road on new location.
Potential non-crossing alternatives discussed include the following.
1. Follow an alignment similar to Alternative A from both the east and west, but
instead of crossing the river the roadway would turn under the existing US 64
bridges and extend back in the direction that each road originated from.
2. Extend Siler Road to the south and then west to tie into US 23/441.
10

C

cn
o
'
V

VJ

O

y

cd

1 ?

O

0

0
V

H

Q
i

0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
. z z z z z z

U
u
U
d
U) V. re) d c?
r+ 00
N

LO
O
N
i C
4-4 r. M c C% O ON
s ,
H
bq=

? a

z

H y

V) U o0
V)
V) Lr)
"t
CIA
00

i C\ Lr)
. U ON

a

r?

U Q) o

V)
N

r
W
o

M

O ?

O

? O
4
N
C\

Q)
_ N
J,'
O W s?-i 4? d' h
v
r ? ¢+?
4-4
id O 4. Fi
O 0 Q O ? p • ? U
•
?

?
?.yy 1-4
^
?
y? ?}
.y
.y?
u
iu-1
U 14
• .y B O t{? ° BFI

?
V) co
rl ?J

a
U Q

-d
4.4
Q)
'
-0
ao

-O
c
n
v
?--
Q) ..-, V4 w
0

N-

U
O
11
O
N
0
V
N
4
10
H

Q
?x
.? N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O ° •?
A+4, O
z ?
O
O O
\

aVi +'
U
Q+`y
O

,Z: M
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
O
0.•jy 00 c-+
N
O
O O
\
? r v ? r-+ G1 O

?
H z

z
r
a C°
x
? ? o
r O O O O O O U-) O O 04
'
O N
j O O O \
O
aNi
it ? tf
v U
U
N W
z?

P-.

0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
a.
0
0
0 o

z?

0
V o
CIO
C7

V
r-+ P-4
r.
rn cd w
bq m

V ty
co xt?

T) ?

N Li

i
"

bA
cd rn co
i 4.4
u
cd
d S
r
v --
ya
<

.. O
uo U
v
L1, U
ct
y 0 d v U U A,
V 0 N ' o a d
5
V H ??
a

C4 .?

4? V Q

? 4

%
o
-d

?
N
" 44
0
'O 4
? 4
h
O
4--4
P

H

Vu) u

P?

U

U

x

w

V)
0
w u
-4
A.,

Zt
0
•N
V
N
1.4
o °
0 0
W
• o
0 0
00 00
?-.,
L?' M
\ O O O
z ?.? ? O O
z O O
z O O
.0 O
t- 00 M M N
5 r
m
r- r-
N

?" O
?
? O O O
'
O O u
) 00 V'
O O O ?i
F/?
v O z O O
N Lr) r
N N
be, bq= GA=

z
w

w
O O
C) C) O
C)

t 00
d` O O O

v O 7 Z O O

G O

L
Lr)
N N
?
00 l?

i1

`y o
o

z o

Z o o
o
o °

M O Lq

r. o

<+
\ d N r. e.
4A, toW

u c c

(U
W
. Q
sd

U 7? O
/
??
I?

a
L+"
C _.;-4 O cad c
d

a
P 0 P-4
a
o
(n
4-4 7$ L? u
o

1 U) u (5
4-.4 -4 to u
Cl' z

4 -?
4-1 -

o

C? r
GJ C

U C

O C

q
s a
w
''
-
'n
U
Cd
--?
tH
cn
4
?
? cd ?

3

?

o

?la?

y
-C4
w

u
U
1-5
0
W
U
U
N
}' U
•? i
G H
N
U
a
14
0
%(U
a
w
-d cd
C
N U+ y
lul
C O ? y
O 600 I'L'4
y ¢ bA N O O
(u m
O .d m w cd
'4J
U U +-+
ca M a -d a?i
Q'
* + a it < U
M
r
N
RS
U
0
Z
p
P
P
.
g m
o
W z
w
g
0
??44 Q m ? ?`p
°s 4c ` ; W
Z
IE R all
Z g UA

P

M?`
,saan i'a
4*
Nerap S'®
?dfi9l 'M'S a
6 ^p
Q r i
Of 1? 6
2
g i
6Z

E
I
M
¦
R:1

3. Create a road that extends from Allman Drive to Siler Road in the vicinity of where
Alternatives B or C tie in.
The third suggestion was determined to be the most feasible non-crossing alternative in terms of
constructability and impacts minimization. During the meeting a suggestion was made that a
roundabout option be considered for the Dowdle Mountain Road (SR 1659) and Wiley Brown
Road intersection area. Alternative D and the Roundabout Option are presented in section 5.0.
6.2 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held for the proposed project on February 15, 2006 at
the Macon County Community Building on US 23/441 (Georgia Road) in Franklin. The
purpose of the workshop was to introduce the project and present the study area to the
community. Several written comments were received at the meeting.
Thirty-nine citizens and local officials registered at the workshop. Most workshop participants
had a positive view of the proposed project as illustrated in the NCDOT TIP. Many felt that the
proposed road would be an asset to the area, making Southwestern Community College and the
new library more accessible to citizens living east of the Little Tennessee River, within the study
area and beyond. A comment was also made that the proposed road would provide better fire
department (located east of the river) access to areas west of the Little Tennessee River,
including the new community college and library.
Some citizens were concerned about safety, in particular in the vicinity of the Dowdle Mountain
Road, Wiley Brown Road, and US 64/23/441 intersections in the study area. It was noted that
11 school buses from Macon Middle School come through these intersections to travel west and
south and that the proposed road would provide an alternative route for these buses currently
using US 64/23/441.
A representative of Duke Power Company commented on the tract of land that the company
owns east of the Little Tennessee River. He said that the land was very valuable because of
location and topography, and that it has considerable potential for commercial and/or small
industrial development. The representative voiced his concern about any proposed roadway
alignment that would impact the company's property.
15

16

I

I

1

I

7

APPENDIX
17

mENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
' To: Meeting Participants
FRom: Lisa Warlick, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
' DATE: February 22, 2006
SUBJECT: Transportation improvement project south of US 64/23/441 between SR 1660
' (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), Macon County,
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748

A Merger meeting was held for the subject project on December 8, 2005 in the board room of
NCDOT's Highway Building. Meeting attendees are provided below. A summary of the meeting
follows.
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Ron Allen NCDOT - Roadway
James Bridges NCDOT - PDEA
Marella Buncick U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Carla Dagnino NCDOT - Natural Environment
Mark Davis NCDOT - Division 14
Harold Draper Tennessee Valley Authority (via Asheville)
Mike Fendrick PBQD
Brett Feulner NCDOT - PDEA
Cliff Hamilton NCDOT - PDEA
Teresa Hart NCDOT - PDEA
Amada Jones U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville)
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Ed Lewis NCDOT - Public Involvement & Community Studies
Undrea Major NCDOT - PDEA
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Ron McCollum NCDOT - Roadway
Christopher Militscher U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
Leigh Morris Mulkey
John Pilipchuk NCDOT - Geotechnical Engineering
Angie Pennock U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville)
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Sandra Stepney NCDOT - Roadway
Wilson Stroud NCDOT - PDEA
Lisa Warlick Mulkey
Ryan White NCDOT - PDEA
Jamie Wilson NCDOT - Division 14
Brian Wrenn N. C. Division of Water Quality
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 27511 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGH, NC 27636 PH: 91 9-851-1 91 2 FAX: [phone] WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
Undrea Major opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. In addition to those in
attendance at the Raleigh location, three individuals joined the meeting by video from Asheville,
North Carolina. Most attendees had information packets mailed to them ahead of time that included
the Purpose and Need document. Those who did not have the packet were offered copies of the
materials. Everyone in attendance was given an addendum that included updated traffic information,
an updated Purpose and Need statement, and a revised concurrence form. Mr. Major stated that the
reason for the meeting was to agree on Concurrence Point One, the Purpose and Need of the
proposed project. He provided a brief description of the project, and then turned the meeting over to
Liz Kovasckitz, who began a PowerPoint presentation. The meeting was open for questions and
answers both during the presentation and afterwards.
Ed Lewis had questions about the traffic in the vicinity of the project. Mike Fendrick provided an
explanation of average daily traffic with and without proposed developments in the project area.
Chris Militscher noted differences between the original Purpose and Need statement received by mail
and the updated one included in the addendum handout. Mr. Militscher said that he agreed with the
purpose of creating access to sites slated for development, but did not agree with the updated
wording of supporting economic development. He said there would need to be additional
information in the Purpose and Need document specific to economic development in order to
support economic development as a valid purpose. Mr. Militscher said that there was no evidence
that potential new jobs from proposed developments in the project vicinity would be suitable for the
segment of the population in the Franklin area that is below the poverty level.
Brian Wrenn had questions about the level of service on US 64 with 44,000 vehicles per day in the
project area. Mike Fendrick explained the details of the traffic signal temporarily installed at US 64
and SR 1701. He said that if the signal remained, that the level of service would be poor, but if the
signal was removed, that level of service would improve.
Mr. Militscher questioned the proposed convention center on Siler Road. He commented that the
area is fairly remote for a development such as this, and wondered how many would actually use it,
and if it would provide many jobs for the impoverished people in the area. During further discussion
of the wording to support economic development in the Purpose and Need statement, Mr. Militscher
said that there was no evidence that the proposed developments in the project area would sustain
economic development to the design year 2030.
Angie Pennock stated that a substantial Community Impact Assessment would be needed for the
proposed project. Mr. Wrenn indicated that he would like to see a quantitative Indirect and
Cumulative Effects study for the project.
Marella Buncick noted that the Little Tennessee River is critical habitat for spotfin chub. She said
that a new crossing of the river could be an issue because of this.
A question was asked regarding the funding source of the project. Teresa Hart noted that the project
was state funded, and no federal funds would be used.
Mr. Wrenn said that the N. C. DWQ would be interested in working with the Town of Franklin and
Macon County to create a development plan for the project area that included stormwater
management, riparian buffers, and other management practices.
Marella Buncick asked if there were other roads in the project vicinity that will need improvements.
Ms. Kovasckitz responded that the Dowdle Mountain Road intersection may need improvement and
that there could be safety benefits in tying those improvements in with the proposed project.
2

J

Jamie Wilson said that Siler Road had recently been improved to secondary road standards, and that
there were no plans to include additional improvements as part of the proposed project. He said that
additional improvements would be needed eventually on Siler Road.
Mr. Wrenn said that many of the traffic flow issues in the project area could be handled by
improving existing roads instead of building the proposed road.
Marla Chambers agreed with Mr. Wrenn and said that she did not see the need for the proposed
road, especially since it proposes a new crossing of the Little Tennessee River in close proximity to a
current crossing. She said the new road would encourage development next to the river, where
development should instead be discouraged.
Ms. Buncick asked if there is a hazardous spill catch basin at the US 64 crossing of the Little
Tennessee River. Mr. Wilson said he was not aware of one. Ms. Buncick inquired if there is access to
the river floodplain in the area. Mr. Wilson said that there is a service road that connects to a walking
trail which goes underneath the US 64 bridge, but that there is currently no other access to the area
from either side of the bridge.
Mr. Militscher said that on a similar project more specifics on planned development in the project
area were provided. He indicated that he would like to see the same level of detail for the Macon
County project, such as a development plan for the proposed projects in the vicinity.
Mr. Wilson emphasized the known development that is currently taking place, such as the library and
community college, and the need for connectivity in the project area. He said there is no way to
know which private development projects will be built, and that those projects are not the driving
force for the proposed road. Mr. Wilson said the county does not have zoning laws and questioned
how to control what an individual wants to build on his own land.
Ms. Kovasckitz asked if the original Purpose and Need wording could be used if the words

' "economic development" were removed. Mr. Militscher said that would be more acceptable. He also
said that if an emphasis on safety could be used, that it would be better.
Mr. Wilson noted that other county functions would likely relocate to the proposed project area near
t the college site. Mr. Wrenn reiterated that he would like to see a plan developed in conjunction with
the Town of Franklin and Macon County for protection of natural resources.
Harold Draper said that the Purpose and Need statement should include that the proposed project is
consistent with planned development for the area. Sarah McBride said she was concerned that the
proposed road would be poorly planned in conjunction with other planning.

Mr. Militscher noted that building a new road does not guarantee positive economic development.
He said that he would like to see site plans for the proposed projects in the area. He also requested
the number of jobs that would be created by the developments. Ms. Kovasckitz and Mr. Wilson
' responded, saying that some developers wanted to keep their activities private, and that limited
information is available on specific site plans and potential jobs created. Mr. Militscher said that if
' "economic development" was removed from the Purpose and Need wording, that this information
may not be needed. He also noted that the there would be two remaining purposes: connectivity, and
traffic flow. He said that if traffic flow is improved on existing roads, connectivity may not be
needed, and that connectivity does not stand on its own.
' Ms. Chambers said that she did not see the need for the proposed road, and that transportation
improvements could be made on existing roads. She said she was not in agreement with the current
' title of the project, since she did not believe the road was needed. A suggestion was made to change
3
the title to include "proposed transportation improvements," and Ms. Chambers agreed.
Ms. Hart asked if the wording "create access to sites slated for development" was acceptable. The
Merger Team indicated it was. Mr. Major asked if the group would agree to use the wording in the
original Purpose and Need packet. Team members indicated that "connectivity" should be removed
from the Purpose statement.
The Merger Team agreed to remove from the project title "new location roadway" and replace it
with "proposed transportation improvements." It was also agreed that the Purpose and Need
statement should be amended to read:
"The purpose of the project is to create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity
of Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road, and to improve traffic flow in the project area."
Mr. Major then adjourned the meeting.
4

MEMORANDUM
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
To: Meeting Participants
FRoM: Lisa Warlick, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
' DATE: March 24, 2006
SUBJECT: Transportation improvement project south of US 64/23/441 between SR 1660
' (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), Macon County,
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748

A Merger meeting was held for the subject project on March 21, 2006 in the board room of
NCDOT's Highway Building. Meeting attendees are listed below. A summary of the meeting follows.
MEETINs, RARTI IRANT
David Bender NCDOT - Bike and Pedestrian
Jay Bissett Mulkey
James Bridges NCDOT - PDEA
Marella Buncick U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Carla Dagnino NCDOT - Natural Environment
Harold Draper Tennessee Valley Authority (via Asheville)
Mike Fendrick PBQD
Brett Feulner NCDOT -PDEA
Teresa Hart NCDOT - PDEA
Tirn Jordan Mulkey
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Gary Lovering NCDOT - Roadway
Steve Lund U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville)
Undrea Major NCDOT - PDEA
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Christopher Militscher U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
John Pilipchuk NCDOT - Geotechnical Engineering
Jake Riggsbee FHWA
Joel Setzer NCDOT - Division 14
Amy Simes NCDENR
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Sandra Stepney NCDOT - Roadway
Greg Thorpe NCDOT - PDEA
Lisa Warlick Mulkey
Brian Wrenn N. C. Division of Water Quality
MULK Y
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, INC 27511 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGH, NC 27536 PH: 919-651-1912 FAX: 919-B51-1916 WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
Undrea Major opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. In addition to those in
attendance at the Raleigh location, two individuals joined the meeting by video from Asheville, North
Carolina. Attendees had information packets mailed to them ahead of time that included the
Evaluation of Alternatives document. Extra copies of the document were available at the meeting.
Mr. Major stated that the reason for the meeting was to agree on Concurrence Point 2, to determine
which alternatives to carry forward for detailed study. He provided a brief description of the project
and then turned the meeting over to Liz Kovasckitz. The meeting was open for questions and
answers both during the presentation and afterwards. Ms. Kovasckitz gave a PowerPoint
presentation, which provided a brief review of the project, the Purpose and Need agreed upon at the
Concurrence Point 1 meeting, comments from the Citizens Informational Workshop held for the
project, and introduced potential alignments for consideration.
Chris Militscher asked if there was an estimate of impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Ms. Kovasckitz
referred him to the FEMA map figure in the Evaluation of Alternatives document. Mr. Militscher
reviewed the figure and offered a rough estimate of approximately 400 to 500 linear feet of impacts.
A meeting participant questioned the FEMA map year of 1978 and was informed that it was the
most recent available. Mr. Militscher estimated approximately one acre of impacts to the 100-year
floodplain based upon a 40-foot wide typical section. Jay Bissett commented that part of the area of
estimated impacts would be bridged. Mr. Militscher then said that impacts could total approximately
one-half to one acre, and said that he would like the actual acreage to be included in the impacts table
at the next meeting.
Mr. Militscher asked about utility conflicts. Ms. Kovasckitz referred to a map display of the project
area and pointed out the power transmission line that extends through the area. She said that detailed
studies had not been completed on utility conflicts.
Sarah McBride asked how far away Alternative A was from US 64/23/441. Ms. Kovasckitz said it
was very close, serving as a service road adjacent to US 64/23/441. Ms. McBride questioned whether
Alternative A was viable because it was so close to the existing road. Ms. Kovasckitz commented that
the alignment would provide access to sites slated for, or currently under, development and provide
an alternative route for school and emergency service traffic.
Mr. Militscher asked about the convention center, which was previously shown on project mapping
but did not show on current mapping. Ms. Kovasckitz said that the convention center location was
shown on the map, however, specific names of proposed developments were changed to "Proposed
Development." Mr. Militscher commented that part of the Purpose and Need was to support
development and noted that one project alternative appeared to cross over the proposed convention
center site. Ms. Kovasckitz pointed out that the proposed alignment corridors were 500 feet in width,
indicating they would not necessarily go over the site once an actual alignment was determined.
Marella Buncick commented that at the Concurrence Point 1 meeting there was discussion of an
alternative that would provide improvements without crossing the Little Tennessee River. She said
that from a safety standpoint, four-lane divided highways were safer than two-lane roadways. Ms.
Buncick said she would still like to see an intersection improvement alternative that would not cross
the river. Marla Chambers and Brian Wrenn agreed and said there should be an improve existing
alternative.
Ms. Chambers said that the proposed road is a convenience that crosses a major critical habitat and
that she would prefer that development be discouraged in the floodplain and areas surrounding the
river. She pointed out that the study area boundaries were inconsistent related to existing roads.
James Bridges noted that the boundary could be revised to include US 64/23/441.
2

Mr. Bridges said that an alternative that would improve existing conditions and not cross the river
was not discounted. He said that a meeting was conducted on the subject and that no conclusion was
reached on an improve existing alternative that would meet the Purpose and Need of the project. He
' said the NCDOT is not excluding the possibility of an improve existing alternative.
Mr. Major said that Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road could be evaluated for improvements, and
noted that there could be discussion on an improve existing alternative in addition to the corridor
alignments shown. Mr. Major asked if there was a problem with carrying forward any of the
alternatives as currently proposed.
Jake Riggsbee asked if there was one corridor that everyone could agree upon as least desirable,
potentially Alternative C since it has two stream crossings. .
' Ms. Buncick asked how impacts to the 100-year floodplain could be minimized. She said floodplain
impacts were her highest priority, and that she would like the entire floodplain bridged, especially
since additional development will be coming soon.
'
Mr. Militscher commented that he would not necessarily be prepared to drop any alternative at this
time. He noted that there had been no cost estimates calculated. He said that he would be in favor of
adding an improve existing alternative, and that the public's concern over safety, which Ms.
' Kovasckitz summarized in the presentation, needs to be addressed. Mr. Militscher said he would like
to see an extension or spur of Siler Road that did not impact the 100-year floodplain. He said it could
possibly provide access to sites without crossing the river.
Ms. Kovasckitz commented that citizens and local officials in the area were interested in connectivity.
Mr. Militscher said that he would like to add a fourth alternative to improve existing, and that the
cost of a new bridge may not be justified for convenience.
A meeting participant asked if improvements were needed to US 64/23/441 as part of an alternative.
Mr. Riggsbee said that constructing turn lanes could be a possibility. Ms. Buncick said that she did
' not think that capacity was an issue.
Ms. Kovasckit2 summarized participant discussion, which suggested that an improve existing
' alternative that added a spur off of Siler Road and provided improvements to the intersections at
Dowdle Mountain Road, Wiley Brown Road, and SR 1701 could be included.
' Ms. Buncick said that costs will be needed for comparison of the alternatives, and that it would be
prudent to look at an alternative without a bridge for the sake of cost. She asked Joel Setzer if
Dowdle Mountain Road had been improved. Mr. Setzer stated that a traffic signal was added at US
64/23/441. He noted that Macon Middle School is the only middle school in the county and that
there is heavy traffic associated with the school. Mr. Setzer said the signal was considered a
temporary measure.
Ms. Chambers asked if SR 1701 was the only access to US 64/23/441 on the west side of the Little
Tennessee River in the area. Mr. Setzer said that it was the only at-grade intersection for several
' miles.
Ms. McBride asked about the condition of the existing bridges in the project area that carry US
64/23/441 over the river. A meeting participant answered that the bridges have sufficiency ratings of
' 97 out of a possible 100.
Steve Lund said that if a USACE permit is needed that he would want to see an alternative evaluated
that did not bridge the river. Harold Draper said that for all alternatives that do cross the river,

minimization and mitigation measures should be considered.
Mr. Major suggested adding a fourth alternative that would upgrade the intersections at Dowdle
Mountain Road and Wiley Brown Road and add a spur to Siler Road. It was suggested that the
wording could be less specific, such as "improve existing without bridging the Little Tennessee
River," and that local citizens and officials could be consulted for specific recommendations. Mr.
Major asked if there were any objections to adding the fourth build alternative to the Concurrence
Point 2 form. There were no objections. It was noted that "improve existing" could include a new
location road component.
Ms. Buncick asked if a new bridge could be constructed without getting into the water. Mr. Setzer
said that it was probable. He noted that the river and floodplain would be taken into consideration
and that both could possibly be spanned. Mr. Militscher and Ms. Buncick noted that there would be
issues related to deck drainage that would need to be worked out.
Mr. Militscher noted that the long-term maintenance cost of bridges can be expensive, so it was good
to have an alternative in place to improve existing. He said that the Interagency Leadership Team is
looking for a project to integrate transportation improvements and local planning and development,
and that the proposed project may be a good candidate for a pilot project.
Ms. Chambers said that the locals in the project area should be encouraged to protect their
floodplains and practice good stormwater management during development to protect their
resources.
Brian Wrenn suggested that green sheet commitments could include cooperation between local
municipalities and the NCDOT that encourages economic growth but does so smartly.
Mr. Major circulated the Concurrence Point 2 form for signature. He said that the Concurrence Point
2a meeting would likely be in early summer and reiterated the project's tight schedule. Ms. Buncick
asked if enough information could be provided at the Concurrence Point 2a meeting so that some
alternatives could be eliminated. Other attendees agreed with the idea.
The final wording on the fourth alternative was "improve existing without river crossing." Although
it was not in the wording, the Merger Team agreed verbally that it could also include some new
location roadway.
The meeting was adjourned.
4

d

4=*=,mULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
' To: Undrea Major, James Bridges, Gary Lovering, Joel Setzer
FROM: Lisa Warlick, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
' DATE: July 10, 2006
SUBJECT: Transportation improvement project south of US 64/23/441 between SR 1660
' (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), Macon County,
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
A meeting was held for the subject project on June 27, 2006 in the Town of Franklin's board room.
' A summary of the meeting follows. Major discussion points are summarized by category and
therefore may not be presented in chronological order.
'
MEETING RARTICIPANTS
Wilma Anderson Macon County
J. Randolph Bulgin Macon County Public Library
Conrad Burrell NCDOT Board Member
Rebecca Crawford Town of Franklin
' Mike Decker Town of Franklin
Jay Gibson Town of Franklin
Stacy Guffey Macon County
Connie Haire Southwestern Community College
' Tim Jordan Mulkey
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Gary Lovering NCDOT Roadway Design
' Joel Setzer NCDOT Division Engineer
Karen Wallace Macon County Public Library
' Lisa Warlick Mulkey
MEETING RIJRPO E
' Liz Kovasckitz opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. A meeting agenda,
project summary, and map showing the existing alternatives was distributed. After the introductions,
Ms. Kovasckitz gave a brief description of the project that included a review of the three proposed
' alternatives, the Purpose and Need, the type of document to be produced, the Merger process, and
the schedule. The schedule was presented as follows: Environmental Assessment in November 2006,
Public Hearing in January 2007, Finding of No Significant Impact in May 2007, Right-of-Way in July
' 2008, and Construction in fall 2009.
Ms. Kovasckitz said that in the last Merger meeting for the project, some of the agency
' representatives had expressed a desire for an alternative to be studied that did not cross the Little
Tennessee River. There were environmental concerns regarding the crossing and some agencies felt
that a fourth alternative that would serve the Purpose and Need of the project without crossing the
river should be evaluated. Ms. Kovasckitz explained that the purpose of today's meeting was to gain
' local input on a "non-crossing" fourth alternative for the project.
I MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 27511 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGH, NC 27636 PH: 979-851-1912 FAX: [phone],a www.MULKEYINC.COM
EXISTINs ALTERNATIVES Disr_USS[ON
Joel Setzer asked if Alternatives B and C were the same on the eastern side of the Little Tennessee
River. Ms. Kovasckitz said they were. Connie Haire asked for clarification on the map coloring for
Alternatives B and C and was informed that the yellow alignment represented both alternatives on
the eastern end.
Stacy Guffey pointed out fill areas associated with the alternatives. He said that Alternative A has the
least impacts to the existing greenway and floodplain. Mr. Guffey said that the County is revising
their floodplain ordinance to address fill because it is a big problem. He said Alternative A was his
preference.
Mr. Burrell noted that Alternative A will be located immediately adjacent to US 64/23/441. He asked
how that would affect proposed development. Ms. Haire noted that on the west side of the river
there may need to be spurs to serve development. She said Alternative C seemed to best serve
development needs.
Mr. Setzer said that an alignment that best serves public institutions should be of high importance.
Mr. Lovering commented that each alternative has its pros and cons. Alternative A impacts small
wetlands and there are intersection issues at Wiley Brown Road and Dowdle Mountain Road.
Alternatives B and C do not have as many intersections problems. Alternative B will require a large
cut in the vicinity of proposed development and a lot of grading will be needed. Mr. Lovering said he
liked Alternative C because of the longer bridge length and reduced amount of cuts required. He
noted that impacts to the greenway and floodplain would be minor.
Mr. Setzer asked which alternative was most compatible with the community college and library. Mr.
Lovering said that Alternative B goes between property lines, and that Alternative C is most
compatible. Tim Jordan noted that Alternative A could be expected to be the least expensive of the
three existing alternatives. He said that Alternatives B and C will require relocating transmission lines,
extensive cuts, and longer bridges. Mr. Setzer asked if Alternative C impacted a nearby tributary. Mr.
Jordan said it did not. Mr. Jordan noted that Alternative C tied into the steepest grade.
Mr. Burrell asked if costs were available for the alternatives. Mr. Lovering said they were not available
yet, but that in general, Alternative A would be the least expensive, and Alternatives B and C more
expensive.
Mr. Guffey made note of the land that the County owned and said that he was concerned about
visual impacts to pasture areas associated with Alternative C. He said that Alternatives A and B
would be better than C. Mr. Jordan noted that as far as elevation is concerned, Alternative A would
be on the existing elevation, Alternative B would be 10 feet or more higher, and Alternative C would
be 15 feet or more higher.
Ms. Haire asked if Alternative B cuts through some of the proposed development. Mr. Lovering said
that the alternative was designed to parallel property lines where feasible to lessen impacts, Mr.
Burrell said that Alternative C was, in the middle of potential future development. He said that
Alternative B was at the property line of the County, and that an alignment farther away from
planned development would require more spurs.
Ms. Haire asked what the distance was between the US 64/23/441 bridges and Alternative C. Ms.
Kovasckitz said less that one-half mile.
Rebecca Crawford commented that all areas under consideration were within Franklin's ETJ. She
said that Mr. Vander Would had not submitted plans yet, and re-zoning of the area would be needed.

She said that the Town has to do what is in the best interest for the area, and that a crossing
alternative seemed good. Ms. Kovasckitz said that the agencies were concerned about how
development would occur in the area and that possibly the Division of Water Quality would want to
work with the Town on stormwater and buffer guidelines. Ms. Crawford said that a principles of
growth plan was under development, and that the Town's zoning code will be revised. She said that
for now it is best to help the community college and library, and to work on future traffic.
' Mr. Jordan said that Alternative A spurs to development may be cheaper; with Alternative B there
would be 30 to 40 feet difference between the road and the properties and a lot of leveling would be
required.
Jay Gibson said that he thought Alternative C was best and that it would not affect the floodplain as
much.
Wilma Anderson asked about right-of-way costs for Alternatives A-C. Mr. Lovering said that all
would be similar. He said that the costs associated with moving the power line for Alternatives B and
' C will be very expensive. Alternative A may not require moving the lines.
Ms. Haire said a potential civic center may be located south of Alternative C though it could be
elsewhere as well, and that soccer fields in the area will be improved.
Mike Decker asked how the needs for the project could be accomplished without crossing the river.
' Karen Wallace wanted to know if road widening would be involved. Ms. Kovasckitz said that the
non-crossing alternative could involve several approaches, such as a spur off of Siler Road, and
intersection improvements on Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road. Tim Jordan mentioned a comment
' -from a previous meeting that suggested extending from Siler Road west to US 23/441.
Conrad Burrell asked why there was a problem with crossing the river if it was spanned. Ms.
' Kovasckitz said that while Alternatives A-C do span the river, the agencies had concerns regarding
protected species and floodplain impacts. Mr. Burrell commented that much of the surrounding
property will be developed. He said that school buses need another alternative to US 64/23/441 and
that a dead-end spur did not seem logical. He said that the first community college building will be
opening soon, and that the library is set to open in January. Plans now include five additional
buildings for the community college, and a dead-end spur will not work.
J. Randolph Bulgin commented that without a river crossing, the community would be no better off
than what current conditions provided. Mr. Lovering explained the need to address the agencies'
concerns.
' Ms. Haire noted that if Siler Road remains a dead-end, future growth will need to be slowed down on
the road. She said that the Siler Road/US 23/441 intersection was very difficult and that the
' proposed project would provide an alternative entry to the community college and library. This
would help with the intersection, which was currently one of the worst in the area.
' Mr. Guffey said that he was concerned about land owned by the County that it intends to maintain
for the greenway. Ms. Kovasckitz asked if there would be a problem relocating a portion of the
greenway closer to the river. Mr. Guffey said no. His concern was the aesthetic value of the pasture
next to the greenway, which adds to the area. Mr. Guffey asked if a fourth alternative could involve
' extending under the existing US 64/23/441 bridges. Mr. Lovering said that a two-lane road with the
required horizontal and vertical clearances was probably not feasible. Mr. Jordan commented that it
would also be in a flood area.

Another alternative was discussed that would extend Siler Road to the south across Cartoogechaye
Creek to US 23/441. This potential fourth alternative would result in two bridge crossings of the
creek, and involve protected species habitat, a proposed greenway, trout waters, and floodplain
impacts.
Ms. Haire asked what would happen if a fourth alternative was not presented at the next Merger
meeting. Mr. Setzer said that the agencies would view it as a lack of effort to address their concerns.
Ms. Wallace asked if there was another access point to the area that did not include a bridge, would
that be a valid alternative. Mr. Setzer said that such an alternative could be presented.
There were questions on the wording of the Purpose and Need of the project. Ms. Kovasckitz read
the Purpose and Need statement to the group.
Mr. Burrell said that if there is no river crossing, then there is no need to do anything on the east side
of the river. He said that Alternative C could be extended to US 23/441, but that would bring traffic
to an already congested area. Mr. Setzer said that the only way a fourth alternative would serve the
area is to provide additional access to the community college and library from the west at US 23/441.
Mr. Lovering commented on the poor traffic conditions at Siler Road and US 23/441, and said a
fourth alternative to connect to US 23/441 at another location could provide some relief, although
there would likely still be poor traffic conditions. Mr. Setzer said that a fourth alternative connection
to US 23/441 could contribute to already high crash rates on US 23/441.
Mr. Lovering asked Mr. Setzer's opinion on the intersection at US 64/23/441 and Dowdle Mountain
Road. Mr. Setzer said that the traffic signal there has improved safety. There are no plans to change
the current conditions, though future volumes on US 64/23/441 may necessitate changes. He
suggested considering a roundabout at Wiley Brown Road and Dowdle Mountain Road. Ms. Haire
and Ms. Wallace were in agreement on considering a roundabout. There were discussions about the
best approach, including possible effects to the gas station owner there. It was concluded that there
may need to be a new access point to the gas station.
Mr. Lovering commented that the fourth alignment could tie into Allman Drive, would not cross the
river, and would connect to US 23/441. He asked if there were any problems with school buses
using the roundabout. Mr. Setzer said no and Mr. Burrell noted that school buses use a roundabout
in Haywood County.
Mr. Jordan questioned whether some buildings/houses had been demolished near Siler Road. They
had been.
Ms. Kovasckitz summarized that the fourth alternative would consist of doing nothing east of the
river, and making a new connection to US 23/441 from Siler Road via Allman Drive in the vicinity
of where either Alternative B or C connects to Siler Road.
Ms. Kovasckitz noted that there was a lot of discussion on the alternatives and asked if there was one
the group preferred. There were three votes for Alternative C, and one comment that costs were
needed.
Mr. Setzer commented that other questions remained to be asked such as if the community college
preferred to be on a dead-end road or have a road extending through their campus; how best to serve
development; and, whether the road should extend through properties or at outer edges.
Mr. Burrell said that for the fourth non-crossing alternative, extending the road all the way through
to US 23/441 would provide a safety improvement in case of some type of disaster at the community
college.
4

MEETING CONCLUSION
Ms. Haire asked about procedures from this point forward. Ms. Kovasckitz said that the fourth
alternative will be included on mapping and presented at the Merger meeting on August 15, 2006.
Ms. Haire asked whether some of the meeting attendees from today should attend the Merger
meeting. Ms. Kovasckitz said it would be effective to write a letter and she would include it in Merger
meeting materials. Mr. Burrell asked about the location of the meeting and Ms. Kovasckitz provided
him with the information.
Ms. Kovascktz thanked everyone for attending the meeting and it was adjourned.
1

u

F

R f X
4TY -
SOUTHWESTER.N
t
July 12, 2006
Ms. Elizabeth Kovasckitz, AICP
Mulkey Engineering & Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 26511
Re: NCDOT 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program Project No. R-4748
Dear Ms. Kovasckitz:
On behalf of Southwestern Conununity College, thank you for meeting with our college representative and several
Macon County officials on June 27, 2006 to discuss am alternative location for a roadway connecting Siler Road and
Wiley Brown Road, and a new crossing of the Little Tennessee River.
Southwestern Community College (SCC) has the first building of a new campus in Macon County under construction
near the end of Siler Road. We anticipate occupying this building in January 2007 and will have a full schedule of classes
there as well as at our annex site in downtown Franklin. We are starting with six curriculum degree programs and we
anticipate having an enrollment of some 300-500 curriculum students as well as several hundred students attending
continuing education classes. In addition to the regular college students, we will also have 50 Early College High School
students attending classes full-time there. Public school buses will transport these students to the Macon Campus. The
college students and the high school students, as well as faculty and staff, will use the Siler Road access to the carpus.
We enthusiastically support the construction of a roadway connecting Siler Road to Wiley Brown Road to accommodate
the increase in traffic that the college will generate. The new Macon County Public Library will be located. on the same
site with SCC and the users of the library will also generate daily traffic on Siler Road. A connecting roadway will allow
our students, faculty and staff two entrances to the campus site, taking.much traffic off the Hwy. 441S intersection with
Siler Road. We understand that Hwy. 441 is heavily traveled and accidents occur fi-equently.
At the meeting on June 27, representatives were asked to consider an alternative route that would not cross the Little
Tennessee River. Although the group suggested an alternative route that did not cross the River, we believe it is a more
dangerous option, creating a hazardous intersection just south of the Siler Road intersection on an already busy and
dangerous Hwy. 441. For the safety of our college and high school students and library patrons, we oppose this
alternative option.
We support the original TIP program's proposed roadway that creates a connecting road between Siler Road and Wiley
Bro-%v n Road and crosses the Little Tennessee River.
Sincerely,
Cecil L. Groves, resident

447 C:: 1eQe 1 ?ivy, Sylvo, N ,-,,.I,, Coromina 20 v
1828; 5,86-4091 • i8001 447-4091 • . zz'a2£?3 r86- l29

c: Conrad Burrell, Chairman, SCC Board of Trustees
Karen Wallace, Director, Macon County Public Library
Connie Haire, Vice President, SCC Macon Campus
July 12, 2006
. '6
Mr. Brian Wrenn 1
NC Division of Water Quality QTY
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Suite 250 0gS 00Rti1?`: ? ?cwC
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604W
Dear Mr. Wrenn,
?- ®MULKEY
ENC1NEEPS & CONSULTANTS
SUBJECT: Request for a Section 401 Jurisdictional Determination at Proposed T.I.P. R-
4748 Project Site near Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina.
The proposed project is located in Macon County, North Carolina just south of the town of
Franklin and US 64/23/441. The proposed action will provide transportation improvements in
the vicinity of SR 1660 (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road). The project may include
a new location roadway to connect Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road. A new crossing of the
Little Tennessee River could be part of the project. Other actions may consist of intersection
improvements at SR 1701, SR 1659 (Dowdle Mountain Road) and Wiley Brown Road.
As per our telephone discussion on July 5, attached is a package of information containing maps,
stream forms, and wetland forms for all areas delineated by Mulkey scientists during field
investigations on April 12 and June 6, 2006. Mulkey scientists delineated a total of five wetland
areas, 11 perennial stream reaches, and 6 intermittent stream reaches. The package of
information includes the following:
• Figure 1 is Project Vicinity Map showing the location of the site south of Franklin in Macon
County, NC.
• Figure 2 shows the locations of all resources delineated by Mulkey.
• Figures 3a to 3d show the wetland boundaries for the wetlands areas delineated by Mulkey.
LAS Army Corps of Engineers Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets and NC Division of
Water Quality Stream Identification Forms for all the streams delineated by Mulkey.,,,
(*Stream forms were not completed for stream SD-Int because it occurs within a concrete-
lined channel)
US Army Corps of Engineers Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms and NC
Division of Water Quality Wetland Rating Worksheets for all wetlands.
If there are no questions or concerns, please use this information to aid in the Section 401
Jurisdictional Detern-iination field meeting scheduled for July 21, 2006 at 10:00 am. If you have
any questions prior to the meeting about the project or any of the information provided in the
attachments please contact me at [phone] or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Mar Mickley, Scientist
Mulkey Engineers & Cons tants, Inc.
attachments
'JLKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 27511 PO Box 33127 RALEIGH, NC 27635 PH: 919-851-1912 FAX: [phone]tH WWW.MULKEYINO.COM
US 41/23 a
4
orgia Rd.)
'I
m Q Q m y # }
m l t
CD CD
D 7,
Cl)
Cl)
!?' +' ° e,r' .. ti, y;•' w: ''yyY ?r •?:• ,fir
{ l _
air. ?7 ° • *'
?Y • 1
$
a
`' .
. j
•
a - i
t.
i
L
OJ? +- +
,. r
is
.
WWW V
s
,
-
cn
o_
o f }. .' }
w
+?
C3) M
O r 3r g?" Y t- ' a„ ?i
41
c) 0
h 1 6 f• of ,?..
? ? ,?• [. ' i' ?? ,?ari°t ? 7 J. ?.'_ ??- } "fie ..
0 C r'
=7 U)
CY)
W N,
4h. ' a J
T?
Z G
y / SL r .,
,
it,
x s
r ,
N ? .x, '',? A ns
• f a
m
e #? e ie ? r Q ` - _ a
Jv'
_3 1 r i 1 r
4? Al
23
IX, ??, •• Gr / f sW"t
/1
,
r h ?^
S- ii+ .. ] :..fol. I ' `?•?"y0' .f ?'.., $ r^T"4Y B"' Y• _ » ??^"1j
a?1• ,
» i
Z ?.
O
1-7
a

x om
, .
?. ? „ m
?
y

;? _ `off

U 6AUE Allll# ll W l21# ?lte 4 (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET sr?
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: CARt'ooG&GiaAyE C?'k SA)
7. Approximate drainage area:
t
9. Length of reach evaluated: I fa ?E 2
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order: 3 W
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS,,, ..:Topo Shee Ortbo (Aen 1 Photo/GIS' Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation note nearby roads-aad landmarks and attach mapidentifying stream(s) location):
Ipma-N)7-io !????tor3 cou aiY mezF1`r1oy -PAP< oFr AumA.Q ap ivr
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny. Chilly (50-65° Fl
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES N41 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? 0 NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
60 % Forested
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ? NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other (_
22. Bankfull width: - 35" 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): S - -
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander X Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): G0 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature yti? ''Y/ Date 4117-LOC;
This channel evaluation form is 'tended to be ed only as a ide to assist landowners and enviro tal professionals in
gathering the data required by a United Stat Arm of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion .of form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
C? Ut4CTEPfSTICS { ECOIM GION' t'Gf1 L41?GE SCME
". Y .' Coastal Piedras _# ° . AIfl44t
1
stream
Presence
g pools
P
0-5
0-4
0-5
oints
flow mx
or saturation = 0- stron
no flow
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5 t
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points) I
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 04 0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
0
5 04 0-2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access -
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent floodin = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points) J
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5
2
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points) -
rq" 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5 I
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2
l no rifflesffi les or pools = 0• well-developed max points) J
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
s
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04
2
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max J
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 04
O' no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
-J 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 04
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
0
6 0
5 5
0
23 Evidence of wildlife use - - -
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Poin sib 1, a 3 00 f 100 11)0
too
TOT. 5, f -, A enter on first page),
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET ??-
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: UT 1o CART. cR'4. (SAA-(NT)
7. Approximate. drainage area:
t
9. Length of reach evaluated: (10S+
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
5-1
8. Stream order:
10. County: Macon
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GP T?opo Sheet: rtho (Aerial hoto/GI$?. Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation n nearby roadslandm attach map i entifymg stream(s) location):
50uT14 of Si?E2 Z:4D kYAe Cs G1A ROAD
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: _S_unnL Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES N If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 'YES NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
60 % Forested
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: P 2 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 53 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature n ? Date 44! ZIC6
This channel evaluation form is Wended to be u$ed only de to assist landowners and envirdnm ntal professionals in
gathering the data required by t e United State# Armyltorp of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of-th form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACI'1 RISTTCS"= .? ECOWfON PoIl?' rIZANTGE SCORE
t
d t
in
CDastal wan
Pie un
a
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 7
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone . 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2

extensive discharges = 0• no discharges =max points) .
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 d
-
no discharge = 0• s min s sees wetlands etc. = max points) 1
v 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 0-4 0-2
no floo lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
5
0 04 0-2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access - 2
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
s Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 04 0-2 r
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 2y
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points G-
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 0-4 3
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5 Z

m fine homogenous = 0• laze diverse sizes = max oints
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 +
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)__
?. ' 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
- severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5
L. no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
2
substantial impact =0• no evidence =max points)
.
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2

no riffles/riles or pools = 0• well-developed = max points) -
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
2
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
-
i s Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading ve etation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 0-4
x no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max points)
` 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 04
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 Z
no evidence = 0• abunnevidence =max points)
t Tota oh os e `:. , - 10b i _ 3 ' . - 100

?
5 3
5-,C?_o ept first _
Tf TAL
*These characteristics are not assessed m coastal streams.
U 5ACE A10#
llWQ#
(indicate on attached map)
Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: UT To CRS C RK. (&Ak PER)
7. Approximate drainage area:
i
9. Length of reach evaluated: f(i10
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):

2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order: 2sT
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Shee Qjo (Aerial) .._ 'Photo/GI `` Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation note nearby rows and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear. Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
X Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES Q) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (Nb!
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
60 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 3-51,
24. Channel slope down center of stream:
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? S NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-:3"
Flat (0 to 2%) X. Gentle (2 to 4%)
Occasional bends Frequent meander
Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>l0%)
Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature rti? ti.tia.? ' Date 4-11ZI 4?
This channel evaluation form is int nded to be n ed onl de to assist landowners and envi;.on ental professionals in
gathering the data required by th United Stat Army(Coips of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion 61-" form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
j CH.AIZACTERISTTCS i ECORE+GTON POLN7 RANCE SCOR
a? : i
t
Mo
1 - - Coastal Piedmont
! n
un
a
-
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
2
41 extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
-
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 04 0-2 ,
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2 I
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 2.
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max points ?l
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5 Z

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) .
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 .
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
r (little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 n
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points) T
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
3
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• commo numerous es = max points)
4 04
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0 2

no evidence = 0- commo numerous es = max points) .
22 Presence of fish 04 04 04
n no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max oints J
Total Pint os ] 0 _ l{l? " 1{?t?

TOTS SC age " ?D .
'These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
I lJ.7L?l.? H 1Li} L w yff Ouc It (maicate on attacnect map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET SkB
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: or 70 CA eT, C Ck- (.. i3)
7. Approximate drainage area:
i
9. Length of reach evaluated: 5 -i?
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order: .2.1r
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GP opo Sheet) Oho (Areal) "Photo/GI Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation note nearby roafs and landmarks and attach maifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny. Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waxers Essential Fisheries Habitat
X Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
/- YrvACM
18. IS there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? NO if yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NN9
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
60 % Forested
22. Bankfull width: 2
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES C
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
2e
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flax (0 to 2%) S? Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight rOccasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ++ Comments:
Evaluator's Signature •? r
This channel evaluation form is O tended to
gathering the data required by a United S
quality. The total score resultin from the c
particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Date 411z/6A
ed o a guide to assist landowners and envir6nn{ental professionals in
ores of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
.tr of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
subject to change version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
. . CH.-1RXCTEV- T1C5- I;CORE GIO POLN T RANGE Str O
Cousfal l Pied ;ont { IE1,JUDtaiD
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0 strong flow = max 'Dints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 04
-
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) I
5 . Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04
y no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 04 0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
„
-It 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2 a
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0•_lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 2

extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points) -
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
extensive de osition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NIA* 04 0-5 2
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points) J
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) J
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5
f. no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
, 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 2

(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points) -
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 '
r . (little or no habitat = 0• frequent, vaned habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
2

no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points .
y" 19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4 2-
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
U 21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 04
2
O no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
-J 22 Presence of fish 04 04 04
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Poin as le i _ 100 100

TOTi,*L Leo enter on .; m 4?-
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
U 6xut; AIUTF
liwy7f
site TF
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: Lr -a CA;r%. CP-Y- ?5k -I N r)
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated.,
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
(indicate on attached map)
SAC- IM"
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order sr
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): o o S' O? rtho {Aerial Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby ro landmaz?s an-attach map i entifying stream(s) location):
S uMr9WE,5r of 5iLEZ 9-1D SE-410D r)EKa 61:21 .M. een6trFar 2-,n-A-776J
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear, Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, Chilly (50-651 F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
r
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES : NO' If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES :"NO)
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
60 % Forested
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? QIS) NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull vddth: - Z
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2 r
Gentle (2 to 4%) K Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 2-61 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date I{//z'/ca!,
This channel evaluation form is ' tended to be sed onl ide to assist landowners and en ' o , ental professionals in
gathering the data required by a United Sta Ar . C s of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resultin from the completion this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION POIN T RANGE i SCORE
Coastal' I Pied °ant N1_4 ntain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max oints -
. 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 I
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5 2
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 04
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04
U no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 0-4 0-2 '
A?
no floo lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 `
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points) f
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2 Q
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 t
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points) t
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive de osition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
a severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
' Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
Tr E Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5

substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) g
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
i x 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
H "tile or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
-Z no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
y 19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous type = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 04
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of fish 04 04 0-4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous "es = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Tot al Pointe _
-Li 10 100 -a0

.. m L
`
L 9
2
a
ge)
A q o ei?f 4- can f s ,
-
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
U JAull_ AlUFF
.)WQ4
me 4
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSBEET
(indicate on attached map)
513
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: LIrME 710w. 'Ri JM ?58)
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 2, 2 G 2i
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
fzD
8. Stream order:
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): PGPSearby Topo Shde, Ortho (A al) ; Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation roadTaannd landmarks and?attach map'
"identifying stream(s) location):
c ROS5E's r?nas)t'? US 64- / 2 3 14.4-1
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear. Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny. Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (0) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
60 % Forested
20. Does. channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? -NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 4o-5o ? 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 7 - 9
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) X Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate foam used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
Comments:
Evaluator's Signature °v?? Date 4-112166
This channel evaluation form is inte ded to be used my as a i e o assist landowners and environm ntal professionals in
gathering the data required by the nited States .my Corps of ngineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Continent, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ClLARACTERl`-;TTCS ECOREGI N PO7?\ 1 RANGE
1
SCORE
x

a
t
i
i
o
l
Coastal
0-5
Piedmont
0-4
Motuitain
0-5
1 ream
s
n s
stent p
o
Presence of flow / pers ?.
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) ?!
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5 2
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04
2
C9 no discharge = 0 springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points) J
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 04 0-2 Z
no floo lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2 ( .
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 04 0-2 Q
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 2

(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) .
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
2
-?_ severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max pointsl -

f 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
4 no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
. 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
4
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 5
the or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
J
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 04
2
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) -
22 Presence of fish 04 04 04
n no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)

Tot ,
oin#soss
'-
0'_
0
1 O
- s 01
ci ent, i tin F a z)
SCO
TOT-AL
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
U bAk-r- A LPT
Uwyff
31 LC th
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: UT "To L.7 R C 513A>
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 2 C6 3
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
(maicaie on anacnea maps
SM,
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order: 2 wo
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): 1 opo S e t ?o (Aerials r hoto/GIi Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby ro s and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Sorri4 OF u5 64f 2S 1441 Ok) FJgsr SIDE of ZyFe
.I
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear, Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny. Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES @ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES @J
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
60 % Forested
20. Does -channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? E NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 5/ 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4- /
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) K Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 34- Comments: 4-Avrty ;MPAcTEn RY CRMF
Evaluator's Signature nn/.u-111r ?V Date tL 1 ob
This channel evaluation form is *tended to be sed only,,a% guide to assist landowners and envi ntal professionals in
gathering the data required by a United Stat Arm Co s of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resultin from the completion o is form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CH_ARACI'ERISTICS ECO-REGION POI RANGE SCORE
Coastal Pieda oat Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 I
extensive discharges = 0• no dischar es = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 04 0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2
dee 1 entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2 Q
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
1 l Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5
fine homogenous = 0; laze diverse sizes = max points
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max oints
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5
I no visible roots = 0• dense roots throu out = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
substantial hu act °0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
{ no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well developed = max points '
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
L , little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 hh
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points) i
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04 ?..
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 .0-5 1
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
J 21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 04
C no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
! 22 Presence of fish 0-4 04 04
C
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total pints 1' sible T00 160 100

TOTAL $WWL -Mso enter on. first ale
*These charactenstics are not assesseu m coastal streams.
U SAC h Aill#
ill W Q4
nie iT
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: (1T 'eta 1-"r f., r! 4i N' )
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 33D
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
(indicate on attached map)
S66
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
?ST
8. Stream order:
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle):., GPS 1 Topo Sheet; Ortho (Aerial)?...Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads-anti landmarks and'-attach mipidenifying stream(s) location):
0k A4/nI441 <,-v 4F,Pg-r nor n 6177-F
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear, Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES / `NO 'If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES .NOJ
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
60 % Forested
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (' i§ NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
r
22. Bankfull width: 4-- G 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ?^j - I 0
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 34 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date =?-/ IZ 14:1-1
This channel evaluation form is ' tended to be/used only,. as guide to assist landowners and envifonniental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United Sta s Army Cfps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the coz?pletion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply 41
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CNARACTERISTICS Et`ORE GION'POIi`I TItANGE SCORE
Coustal- Pie.?i out I1P-untain

1 1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
2
-
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points) -
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 7

extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) -
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
J
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
no floo lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
4
0 0
2
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 - -
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0•'natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5 t
fine homogenous = 0• laze diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
d 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pooVripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
" 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 ?y
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points G-

" 19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
}
- (deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5 I
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4 .
Q no evidence = 0• common, numerous t_ypes = max points)
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
n 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 Z
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
*?-
l ataff ? elk ,
'J00 r1
100

TOTAL ..aou Qn 3q-
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
V Ul"1%-j- C111J7r
1J vv qtr
J1LG it
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: U1- 7b 4.7: 2, ? 5 FCC
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: (5 Cad
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
kinulcate on alzacaeu maps
S?)C
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order:
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): PS Topo Shed ?o (Aerial, (to SPho /GI? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby ro s and landmaz cs an attach map i entifying stream(s) location):
JUST t)oz7'q n>= uS (54/2.4/441 oN t jerr .Std' e-ri-zr-:?r?? . rvr
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear, Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO .' If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES I N30 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
60 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged % Other (_ )
22. Bankfull width: ` 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 1-
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a.stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 41 Comments: ST)2 Ann KEAv ii y itA9fle-IM y Con,),ST'r-Uc7'>A,)
Evaluator's Signature ?+?' Date 4//x106
This channel evaluation form is ' ended to be sed only a guide to assist landowners and en ' o ental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United State Arm C rps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
T CUARACTER STICS L ECORE GIOIN POIN T RAGE SCO$E
F 7 I Coastal J Piedmont Mountai?
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream U-5 04 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
1 2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 04
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
j 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04
2
Q no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 04 0-2 i
U no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points) t
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2 2 -
1 entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
Presence 0-6 04 0-2
no wetlands = 0• large adjacent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
D
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points) i
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04- 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) J
?. 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 Z
-= severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
r little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
64 19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
j 21 Presence of amphibians 04 0-4 0-4 2
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4 0-4
O
no evidence = 0• common, numerous es = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5-
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible loo loo 100

TOW SCOT also enftr on first ale
*These charactenstics are not assessed m. coastal streams.
U13ALIZ A103T L W llfF 6Ile FF (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: Vr' 1b Z. . T P- . r S 13CA )
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 2-6
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
Z sT
8. Stream order.
10. County: Macon
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): (G3 P, Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS` Other GIS Other _
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
v C,-r of L T 2 ?z` c+r= c u ?f 123 ? ?l dr I ?A? r c f? `ry ?nAD r>a DO-64
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear. Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny. Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES (9b / If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES C` 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
60 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 1-2 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 ---'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) X Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 3& Comments: F40ws FIZOMt W 4,4.s't P6 5"e-EP
Evaluator's Signature n? ?? ?' •,.?.,4. Date - d/1z1a;
This channel evaluation form is in ended to be u ed only as ide to assist landowners and en mental professionals in
gathering the data required by th United States Army , o of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS ECCREGI ON POINT R-" GE SCORE {
Coastal 1 Piednont 1 Al,)untain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 .0-4
3
extensive discharges = 0• no dischar es = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
`
C no discharge = 0 springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points) T
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 04 0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
` 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04 Z

extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points) .
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points) -
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
w severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5

substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) I
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
"` 19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
04 04
j - 21 Presence of amphibians 04
O no evidence = 0• common, numerous types. = max points) .
-? 22 Presence of fish 04 04 04
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
0
5
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 -
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Pcl?uts osstb]e 100
l
'
'
' ,6
AL fist
fi
I
T
*These characteristics are not assessed m coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: t>T To L • T R . 5$G6?
7. Approximate drainage area:
i
9. Length of reach evaluated: 426
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
(indicate on attached map)
S?- (POT"
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
sr
8. Stream order: -1
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle):o?S Ortho (Aerial) hoto/GIS. Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Na t ?# OF" ?rtL •;e ZR , -'M4 of V5 64 l.VfeT' Cf 1-7-, 2,
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear, Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny (50-65 ° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES / O If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Q' S NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
60 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
i
22. Bankfull width: 2- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ' Z
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) ?<- Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X, Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): ! Comments: Af50ctA u„l J&,tJ7,t .?jL? I jq?'
Evaluator's Signature Date ... /r / 06
This channel evaluation form is in ended to be used only asi a to assist landowners and ne?vironmental professionals in
gathering the data required by th United States ?xmy Corps Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of tai' orm is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
7 CHARACTERISTICS ECOREGION`POLN T RANGE - SCORE
1 Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5 r
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5
no buffer = 0• confi ous wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 .04
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 04
no dischar e = 0 s rip s see s wetlands etc. = max oints
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 04 0-2
no flood lain = 0 extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2 2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 04 0-2
no wetlands = 0• lar a ad scent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
;r (deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
E 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
Q 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ri les or pools = 0; well-developed max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points)
n 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
U 21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 04
O no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
-?
O 22 Presence of fish 04 04 04
n no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Poiuts Possible 100 1(Jo 100
l
TOTAL SCORE also enter on first page)
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ# Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
(indicate on attached map)
SC
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: Gvu AsAJA ZiuE'P- 6 56
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach eval uated: 16+1
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order: ,? P' 0
10. County: Macon
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): Topo Sheet Ortho (Aen Photo/GIS-,' Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear, Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
'xTrout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 'NO If yes, estimate the water surface area.
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? OYES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 0 NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
60 % Forested
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 40-50 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 5-6
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) 1- Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends XFrequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score.(from reverse): 59 Comments:
Evaluator's Signature rv??w ` f Date 4 /We>4
e to assist landowners and en o mental professionals in
This channel evaluation form is inte'ded to be use only as a
MOT
gathering the data required by theJnited States Army Co s Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
,pf quality. The total score resulting from the completion of thi orm is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GIONPOIN T 'RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Alountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5 5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
Q no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
v 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
x 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0-4 0-2.
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
w acent wetlands =max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 Z

extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points) .
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 2
extensive deposition = 0 little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 0-4 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5 Z
(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no. visible roots = 0 dense roots throu out = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 e
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed max points) J

' 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
F- little or no habitat = 0• frequent vaned habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 2
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
r. 19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0 commo numerous es = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)

O 22 Presence of fish 04 0-4 04
2
1
M no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) .
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE Also enter on first page) { 59
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: Lrr '1o CoLt., Zvi iZ 6 SCAB
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
3132. i
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
(indicate on attached map)
SCA
2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order:
2 No
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): LG To?Sheet Ortho (Aeria)
hoto/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny. Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ?O If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? @ NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? ?I'E NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
60 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: E63 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 2-3
?
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) ) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): CJ? Comments: cN4Ar)&)rL t.C r,11 'G FiX- Anr r'
Evaluator's Signature Date _ - zleA
This channel evaluation form is Otended to be sed only a >ide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Arm Co s of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion%f-tliis form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
4 CHARA CTERISTICS' ECOREGION POIN T RhNGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Alounta n
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 Z
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 2
3
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
?
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points) -
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
3
Q no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points) 1
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2 1
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
4 2
0
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 0- -
(deeply entrenched = 0; fre uent floodin = max Dints
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 t
no wetlands = 0• 15 trap adjacent wetlands = max Dints 1
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 `
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 0-4
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5
fine bomo enous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
f" 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
m 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max oints
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
little or no habitat = 0• frequent, varied habitats = max points) ,
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0• commo numerous es = max points)
04
21 Presence of amphibians 04 0-4
C no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
-?
O
C 22 Presence of fish 04 04. 04
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possi ' e 100 W o 100
TOTAL .SCORE (Also enter on first agf)
* 1 hese charactenstncs are not assessed m coastal streams.
U SACS All)#
llWQ#
Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
(indicate on attached map)
?Lrlr?? ° ; F`-! t
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
,A,}p ???AA)
5. Name of stream: () r ro Ct u. RIr
7. Approximate drainage area:
i
9. Length of reach evaluated: 13 d
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
ST
8. Stream order: I
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): • GPS:/ Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
?;?. ?:'?'?`d c±[~" Dowt>L2= NiTf?7 i doA'U AG?oss '??on? S?4G? /??.y ?`+-"c
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear Cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny. Chilly (50-65° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
`
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES () If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES TO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential % Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
60 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width:! 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): - Z
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 2S Comments: Low S ou"r O;r WET ?)NJ A9CR C F-7-,>55t a -
5 D YNIE'r C 01w225-6L PR518u) aSsce rA1;f-7 wl cones r n-,?or11 gr'''it"
Evaluator's Signature ??? . o ' / Date /Z cat
This channel evaluation form is inte e
nd d to be used my as a o assist landowners and en o mental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Ar y Corp ngineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POLNT RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5 O
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 04
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 04 0-2 I
' no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
t 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0• frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 04 0-2
no wetlands = 0• lar a adjacent wetlands = max oints
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 l
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
`
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points) {
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5 Z
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
0
5 0
5 0-5 2
13 Presence of major bank failures - -
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) J
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5 t
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points) f
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6 p
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 I
H little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5 0

z no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence =.0• common, numerous types = max points)
4 04 04
21 Presence of amphibians 0
O no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of fish 04 04 04
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
0
5
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 -
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (_Also enter on first a<?-,e) ZJ
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ#
Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SD
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: Mark Mickley
3. Date of evaluation: 4/12/06
5. Name of stream: UT TD 1 . T. R. C SD)
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
2-2 2
10. County: Macon
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
f _
Method location determined (circle): `GPI ?Topo Sheefi L Ortho (AeD ) =Photo G/ S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby-rOa s of landmarks and attach ma`? p? Oentifying stream(s) location):
'PA EPt.t_ R Lam` P Pr:Ar9 r e_ :+n Ls--- F4 ow , b U5 23 oom77--4 6 6MR-, W C, P)
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunny, Chilly (50-65 ° F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 00( ')If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map??)NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
60 % Forested
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? .YES NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
20 % Cleared / Logged % Other (
22. Bankfull width: 2' 3 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 4 -5
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ??// Flat (0 to 2%) _,J _ Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight VKOccasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): +3 Comments: Ula571?FAP lZpk..y 1=t,ek,)s
Evaluator's Signature rwl. v Date 411Z/06
This channel evaluation form is intended to be Nsed only guide to assist landowners and en o ental professionals in
gathering the data required by &e United States Army; rps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion o this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
4. Time of evaluation:
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
8. Stream order: 2ST
(indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
n CIIARACTERI TICS ECORE GION POIN T RAINGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
j 1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 0
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points)
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5
3
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4
`
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges =max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 04 04 2

!
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points) ..
`-? 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 04 04 0-2
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2 O
acent wetlands ° max oints
no wetlands = n- lar a ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 04
Z
extensive deposition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5 2
3
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5
,r (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
F 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5 }}
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points) 3
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
E, no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
v' 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
?-
E- (little or no habitat = 0• frequent, vaned habitats = max points)

`r 18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5

x no shading vegetation = 0• continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04
3
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 04 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
U 21 Presence of amphibians 04 04 04
O no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
22 Presence of fish 0-4 04 04
I no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0• abundant evidence = max points) -
Total Points Possible 100 IN 100
i
i

TOTAL SCORE (Also enter on first age l
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
U SACS AlD#
DWQ#
Site #
(indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 6/6/06
5. Name of stream: UT -M 1-7-P, ? SE- P E'R)
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 700 f
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
4. Time of evaluation:
'00 AK
6. River basin: Little Tennessee
IST
8. Stream order:
10. County: Macon
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo LSheet rtho (Aeri hoto/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby ro andm a ttach ma tifying stream(s) location):
Y4- KiLE Sov71-l n F U5 e,-4 A?ID?F AD) ACC- N T -70 G I rZ.E i` Nw ?? r rEl? 6 EZ?- -n.n A X
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: Clear. Warm
16. Site conditions at time of visit: Sunni Mild (700 F)
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: 8 % Residential
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (0 NO
% Commercial % Industrial 12 % Agricultural
60 % Forested 20 % Cleared / Logged % Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 3 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): (^
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 41/o) ,k Moderate (4 to 10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Y.. Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 52- Comments: g2P-1V& FF7j w/ N?17ER> f--Low,
Evaluator's Signature Date (a/6 / e?,
This channel evaluation form is inte ded to be used o ly as,4.gu#d o assist landowners and en i nmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the nited States Ar y Co s ngineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting fr m the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change-version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
SE?
Mark Mickley
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# = CHARACTERISTICS' ECORE GIONPOIN T RANGE SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0• strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0• no alteration = max points) J
3 Riparian zone 0-6 04 0-5 J
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
f 4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 04
extensive dischar es = 0 no dischar es = max oints
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 04
no discharge = 0• springs, sees wetlands etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 04 0-2 O
no flood lain = 0• extensive flood lain = max points)

7 Entrenchment / floodplain access 0-5 04 0-2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2 O
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0• large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 I
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max points)
10 Sedimentinput 0-5 04 04
2
extensive de osition = 0• little or no sediment = max points)
-
l l Size & 'diversity of channel bed substrate N/A* 04 0-5
fine homogenous = 0• large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 04 0-5 2

(deeply incised = 0• stable bed & banks = max points) -
13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0• no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 04 0-5
no visible roots = 0• dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 04 0-5
?
substantial impact =0• no evidence = max points) -
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
no riffles/ripples or pools = 0• well-developed = max points)
Q 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 Z
(little or no habitat = 0• fre uen varied habitats = max oints
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
shading ve etation = 0 continuous cano = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness N/A* 04 04
(deeply embedded = 0• loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5

no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points) I
4
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-
O no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
a0 22 Presence of fish 0-4 04 0-4
no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = n= points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0: abundant evidence = max points)
Total P6ints Possible 100 100 100
` 5 Z
Also enter on first Page)
TOTAL SCORE:
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4/12106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 °N
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: C?? c-c r`R 4 1-,; ? Ci'oo?, Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent 4c ® County: Macon e. g. Quad Name:
I ?19 or rennial if ?30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= -'"• G Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 a 2 (3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts U -1. 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 L0,5) 1 1U
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 9.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 (30
16. Leaflitter 1. 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0. 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles Wrack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes =(1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= S•S ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
200. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel (3). 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 (2) 3_
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 (1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 (1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us ' 0 0.5 1 1.5
_f9'. Wetland plants in streambed FAC 0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
yAr-lous AQRyArG INSECTS t1JG? ukr?)c? 1" F. T.
5 pe''! 5

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4112106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: UT •Fv CAZr. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent 25. County: Macon
e.g. Quad Name:
If?19 or erennial if?0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel (0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 U) 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No -FIV
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = G.0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2? 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 C) 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0. 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features resent? No = 0 Yes =(1.51
C. Biology Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong
200. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0' 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
290. Wetland plants in streambed FAC 0.5 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4112/06 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: UT- -m CAS • Cei. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent 3G? County: Macon e.g. Quad Name:
If ?19 or erennial tf?30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 21.0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3)
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1) 2 3
7. Braided channel "6 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 (1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5)
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes 90
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 7J Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2" 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1'a 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 (0V 1 _ 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes 711.6)
C. Biology Subtotal = 1b. 5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2,} 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3) 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 2 3
24. Fish 0 0-5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 [0.501 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 U-.11 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
f9'. Wetland plants in streambed FACT .5- FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.
Other=0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4112106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: UT ;e CAS; .. Ciak, Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points:
County: Macon
t i
t
itte
t
St
i
t l Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
n
erm
n
.3 ©
ream
s a
eas e.g. Quad Name:
If 19 or erennial if ??30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= (O Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 00 1, 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1` 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1.. U 3
11. Grade controls 0 (0.5 1 1_5?
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.b
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No ?0 i
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= .0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3"
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0
1-1 1 3
16. Leaflitter (J-V a 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0,5r 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 1 -.1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes =X1.5;%
C. Biology Subtotal = S. o Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel J3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0. Ed 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 05 (A) 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 '0.5) 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29D. Wetland plants in streambed FACE , FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other-0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
?sono?x . Rt?u?itG inasr.i~Ts
.-- INI
-11 North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1

Date: 4/12106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: UT Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent Z0. cJ County: Macon e.g. Quad Name:
If 2:19 or perennial if ?30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= l o • 5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 .1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 U 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= (0.0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 777W 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 10 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 CQ,9 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0. 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = ' (. v Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 .1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0. 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 00 1 2 3
28. Iron Ozidizin bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=U FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other-0
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4112106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: tom_E ' Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent 4? 5 County: Macon e.g. Quad Name:
If>19 or erennial if?30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= LS o ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2' 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 3
10. Headcuts 01 1_ 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 '0. 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 (1.6-)
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes - i
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= I t7 • Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter (1. A 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 (05) 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0.5 _..1.5
19. Hydric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5-'
C. Biology (Subtotal= I • U Absent Weak Moderate Strong
200. Fibrous roots in channel 3' 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3) 2 1 Q
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.1
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 D 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0,5 :D 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; 0BL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Othert
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
Mauv IWOFCrs viSnRI9- 6Q svr2t"RcE, So>?tr
t° PT r'e v >u aA-) t-'vc L? r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4/12/06 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: VT To L.Tf;. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent ??'?, County: Macon e. g. Quad /Name:
If ?19 or perennial if _>30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= MC Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 Cv 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 '2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 W 2 3
7. Braided channel 00) 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 i 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 (1' f 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes =U
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 9.15 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
'15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 Q3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0.5 1 -1.5
19. Hydric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal = ,0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 9_?) 1 1.5
23. Bivalves (0' 1 2 3
24. Fish (3 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 (0.5
E 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29D. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other-0
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
/SaPoDS, FEW CAAAISFLY
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4112/06 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: U-r v L.T. R. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent County: Macon
If?j9or rennialif?30 33-5 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = LL Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 (1 ` 2 3
7. Braided channel (0? 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 0.5 1) 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes -,3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 (2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 A 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0.5 , X1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal = +,0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC .5v" FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other-0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
J FJ??
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4/12/06 Project: 8-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: L/ T Tv L-T R. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin
Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent county: Macon ,
e.g. Quad Name:
If ?0 or perennial i ?3o
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 22.4 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 7.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris CO) 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 45 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 6
C. Biology Subtotal = _ ,> Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 05 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us (,V 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC .5 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
'.Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
MOSTLY tac?F'rttts? 4tia7a !z?t,-MF AQUATIC
Ina5Fei's.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4112106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: l1T i. 7-. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent 11.15 County: Macon e.g. Quad Name:
If 2:19 or perennial if ?30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 7• S Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = O4'
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 7- Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 O2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines CJ 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximo hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal= 4%7 15 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 (0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 05 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 03 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance '0' 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton (Q? 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us <. 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW= 0.75 OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4112/06 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: vT To L.T. R. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin
Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent County: Macon ,
e.g. Quad Name:
If ?19 or perennial if ?30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = l `? Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2' 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 (2) 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1' 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
1D. Headcuts 0 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
B Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 7, Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 ( 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0) 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organ c debris lines or piles rack lines 0 10.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = '?-' Absent Weak Moderate Strong
2b". Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 T 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 01 1.5
23. Bivalves (0 1 2. 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW= .7 * OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Ot er=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4/12106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: Cvu_A5A,1A Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: ?
1
Stream is at least intermittent `
County: Macon Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Cj
•
tfJ9 or perennial if ?o e.g. Quad Name:

A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= • 2__J Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 '3'
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 (3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0
__ 1 3
7. Braided channel 70 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1 1.
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B Hydrology Subtotal = IO.c7 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 Q3
16. Leaflitter 1. 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 1 D.5 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20D. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 (1) 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 __T 5D 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Otheg!2
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the' presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
MANY AQVPrrIG INSECTS 01-JGL.UDfu[r C-Pr
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4/12106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: u-r o CULL. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent County: Macon
3? • 5
e.g. Quad Name:
If ?9 or perennial if ?0
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1 ?.b Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 (_V + 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes
e Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = .0 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 (Z 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris CP) 0 5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0151 1 -1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = l•© Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20D. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel w 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.
23. Bivalves 0 j: 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5' 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0. 11 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 (i 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h ton 0 1 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us '01 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC=jL,5i, FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other=0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
t>mp-t CAC015Ftr/. r-Fw rrA1'FLY
.: ti FA ° I (v 1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4112106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 °N
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: UT 'm Cut. }Z?vEi2 Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points: Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
Stream is at least intermittent County: Macon
If>_19or perennial if?30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = Q S Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1' 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1) 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches (0' 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 01 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No 910)
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal =• ® Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 (-37-
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 ? 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No 0) Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 5.5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
- 3 Z 1 0
5. Rooted plants in channel
f l 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on O 1,_ 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 ;a.5: 1 1.5
29". Wetland plants in streambed FAC=0.5; FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Oth -0
-.items zu ana zi tocus on the presence of upiana plants, item za tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 4/12/06 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: VT 7z' Z. T. 2 , Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 3
county: Macon Other: Franklin Corbin Knob
?y
If 19 or perennial if ??30 e.g. Quad Name:

A. Geomor holo Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 V 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1' 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0, 2 3
7. Braided channel 00 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 ; 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drains ewa 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
° Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology Subtotal = 16, C Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 (0 3
16. Leaflitter T5 15 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris Qw Q.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0. 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes =z`1.5
C. Biology Subtotal =v. Absent Weak Moderate Strong
200. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21". Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 w 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacterialfun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29D. Wetland plants in streambed FAC- .5, FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other-0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
15ot'OyS, FEW c,9rQ15rLY

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 6/6106 Project: R-4748 Latitude: 35.161868 ON
Evaluator: Mark Mickley Site: U-1 -iz, L. ?. Longitude: 83.377441 °W
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
?
county: Macon Other: Franklin, Corbin Knob
•
J
1 J9 or rennial i ?4o
Quad Name:
e.g.
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong
la. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-Channel structure: riffle-pool se uence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 ) 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1' 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches Q 1 2 3
7. Braided channel `0' 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 11) 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3'
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 15)
12. Natural valley or draina ewa 0 0.5 1 1.5)
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No='
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual.
B Hydrology (Subtotal= -5 Absent Weak Moderate Strong
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs. since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 .1.' 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 ?0. 3 1 1.5
18. Organ c debris lines or piles rack lines 0 Z-5) 1 1__1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 111
C. Biology Subtotal = .O Absent Weak Moderate Strong
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0. 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on Q 2 3
28. Iron Oxidizing bacterialfun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC .5' FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5; SAV=2.0;
Other-0
".Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland
plants.
Notes: (Use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NC DOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Larch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
on
Date: 411212006
County: Macon
State: NC
Community ID: PSS
Transect ID: Wetland
Plot ID: WA3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Typha latifolia Herb OBL 9.
2. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 10.
3. Scirpus cyperinus Herb OBL 11.
4. Salix nigra Tree/Shrub OBL 12.
5. Carex spp. Herb FAC 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 1000/0
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
a Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
a Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland possibly serving as a sediment control feature. Appears to be man-made.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: moderately well to well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Udorthents Confirm Mapped Type'! Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-14 A 10 YR 514 Silty Loam (Sediment)
14+ B 2.5 Y 2.511 Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
z Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NCDOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Larch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
on
Date: 411212006
County: Macon
State: NC
Community ID: PFO
Transect ID: Wetland
Plot ID: WB8
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Carex spp. Herb FAC 10.
3. Carpinus caroliniana Tree/Shrub FAC 11.
4. Alnus serrulata Tree/Shrub FACW 12.
5. Acer rubrum Tree/Shrub FAC 13.
6. Polystichum acrostichoides Herb FAC 14.
7. Ligustrum sinense Tree/Shrub FAC 15.
8. 16.
Percent ofDominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
x Inundated
a Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
a Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: z Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) a Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Crawfish mounds were observed in the wetland.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Saunook loam Drainage Class: well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Humic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type, Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 5 YR 413 Sandy Loam
2-12+ B 7.5 YR 411 7.5 YR 516 Comm, Med, Dist Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
z Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NC DOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and on Lorch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Date: 411212006
County: Macon
State: NC
Community ID: PSS
Transect ID: Wetland
Plot ID: WC2
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus efJusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Acer rubrum Tree/Shrub FAC 10.
3. Rubus spp. Herb FAC 11.
4. Ligustrum sinense Tree/Shrub FAC 12.
5. Carex spp. Herb FAC 13.
6. Microstegium vimineum Herb FAC+ 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100% .
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
R Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
a Inundated
a Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: a Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 1 (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland area is within a roadside ditch south ofHighway 64.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: moderately well to well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Udorthents Confirm Mapped Type l Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12+ B 10 YR 311 10 YR 414 Fine, Med, Faint Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
z Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NCDOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Lorch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? =Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Date: 411212006
County: Macon
State: NC
Community ID: PFO
Transect ID: Wetland
Plot ID: WD5
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Carex spp. Herb FAC 10.
3. Salix nigra TreeIShrub OBL 11.
4. Acer rubrum Tree/Shrub FAC 12.
5. Rubus spp. Herb FAC 13.
6. Sassafras albidum Tree/Shrub FACU 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 83%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
z Inundated
z Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: a Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
z Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Crawfish mounds present in wetland.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: moderately well to well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Udorthents Confirm Mapped Type, Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B Gley 13110Y Sandy Loam wl Gravel
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
z Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydcophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NC DOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Lorch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Date: 411212006
County: Macon
State: NC
Community ID: PFO
Transect ID: Wetland
Plot ID: WE3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Carex spp. Herb FAC 10.
3. Salix nigra Tree/Shrub OBL 11.
4. Acer rubrum Tree/Shrub FAC 12.
5. Rubus spp. Herb FAC 13.
6. Sassafras albidum Tree/Shrub FACU 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 83%
Remarks:
Fr"ROLOrV
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
a Inundated
a Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: z Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
z Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Crawfish mounds present in wetland.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Evard-Cowee complex Drainage Class: well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Typic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type % Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B Gley 1 3110Y Sandy Loam wl Gravel
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
a Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NC DOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Lorch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? =Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 411212006
County: Macon
State: NC
Community ID:
Transect ID: Upland
Plot ID: WA2
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Andropogon virginicus Herb FAC- 9.
2. Solidago spp. Herb FAC 10.
3. Pinus taeda Tree/Shrub FAC 11.
4. Festuca spp. Herb FAC 12.
5. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree/Shrub FAC+ 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 80%
Remarks:
ff"ROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: no obvious indicators
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: moderately well to well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Udorthents Confirm Mapped Type t Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 A 5 YR 414 Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: fill material
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ?td Hydric Soils Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748 Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NC DOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Lorch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes M -
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
on
Date: 411212006
County: Macon
State: NC
Community ID:
Transect ID: Upland
Plot ID: WB3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera TrealShrub FACU 9.
2. Acer rubrum Tree/Shrub FAC 10.
3. Tsuga canadensis Tree/Shrub FACU 11.
4. Pinus echinata Tree/Shrub NI 12.
5. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC- 13.
6. Juniperus virginiana Tree/Shrub FACU- 14.
7. Polystichum acrostichoides Herb FAC 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 29%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 2-616 slope
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): _Ha_yesville clay loam Drainage Class: well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Typic Kanhapludults Confirm Mapped Type, Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Corrtrast Structure, etc.
0-12 B 5 YR 414 Sandy Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric, Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748Macon County, NC Date: 411212006
Applicant/Owner NC DOT Comity: Macon
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Lorch, Mulkey Engineers State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? =Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Upland
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: WC5
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Lonicerajaponica Vine FAC- 9.
2. Rubus spp. Herb FAC 10.
3. Andropogon virginicus Herb FAC- 11.
4. Liquidambar styraciflua Tree/Shrub FAC+ 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
% Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift. Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 2:1 fill slope to Hwy 64
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: moderately well to well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Udorthents Confmn Mapped Type t Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 A 5 YR 414 Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain m Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
. (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748 Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NC DOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Lorch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Date: 411212006
County: Macon
State: NC
Community ID:
Transect ID: Upland
Plot ID: WD5
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Rhododendron maximum Shrub FAC- 9.
2. Quercus alba Tree FACU 10.
3. Carya ovata Tree FACU 11.
4. Ilex opaca Tree/Shrub FAC- 12.
5. Acer rubrum Tree/Shrub FAC 13.
6. Smilax rotundifolia Dine FAC 14.
7. Rubus spp. Herb FAC 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 43%
Remarks:
TTVDRnT.0GV
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
R Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 6-8% slope
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: moderately well to well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Udorthents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 211 Loamy Sand
12 Feb B 10 YR 416 Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R-4748Macon County, NC
Applicant/Owner NC DOT
Investigator(s): Mark Mickley and Jason Lorch, Mulkey Engineers
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
on
Date: 411212006
Courtly: Macon
State: NC
Community ID:
Transect ID: Upland
Plot ID: WEI
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Rhododendron maximum Shrub FAC- 9.
2. Quercus alba Tree FACU 10.
3. Carya ovata Tree FACU 11.
4. Ilex opaca Tree/Shrub FAC- 12.
5. Acer rubrum Tree/Shrub FAC 13.
6. Smilax rotundi lia line FAC 14.
7. Rubus spp. Herb FAC 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 43%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
X Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: 6-8% slope
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Udorthents Drainage Class: moderately well to well drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Udorthents Confirm Mapped Type e Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10 YR 211 Loamy Sand
12-Feb B 10 YR 416 Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon
?. _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
WA,
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: T.I.P. R-4748 County: Macon
Nearest Road: Lbwof E Ai j IkagD Date: 4/12/2006
Wetland Area (ac): O, o21 RcRcS Wetland Width (ft): 4 5o
?f
Name of Evaluator(s): Mark Mickle ; Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, Inc.
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
SOILS:
ADJACENT LAND USE:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 50 %
7-agricultural/ urbanized 40 %
impervious surface 10 %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas

??// DOMINANT VEGETATION:
Soil Series: U1g0r+6-'- °S I
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat) 2
predominantly mineral (non-sandy) 3
_predominantly sandy 4
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
SEE USA CE WETZAND DATA FORM
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland"" / L
Pine Savannah - Other: r`f-Uc citltaCy?[ C0117`t^ol eLt Pe
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE I X 4.00 = 4-
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 0 X 4.00 = O
POLLUTANT REMOVAL Z * X 5.00 = (O
WILDLIFE HABITAT X. 2.00 = 2
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT i X 4.00 =
RECREATION/EDUCATION X 1.00 =
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = 2 I
* Add one point if insensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
Wb
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: T.I.P. R-4748 County: Macon
Nearest Road: l lall p9owN ZAD Date: 4/12/2006
Wetland Area (ac): x,082 ry-eES Wetland Width (ft): e- '50 FT
Name of Evaluator(s): Mark Mickley; Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, Inc.
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
=on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
SOILS:
ADJACENT LAND USE:
(wi, in 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
x forested/natural vegetation -7S %
X agricultural/ urbanized Zn %
77- impervious surface %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
Soil Series: SQwn6c?'k 100.I"', 1
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat) 2
predominantly mineral (non-sandy) 3
predominantly sandy 4
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
_ freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
SEE USA CE WETLAND DATA FORM
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other:
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE Z X 4.00 =
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION X 4.00 = ( 2
POLLUTANT REMOVAL ` X 5.00 = 5
WILDLIFE HABITAT X 2.00 = CO
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT Z X 4.00 =
RECREATION/EDUCATION Z. X 1.00 = Z
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE _ 4-1
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
WC
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: T.I.P. R-4748 County: Macon
Nearest Road: v.S NwY &4 Date: 4/12/2006
Wetland Area (ac): 0.02-1 A._'965 Wetland Width (ft): G= F I .
Name of Evaluator(s): Mark Mickley; Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, Inc.
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
--T--on"intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
SOILS:
Soil Series: WoAd- +S
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat)
predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
ADJACENT LAND USE:
( ithin 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
.. forested/natural vegetation 50 %
agricultural/ urbanized '35 %
impervious surface 15 %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
1 SEE USACE WETLAND DATA FORM
2
3
4
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
X, seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest Headwater Forest
Carolina Bay Bog Forest
Pocosin Ephemeral Wetland
Pine Savannah Other: RorAc)s1pt 1,tizAtj0 012 ER
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE ( X 4.00 =
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION X 4.00 = 4-
POLLUTANT REMOVAL X 5.00 = S
WILDLIFE HABITAT X 2.00 = 2.,
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT X 4.00 = 4
RECREATION/EDUCATION I X 1.00 =
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = ZO
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
WD
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: T.I.P. R-4748 County: Macon
Nearest Road: U5 0wY e;4 Date: 4/12/2006
Wetland Area (ac): p, 0 `I AcR_E5 Wetland Width (ft): = 5p FT
Name of Evaluator(s): Mark Mickley; Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, Inc.
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
SOILS:
Soil Series: /11JOrKev4s
predominantly organic (humus, muck or peat)
predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
ADJACENT LAND USE:
(vent m 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 50 %
agricultural/ urbanized _ %
impervious surface 15 %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
1
2
3
4
SEE USA CE WETLAND DATA FORM
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
/, Bottomland Hardwood Forest Bog/Fen
Swamp Forest
Carolina Bay
Pocosin
Pine Savannah
Freshwater Marsh
Headwater Forest
Bog Forest
Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE 2 X 4.00 = Qj
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 3 X 4.00 = 12.
POLLUTANT REMOVAL 3 X 5.00 = L 5
WILDLIFE HABITAT X 2.00 = 8
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT ?j X 4.00 = _12-
RECREATION/EDUCATION a X 1.00 = Q
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = 5 5
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
WE
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION)
Project Name: T.I.P. R-4748 County: Macon
Nearest Road: U5 t4wY G+ Date: 4/12/2006
Wetland Area (ac): n. I& ACPE5 Wetland Width (ft): 100 'r -T
Name of Evaluator(s): Mark Mickley; Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, Inc.
WETLAND LOCATION:
on sound or estusuary, pond or lake
on perennial steam
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
SOILS:
Soil Series: eve ?d ` Cowce Co,. Pte_K
predominantly organic (humus, muck dr peat)
predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
HYDRAULIC FACTORS:
freshwater
brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >= 100 feet
WETLAND TYPE: (select one)*
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope or radius)
? forested/natural vegetation SU %
? agricultural/ urbanized %
? impervious surface %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
ADJACENT LAND USE:
DOMINANT VEGETATION:
1
2
3
4
SEE USA CE WETLAND DATA FORM
FLOODING AND WETNESS:
semipermanently to permenently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Swamp Forest
Carolina Bay
Pocosin
Pine Savannah
Freshwater Marsh
* The rating system cannot be applied to salt and brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE 'j X 4.00 = 12.
BANK, SHORELINE STABILIZATION 3 X 4.00 = 12
POLLUTANT REMOVAL X 5.00 = [5
WILDLIFE HABITAT X 2.00 =
AQUATIC LIFE HABITAT X 4.00 = 12.
RECREATION/EDUCATION O X 1.00 = 0
TOTAL WETLAND SCORE = 59
Bog/Fen
Headwater Forest
Bog Forest
Ephemeral Wetland
Other:
* Add one point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1 /2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
q(jG 0
wEr,ANDSa Q sr rF?QUg2006
??wgrF B
NCH
-- AMULKEY
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, North Carolina 27518
PH: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To: Brian Wrenn Date: August 1, 2006
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Suite #250
Raleigh, NC 27604
From: Mark Mickley
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Re: Verification Meeting Information Job No.: 2004213.10
R-4748 Macon County, NC
I am sending you the following item(s):
COPIES DATE PAGES DESCRIPTION
1 8/1/2006 2 Summary of Verification Meeting on 7/21/06
1 8/1/2006 1 Figure 1 - Revised Stream and Wetland Location map
1 8/1/2006 3 Figure 2 - GPS Point Location maps
1 8/1/2006 3 Meets and Bounds - GPS coordinates of verified points

These are transmitted as checked below:
? As requested
® For approval
? For review and comment
? For your use
® For signature

Remarks:
Please review the attached information and issue a letter of concurrence at your convenience. If you
have any questions or comments feel free to call me at [phone].
Copy to: File Signed:
Receipt Mar Mickley
Signature: Proj ct Scientist ?.'
MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Meeting Participants
From: Mark Mickley, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Date: August 1, 2006
Subject: Transportation improvement project south of US 64/23/441 between SR 1660
(Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), Macon County,
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
A jurisdictional Determination field meeting was held on-site for the subject project on July 21, 2006.
Meeting attendees are listed below. A summary of the meeting follows.
Meeting Participants
David Baker United States Army Corps of Engineers
Brian Wrenn N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mike Parker N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mark Mickley Mulkey
Meeting Summary
The meeting began at 9:45 am at the Hampton Inn in Franklin, North Carolina. Introductions were
made and meeting participants reviewed maps of the project study area provided by Mark. Maps
reflecting the preliminary design alignments were reviewed to determine the areas of greatest
importance.
The first areas reviewed by the meeting participants were wetland WA and stream SCAA-Int. These
resources were located near the self-storage facility on Dowdle Mountain Road, opposite the gas
station. David examined wetland WA and determined it to be an upland man-made sediment
retention structure. He commented that due to its lack of connection and man-made appearance
that he considered it to be non-jurisdictional. However, David commented that he will not be able
to sign final concurrence for the project until new guidance is released. Brian examined stream
SCAA-Int, which is piped under Dowdle Mountain Road and flows into stream SCA-Per. Brian
determined that this stream will remain intermittent in status.
Brian briefly examined stream SCA-Per upstream of Wiley Brown Road. Stream SCA remained as a
perennial stream in its entirety within the project study area. David commented that stream SCA-Per
and wetland WB have previously been permitted and mitigated due to prior construction activity
within the current project study area. Both resources remained jurisdictional as delineated by
Mulkey.
The meeting participants moved to Siler Road to examine stream SAA. Previous delineations
conducted by Mulkey showed the downstream reach of SAA to be perennial and the upstream reach
to be intermittent. Brian and David evaluated the upstream reach of stream SAA and determined
that is should be changed to a perennial status. Stream SAA in its entirety was deemed a
jurisdictional, perennial stream.
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYCN ROAD CARY, NC 27511 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGH, NC 27636 PH: 919-851-1912 FAX: [phone]a WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
The final area of concern observed by the meeting participants were the resources directly south of
US 64/23/441, between the Little Tennessee River and Siler Road. Wetland WC, located at the base
of the fill slope for US 64 eastbound, was examined by David and remained jurisdictional as flagged
by Mulkey. Streams SBC-Per and SBCB-Int were examined by Brian. Stream SBC-Per remained a
jurisdictional perennial stream as previously flagged by Mulkey. Brian asked that stream SBCB-Int,
from the confluence with SBC-Per to a nick point 30 feet upstream of the confluence, be changed
from intermittent to perennial. The remainder of SBCB-Int will remain as a jurisdictional
intermittent stream. David inquired to Mark about the appearance of wetlands WD and WE. Mark
explained that these wetlands were well defined wetland areas with strong indicators and that the
wetland boundaries were dictated by the surrounding topography. David agreed that these wetlands
would remain jurisdictional as delineated by Mulkey without additional examination.
The maps were reviewed a final time to detemnine if any other areas needed to be addressed. It was
concluded not to examine the remaining resources due to the unlikelihood of impacts occurring in
those areas. Resources not examined during the field meeting will remain on the maps as delineated
by Mulkey during field investigations.
The meeting participants returned to the Hampton Inn. Mark informed David, Brian, and Mike that
he would make the necessary revisions and send updated maps for concurrence.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm.
2
SD1
T? SD3
?. SD4
spy SD5
. y SD6
SD7
'R?lp
SD9
/--SD10
SD11
-O-SD12
3
SD14
PA4
PA5
PA6
RD 00RAM..p
MVRPHY
S1LER RD
PA7
U ?31441
A
SAA32
SAA31
SAA30
SAA29
SAA28
SAA27
SAA26 SAB10
SAA25 SAB9
SAA24
SAB8
SAA23
SAA22 SAB7
SAA21
SAA20 SAB6
SAA19 SAB5 A
SAA18 SAB4
?p¢ SAA17 SAB3
SAA16 SAB2
0
o SAA15 SA101SAB1 SA11
z SAA14 SA9 SA12
SAA13
SAA12 SA13 SAC4
SAO SAC3
SA14
SAA?11 SA7 SAC2
SA10 SA6 SA15 SAC1
$AA9 SA5 SAC10/SA16
SAA8
SAA7 SA4 SA17 1
SAA6 SA3/SAA7 SA18 SAC5
SA5 SA2 SA19 SAC6
LEGEND AA4 ?--SA1 SAC7
SAA3 SACO
Project Study Area SAA2 SAC9
Roads
Perennial Streams
- - - - - Intermittent Streams
Ponds
GPS POINT LOCATIONS
R-4748
r._ M ?...? LKEY SR 1660 and SR 1662 South of US 64/23/441
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS Macon County, North Carolina
Prepared For: 1:3,000
yP?pf NORM C' Feet Figure No.
x 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 2A
''MP,o,nN,eUSGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Franklin, Corbin Knob
WD3
WD1-?
WE5 WE6 !
WE4 WE7
WE3 N, WE8
=2 -"-WE9
LWE11
WE10
WE1 WE12
WE13
4A
SBC1
WD5
SBC9
SBC10
SBC11
161SBCB1
SBC12/SBCA1 J
SBCA2
SBI.A3
0
SBC6
?SBC5
r-SBC4
SB1
-SB2
41
US 8412314
3
SBCB5
SBCB6
SBCB7
SBCB8
SBCB9
SBCB10
A
'--SBCB1 a
`-SBCB2
SBCB3 B
B4
SBC1
SB11/SBA1
to
m
R4
LEGEND
Project Study Area

----?- Roads
Wetlands
Perennial Streams
- - - - - - - Intermittent Streams
1
-SE2
F SE3
r-SE4
SE6J
SE7J
SE8
SE
SE12
--SB12
-SB13
SB14
-SB15
7
18
SB4
y
k--SB8
?SB9
SB10
_----SBA2
-,----SBA3
SBA4
SBA5
SBA6
SBA7
SBA8
7-SBA9
SBB2
?-SB63
,,,,-SBB4
SBB5
SBB6
SBA11
GPS POINT LOCATIONS
R-4748
M LKEY SR 1660 and SR 1662 South of US 64/23/441
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS Macon County, North Carolina
Prepared For: 1:3,000
'eNo, ?qo4 Feet Figure No.
x
A94P 0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Otr¢ ZB
USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Franklin, Corbin Knob
'TnNS2
SB16/SBB1
2
v
Q?
Q
3
C12
-SC11
0
SC9
SCA3
SCA41
SCA7
9
SC7/SCA1
SC5
SC4
2
v
?u
o?
r
o?

'P 7
o?
?O
?O
-1
4O
J?
?O
v?
?O
Oo
WB5
WB1
?Z ZO
Za ?o
Np Z
y ?
2 `?Z
?O
:A21/SCAA1
SCAA2
S -SCA10
WSCA29
00--SCA30
e,,o--SCA31
SCA32
SCAtSCA36
SCA11
:A12
SC3 \
SC2
N
OL
F
'Po
SC1
5
SC16
LEGEND
Project Study Area
Roads
?j Wetlands
Perennial Streams
GPS POINT LOCATIONS
R-4748
M U LKEY SR 1660 and SR 1662 South of US 64/23/441
E N G I N E E R S & C O N S U L T A N T S Macon County, North Carolina
Prepared For: 1:3,000
"fNs Feet Figure No.
0 125 250 500 750 1,000 ZC
T C
??p?rofnNSQ?' USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Franklin, Corbin Knob
R-4748 MEETS AND BOUNDS 8/1/2006
POINT NORTHING EASTING POINT NORTHING EASTING
SA1 542169.06705 689344.89029 SAA31 543576.47580 688644.49402
SA2 542242.39244 689370.58169 SAA32 543589.82591 688624.62270
SA3 542295.77234 689392.03200 SAA33 543607.02910 688571.21446
SA4 542370.30693 689416.19741 SAB1 542761.50118 689677.33694
SA5 542470.06994 689421.12038 SAB2 542787.33007 689711.36295
SA6 542578.57578 689424.83614 SAB3 542818.07250 689778.82846
SA7 542668.72305 689475.76563 SAB4 542839.41026 689788.94497
SA8 542725.24768 689540.12828 SAB5 542869.11740 689777.35680
SA9 542753.28966 689612.63623 SAB6 543019.46522 689835.07683
SA10 542761.50118 689677.33694 SAB7 543099.16755 689847.11282
SA11 542733.52631 689750.06424 SAB8 543134.09604 689819.12392
SA12 542689.25148 689807.03547 SAB9 543207.43668 689821.43227
SA13 542578.90671 689843.39976 SAB10 543260.91053 689822.97824
SA14 542507.16692 689890.00585 SAC1 542423.49798 690575.74059
SA15 542455.49446 689980.75391 SAC2 542445.84443 690525.23412
SA16 542368.79295 690045.62003 SAC3 542478.67391 690458.62058
SA17 542293.82908 689977.46878 SAC4 542457.44289 690406.05678
SA18 542199.23674 689923.63979 SAC5 542419.43069 690337.73176
SA19 542094.97125 689877.49975 SAC6 542393.71663 690286.74438
SAA1 542295.77234 689392.03200 SAC7 542379.94801 690227.32361
SAA2 542319.79761 689349.62173 SAC8 542379.91834 690181.89687
SAA3 542335.25496 689300.97240 SAC9 542372.83418 690121.96028
SAA4 542356.72795 689250.60464 SAC10 542368.79295 690045.62003
SAA5 542372.73277 689225.03960 SB1 543748.82676 692721.62863
SAA6 542380.55391 689189.30349 SB2 543643.67315 692765.22933
SAA7 542434.11779 689152.79776 SB3 543532.74501 692796.82735
SAA8 542466.87245 689129.91680 SB4 543384.96941 692825.78806
SAA9 542474.17604 689096.26890 SB5 543216.86526 692853.64654
SAA10 542540.36442 689081.18235 SB6 543060.00656 692868.94827
SAA11 542584.10907 689043.90675 SB7 542895.25216 692863.47115
SAA12 542643.61549 689021.69693 SB8 542765.70828 692852.16045
SAA13 542677.51870 689009.42925 SB9 542661.63493 692814.14544
SAA14 542726.43947 688978.30160 SB10 542549.64908 692750.95316
SAA15 542785.61926 688949.38850 SB11 542449.91030 692641.51744
SAA16 542851.58865 688943.51650 SB12 542319.23162 692531.75426
SAA17 542923.77816 688964.26906 SB13 542197.92451 692455.62394
SAA18 542972.82525 688986.04151 SB14 542092.70512 692438.14638
SAA19 543031.43966 688989.91007 SB15 541946.41085 692447.23250
SAA20 543078.23669 688989.07094 SB16 541844.50278 692443.01363
SAA21 543153.05587 688999.42711 SB17 541712.85383 692426.85281
SAA22 543185.18296 689001.38679 SB18 541624.34397 692406.85116
SAA23 543212.13776 688967.88278 SBA1 542449.91030 692641.51744
SAA24 543266.06138 688854.89409 SBA2 542440.34860 692673.66713
SAA25 543291.71910 688795.52879 SBA3 542398.86847 692744.31158
SAA26 543358.85193 688778.91038 SBA4 542330.59571 692866.05035
SAA27 543422.33814 688753.56044 SBA5 542301.56919 692956.20469
SAA28 543463.04569 688737.00729 SBA6 542254.30650 693036.62474
SAA29 543488.64789 688709.63480 SBA7 542197.25994 693106.36022
SAA30 543570.90391 688707.15147 SBA8 542133.28375 693205.23830
R-4748 MEETS AND BOUNDS 8/1/2006
POINT NORTHING EASTING POINT NORTHING EASTING
SBA9 542124.08597 693260.23781 SC9 545463.54580 695876.06686
SBA10 542072.61496 693319.79793 SC10 545684.87380 695885.92427
SBA11 542012.69321 693370.35140 SC11 545783.90277 695875.89891
SBB1 541844.50278 692443.01363 SC12 545833.38770 695816.09900
SBB2 541822.82261 692513.61299 SC13 545865.40484 695751.33942
SBB3 541799.34000 692590.89645 SC14 544318.83049 696400.96466
SBB4 541787.51832 692642.68108 SC15 544160.18064 696451.46352
SBB5 541786.74417 692708.16364 SC16 544003.05611 696505.81837
SBB6 541779.01510 692764.37933 SCA1 545187.23760 695957.62483
SBC1 543574.10374 692663.72921 SCA2 545175.47982 695942.03632
SBC2 543574.33123 692583.34537 SCA3 545130.18537 695866.68245
SBC3 543556.51128 692554.83530 SCA4 545067.54600 695769.59498
SBC4 543550.23136 692416.01452 SCA5 545029.69752 695695.43404
SBC5 543602.50926 692291.45481 SCA6 544981.06907 695610.48886
SBC6 543636.56023 692151.98717 SCA7 544957.83045 695556.69634
SBC7 543650.17305 692081.53528 SCA8 544910.62076 695464.38885
SBC8 543640.94359 692009.63157 SCA9 544873.39073 695363.82958
SBC9 543582.93129 691956.09718 SCA10 544807.23791 695282.14610
SBC10 543558.43108 691929.51167 SCA11 544824.20515 695259.64672
SBC11 543547.97984 691897.26955 SCA12 544836.47019 695218.89013
SBC12 543398.93628 691700.64471 SCA13 544844.63792 695198.57618
SBC13 543405.24153 691641.22717 SCA14 544812.30817 695152.78476
SBC14 543406.67980 691576.86402 SCA15 544734.57773 695084.45226
SBC15 543425.88796 691517.04061 SCA16 544697.96128 695061.35015
SBC16 543457.22421 691431.69986 SCA17 544654.69991 695007.56003
SBC17 543484.76659 691366.97037 SCA18 544622.38939 694980.27573
SBC18 543516.61664 691296.62141 SCA19 544582.03160 694929.72763
SBCA1 543398.93628 691700.64471 SCA20 544521.67996 694856.11704
SBCA2 543399.84767 691713.53694 SCA21 544455.69763 694803.33409
SBCA3 543391.02141 691725.67426 SCA22 544380.98636 694733.60353
SBCB1 543457.22421 691431.69986 SCA23 544318.33290 694653.37591
SBCB1a 543430.72719 691417.43206 SCA24 544242.01303 694573.19413
SBCB2 543403.82909 691403.83199 SCA25 544196.54399 694509.06138
SBCB3 543383.24329 691385.51114 SCA26 543990.75747 694424.99171
SBCB4 543366.50575 691355.25137 SCA27 543124.35910 694363.99947
SBCB5 543320.10772 691306.51053 SCA28 543083.28645 694416.37134
SBCB6 543297.40678 691261.35519 SCA29 543037.48336 694465.32080
SBCB7 543288.60696 691220.02271 SCA30 542984.62672 694530.67973
SBCB8 543254.58454 691179.57367 SCA31 542935.49118 694587.79577
SBCB9 543245.70473 691158.18530 SCA32 542888.64387 694636.08675
SBCB10 543196.15100 691112.61102 SCA33 542832.74625 694672.23709
SC1 544412.37755 696357.58550 SCA34 542797.18786 694735.07381
SC2 544558.84427 696316.43701 SCA35 542753.08732 694798.28907
SC3 544656.85889 696271.45104 SCA36 542733.51418 694789.96577
SC4 544777.24203 696200.83830 SCAA1 544455.69763 694803.33409
SC5 544921.66389 696096.94490 SCAA2 544404.70088 694831.93630
SC6 545041.42332 696019.82926 SCAA3 544340.61186 694861.58611
SC7 545187.23760 695957.62483 SD1 544962.65243 688589.68753
SC8 545333.69276 695890.12478 SD2 544933.06844 688635.61240
R-4748 MEETS AND BOUNDS 8/1/2006
POINT NORTHING EASTING
SD3 544.887.61530 688703.06261
SD4 544837.75919 688761.92488
SD5 544794.92719 688816.01050
SD6 544768.93086 688853.76424
SD7 544714.12308 688930.82009
SD8 544689.81276 688998.28703
SD9 544640.88255 689060.35951
SD10 544602.39742 689129.07982
SD11 544581.50764 689161.46206
SD12 544541.84276 689245.67230
SD13 544503.28279 689342.32571
SD14 544496.06434 689365.31215
SE1 542174.52184 691458.66004
SE2 542146.11229 691534.40207
SE3 542102.79050 691592.72229
SE4 542079.55420 691642.40924
SE5 542041.33351 691675.40841
SE6 542002.16805 691727.81027
SE7 541951.85354 691786.66879
SE8 541908.16454 691833.24372
SE9 541877.40226 691868.96261
SE10 541848.13969 691940.05787
SE11 541831.91366 692027.08903
SE12 541821.27694 692127.02328

WB1 543032.29714 694468.72083
WB2 543051.45759 694485.60548
WB3 543084.24887 694446.21751
WB4 543127.21394 694417.50652
WB5 543129.09246 694379.51881
WB6 543107.43171 694388.36229
WB7 543072.99544 694420.25162
WB8 543044.12170 694444.91490
WC1 543398.87105 691714.45863
WC2 543384.52349 691724.54276
WC3 543385.14500 691788.50101
WC4 543396.78869 691780.00071
WC5 543401.07800 691737.28470
W D 1 543366.76511 691354.51085
WD2 543399.33725 691373.35644
WD3 543421.14016 691405.71631
WD4 543398.25976 691405.93895
WD5 543367.16075 691377.29511
WE1 543195.18510 691119.90355
WE2 543221.51502 691100.12575
WE3 543261.28693
1 691120.19789
WE4 543281.33832 691164.47518
POINT NORTHING EASTING
WE7 543282.86089 691262.58604
WE8 543246.52529 691245.97921
WE9 543232.29046 691224.86635
WE10 543249.51772 691220.36072
WE11 543264.11467 691229.93812
WE12 543240.23779 691179.94344
WE13 543234.71573 691151.85729
PA1 542905.78178 689770.62006
PA2 542942.53234 689804.90454
PA3 543004.34085 689807.82677
PA4 543030.91313 689807.31054
PA5 542955.81780 689842.78516
PA6 542882.25802 689853.71237
PA7 542872.31233 689818.69635
1193.63867
1239.51780
® MULKEY
ENGfNEERS & CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Meeting Participants
From: Lisa Warlick, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Date: March 24, 2006
Subject: Transportation improvement project south of US 64/23/441 between SR 1660
(Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), Macon County,
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
A Merger meeting was held for the subject project on March 21, 2006 in the board room of
NCDOT's Highway Building. Meeting attendees are listed below. A summary of the meeting follows.
Meeting Participants
David Bender NCDOT - Bike and Pedestrian
Jay Bissett Mulkey
James Bridges NCDOT -PDEA
Marella Buncick U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Carla Dagnino NCDOT - Natural Environment
Harold Draper Tennessee Valley Authority (via Asheville)
Mike Fendrick PBQD
Brett Feulner NCDOT -PDEA
Teresa Hart NCDOT -PDEA
Tim Jordan Mulkey
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Gary Lovering NCDOT - Roadway
Steve Lund U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville)
Undrea Major NCDOT - PDEA
Sarah McBride State Historic Preservation Office
Christopher Militscher U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Raleigh
John Pilipchuk NCDOT - Geotechnical Engineering
Jake Riggsbee FHWA
Joel Setzer NCDOT - Division 14
Amy Simes NCDENR
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Sandra Stepney NCDOT - Roadway
Greg Thorpe NCDOT - PDEA
Lisa Warlick Mulkey
Brian Wrenn N. C. Division of Water Quality
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 2751 1 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGH. NC 27636 PH: 919-651-1912 FAX: [phone] WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
Undrea Major opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. In addition to those in
attendance at the Raleigh location, two individuals joined the meeting by video from Asheville, North
Carolina. Attendees had information packets mailed to them ahead of time that included the
Evaluation of Alternatives document. Extra copies of the document were available at the meeting.
Mr. Major stated that the reason for the meeting was to agree on Concurrence Point 2, to determine
which alternatives to carry forward for detailed study. He provided a brief description of the project
and then turned the meeting over to Liz Kovasckitz. The meeting was open for questions and
answers both during the presentation and afterwards. Ms. Kovasckitz gave a PowerPoint
presentation, which provided a brief review of the project, the Purpose and Need agreed upon at the
Concurrence Point 1 meeting, comments from the Citizens Informational Workshop held for the
project, and introduced potential alignments for consideration.
Chris Militscher asked if there was an estimate of impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Ms. Kovasckitz
referred him to the FEMA map figure in the Evaluation of Alternatives document. Mr. Militscher
reviewed the figure and offered a rough estimate of approximately 400 to 500 linear feet of impacts.
A meeting participant questioned the FEMA map year of 1978 and was informed that it was the
most recent available. Mr. Militscher estimated approximately one acre of impacts to the 100-year
floodplain based upon a 40-foot wide typical section. Jay Bissett commented that part of the area of
estimated impacts would be bridged. Mr. Militscher then said that impacts could total approximately
one-half to one acre, and said that he would like the actual acreage to be included in the impacts table
at the next meeting.
Mr. Militscher asked about utility conflicts. Ms. Kovasckitz referred to a map display of the project
area and pointed out the power transmission line that extends through the area. She said that detailed
studies had not been completed on utility conflicts.
Sarah McBride asked how far away Alternative A was from US 64/23/441. Ms. Kovasckitz said it
was very close, serving as a service road adjacent to US 64/23/441. Ms. McBride questioned whether
Alternative A was viable because it was so close to the existing road. Ms. Kovasckitz commented that
the alignment would provide access to sites slated for, or currently under, development and provide
an alternative route for school and emergency service traffic.
Mr. Militscher asked about the convention center, which was previously shown on project mapping
but did not show on current mapping. Ms. Kovasckitz said that the convention center location was
shown on the map, however, specific names of proposed developments were changed to "Proposed
Development." Mr. Militscher commented that part of the Purpose and Need was to support
development and noted that one project alternative appeared to cross over the proposed convention
center site. Ms. Kovasckitz pointed out that the proposed alignment corridors were 500 feet in width,
indicating they would not necessarily go over the site once an actual alignment was determined.
Marella Buncick commented that at the Concurrence Point 1 meeting there was discussion of an
alternative that would provide improvements without crossing the Little Tennessee River. She said
that from a safety standpoint, four-lane divided highways were safer, than two-lane roadways. Ms.
Buncick said she would still like to see an intersection improvement alternative that would not cross
the river. Marla Chambers and Brian Wrenn agreed and said there should be an improve existing
alternative.
Ms. Chambers said that the proposed road is a convenience that crosses a major critical habitat and
that she would prefer that development be discouraged in the floodplain and areas surrounding the
river. She pointed out that the study area boundaries were inconsistent related to existing roads.
James Bridges noted that the boundary could be revised to include US 64/23/441.
2
that did not bridge the river. Harold Draper said that for all alternatives that do cross the river,
minimization and mitigation measures should be considered.
Mr. Major suggested adding a fourth alternative that would upgrade the intersections at Dowdle
Mountain Road and Wiley Brown Road and add a spur to Siler Road. It was suggested that the
wording could be less specific, such as "improve existing without bridging the Little Tennessee
River," and that local citizens and officials could be consulted for specific recommendations. Mr.
Major asked if there were any objections to adding the fourth build alternative to the Concurrence
Point 2 form. There were no objections. It was noted that "improve existing" could include a new
location road component.
Ms. Buncick asked if a new bridge could be constructed without getting into the water. Mr. Setzer
said that it was probable. He noted that the river and floodplain would be taken into consideration
and that both could possibly be spanned. Mr. Militscher and Ms. Buncick noted that there would be
issues related to deck drainage that would need to be worked out.
Mr. Militscher noted that the long-term maintenance cost of bridges can be expensive, so it was good
to have an alternative in place to improve existing. He said that the Interagency Leadership Team is
looking for a project to integrate transportation improvements and local planning and development,
and that the proposed project may be a good candidate for a pilot project.
Ms. Chambers said that the locals in the project area should be encouraged to protect their
floodplains and practice good stormwater management during development to protect their
resources.
Brian Wrenn suggested that green sheet commitments could include cooperation between local
municipalities and the NCDOT that encourages economic growth but does so smartly.
Mr. Major circulated the Concurrence Point 2 form for signature. He said that the Concurrence Point
2a meeting would likely be in early summer and reiterated the project's tight schedule. Ms. Buncick
asked if enough information could be provided at the Concurrence Point 2a meeting so that some
alternatives could be eliminated. Other attendees agreed with the idea.
The final wording on the fourth alternative was "improve existing without river crossing." Although
it was not in the wording, the Merger Team agreed verbally that it could also include some new
location roadway.
The meeting was adjourned.
4
Mr. Bridges said that an alternative that would improve existing conditions and not cross the river
was not discounted. He said that a meeting was conducted on the subject and that no conclusion was
reached on an improve existing alternative that would meet the Purpose and Need of the project. He
said the NCDOT is not excluding the possibility of an improve existing alternative.
Mr. Major said that Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road could be evaluated for improvements, and
noted that there could be discussion on an improve existing alternative in addition to the corridor
alignments shown. Mr. Major asked if there was a problem with carrying forward any of the
alternatives as currently proposed.
Jake Riggsbee asked if there was one corridor that everyone could agree upon as least desirable,
potentially Alternative C since it has two stream crossings.
Ms. Buncick asked how impacts to the 100-year floodplain could be minimized. She said floodplain
impacts were her highest priority, and that she would like the entire floodplain bridged, especially
since additional development will be coming soon.
Mr. Militscher commented that he would not necessarily be prepared to drop any alternative at this
time. He noted that there had been no cost estimates calculated. He said that he would be in favor of
adding an improve existing alternative, and that the public's concern over safety, which Ms.
Kovasckitz summarized in the presentation, needs to be addressed. Mr. Militscher said he would like
to see an extension or spur of Siler Road that did not impact the 100-year floodplain. He said it could
possibly provide access to sites without crossing the river.
Ms. Kovasckitz commented that citizens and local officials in the area were interested in connectivity.
Mr. Militscher said that he would like to add a fourth alternative to improve existing, and that the
cost of a new bridge may not be justified for convenience.
A meeting participant asked if improvements were needed to US 64/23/441 as part of an alternative.
Mr. Riggsbee said that constructing turn lanes could be a possibility. Ms. Buncick said that she did
not think that capacity was an issue.
Ms. Kovasckitz summarized participant discussion, which suggested that an improve existing
alternative that added a spur off of Siler Road and provided improvements to the intersections at
Dowdle Mountain Road, Wiley Brown Road, and SR 1701 could be included.
Ms. Buncick said that costs will be needed for comparison of the alternatives, and that it would be
prudent to look at an alternative without a bridge for the sake of cost. She asked Joel Setzer if
Dowdle Mountain Road had been improved. Mr. Setzer stated that a traffic signal was added at US
64/23/441. He noted that Macon Middle School is the only middle school in the county and that
there is heavy traffic associated with the school. Mr. Setzer said the signal was considered a
temporary measure.
Ms. Chambers asked if SR 1701 was the only access to US 64/23/441 on the west side of the Little
Tennessee River in the area. Mr. Setzer said that it was the only at-grade intersection for several
miles.
Ms. McBride asked about the condition of the existing bridges in the project area that carry US
64/23/441 over the river. A meeting participant answered that the bridges have sufficiency ratings of
97 out of a possible 100.
Steve Lund said that if a USACE permit is needed that he would want to see an alternative evaluated